Phil3435 Moral Philosophy

Expressivism

"boo x"

Prescriptivism

"don't x"

Argument for why objective ethical principles are needed (Shafer-Landau)

1. Empirical facts cannot adequately explain ethical facts. Fact/value dichotomy, is/ought gap, description/explanation/prediction v. evaluation/prescription. 2. Relativist views fail to adequately explain ethical facts. 3. Nihilist views fail to adequately explain ethical facts. 4. Therefore, objective ethical PPFs are needed to explain ethical facts.

Aristotle's argument that the highest good is eudaimonia/happiness/flourishing

1. The highest good is complete and self-sufficient 2. Eudaimonia is complete and self-sufficient 3. Therefore, eudaimonia is the highest good, the highest good cannot be improved or for the sake of something else, eudaimonia is the final end

Mackie's overarching argument for error theory

1. The objectivist conception of ethics is correct (ethical language is meant to pick out objective features in the world to make prescriptive claims). Removing claims to objectivism from ethics prevents it from being ethics. 2. There are no objective moral properties. 3. Therefore, all ethical claims are false. They assert objective claims, but there are no objective claims, so they are false.

Criteria for evaluating ethical theories as more/less justified

1. There are aspects of the human ethical experience that need to be substantiated by metaethics. 2. Metaethical view X substantiates these features well/poorly in comparison to other views. 3. Metaethical view X is more/less justified than other views.

The Equivalence argument/strategy for objectivism, and how it is used to respond to metaphysical and epistemological arguments against objectivism

1. There are objective scientific/empirical properties/principles/facts (PPFs). 2. The standards for establishing objective ethical PPFs should be no greater than that for establishing objective scientific PPFs. 3. Ethical PPFs can meet the same standards for objectivity as scientific PPFs. 4. Therefore, there are objective ethical PPFs.

The standard approach on how to respond to ethically tainted art, science, and philosophy?

Acknowledge & do not excuse the wrongness involved, Distinguish evaluation of the people & their actions from the evaluation of the product, Determine if there are any parts of the product that are problematically influenced by the wrongness or poor character involved, If so, revise the product to remove/address that influence, Make use of the revised product

Possible responses to the theoretical concerns with Utilitarianism

Actual outcome v. expected outcome consequentialism responds to indeterminacy; Satisficing v. maximizing consequentialism says don't have to always maximize, but need to give enough good to others (not as demanding); Average v. total consequentialism says not aggregation, but instead average, responds to repugnant conclusion; Value axiology modification says weigh outcomes based on who they occur to (prioritize those near & dear), distributional considerations (not just aggregate, but distributional/equity); Rule or indirect consequentialism; Move to a normative theory that prioritizes something other than good for others

Hypothetical Imperatives and Categorical Imperatives

All imperatives are either hypothetical (good as a means) or categorical (good in itself), Categoricals have no circumstantial considerations, Hypotheticals have conditionality

Why Kant believes the CI requires that there be entities that are ends in themselves

Categorical imperative sets an unconditional end that you have to do, Something is valuable itself as an end that generates this, that something must be an entity

Contradiction in conception and Contradiction in the Will

Contradictions in will (if you will an end, you have to will the means to that end, otherwise they contradict) & in conception (maxims that are impossible/inconceivable when universalized, e.g. take people's property, making a lying promise)

Types of claims/propositions: Descriptive, explanatory, predictive, evaluative, prescriptive

Descriptive claim answers "what"; Explanatory explains "why" or what caused something to happen; Predictive claims about what will occur, uses inferences & extrapolation; Evaluative evaluates what is good & bad; Prescriptive tells what one should do

What new areas of ethics does Jonas think modern technology makes salient and why

Environmental ethics is need to think seriously about whether or not parts of the environment are moral subjects whom we have direct duties to (not just because of how they relate to/help humans), Ethics of future generations is what do we owe to people in the future, our decisions with technology can have very significant impacts to future generations, Global ethic is what do we owe to people who are very far away from us?, Technology ethics is the shift from the idea that technology is merely a tool, recognize that technology restructures our experience of the world, Ethics of human engineering is genetic engineering gives humans more power & control over the world (living longer, etc.), past norms do not cover this

Mackie's queerness arguments (epistemological and metaphysical) against objectivism/moral realism

Epistemological shows that ways of knowing do not work for ethics; 1. If there are objective values, there would have to be some way of coming to those conclusions. 2None of our normal methods of knowing things apply to ethical concepts. Only viable option is a special type of intuition, but this still doesn't make much sense. Conclusion: There is no reason for us to believe that objective properties exist; Metaphysical - kind of entities that exist naturally do not connect to ethics; 1. If there are objective values, they would have to connect to natural properties. 2.There is no relationship (logical, semantic, causal, etc.) that would explain the relationship between natural values & ethical objective values. 3. There is no reason to believe objective properties are possible.

