PHI Chp 2 Definitions

read

Rights are universal and inalienable. Basic rights include those to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights theory divides negative from positive rights. Ethical rights provide for individual freedom but allow relatively few guidelines to help individuals live together in society.

kants categorical imperative 2nd statement

TREAT PEOPLE AS AN END, AND NEVER AS A MEANS TO AN END. (Within Kant's theory of the categorical imperative, the requirement that people not be used as instruments to get something else. PEOPLE ARENT TOOLS OR INSTRUMENTS.

welfare rights

within a rights ethical theory, obligations society holds to provide minimal conditions allowing individuals their free pursuit of happiness

libertarianism

within a rights ethical theory, the acceptance of basic rights as the providers of moral guidance, with emphasis attached to the right to our possessions and the fruits of our work

right to possessions

within a rights ethical theory, the guarantee that individuals and organizations may earn freely and keep what they have made

right to freedom

within a rights ethical theory, the guarantee that individuals may do as they please, assuming their actions dont encroach upon the freedom of others protects against oppression by others.

right to religious expression

within a rights ethical theory, the guarantee that individuals may express religious beliefs freely, assuming their acts don't encroach upon the freedom of others.

right to free speech

within a rights ethical theory, the guarantee that individuals may say what they like, assuming their speech doesn't encroach upon the freedom of others

read this

Duties include responsibilities to oneself and to others. Duties do not exist in isolation but in a network, and they sometimes pull against each other.

negative rights

those rights that require others to not interfere with me and whatever i'm doing They require others to not interfere with me and whatever I'm doing. The right to life is the requirement that others not harm me, the right to freedom is the requirement that others not interfere with me, the right to speech requires that others not silence me, the right to my possessions and the fruits of my labors requires that others let me keep and use what's mine.

means

what you do in order to reach a goal Is it better to have a set of rules telling you what you ought to do in any particular situation and then let the chips fall where they may

kants categorical imperative 1st statement

ACT IN A WAY THAT THE RULE FOR YOUR ACTION COULD BE UNIVERSALIZED. (Within Kant's theory of the categorical imperative, an action that could be carried out by everyone all the time. Like telling the truth!) What Kant's categorical imperative shows is that lying cannot be universalized. The act of lying can't survive in a world where everyone's just making stuff up all the time. Since no one will be taking anyone else seriously, you may try to sell a false story but no one will be buying.

immanuel kant

STRICT, ETHICAL CERTAINTY and Unified German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) accepted the basic proposition that a theory of duties—a set of rules telling us what we're obligated to do in any particular situation—was the right approach to ethical problems. What he set out to add, though, was a stricter mechanism for the use of duties in our everyday experience. He wanted a way to get all these duties we've been talking about to work together, to produce a unified recommendation, instead of leaving us confused between loyalty to one principle and another. At least on some basic issues, Kant set out to produce ethical certainty.

duty to others FIDELITY

is the duty to keep our promises and hold up our end of agreements. The Madoff case is littered with abuses on this front. On the professional side, there's the financier who didn't invest his clients' money as he'd promised; on the personal side, there's Madoff and Weinstein staining their wedding vows. From one end to the other in terms of fidelity, this is an ugly case.

ethical duty

Basic ethics. There are things that are right and others that are wrong, and the discussion ends. This level of clarity and solidity is the main strength of an ethics based on duties. We all have a duty not to steal, so we shouldn't do it. More broadly, when we're making moral decisions, the key to deciding well is understanding what our duties are and obeying them. An ethics based on duties is one where certain rules or principles tell us what we ought to do, and it's our responsibility to know and follow those rules.

