phil test 2

Justice Objection

according to utilitarianism it would promote more utility to frame an innocent man to keep riots from breaking out or kill one healthy man to save 5 sick people. this undermines justice and allows people to do horrible things for the sake of utility

Moral Skepticism

"what reason is there to continue being moral when there is no advantage to yourself?" There isn't one

Is geographical proximity morally relevant? That is, do we have a greater duty to the needy in our own country than we do to those in other parts of the world? Why or why not? What does Singer say about this?

According to Singer geographical proximity is not morally relevant. If one has the power to prevent something bad from happening one ought to as long as there is no sacrifice of anything with comparable moral importance. Singer says that proximity may make us more likely to help someone but it does not change what we should do. If you accept any form of equality than you cannot use proximity as a reason to or not to help someone.

Level of Marginal Utility

According to Singer it is the level at which you stop giving and helping refugees, etc. It is where you are almost at the level where you don't need help but can no longer give it but not quite. Giving more would cause you suffering but at this level you can do the most good and donate the most.

Explain the differences between Act utilitarianism and Rule utilitarianism.

Act utilitarianism says an act is right if and only if it produces just as much happiness as every other available solution. Rule utilitarianism says that an act is morally right if it is required by a rule that belongs to a set of rules which provides more utility to society than any other available alternative.

Psychological Egoism

Descriptive theory- by nature; people act selfishly (in their own self interest); there are no altruistic acts; all voluntary acts are performed from a person's wants, all "unselfish" acts are voluntary acts, therefore all "unselfish" acts are performed from a person's wants (unsound)

singers key claim

Giving to an aid organization is unlike the drowning child example. if you have a little bit of an expendable income you will constantly have the obligation to donate. The Lisa example-many drowning children, lose 200 dollars every 5 minutes

According to Rachels, the unselfish person is precisely the one who derives satisfaction from helping others. Why does Rachels believe that this poses problems for psychological egoism? Do you think he is correct about these problems? Why or why not?

He believes this poses problems for psychological egoism because the argument itself is wrong. The egoist says people only do things to derive the satisfaction, but Rachels says that satisfaction is derived because the person is kind hearted and cares for others. Which is the opposite of being selfish. I think he is correct. I believe people do things because they care about others and have respect for life in general not because they want to feel good after or make sure they don't feel guilty. An actual selfish person acting only to benefit themselves would not feel guilty.

McPherson concludes by insisting that "the failures of the dominant view of terrorism should lead us to adopt either a more critical attitude toward conventional war or a less condemnatory attitude toward terrorism." Do you agree with this conception of the moral alternative? If not, why do you disagree? If so, which stance do you take—a more critical attitude toward conventional war or a less critical attitude toward terrorism? Why?

I agree with McPherson. I think that we should have a more critical attitude toward conventional war. Conventional warfare has caused so many casualties of soldiers and civilians alike. I think for a long time people accepted warfare for the way it was even though torture and other atrocities like that were being committed (the Holocaust). If people are going to be super critical of terrorism they also need to reevaluate the way their government conducts itself in times of a conventional war. Most wars, if not all, are not just so how are any of the actions committed during war time just?

What is the greatest happiness principle? On what does it make the rightness of our actions depend?

Mill states that utilitarianism follows the greatest happiness principle where actions are considered moral when they tend to promote happiness and deter its opposite, and immoral when the opposite occurs.

Ethical Egoism

Prescriptive- you should; people are obligated to act selfishly; a person is under no obligation to do anything except what is in his/her interests, X is morally right or wrong if and only if X serves one's rational self-interest

Explain the distinction between psychological egoism and ethical egoism

Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory that states people always act in their own self interest; there are no altruistic acts. Every act a person commits stems from their wants. Ethical egoism is a prescriptive theory that states people should act in their own self interest. A person is under no obligation to do anything except what is in his/her self interests. The main difference is psychological egoism just explains how people are while ethical egoism says what you should do or are obligated to do.

self-interest

Psychological egoism- by nature we are interested in ourselves and motivated to act in self interest.. Ethical egoism- we should act from self interest.

