PHI2604 - Midterm Review (chapter 9, 10, & 12 from the book)

What utilitarian test did Jeremy Bentham put forward to decide how to determine who gains entry to the moral community?

"the question is not Can they reason?, nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?"

Why is motivation a problem for utilitarianism in that it seems to demand too much of us?

Because utilitarianism requires us to be saints, always strategizing about how to improve the world, making it difficult to meet its standards.

According to utilitarianism, anytime you can do more good for _____ than you can for yourself, you are _____ to do so.

Others. Required.

What are 5 problems with the principle humanity?

1. The notion of treating osmoene as an end is vague, and so the principle is difficult to apply. 2. The principle fails to give us good advice about how to determine what people deserve. 3. The principle assumes that we are genuinely autonomous, but that assumption may be false. 4. The principle assumes that morality of our actions depends only on what we can autonomously control, but the existence of "moral luck" calls this into question. 5. The principle cannot explain why those who lack rationality and autonomy are deserving of respect (animals).

According to utilitarianism, a character trait is a virtue just because it tends to cause us to...

Act in highly beneficial ways.

There is a huge amount of past _____ that we can call upon [to help us predict when an action will be right or wrong].

Experience.

Who proposed it the first really sophisticated defense of utilitarianism. What was it called?

Jeremy Bentham. It was called the Principles of Morals and Legislation.

To do justice is to respect _____

Rights.

What is the definition of absolute?

That which is not to be violated under any circumstances.

What are the three steps to knowing whether a rule is an optimific social rule?

1. Carefully describe the rule. 2. Imagine what a society would be like if just about everyone in it endorsed the rule. 3. Then ask this question: will that society be better off with this rule than with any competing rule.

What is the Argument Against Autonomy?

1. Either our choices are necessitated or they are not. 2. If they are necessitated, then they are out of our control, and so we lack autonomy. 3. If they are not necessitated, then they are random, and so we lack autonomy. 4. Therefore, we lack autonomy.

What are two common misunderstandings of the ultimate moral principle that is obtained from combining utilitarianism and hedonism?

1. In choosing among acts that benefit people, we must benefit the greatest number of people. 2. We must always choose that action that creates the greatest amount of happiness.

What are some problems with lex talionis?

1. It cannot explain why criminals who intentionally hurt their victims should be punished more than those who accidentally cause the same harm, since lex tells us to set the punishment by reference to the suffering of the victim. 2. It cannot tell us what many criminals deserve, such as in crimes that lack victims (e.g., an assassin attempts (but fails) to kill his victim, and the victim never discovers this. They still deserve to be punished, but lex talionis offers no basis for doing so). 3. Punishments provided can sometimes be very immoral, because it asks us to do to them what they have done to their victims, possibly advising us to rape a rapist or torture a torturer.

What is the Argument from Injustice?

1. The correct moral theory will never require us to commit serious injustices. 2. Utilitarianism sometimes requires us to commit serious injustices. 3. Therefore utilitarianism is not the correct moral theory.

What is the Argument from Value Measurement?

1. Utilitarianism is true only if there is a precise unit of measurement that can determine the value of an action's results. 2. There is no such limit. 3. Therefore, utilitarianism is false.

What is a "decision procedure"? How about a "standard of rightness"? Which of these is consequentialism?

A "decision procedure" is a method for reliably guiding our decisions, so that when we use it well, we make decisions as we ought to; while a "standard of rightness" tells us the conditions that make actions morally right. Consequentialism is a standard of rightness.

According to what ethical theory are actions considered right just because they maximize the overall amount of well-being in the world?

Act-utilitarianism.

For the purposes of Kant's principle of humanity, to whom does he refer to when he talks about humanity?

All rational and autonomous beings, no matter their species (e.g., a rational alien would be considered a human being).

What is the definition of supererogation? Can utilitarians deny that any action is supererogation?

An action that is "above and beyond the call of duty." No, they cannot, and that is why it is considered too demanding by some (i,e., you might be required to donate any and all non essential money).

What is lex talionis? Why did Kan't believe it was moral? What is another name for it?

An eye-for-an-eye principle that offers as a test for what wrongdoers deserve, by telling us to treat criminals they have treated their criminals. He believed it was moral because it treated them as an end - by treating him as a rational and autonomous person. It is also called the law of retaliation.