Why virtue ethics are not necessarily egoistic

Ethics is always slightly human-centric, since it focuses on what humans ought to do, but not egoistic because the virtues apply to how we interact with others & include things such as generosity, compassion, loyalty etc., Eudaimonia (& living a good life) does not necessarily mean we must become primarily self-interested

Darwinian Dilemma (or evolutionary tracking)

Evolution by natural selection is true. 1. The truth value of ethical claims are either mind-independent (objective) or mind-dependent (subjective). 2. If they are mind-independent, given ENS, then global ethical skepticism is warranted. ENS would lead us to have the ethical beliefs that help us to survive, which don't necessarily mean that they are objective truths. 3. If they are mind-dependent, given ENS, then global ethical skepticism is unwarranted. 4. We ought to reject global ethical skepticism because it is contrary to the human experience. 5. Thus, we ought to reject mind-independent accounts of ethical facts.

Foundation of Ethical Truths vs Psychological Explanation of Ethical Beliefs

Explanations for why people hold certain beliefs are not the same as the basis for ethical truths; what one is inclined to do is not what they ought to do; just because people hold a certain view does not mean that it is justified

Concerns regarding rule consequentialism

Fails to maximize good outcomes, in some cases the rule contradicts the best outcome, but we ought to follow the rule rather than violating for our act; Can collapse into act utilitarianism if the rules are too specific & have many exceptions that require you to evaluate the individual action for; How do you determine the rules? How do you determine the specificity & scope of the rules? Are they the same for everyone, or based on culture/location?

Desert and double-desert adjusted veridical attitudinal hedonism

Feldman reading, construct different hedonistic accounts of what makes a person's life go well for them, veridical is take pleasure in the things that happen, DAVAH is take pleasure in the right sorts of things (object tells), DDAVAH is that you are worthy of pleasure & it is the right kind of pleasure (subject & object tell)

Theoretical difficulties with Utilitarianism

Impartiality doesn't make sense of special relationships; Too demanding because Impartiality means that you also count as only one person; No in-principle limits; Distributional issues says Small amount of people shouldering burdens to help the majority; Repugnant conclusion says Aggregate good will increase marginally with every one person you add; Indeterminacy at time of action that it is Impossible to know the turnout before completing the action

Aristotle's response to the Stoic arguments

Internal & external flourishing is important, we are social animals, need external goods

Types of consideration that are appealed to in order to justify normative theories (methods of justification in ethics)

Internal consistency, coherence, orderliness says theories that are self-contradictory should be rejected, theories that are more internally coherent should be favored over those that are less; Compatibility with what we know about ourselves & the world says ethical theories should be compatible with our science & non-moral philosophy; Acceptability of implications says ethical theories are preferable if their recommendations in particular cases can be reconciled with our common sense; Ability to capture & explain the human ethical experience says ethical theories are preferable to the extent that they account for common features of ethical practice; Resources for providing action-guidance says a method of ethics is inadequate if it does not provide situational action-guidance (normative theory); Compatibility with generally accepted deliberative principles says more preferable if it is more compatible with well-established deliberative principles (e.g. like cases should be treated alike); Compatibility with background conditions that make ethical deliberation possible says preferable if it does not undermine the conditions for living according to the rules/principles of the ethic (e.g. you can trust the truth of one's ethics); Rational agreement/endorsability says ethical theory is justified if rational people would ideally agree with it; Analysis of ethical concepts says can be developed from careful analysis of normative concepts; Quality of the arguments offered in support says must be evaluated based on the quality of their premises & reasoning

Baier's critique of traditional ethical theories

MMP tend to not theorize well over certain areas of the human experience (inequality, partiality, intimacy), tend to focus on impartiality & rationality that don't apply there, says we need to supplement the MMPs