What moral principle does Singer invoke to support his argument? What grounds does he give in support of this principle? Do you find the principle to be a plausible one? Why or why not?

Singer invokes the moral principle of "supererogatory." This means an act that would be good to do but not wrong not to do. He supports this by saying that the present way of drawing the distinction between which makes something an act of charity for a well off person cannot be supported. It could possibly be revised and this revision would have very radical implications for the poor and the rich. I think that this plausible. People who have a lot of money, especially those in the 1% have little to no obligation morally or legally to help anyone. I think it would be a good idea to make charity more obligatory and less supererogatory especially for those who have more money than they know what to do with.

Euthyphro

Socrates argues that the gods love or hate an action because they are already morally right or wrong. The gods loving or hating something doesn't determine its morality.

Mill mentions those who object to utilitarianism on the grounds that it holds humanity to an excessively high moral standard. Why might someone make this argument? How does Mill respond to it? (122)

Someone will make this argument because according to Mill there is always more to do to create happiness. When do you stop? People will have to give and give until they need aid themselves and then that takes away from the overall happiness. To expect people to give everything they have and sacrifice their own happiness to promote the happiness of many is unrealistic. It undermines the principle of utilitarianism. Mill responds by saying that a rule would be in place in society allowing rest and entertainment because a rule like that would promote a lot of utility deeming those actions worthwhile. No matter what you are doing now to help the less fortunate you can surely do more and live a very happy life.

revolutionary code of honor

There is a moral distinction between who can and cannot be killed. Ordinary citizens not engaged in political harming should not be killed. Do not hurt small children/people who are not your intended target. The murder of innocent bystanders is not considered a victory. If you get caught you get caught don't kill someone just doing their job.

proportionally principle

Timmerman says the punishment of the crime should be in proportion to the crime. No overkill or under punishment. The punishment should fit the crime.

Divine Command Theory

X is morally right or wrong if and only if God commands it or forbids it.

Can an established government engage in terrorism? Has this ever happened before in history? Was it morally justified? In explaining your position, be sure to address Walzer's views on the issue.

Yes, the US and French and Great Britain governments have. Yes, Hiroshima was an act of terrorism. It was not morally justified according to Walzer. He states that targeting soldiers during a war is only just if the war itself is just, but to directly cause the death of innocent lives is immoral and can never be justified. Indiscriminate killing can never be justified so neither can terrorism.

Gyges

character in Plato's republic says that people do the right thing bc they fear the consequences but if you had an invisibility ring you would do anything you wanted if you knew you could get away with it. People only do the right thing because they fear the consequences.

altruism

doing something for someone else and not expecting anything in return or with an ulterior motive- selflessness. Psy egoist believes you can't be altruistic. Eth Egoist says you should make sure you receive something in return if you are going to be selfless.

supererogatory

no obligation. It's the right thing to do but you don't have to and it isn't bad not to do it. Not a moral duty but it is a moral act.

Utilitarianism happiness

pleasure: sensual and intellectual for all (utilitarianism definition)

Higher pleasures

pleasures of intellect and imagination have higher value than pleasures of mere sensation

Terrorism

random murder of innocent people intended to frighten a population into demanding that their governments negotiate for their safety.

Act Utilitarianism

says an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any possible alternative

Rule Utilitarianism

says that an act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative

dominant view of terrorism

terrorism is necessarily and egregiously wrong; terrorism is akin to murder

obligatory

there is an obligation. it is morally right to do it and morally wrong to not do it

no rest objection

to follow utilitarianism fully you should get little to no rest because you can always be doing more to increase utility. people giving everything they have to the point right above the poverty line makes morality too demanding, creates a disincentive to work, and fails to account for differential obligation

integrity objection

utilitarianism violates personal integrity by commanding we violate our most central and deeply held principles. it leads to personal alienation and is deeply flawed. ex: killing one person to save the rest still causes u to betray yourself and commit murder