Utilitarians, unlike most competing moral theories, argue that ____ are members of the moral community.

Animals.

According to Kant, punishment is justified only if criminals are _____, and so able to freely choose their maxims. Those who are insane, for instance, are not fit for _____.

Autonomous. Punishment.

Our _____ is what justifies the attitude of never abandoning hope in people. The chances that a very hard-hearted man will change his ways me be very small, but the probability never reduces to zero, no matter how badly he was raised or lived his life. Changing your character and habits is hardly easy, but the possibility of redemption is always there, and that is only because we are _____ to set our own course in life.

Autonomy. Free.

Why is moral luck a problem for Kant's principle of humanity?

Because Kant assumes we are genuinely autonomous, and therefore rightly praised or blamed only for what we can control. Autonomy is control - over our choices, and over our actions. Yet factors outside of our control apparently affect the morality of our conduct (e.g., a good parent who, in a moment of extreme frustration, shakes her baby to jolt it out of a crying jag).

Why did Kant see wants and emotions as unreliable moral guides?

Because he believed they needed to be guided by sound principles before we could trust them (e.g., compassion can lead you to wrongly help an escaping criminal, or the courage of a terrorist can make his actions worse).

Why is treating everyone's well-being equally a problem for utilitarianism?

Because if nearly everyone in society had a deep-seated prejudice against a small minority group, and used this to defend a policy of enslavement, then utilitarianism might require enslavement under certain circumstances. In other words, utilitarianism can sometimes side with the oppressors in a given situation

Why is it a problem for autonomy if our choices are not necessitated?

Because if our choices are not necessitated, then they would be random, and randomness undermines control, which therefore undercuts autonomy (e.g., if you witness a person hitting a bystander while walking down a hall, there be would no reason, cause, or explanation for why she chose to do so).

What is a problem with the idea that the morality of actions depends on their actual results?

Because if right actions are those that actually bring about the best possible results, but they are also still in the future when the action is performed, we can never be completely sure that what we are about to do is the right thing.

Why is deliberation a problem for utilitarianism in that it seems to demand too much of us?

Because it seems that in order to think about how to act, we must first know a huge amount of information (knowing all the options, their overall values, etc.), sometimes in a matter of seconds. Since we're not computers, that's impossible.

Why is action considered to a problem for utilitarianism in that it seems to demand too much of us?

Because it suggests that we really must act so as to achieve optimific results, and whenever we fail, are behaving immorally. This is bound to strike most people as too excessive.

Why is utilitarianism's moral flexibility a problem?

Because it's moral flexibility comes from its refusal to absolutely prohibit any kind of action, meaning there is no intrinsic wrongness or rightness (e.g., justifiable homicide - if we knew an innocent person was leading a bad life, it might be required of us to kill him, since the world would contain less misery by doing so.)

Why is impartiality considered to be a problem for utilitarianism in that it seems to demand too much of us? How would some utilitarians respond to this?

Because morality sometimes seems to recommend partiality instead of impartiality towards others, such as paying for a son's minor surgery over relieving the greater suffering of famine victims. Some utilitarians would respond by saying that it is usually optimific to be partial to the interests of friends and families (e.g., sacrificing your son's interests would cause long-term problems by making him feel hurt and less secure in your love for him, while famine victims who don't even know you wouldn't be slighted by your choosing to care for your son over them).

Why do utilitarians not believe that we must always be saints, constantly strategizing about how to improve the world?

Because people motivated in this way usually fail to achieve their goal, since those who are always trying to get the best outcome are often bound to miss it (i.e., those who sole purpose in life is to pursue global happiness tend to be busybodies, obsessives, etc., bringing misery to family and friends). Therefore, having only one motive would certainly backfire.

How does the importance of autonomy explain why slavery and rape are always immoral?

Because slavery treats the oppressed without regard for their own goals and hopes, while rape treats other human beings solely as a source of one's own gratification - as if the victim had no legitimate say in the matter. [...] They are immoral because of their complete denial of the victim's autonomy.

Why does spending too much time thinking defeat the purpose of utilitarianism?

Because the person likeliest to fulfill the utilitarian goal of improving the world is the one who knows when to stop and think about her choices, and when not to. Too much time pondering one's options can freeze a person, resulting in too many wasted opportunities.

Why do some people think it impossible to add up all the benefits and harm an action causes? Why is this a problem beyond the fact that it may show the extent of our moral ignorance?