Argument against objectivism

Mackie's argument from queerness, subje

Criticisms of Kant's Moral Theory

Maxim description problem says it seems possible to describe maxims in ways that allow for clearly unethical things & rule out clearly ethical things, Conflicting rules/duties asks how to handle cases when duties conflict, Contradictions in conception/will shows contradiction between your end & the means to that end, Moral laws/rules/principles are not always universal & in some cases, what is right to do may depend on what others are actually doing/upon the context, No free will that Kant requires for morality, wrong conception of ethics (not deontology), Moral considerability (more than just rational beings), Which entities have worth (more than just rational)

independent

Mentalistic views are determined entirely by their experiences (hedonism); Mind-world views are determined by the relationship between one's mental states & the world (desire satisfaction); Objective list views are determined by both mentalistic & mind-independent considerations (perfectionism)

his moral theory

Mills says Kant's racism is so significant that we should understand his ethical view as non-universal, Allais says Kant's racism is so significant that it explains why he can hold inconsistent theories of ethics & race, Kleingeld says Kant's later work on race shows that he slowly came to appreciate the implications of his ethical theory on his work on race

Kant's conception of morality/moral action

Need to find something that is categorically imperative & holds with necessity (to make sense of prescriptivity)

Kant's theory of race

Not only racist, but also advanced problematic theories of race that accommodated race-based atrocities like colonialism & slavery, Said that racial categories are real & fixed & hierarchical due to cognitive, psychological, & behavioral traits

Perfect vs Imperfect Duties

Perfect duties are unremitting, result of contradictions in conception (i.e. if universalized, it is impossible to act on the maxim), Perfect duties to self e.g. not to take one's own life, Perfect duties to others e.g. not to make a lying promise; Imperfect duties are meritorious & the result of contradictions in the will, Imperfect duties to self e.g. to develop one's talents, Imperfect duties to others e.g. to help others in need

Mill's Hedonistic Utilitarianism

Pleasure & freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends, Other values are only because they are instrumental to bringing pleasure/eliminating pain, Greatest happiness principle, Thinks bodily/physical & intellectual pleasures are different, & that intellectual pleasures are qualitatively better

Why Kant believes morality requires libertarian autonomy/free will

Rational beings must have the ability to choose the maxims upon which they act, regardless of external pressures, They must deliberate & have the freedom to choose their actions & thus be morally responsible for their actions, Must be able to act independently of external factors & choose the morally right option

Kant's primary argument in section one of the Groundwork (what the project is, how his argument/reasoning proceeds/and what he takes himself to have accomplished)

The only thing that is unconditionally good is the good will, Distinction between acting in accordance with duty/moral law v. acting because it is the right thing to do, Doing your duty means doing what is right, even if you have incentive to do otherwise

intrinsic/extrinsic); moral worth

Token-type says is something a good instance of its kind? Determine the function of a thing, does it serve this purpose well; Interests asks good for something's thriving/flourishing; Instrumental says good as a means to a desired end; Moral goodness says morally praiseworthy or admirable; Existential says good that/when something exists, intrinsic, good in itself/for what it is; These do not all need to go together, something can be instrumentally good but morally bad, etc., not mutually exclusive

Wolf's argument in support of her criticism

Undesirability of being a moral saint tells us things about moral theory

Expected Consequence Utilitarianism/consequentialism

a bit more lenient, Leaves room for intention & excuses accidental harm, Even though someone did something bad, it can be excused if they didn't know, Good-faith effort to do the right thing

Attitudinal Hedonism (and arguments/considerations that motivate it)

a person's life goes well to the extent that it contains attitudinal pleasure & not attitudinal pain

Ethical Egoism

action is right if & only if it best serves the interests of the agent

Act utilitarianism

actions are evaluated themselves against the principle of utility, problems are that Local utility can overwhelm the infinitesimally small impact on the large problem, you can be complicit in something, consequences on your own life of specific actions are greater than consequences to the whole world

Susan Wolf's criticism of Modern Moral Philosophy (MMP)

agrees with Baier that there are many failures in consequentialism & deontology in terms of how they approach life & make sense of our values, criticizes maximizing moral goodness by use of the moral saints argument