2.2 questions

Bermie Madoff was a very good—though obviously not a perfect—fraudster. He got away with a lot for a long time. How could the duty to develop one's own abilities be mustered to support his decision to become a criminal? In the Madoff case, what duties could be mustered to refute the conclusion that he did the right thing by engaging in fraud? Madoff gave u p most of his money and possessions and went to jail for his crimes. Is there anything else he should have done to satisfy the ethical duty of reparation? In your own words, what does it mean to treat equals equally and unequals unequally?

duty to self to develop our abilities and talents

Duties to the self begin with our responsibility to develop our abilities and talents. The abilities we find within us, the idea is, aren't just gifts; it's not only a strike of luck that some of us are born with a knack for math, or an ear for music, or the ability to shepherd conflicts between people into agreements. All these skills are also responsibilities. When we receive them, they come with the duty to develop them, to not let them go to waste in front of the TV or on a pointless job. Develop abilities and talents. As an expert in finance, someone with both knowledge of and experience in the field, Andrew should continue cultivating and perfecting his talents, at least those he had acquired on the legitimate side of the family's dealings. Beyond the duty to himself, Andrew can further buttress his decision to keep his current life going by referencing a duty to others:

John Locke's characteristics of rights

English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) maintained that rights are Universal. The fundamental rights don't transform as you move from place to place or change with the years. Equal. They're the same for all, men and women, young and old. Inalienable. They can't be taken, they can't be sold, and they can't be given away. We can't not have them. This leads to a curious paradox at the heart of rights theory. Freedom is a bedrock right, but we're not free to sell ourselves into slavery. We can't because freedom is the way we are; since freedom is part of my essence, it can't go away without me disappearing too.

2.4

How does the right to pursue happiness license Lepp's Medicinal Gardens? What is a libertarian argument against imprisoning Lepp? One justification Lepp cited for his farm was the health benefits marijuana could provide. Assuming Lepp was right about those benefits, how could they be combined with a rights-based ethics to justify his activities? How could the rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness be set against Lepp's business? What are positive rights and how could they be mustered against Lepp's farm? If someone drives away from Lepp's farm high as a kite and soon after drives off the road and into a tree, does Lepp bear any ethical responsibility for this within a rights ethics?

2.3 questions

Imagine Madoff lied to attain his clients' money as he did, but instead of living the high life, he donated everything to charity. For Kant, does this remove the ethical stain from his name? Why not? Think back to your first job, whatever it was. Did you feel like you were used by the organization, or did you feel like they were doing you a favor, giving you the job? How does the experience relate to the imperative to treat others as an end and not a means?

rights

In both cases specific principles provide ethical guidance for your acts, and those principles are to be obeyed regardless of the consequences further down the line. Unlike duties, however, rights-based ethics concentrate their force in delineating your possibilities. The question isn't so much What are you morally required to do; it's more about defining exactly where and when you're free to do whatever you want and then deciding where you need to stop and make room for other people to be free too. Stated slightly differently, duties tend to be ethics as what you can't do, and rights tend to be about what you can do.

read

The first expression of Kant's categorical imperative requires that ethical decisions be universalizable. The second expression of Kant's categorical imperative requires that ethical decisions treat others as ends and not means. Kant's conception of ethical duties can provide clear guidance but at the cost of inflexibility: it can be hard to make the categorical imperative work in everyday life.

duty to self to do ourselves no harm

The other significant duty to oneself is nearly a corollary of the first: the duty to do ourselves no harm. At root, this means we have a responsibility to maintain ourselves healthily in the world. It doesn't do any good to dedicate hours training the body to dance beautifully if the rest of the hours are dedicated to alcoholism and Xanax. Similarly, Andrew should not only fight cancer publicly by advocating for medical research but also fight privately by adhering to his treatment regime. PROHIBITS SUICIDE

perennial duties

Those specific requirements for action that have subsisted through history, for example, the duty not to steal. Over centuries of thought and investigation by philosophers, clergy, politicians, entrepreneurs, parents, students—by just about everyone who cares about how we live together in a shared world—a limited number of duties have recurred persistently. Called perennial duties, these are basic obligations we have as human beings; they're the fundamental rules telling us how we should act. If we embrace them, we can be confident that in difficult situations we'll make morally respectable decisions.

read this

When the means justify the ends, ethical consideration focuses on what you do, not the consequences of what you've done. Traditionally, focusing on means instead of ends leads to an ethics based on duties or rights.