Because there are complex cases where it impossible to do so in practice. There is simply too much information to be gotten, and no one is smart enough or has time enough to gather it all. This is a problem because if it is impossible in *principle* to add up all the benefits and harm an action causes, then utilitarianism is sunk.

Why does Mill's distinction between quality and quantity of pleasure still pose problems for utilitarianism?

Because we must still choose between the two, and there is no principled advice that the utilitarian can offer here, so long as the two are of ultimate importance.

How can rule consequentialism say that certain actions are forbidden, even if they sometimes achieve very good results?

Because while it may be optmific to torture a prisoner here and now, as a *general policy*, a society that has an optimific rule that forbids political torture would in most cases be better off in terms of both happiness and justice in the long run.

What is a big difference between Bentham and Mill when it comes to pleasure?

Bentham believed we should maximize pleasure, no matter its quality, while Mill couldn't stand that. He instead insisted that we maximize the *quality* of our pleasures, as well as their quantity.

The most prominent contemporary version of rule consequentialism, that offered by the philosopher _____, says that there are two and only two things of intrinsic value - happiness and _____. Optimific social rules will be the ones that increase happiness and respect rights.

Brad Hooker. Justice.

According to utilitarianism, how can we know/determine whether an action is morally required?

By (1) adding up all of the benefits it produces, (2) adding up all the harm it causes, (3) determining the balance, and (4) seeing whether the balance is greater than that of any other available action.

How does prominent Australian philosopher J.J.C Smart defend act utilitarianism by accusing rule consequentialists of irrational rule worship?

By claiming that rule consequentialists demand us to obey moral rules, even when we know that breaking them would yield better results.

How does Kant's argument that everyone is owed a level of respect because of their rationality and autonomy show the immorality of a fanatic's actions?

By showing that such people don't regard human life as infinitely precious, but rather treat their despised opponents as mere obstacles to the achievement of their goals.

Utilitarians think that most of our deeply held moral beliefs are _____. There is special reason for this, one that utilitarians regard as a great advantage of their view. As they see it, utilitarianism does a better job than any competing moral theory in justifying our basic _____ beliefs (i.e., utilitarianism condemns acts such as killing innocents because they clearly tend to do more harm than good, and so do we).

Correct. Moral.

Who made the famous claim that our motivations always depend on our desires? Why did he believe so?

David Hume. He believed that beliefs alone could never move us, and that we must want something before we will ever act.

What are three areas in which utilitarianism seems to demand too much of us?

Deliberation, motivation, and action.

Which view do most utilitarians reject when it comes to actual vs. expected results?

Expected. They reject it because it will sometimes require actions that turn out to have disastrous results, when other options would have produced much better options (e.g., releasing a prisoner after having excellent evidence that he has had a change of heart, only to find out he went on a killer spree days after), and some actions are expected to turn out badly, but end up with surprisingly good results (e.g., expecting a bully to become nastier after being confronted, only to see him unexpectedly back down afterwards).

While the principle of universalizability clearly emphaizes the importance of _____, another of Kant's formulations [, the principle of humanity,] directs our attention to the respect and ______ that serve as the basis for morality.

Fairness. Dignity.

According to Kant, what is the one and only thing that is valuable - whose presence in any situation is bound to add value to it?

Good will.

How does Mill respond to the problem of deliberation for utilitarianism?

He believes that in most cases, we can rely on common wisdom, based on thousands of previous cases, to know what is going to be beneficial or harmful (i.e., we don't need to spend a lot of time thinking about rape or murder to know it will cause more harm than good).

Utilitarianism is a doctrine of _____, and this is one of its great strengths. It tells us that the welfare of each person is equally morally valuable.

Impartiality.

What is considered perhaps the greatest problem for utilitarianism?

Injustice (i.e., we must maximize well-being, but sometimes we can do this only by committing some serious injustice.)

Who famously summarized the utilitarian outlook by saying that it required us to create the greatest good for the greatest number?

John Stuart Mill, one of the greatest utilitarians and Jeremy Bentham's godson.

What is the "principle of humanity"?

Kant's formulation to always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a means.

Why does Mill reject the two common misunderstandings of the ultimate moral principle that is obtained from combining utilitarianism and hedonism?