Error Theory (including its answers to the three metaethical questions discussed)

all ethical claims are false; "X is wrong" means that there are objective properties that justify refraining from doing x; "X is wrong" because, iff, there are non-subjective properties that justify refraining from doing x; However, no such properties exist, so therefore nothing can ever be wrong or right

Principle of Utility

an action is right to the extent that it brings about the greatest balance of good over bad for everyone involved

What challenge does longitudinal collective action problems pose for ethical theory

an ethical theory needs to provide justification for why individuals still need to work to address the problem, which theories can support cogent responses to the problem of inconsequentialism? Can any provide justification for individuals acting to fix these problems?

bodily pleasures discussed in class

are we really qualified observers? we don't know what it's like to be a pig satisfied, maybe it's variety of pleasures rather than inte

Repugnant Conclusion

argument against maximizing consequentialism, if what makes a good outcome is just aggregation of the welfare of people, then as long as you can create one more person whose welfare is slightly positive then it will be better, end up having huge amounts of people with low levels of wellbeing as better than a small number of high quality

Aristotle's argument (the ergon argument) that virtue is a constituent of eudaimonia

argument from Nichomacheian ethics about the function of things, if you can identify the function of a thing its excellence is doing that well, if we can figure out the function/distinctive characteristic of a human being we can figure out its excellence, points to rational activity as our distinctive feature, the virtues are the excellences that are connected to the distinctive characteristic

How Aristotle's conception of ethics and method of ethics differs from Kant's

aristotle says that it's true in general & for the most part that the virtues will bring eudaimonia, kant says that we need values that generate law-like rules

How the CI works to generate duties

as a law, requires moral agents to perform/not perform certain actions, thus it is action-guiding & duties can be generated as a derivative of the imperative; uses the rationality & universalization principles to generate the duties from the CI

pleasures

better to be socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied, qualified observer argument, would you rather be a human being that is dissatisfied (some intellectual pleasures) or a pig satisfied (maximum bodily pleasures), not just a matter of quantity of pleasures but also a quality argument

Concerns about the standard approach

can introduce personal bias, also sometimes not sufficient enough, or too evaluative & you lose part of the meaning of the work, etc.

Character ethics vs virtue ethics

character ethics is when normative theories talk about virtues but only as a means for the actual normative content (e.g. a virtue is good because it brings about the best outcomes in utilitarianism), virtue ethics is referring to the normative theories that focus on character traits as the fundamental normative concept

Conditional vs Unconditional value

conditional is something's value is conditional on something else, instrumental value is a type of this, unconditional is

Argument that Theists should reject Divine Command Theory

connects with the euthyphro dilemma, divine command theory either puts an objective standard on god or makes god's commands arbitrary

The skeptical standard for knowledge

context of whether or not we can have knowledge of moral facts, you can always be wrong, you only really know something if it is not possible for you to be mistaken

Arguments against soft determinism

control principle &

Reasons to believe Baier's critique applies to particular theories

deontology's universalizability & rationality applies, utilitarianism's near & dear problem applies, etc.

Valuer-dependent vs valuer independent value

dependent is instrumental value & based on how someone values them (has value because we value it), independent is intrinsic & has value as an end itself

Methodological difficulties with Utilitarianism

determining which actions have the best outcomes results in a lot of issues including the unknown consequences problem, values assignment problem, tim crunch problem, these are all concerns with how to implement the view

Compatibilism

determinism is compatible with free will

Incompatibilism

determinism is incompatible with free will

Arguments against libertarianism

determinism is true, libertarianism is mysterious (if there is no causal explanation then there must only be a random explanation or no reason for what we do)

Texture of ethical experience

disagreement, improvement, etc. are all part of the way in which we talk about & use ethical language & we make judgements & reason about these things, not explained by much else other than this texture, must be made sense of in an ethical theory; includes the Prescriptive claim/normativity/generality, Its motivation nature (the way ethical language and beliefs/attitudes function lends itself to prescriptivity), Full intelligibility says that a moral theory has to be fully intelligible

Deontological ethics

do not look at the outcomes, rather the actions themselves, Actions must conform to appropriate rules & principles

Aristotle's formal account of virtue—his doctrine of the mean account of virtue

doctrine of the mean, virtue is the mean between the vices of excess & deficiency

Kant's argument that an action with moral worth is an action done from duty (i.e. respect for the moral law)

doing the right thing because you know it is right v. doing the right thing because of the consequences, Goodness isn't grounded in doing the right thing, but in doing the right thing for the right reasons, Action from duty has moral importance in the action itself rather than the outcome of performing the duty