2.1 questions

Your mother is ill with diabetes, and you can't afford her medicine. In the pharmacy one day, you notice the previous customer forgot that same prescription on the counter when she left. Why might the premise that the ends justify the means lead you to steal the pills? Why might the premise that the means justify the ends lead you to return the pills?

right

a justified claim against others. . I have the right to launch a gardening business or a church enterprise or both on my property, and you're not allowed to simply storm in and ruin things. You do have the right, however, to produce your own garden company and church on your property.

kant's categorical imperative

an ethical rule that does not depend on the circumstances an imperative is something you need to do. a hypothetical imperative is something you need to do, but only in certain circumstances; for example, i have to eat but only when im hungry. a categorical imperative, by contrast, is something you need to do ALL THE TIME. LIKE BREATHING

duties to others

ethical responsibilities for others Avoid wronging others is the guiding duty to those around us. It's difficult, however, to know exactly what it means to wrong another in every particular case. It does seem clear that Madoff wronged his clients when he pocketed their money. The case of his wife is blurrier, though. She was allowed to keep more than $2 million after her husband's sentencing. She claims she has a right to it because she never knew what her husband was doing, and anyway, at least that much money came to her from other perfectly legal investment initiatives her husband undertook. So she can make a case that the money is hers to keep and she's not wronging anyone by holding onto it. Still, it's hard not to wonder about investors here, especially ones like Sheryl Weinstein, who lost everything, including their homes. Honesty is the duty to tell the truth and not leave anything important out. On this front, obviously, Madoff wronged his investors by misleading them about what was happening with their money. Respect others is the duty to treat others as equals in human terms. This doesn't mean treating everyone the same way. When a four-year-old asks where babies come from, the stork is a fine answer. When adult investors asked Madoff where the profits came from, what they got was more or less a fairy tale. Now, the first case is an example of respect; it demonstrates an understanding of another's capacity to comprehend the world and an attempt to provide an explanation matching that ability. The second is a lie; but more than that, it's a sting of disrespect. When Madoff invented stories about where the money came from, he disdained his investors as beneath him, treating them as unworthy of the truth. Beneficence is the duty to promote the welfare of others; it's the Good Samaritan side of ethical duties. With respect to his own family members, Madoff certainly fulfilled this obligation: every one of them received constant and lavish amounts of cash. There's also beneficence in Andrew's work for charitable causes, even if there's a self-serving element, too. By contrast, Madoff displayed little beneficence for his clients. Gratitude is the duty to thank and remember those who help us. One of the curious parts of Madoff's last chapter is that in the end, at the sentencing hearing, a parade of witnesses stood up to berate him. But even though Madoff had donated millions of dollars to charities over the years, not a single person or representative of a charitable organization stood up to say something on his behalf. That's ingratitude, no doubt. But there's more here than ingratitude; there's also an important point about all ethics guided by basic duties: the duties don't exist alone. They're all part of a single fabric, and sometimes they pull against each other. In this case, the duty Madoff's beneficiaries probably felt to a man who'd given them so much was overwhelmed by the demand of another duty: the duty to respect others, specifically those who lost everything to Madoff. It's difficult to imagine a way to treat people more disdainfully than to thank the criminal who stole their money for being so generous. Those who received charitable contributions from Madoff were tugged in one direction by gratitude to him and in another by respect for his many victims. All the receivers opted, finally, to respect the victims. Fidelity is the duty to keep our promises and hold up our end of agreements. The Madoff case is littered with abuses on this front. On the professional side, there's the financier who didn't invest his clients' money as he'd promised; on the personal side, there's Madoff and Weinstein staining their wedding vows. From one end to the other in terms of fidelity, this is an ugly case. Reparation is the duty to compensate others when we harm them. Madoff's wife, Ruth, obviously didn't feel much of this. She walked away with $2.5 million.

