Moral Philosophy
Bentham proposes that seven conditions ought to be taken into account when estimating the amount of pleasure or pain that an act is likely to produce. What are these?
According to Bentham, seven factors should be considered in weighing the value of a pleasure or pain: its intensity, its duration, its degree of certainty, its propinquity or remoteness, its fecundity (i.e., its tendency to produce further pleasures or pains), its purity (i.e., whether it is purely pleasurable or painful, or is mixed with its opposite), and its extent (i.e., the number of persons to whom it extends)
Explain Appiah's account of positivism and why it encourages moral relativism.
According to Positivism, beliefs are true or false, can be reasonable are unreasonable and can be criticized, if unreasonable. By contrast, desires are not true or false, cannot be reasonable or unreasonable, and so cannot be criticized for being unreasonable. Appiah writes of relativism, positivism, and particular the fact and value distinction in this chapter. Appiah claims that the influence of positivism has led to value relativism by splitting values (or 'ends') from facts about the world (or 'means'), in other words, what philosophers have called the naturalistic fallacy, or the inability to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.
Explain the difference between acting out of duty and acting in accordance with duty. Provide an example of each. Which one does Kant think is worthy of our moral esteem?
Acting out of duty is to do what is morally right because it is morally right. For example, helping someone who has a flat tire on the side of the road. Acting in accordance with duty is to do what is morally right, whatever ones motives might be. For example, a shopkeeper keeping prices low in order to not look bad to customers. Kant thinks acting out of duty is worthy of our moral esteem because the shopkeeper is only doing this to keep customers happy.
What does Appiah mean by "cosmopolitan contamination" - and why does he think it's actually a good thing?
Appiah means the contamination of pure cultures through exchange. He argues that this is a good thing because both groups and others benefit from an exchange of objects, practices, and ideas.
What is the reasoning behind Aristotle's claim that the highest form of justice seems to be friendship?
Aristotle bases his conception of justice on a conception of fair exchange, and does the same for friendship. Friendships are balanced by the fact that each friend gives as much as receives. Hence, justice and friendship are closely connected.
According to Aristotle, virtue is an intermediary between two extremes. Explain what this means and provide an example.
Aristotle describes a virtue as a "mean" or "intermediate" between two extremes: one of excess and one of deficiency. 2. Example: bravery (e.g. on a battlefield) Involves how much we let fear restrict or modify our actions. Bravery is the mean or intermediate between cowardliness and rashness.
Explain Aristotle's account of the structure of the human soul, and how it differs from that of the plant and the animal.
Aristotle had three levels of the soul. The Nutritive soul which is growth and nutrition (Plants), the sensitive soul which is locomotion and perception (all animals), and the rational soul which is intellect, capable of thought and reflection (human beings).
Explain the distinction between autonomy and heteronomy. How does this distinction inform Kant's approach to moral philosophy?
Autonomy is the capacity for self-government. Agents are autonomous if their actions are truly their own. Autonomy is the ability to know what morality requires of us, and functions not as freedom to pursue our ends, but as the power of an agent to act on objective and universally valid rules of conduct, certified by reason alone. Heteronomy is the condition of acting on desires, which are not legislated by reason. (in Kantian moral philosophy) the capacity of an agent to act in accordance with objective morality rather than under the influence of desires.
How does Aristotle think we develop virtues of character?
By practicing being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and moral character.
What is consequentialism? How is a consequentialist moral theory different from a deontological one?
Consequentialism is a theory that says whether something is good or bad depends on its outcomes. An action that brings about more benefit than harm is good, while an action that causes more harm than benefit is not. Consequentialism focuses on judging the moral worth of the results of the actions and deontological ethics focuses on judging the actions themselves.
What is cosmopolitanism? According to Appiah, there are two basic "strands" that intertwine in the notion. What are these, and how might they come into conflict?
Definition - The idea that all human beings are members of a single community. Humans should be world citizens in a universal community. 1st strand - Obligations to others, obligations that stretch beyond those to whom we are related by ties of kith and kind 2nd strand - The recognition that human beings are different and that we can learn from each others differences
Explain the three kinds of friendships that Aristotle analyzes in book VIII. Which one does he think is most complete, and why does he think it's the most reliable and durable of the three?
Friendships of utility - Exists between you and someone who is useful to you in some way. Friendships of pleasure - Exists between you and those whose company you enjoy Friendships of the good - based on mutual respect and admiration. Longest to build, more powerful and enduring. People have similar values and goals. Similar visions for how the world should be. Begin in childhood but plenty can form after that.
Why do you think that Baldwin begins "Letter From a Region in My Mind" with a discussion of a religious crisis?
I think Baldwin begins "Letter from a region in my mind" with a discussion of religious crisis because racism and the enjoyers of racism with respect to power use religion to assert their dominance over others and it is important that this aspect is made clear to the reader.
According to Kant, it is wrong to ever knowingly make a false promise. Explain how this moral prohibition follows from his categorical imperative. How would a utilitarian respond?