Why Jonas thinks that modern technology challenges basic assumptions/orientations in ethics

domain of ethics concerns the immediate, local, & interpersonal (tend to focus on the people that we come into contact with & that is it), with technology you have obligations outside of this

Satisficing consequentialism

don't have to always maximize, but need to give enough good to others (not as demanding)

Euthyphro Dilemma

either of these options are problems for the theist, if the latter is right then that puts an objective standard of morality constraint on god, if the prior is right then that means that god's commands are not that great

The influential ideas in Kant's Moral Theory

end never merely as a means, human rights, rationality & universality requirements, categorical imperative

Cultural Relativism (including its answers to the three metaethical questions discussed)

ethical claims are true in virtue of cultural/societal consensus; "X is wrong" means that society believes that one should not do x; "X is wrong" because, iff, it is contrary to cultural norms; Learn that "x is wrong" by learning about the cultural context

Divine Command Theory (including its answers to the three metaethical questions we discussed)

ethical claims are true in virtue of divine command; "X is wrong" means that it is contrary to divine commands; "X is wrong" because, iff, it is contrary to divine commands; Learn that "x is wrong" by learning if there is a divine power & what its will is

Objectivism (including its answers to the three metaethical questions discussed)

ethical claims are true in virtue of non-subjective properties; "X is wrong" means that there are objective properties that justify refraining from doing x; "X is wrong" because, iff, there are non-subjective properties that justify refraining from doing x; Many ways to learn that "x is wrong"

Subjectivism (including its answers to the three metaethical questions discussed)

ethical claims are true in virtue of the individual making the claim; "X is wrong" means the person believes that one should not do x; "X is wrong" because, if & only if (iff), the person asserting it believes that one should not do x; Learn that "x is wrong" by learning about the individual's experiences/feelings/attitudes surrounding x

Non-cognitivism (including its answers to the three metaethical questions discussed)

ethical claims lack assertions/propositions about the world, there are no moral facts, ethical claims are neither true nor false; "X is wrong" lacks propositional content; These claims have no truth value & there are no moral facts to be known

Applied Ethics

ethics in certain cases

Mill's Argument for Hedonistic Utilitarianism

ethics is about ends, ends are about what we desire, what we desire is increasing pleasure & decreasing pain, ethics is about doing those things

Virtue consequentialism

evaluate character traits (virtues v. vices where virtues are the character traits that bring about the best outcomes), then evaluate the actions based on whether or not they express the virtuous traits

Ethics

evaluating a range of possibilities to come to a conclusion on what one should do

Philosophical Ethics

evaluating truth of predictive & evaluative claims by finding empirical justification

Hard Determinism

everything is causally determined, no free will

Why the Argument from 'Each Person Must Decide' fails

fallacious because each person has to decide if evolution is true, but that doesn't mean that it isn't objectively true that evolution is true, opinions don't mean discourse

What Jonas means that modern technology is 'relentless progressive' and why he thinks it is

feeds off of itself, Innovation fosters new possibilities & new advances (e.g. higher computing power leads to more possibilities, more possibilities leads to developing more computing power, etc.), Creates more problems that need to be solved, Competitiveness in technological development (leads to more rapid development), Provides ease & comfort

What Aristotle means by Eudaimonia

flourishing or living well as a human being, fully realized

Actual Consequence Utilitarianism/consequentialism

focuses on the actual consequence, whatever happened is the fault of the moral agent, blames them for mistakes

A substantive account of a virtue

fully explained & articulated, helps us to get what to do

Authentic/veridical Hedonism (and arguments/considerations that motivate it)

goes well to the extent that it contains authentic attitudinal pleasure, corrects attitudinal hedonism

Kant's argument that only a good will has unconditional worth

happiness is only good if it is attached to someone who has good will/is a good person, good will is respect for the moral law, Nothing can determine one's good will except objectively the law & subjectively one's respect for the law

Why Kant thinks a morality based on happiness is not possible

he thinks happiness is sufficiently indeterminate, you cannot generate law-like rules based on it, no imperatives of happiness bc it is subjective

objective list

hedonism is it is not whether you get what you want, but whether you enjoy what you get, desire satisfaction is how well one's life is going is determined by the extent to which their desires/preferences are satisfied rather than frustrated, subjective well being is ____, objective list is determined by both mentalistic & mind-independent considerations (perfectionism) & says you need both to have full welfare

Is/ought gap

how can we infer prescriptive properties from the descriptive properties?; Prescriptive determines what should be the case, sometimes contrary to what is the case

Fact/value distinction

how do the descriptive properties & evaluative properties relate?