duties to ourselves

ethical responsibilities we hold to ourselves, determining how we live and treat ourselves. 1. Duties to the self begin with our responsibility to develop our abilities and talents. The abilities we find within us, the idea is, aren't just gifts; it's not only a strike of luck that some of us are born with a knack for math, or an ear for music, or the ability to shepherd conflicts between people into agreements. All these skills are also responsibilities. When we receive them, they come with the duty to develop them, to not let them go to waste in front of the TV or on a pointless job. 2. The other significant duty to oneself is nearly a corollary of the first: the duty to do ourselves no harm. At root, this means we have a responsibility to maintain ourselves healthily in the world. It doesn't do any good to dedicate hours training the body to dance beautifully if the rest of the hours are dedicated to alcoholism and Xanax. Similarly, Andrew should not only fight cancer publicly by advocating for medical research but also fight privately by adhering to his treatment regime.

duty to others REPARATION

is the duty to compensate others when we harm them. Madoff's wife, Ruth, obviously didn't feel much of this. She walked away with $2.5 million. This duty advances as the proposal for Andrew to liquidate his assets and divide the money as fairly as possible among the ruined investors. It may be that Andrew didn't orchestrate the family Ponzi scheme, but wittingly or not, he participated and that opens the way to the duty to repayment.

duty to others BENEFICENCE

is the duty to promote the welfare of others; it's the Good Samaritan side of ethical duties. With respect to his own family members, Madoff certainly fulfilled this obligation: every one of them received constant and lavish amounts of cash. There's also beneficence in Andrew's work for charitable causes, even if there's a self-serving element, too. By contrast, Madoff displayed little beneficence for his clients. This may demand that Andrew continue along the lines he'd already established because they enabled his involvement with cancer research. He's got money to donate to the cause and his very personal experience with the disease allows rare insight into what can be done to help sufferers. To the extent that's true, beneficence supports Andrew's decision to go on living as he had been. On the other side, what's the duty-based argument in favor of Andrew taking a different path by breaking away from his old lifestyle and dedicating all his energy and time to doing what he can for the jilted investors the family business left behind?

duty to others HONESTY

is the duty to tell the truth and not leave anything important out. On this front, obviously, Madoff wronged his investors by misleading them about what was happening with their money.

duty to others GRATITUDE

is the duty to thank and remember those who help us. One of the curious parts of Madoff's last chapter is that in the end, at the sentencing hearing, a parade of witnesses stood up to berate him. But even though Madoff had donated millions of dollars to charities over the years, not a single person or representative of a charitable organization stood up to say something on his behalf. That's ingratitude, no doubt.

duty to others to RESPECT OTHERS

is the duty to treat others as equals in human terms. This doesn't mean treating everyone the same way. When a four-year-old asks where babies come from, the stork is a fine answer. When adult investors asked Madoff where the profits came from, what they got was more or less a fairy tale. Now, the first case is an example of respect; it demonstrates an understanding of another's capacity to comprehend the world and an attempt to provide an explanation matching that ability. The second is a lie; but more than that, it's a sting of disrespect. When Madoff invented stories about where the money came from, he disdained his investors as beneath him, treating them as unworthy of the truth. he duty to treat others as equals demands that Andrew take seriously the abilities and lives of all those who lost everything. Why should they be reduced to powerlessness and poverty while he continues maximizing his potential as a stock buyer and nonprofit leader? Respecting others and their losses may mean dedicating himself to helping them get back on their feet.

positive rights

obligations others have to help protect and preserve my basic negative rights They're obligations others have to help protect and preserve my basic, negative rights. For example, the right to life doesn't only require (negatively) that people not harm me, but it also requires (positively) that they come to my aid in life-threatening situations; if I'm in a car wreck, my right to life requires bystanders to call an ambulance.