If you lie to someone, or make a promise that you do not intend to keep, you treat others as means, not as ends. You may be lying to that person to benefit yourself, in which case you are certainly using him as a means. But for Kant, lying is wrong whatever reason you have for the lie. Kant is deeply opposed to utilitarian theories, according to which lying to someone to make him happier is entirely justified. Even if you are trying to benefit the person to whom you are lying by shielding him from the harsh truth, you are treating that person in a way to which he could not give consent. Lying to someone is trying to deceive them, trying to give them false beliefs about what you are really doing. In Kant's view, that cannot be right.
Why does Aristotle think that pleasure should not be held up as the highest good? How does he conceive of happiness?
In his mind, the highest good is happiness, and to achieve it we must be entirely virtuous. There are many different existing views of what happiness consists of, but Aristotle believes that humans are entirely happy when acting in accordance with reason, as well as acting morally and intellectually virtuous. As Aristotle expresses it, pleasure is the natural accompaniment of unimpeded activity. Pleasure, as such, is neither good nor bad, but is something positive because the effect of pleasure perfects the exercise of that activity. Even so, Aristotle emphasizes that pleasure is not to be sought for its own sake.
Goodwill is a necessary but not sufficient condition for friendship. What does this mean?
In order for a friendship to work, one needs goodwill for it to work, but it is not the only item needed for friendship.
Explain Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. How does Mill argue for this distinction?
Mill distinguished between higher pleasures (those that require mental faculties that only educated humans could obtain) and lower pleasures (bodily pleasures that both animals and humans could experience). For Mill, higher pleasures are more valuable than lower pleasures, because of their "intrinsic superiority" A pleasure is of higher quality if people would choose it over a different pleasure even if it is accompanied by discomfort, and if they would not trade it for a greater amount of the other pleasure..
Discuss Ortega's argument that sorrow can be "resistant"? How does this account challenge a traditional way of distinguishing between mourning and melancholia?
Mourning is healthy b/c grief goes away. Melancholia is pathological and unhealthy because grieving persists. Sorrow keeps memory alive and change possible. Resist erasure.
Explain what Aristotle means by practical wisdom (phronesis). How is it different from wisdom?
Practical wisdom (Greek phronesis; sometimes translated 'prudence'), says Aristotle, is 'a reasoned capacity to act with regard to the things that are good or bad for man' (Nicomachean Ethics VI.5). So while practical wisdom involves knowledge of what is good or bad, it is not merely theoretical knowledge, but a capacity to act on such knowledge as well.
What is the principle of utility? How is it different from ethical egoism?
The "principle of utility" is the principle that actions are to be judged by their usefulness in this sense: their tendency to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness. Utilitarianism is all about the majority, the greater good. The opposite viewpoint is ethical egoism, in which the morality of an action is determined by the impact on yourself.
Explain the three different sources of moral disagreement that Appiah discusses in Chapter Four. Provide examples of each.
The first type of disagreement revolves around our "vocabulary of evaluation." The importance behind this disagreement is that certain concepts may not be shared or possessed by people cross-culturally. As Appiah explains, our goal then is "just to understand" instead of agreement. we fail to share a common vocabulary for evaluating values The second type of disagreement revolves around the fact that we can share the same vocabulary and the same meaning of a term, but at the same time interpret that term in many different ways for a certain situation. This is where the terms "open-textured" and "contestable" come to have significance. if we are able to share a vocabulary for the evaluation of values, there is still variety in the interpretation of that vocabulary The last type of disagreement that Appiah discusses revolves around the idea that we can give values different weights. For example, we can give values more significance than what other people give those same values. This is important not only cross-culturally, but within a single society in addition to individuals themselves. we give the same values different weights.
What is the difference between something having an instrumental value versus having inherent value? Provide an example.
Things are deemed to have instrumental value if they help one achieve a particular end; intrinsic values, by contrast, are understood to be desirable in and of themselves. Examples of instrumental values include being polite, obedient, and self controlled. Examples of inherent or intrinsic values are happiness, knowledge or love
What does it mean to say that a moral concept is relatively "thin" or "thick"? Give an example each.
generally, a thin concept only possesses a descriptive content, while a thick concept possesses both descriptive and normative content. Moral concepts are the paradigmatic example of thick concepts. Appiah claims that the thickness or moral terms is often specific to particular cultures. In particular, thick concepts are typically contrasted with thin concepts like good, wrong, permissible, and ought, which are general evaluative concepts that do not seem substantially descriptive. Thick concepts in ethics are typically thought to be those that involve both descriptive and evaluative components. A few standard examples are fairness, kindness, generosity, courage, brutality, selfishness, and cowardice.
What is the Categorical Imperative? (Choose whichever formulation you prefer). How is it different from a hypothetical imperative?
(in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation which is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose. Kant defines categorical imperatives as commands or moral laws all persons must follow, regardless of their desires or extenuating circumstances. As morals, these imperatives are binding on everyone. Hypothetical imperatives identify actions we ought to take, but only if we have some particular goal.
Explain the difference between a descriptive claim and a normative claim. Show how each can be seen in either Mill's Utilitarianism or Bentham's Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
A DESCRIPTIVE claim is a claim that asserts that such-and-such IS the case. A NORMATIVE claim, on the other hand, is a claim that asserts that such-and-such OUGHT to be the case. Bentham's hedonism: Descriptive claim: All actions are motivated solely by considerations of pleasure and pain. Normative claim: What we ought to do depends solely on considerations of pleasure and pain.