Mill rejects the first because an action that benefits the majority may be very small, whereas the benefit to the minority may be very large (e.g., giving coupons to a majority of citizens vs. giving food and shelter to a minority of homeless); and he rejects the second because an action that creates the greatest amount of happiness may also create a huge amount of misery over those that offer less (e.g., imagine if gladiator contests created more happiness than grand athletic competitions).

What are universal human rights? Why do we have them? Are they the basis for a meaningful life?

Moral rights that protect every human being from certain kinds of treatment and entitle each of us to a minimum respect, just because we are human. We have them because of our rationality and autonomy. Yes (i.e., life without them would a life fit for an insect).

Is there a precise unit that can measure happiness or, more generally, well-being? Can we still determine when actions create more overall benefit than others, even if there is no precise way to quantify these benefits?

No. Yes, because there are some cases in which it is clear, such as comparing the good produced by a kindly grandmother who takes in wandering orphaned, grandchildren, over the benefits of a couple enjoying a friendly game of cards.

What was the name of one of the earliest and greatest works on behalf of female equality by John Stuart Mill?

On the Subjection of Women.

Who is perhaps the most famous living philosopher, who continues the utilitarian tradition of seeking to expand our moral concerns with his influential work on behalf of ethical vegetarianism and against animal experimentation?

Peter Singer.

Kant thought, first, that acting from the good will is the only way that actions can be truly _____. (Kant referred to such actions as those that possessed _____ worth.) He also thought that acting from such a motive is entirely an exercise of reason.

Praiseworthy. Moral.

Kant thought that our rationality and autonomy made each of us literally ______. [...] No matter how valuable [an] object, the value of human life exceeds it by an infinite amount.

Priceless.

What is the ultimate moral principle obtained from combining utilitarianism and hedonism?

Produce the greatest overall balance of happiness over misery.

What is one of the most important things an ethical theory can do?

Provide advice about how to resolve moral conflicts.

Most people believe that _____, rather than conditioning, is the appropriate response to serious wrongdoers. [...] This is because humans, unlike dogs, sometimes deserve to be punished, precisely because they could have chosen to act well. [...] If we want criminals to behave differently, we must still respect their _____ [and not manipulate them into becoming obedient citizens].

Punishment. Autonomy.

According to utilitarians who believe morality of actions depends on expected results, actions are morally required just because they are _____ expected to be optimific.

Reasonably.

What does the objection that utilitarianism is a "doctrine of the swine" mean?

That it is attractive only to those who preferred a life of easy pleasure to the more challenging intellectual pleasures.

What is the pluralistic view of well-being? Why does it create problems for adding up the good produced by an action?

That there are many sources of personal welfare (happiness, knowledge, etc.). It creates problems by asking us to measure degrees of friendship, love, virtue, and then combine them into some overall measure of personal welfare. It also makes us choose between them, which can be difficult even with all the information provided..

What does it mean when are choices are necessitated?

That we are determined to choose as we do (i.e., choices can be traced to causes over which we lack control, such as our genetic inheritance, parental upbringing, social influences, etc.)

What are the two parts to a "good will"?

The ability to reliably know what your duty is, and a steady commitment to doing your duty for its own sake (i.e., we see what we are morally required to do, and we do it for that very reason.)

According to act utilitarianism, an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances. Philosophers call this ultimate moral standard _____.

The principle of utility.

What is rule consequentialism? What is an "optimific social rule"

The view that an action is morally right just because it is required by an "optimific social rule". An optimific social rule is one that meets the following condition: if (nearly) everyone in a society were to accept it, then the results would be optimific.

What does it mean to be a member of the moral community?

To be important in your own right. It is to be owed a certain amount of respect. Membership in the moral community imposes a duty on everyone else to take one's needs seriously, for one's own sake.

What does treating someone "as an end" mean? How about treating someone "as a means"? Finally, what does it mean to treat someone as a "mere means"?

To treat them with the respect they deserve. To deal with someone so that they help achieve one of your goals. To treat someone as a mere means is to treat them as a thing, failing to treat them in a way that recognizes any of their distinctively human features.

True or false: Problems of value measurement can arise even if there is only a single intrinsic value, such as happiness.

True, because happiness comes in many different flavors, including momentary elation, steady contentment, physical excitement, mental challenge, etc.