Aristotle's retributive justice

principled revenge taken against those who have wronged you. Another aspect of fairness understood as equals treated equally, and unequals treated unequally, involves retribution. Retributive justice proposes that it's ethically recommendable to seek a constrained revenge against those who have wronged you. The notion is probably as old as humanity, and it appears in many of history's oldest texts. (The Bible's Matthew 5:38 contains the proverbial "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.") Two constraining aspects of retributive justice are significant. First, there's proportionality in the idea. The code isn't "A life for an eye" because the goal of retributive justice is to make things even again; it's to restore a balance that was there before one person wronged another. Retributive justice is a theory of proportional revenge. Second, the ethics of response fits within, and is a subset of the duty to fairness. What drives retributive justice is a notion that the two sides of an exchange should be treated in the same way, equally. Finally, these two characterizations of retributive justice are important because they separate the calculated act of vengeance from being nothing more than a blind and angry outburst. It's normal when we've been wronged to want to simply strike out at the one who's mistreated us. What separates emotions from ethics in this case, however, is containment within the rules of proportionality, and within the duty to fairness.

Aristotle's fairness

the duty to treat equals equally and unequals unequally. The treat equals equally part means, for a professional investor like Madoff, that all his clients get the same deal: those who invest equal amounts of money at about the same time should get an equal return. So even though Madoff was sleeping with one of his investors, this shouldn't allow him to treat her account distinctly from the ones belonging to the rest. Impartiality must govern the operation. The other side of fairness is the requirement to treat unequals unequally. Where there's a meaningful difference between investors—which means a difference pertaining to the investment and not something extraneous like a romantic involvement—there should correspond a proportional difference in what investors receive. Under this clause, Madoff could find justification for allowing two distinct rates of return for his clients. Those that put up money at the beginning when everything seemed riskier could justifiably receive a higher payout than the one yielded to more recent participants. Similarly, in any company, if layoffs are necessary, it might make sense to say that those who've been working in the organization longest should be the last ones to lose their jobs. In either case, the important point is that fairness doesn't mean everyone gets the same treatment; it means that rules for treating people must be applied equally. If a corporate executive decides on layoffs according to a last-in-first-out process, that's fine, but it would be unfair to make exceptions.

duty to others to avoid wronging others

the duty to treat others as you would like to be treated. Honesty, respect others, beneficence, gratitude, fidelity, reparation

ends

the goals you want to reach, as distinct from what you need to do to reach them should you worry more about how things are going to end up and do whatever's necessary to reach that goal?

Rawls's Fairness and veil of ignorance

the idea that when you set up rules for resolving dilemmas, you don't get to know beforehand which side of the rules you will fall on The recent American philosopher John Rawls proposes a veil of ignorance as a way of testing for fairness, especially with respect to the distribution of wealth in general terms. For example, in society as Madoff knew it, vast inequalities of wealth weren't only allowed, they were honored: being richer than anyone else was something to be proud of, and Madoff lived that reality full tilt. Now, if you asked Madoff whether we should allow some members of society to be much wealthier than others, he might say that's fair: everyone is allowed to get rich in America, and that's just what he did. However, the guy coming into Madoff's office at 3 a.m. to mop up and empty the trash might see things differently. He may claim to work just as hard as Madoff, but without getting fancy cars or Palm Springs mansions. People making the big bucks, the suggestion could follow, should get hit with bigger taxes and the money used to provide educational programs allowing guys from the cleaning crew to get a better chance at climbing the income ladder. Now, given these two perspectives, is there a way to decide what's really fair when it comes to wealth and taxes? Rawls proposes that we try to reimagine society without knowing what our place in it would be. In the case of Madoff, he may like things as they are, but would he stick with the idea that everything's fair if he were told that a rearrangement was coming and he was going to get stuck back into the business world at random? He might hesitate there, seeing that he could get dealt a bad hand and, yes, end up being the guy who cleans offices. And that guy who cleans offices might figure that if he got a break, then he'd be the rich one, and so he's no longer so sure about raising taxes. The veil of ignorance is the idea that when you set up the rules, you don't get to know beforehand where you'll fall inside them, which is going to force you to construct things in a way that is really balanced and fair.

duty

the moral obligation to perform an act that is right, regardless of the consequences

right to pursue happiness

within a rights ethical theory, the guarantee that individuals may seek happiness any way they like, assuming they don't encroach upon the freedom of others

right to life

within a rights ethical theory, the responsibility to respect the life of all individuals. Lepp, you, and I should be able to go through our days without worrying about someone terminating our existence