Criticisms of the Ergon Argument

human beings don't really have a function in a Darwinian worldview, why does our excellence have to be tied to our distinctively unique feature, we are also bodily & have emotions so why wouldn't our excellence include that as well

Responses to those difficulties (generalization move and idealization move)

idealization move is what a person would ideally desire if thinking rationally, generalization move is that if you think something matters & there is no relevant difference between it & something else then that something else also matters the same (treat like cases alike), what makes your pleasure good & your pain bad is not that it's your pleasure/pain but the same for everyone else's

Overlapping cultures argument against Cultural Relativism

if cultures overlap so much, seems likely that there are objective facts that they converge on

Hume's Empiricist Argument for Subjectivism/non-cognitivism (is/ought and fact/value distinction arguments)

if you take any act that you think is vicious or right/wrong & explain it, you cannot find the rightness/wrongness in the description of the thing, if it's not there then it has to be supplied by the observer

No Moral Comparisons Argument

implausible argument against subjectivism,

No Moral Critique Argument

implausible argument against subjectivism,

No Moral Progress Argument

implausible argument against subjectivism,

No Genuine Disagreement Argument

implausible argument against subjectivism, if you believe that subjectivism is true, then you cannot have true disagreement because everyone would be entitled to their own opinion & all opinions would be true

Arguments from Cultural Divergence (2 versions)

in Shafer-Landau & Mackie, argument for cultural relativism, different cultures have different norms & values, if you claim that there is an objective morality, you have to figure out how to adjudicate which cultures' norms are correct, but this will always be from a subjective standpoint, there must not be any objective views; alternatively, 1. Different cultures have different ethical views. 2. If there were objective ethical facts, then different cultures' ethical views would converge on them. 3. When there is no cultural convergence, it is likely that there are no objective ethical facts. 4. There are no objective ethical facts.

What does Jonas mean that technology is power

increases the agency of people who have access to it, as it increases their capacity to modify/impact the world

Instrumental value vs final value

instrumental value has value as a means, final value has value as an end

What is appealing about Utilitarianism

intuitively plausible, general, inclusive & impartial, simple, & has straightforward application

Euthyphro Question

is it just because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is just, context of divine command theory, does the divine commandment make something right or does god command it because it is right, gives rise to the dilemma

Argument from 'Each Person Must Decide'

leveraged for subjectivism, subjectivism is true because each person much decide what is good

Maxims (subjective principle of volition) vs objective principles of action

maxims are what Kant says, on which the individuals are acting, universality test is determining if the maxims can be objective (when universalized they still work)

Different types of theories about welfare/well-being

mentalistic; mind-world; mind-

extent) different ethical theories can substantiate them

most of the theories do not give reason for addressing inconsequentialism, especially act utilitarianism where local utility has a stronger weight, Rule-utilitarianism can provide a slight solution since Certain actions will be off-limits, including some that contribute to these longitudinal collective action problems; Universalizability argument also helps create off-limit actions; Progressive consequentialism is about making things better, don't have to try to figure out which action will bring about the best outcome, just need to make a choice that will bring about a better outcome than the current world

The texture of ethical experience/implausible arguments against Nihilism/Error Theory

nihilism & error theory don't capture the full texture of the ethical experience, seems more likely that the other theories are true

Argument that Cultural Relativism collapses into Subjectivism

norm/group fixing, collapses into subjectivism when the group gets to be so small

Why Baier believes trust should be a central concept within ethical theory

not only should an ethical theory characterize relationships of mutual respect, but it should also explain relationships of shifting/unequal power, Solution: include more normative concepts, such as trust, Trust is very important, not only in unequal relationships, but also in cases of impartiality

Why Kant believes the supreme principle of morality cannot be derived from empirical considerations

not seeing what humans do, instead what they ought to do; also, not relating to any one person, instead must be universal