True or false: According to Kant, we can never be sure that we have *ever* acted from a good will. Still, even if we can't be sure that our actions have ever earned moral worth, we can know what *standard* we should aim for.

True.

True or false: According to utilitarians who believe the morality of actions depend on expected results, unexpectedly causing an old man to die to a reckless driver as a result of helping him cross the street would be moral, because anyone in that position would have reasonably thought helping the old man to cross the street would have excellent results.

True.

True or false: Being autonomous literally means being a self-legislator. Autonomous people are those who decide for themselves which principles are going to govern their life.

True.

True or false: Every moral theory has to allow for some degree of moral ignorance - cases where we don't know what is right or wrong.

True.

True or false: If act utilitarianism is correct, then we are duty-bound to maximize well-being.

True.

True or false: If the principle of humanity is true, then animals, infants, the severely mentally ill, and the mentally retarded are out of the moral community.

True.

True or false: It is because of our autonomy that we hold each other accountable for our deeds and misdeeds, since we are free and rational human beings - morally responsible for our own choices and actions (as opposed to animals or plants, who we don't blame for their actions).

True.

True or false: John Stuart Mill was a hedonist who believed that only happiness was intrinsically valuable and only misery was intrinsically bad.

True.

True or false: Kant rejected the idea that happiness (or well-being in any form) is the ultimate value. Happiness has *no* value, he said, if it comes as a result of wrong doing (the enjoyment that a sadistic killer brings brings to his task does not add value to his crime, but only makes it worse.)

True.

True or false: Kant thought that reason, operating alone and in the absence of any desires or emotions, could reveal your moral duty, and it could motivate you to obey it.

True.

True or false: The principle of humanity easily explains our outrage at paternalism. To be paternalistic is to assume the rights and privileges of a parent - toward another a adult. Paternalism has us limit the liberty of others, for their own good, against their will. It is treating autonomous individuals as children, as if we, and not they, were best suited to making the crucial decisions of their lives.

True.

True or false: Utilitarians make the rightness of an action depend on all of its results, no matter how long after the action they occur.

True.

True or false: for Utilitarians, no moral rule (other than the principle of utility) is absolute. It is morally okay to violate any rule - even one that prohibits cannibalism - if doing so will raise overall well-being. In this way, Utilitarianism is a doctrine of moral flexibility.

True.

True or false: most consequentialists think that their standard of rightness - the principle of utility - fails as a decision procedure.

True.

True or false: no moral theory manages to perfectly justify our deepest beliefs and clash with only a few of them.

True.

True or false: utilitarians allow that it is sometimes okay to harm members of the moral community, provided it maximizes overall well-being (e.g., animal experimentation, provided it brought about very beneficial results).

True.

What does being rational involve?

Using reason to tell us how to achieve our goals and determine whether we can pursue them in a morally acceptable way.

According to _____, telling the truth wont always increase overall well-being.

Utilitarianism.

If according to utilitarians, the rightness of an action depends on all of its results, and these haven't yet occurred, then how can we know whether an action is the right one to do?

Utilitarians are split on the issue, with the first group thinking that morality of actions depends on their actual results, while the second group thinks that it depends on their expected results instead.

What is the correct interpretation of the ultimate moral principle that is obtained from combining utilitarianism and hedonism?

Utilitarians tell us to do what brings about the best overall situation, by choosing the act that creates the greatest net balance of happiness over unhappiness.

What do utilitarians believe we should say about cases where good intentions yield awful results, or bad intentions yield pleasant surprises? According to this view, is there an essential connection between the morality of an action and the morality of the intentions behind it?

Utilitarians will insist on separating the issues, claiming actions to be right provided they're optimific, while intentions are morally good provided they are reasonably expected to yield good results. No.

What is vicarious punishment? How about exemplary punishment?

Vicarious punishment targets innocent people as a way to deter the guilty (e.g., abducting the terrorists' relatives and threatening to torture them). Exemplary punishment "makes an example" of someone (e.g., a general shooting his own soldier after an attack at night that nobody noticed, and telling the rest he'll do it again if they're sleeping the next time an attack comes).

According to act utilitarianism, what is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable? What is the only thing that is intrinsically bad?

Well-being. Faring poorly.

Kant thought that moral _____ should be available to everyone, regardless of his or her emotional makeup.

Wisdom.

Kant went so far as to write that dutiful actions motivated by emotions or desires lack any moral _____.

Worth.