Role of virtue in utilitarian and Kantian ethical theories

not the main principle, in utilitarianism the virtues are the ones that bring about the best consequences, in kantian the virtues are the ones that follow the moral law, simply derivatives instead

The first formulation of the CI

objective conditions on the categorical imperative: that it be universal in form and thus capable of becoming a law of nature

Mackie's argument against supervenience

objectivists say that there are physical v. ethical properties & that ethical properties supervene in that you cannot change the ethical properties without changing the physical properties, Mackie says how does this work? There is no causal/logical relationship between physical & ethical properties

Aristotle's hierarchical conception of value

one good is higher than another if you do the smaller good to get to the better good, i.e. good A is better than good B if you do B to get A, e.g. studying is good because you use it to get knowledge so knowledge is better than studying, ultimately you get to the highest good which is something that you seek only for itself (happiness, eudaimonia)

Why the Stoics believe external goods are not part of eudaimonia

only internal flourishing is important

Soft Determinism

our actions are causally determined, but in the right ways so that you can still have free will, determinism is true, but we have enough freedom of choice to allow for moral responsibility, causality allows for freedom, but coercion does not

Difficulties with Mill's argument for hedonistic utilitarianism discussed in class

our desires are distorted & not what we actually desire, maybe we desire things for reasons other than increase of pleasure & absence of pain, the end of aggregate happiness is different from our desires for individual happiness

Why does he think that past norms are not reliable when it comes to these new areas of ethics?

past norms do not address the true power of technology & do not apply to several new contexts

What makes something a longitudinal collective action problem

people contributing over a long period of time to the issue, no one person is responsible, small actions

Why the Argument from Tolerance fails

people should be tolerant no matter what is an objective principle; also, if cultural relativism is true & your culture has a principle of being intolerant, this is contradictory

Nozick's argument (the experience machine) against hedonistic value axiology

people who would not step into the experience machine (where you would get a maximally happy life but it wouldn't be real) must value something greater than just pure happiness, otherwise they would step into the machine. Doesn't support hedonistic value axiology of happiness as the greatest value

Difference between a principle of right action and a method of decision-making

principle of right action is what makes an action right, method of decision making is how to determine if the action is right, principles are Consequentialist says right if it brings about the greatest balance of good over bad, Deontological says right if it conforms to the moral law, Virtue ethics says right if it expresses virtue

Distinguishing ethical properties, principles, and facts

properties/principles/facts (PPFs) vary, the property is more general, principles are specific to the property, & facts encompass the principles, e.g. Property is Badness, Principle is Unnecessary, undeserved suffering is bad, Fact is CAFOs are bad

Demarcation and Norm Fixing arguments against Cultural Relativism

related to collapse issue, have to come up with principled way on how broadly to fix the, norm fixing is problem of how to fix norm to the culture, do we do the practices, norms, what most people think, what is written on paper, etc.

Account of Right Action vs Method of Decision Making

right is the principle that it is right if it brings about the greatest balance of good over bad, the method is either by utilitarian calculus or through secondary principles that we've been taught & learned from human experience

Sanction vs proof

sanction motivates someone to behave properly (not steal bc could get punished), proof explains why it is morally correct/wrong

Kant's primary project in the Groundwork

searching for the fundamental principle of morality, Need to find something that is categorically imperative & holds with necessity (to make sense of prescriptivity), How is it possible to prescribe actions for all rational beings?

formulation

subjective conditions: that there be certain ends in themselves, namely rational beings as such

What it means that technology is a 'form of life'

technology shapes us & our perspectives & ways we interact with the world

Metaethics

tells us the truth of ethical claims/arguments

Value theory

tells us what is good/bad, what it means to be good/bad

Normative Ethics

tells us what rules we should follow, "should," "ought"

Limitations of the virtue ethics method of decision making

the limitation comes from the definition of the virtue, it is sometimes difficult to substantially define virtues, so there may be a struggle there

Supervenience

the moral properties of the world overlay on the nonmoral properties of the world

Consequentialism

the outcomes are the primary consideration to evaluating rightness, Varieties of consequentialism based on who is morally considerable, different standards of outcomes (actual v. expected, maximizing v. satisficing), what gets evaluated (act v. rule), value axiology (which things are good/bad) (hedonism v. objective list)

the moral life)

there is no tension, the tension is resolvable, parts of the good life & the moral life overlap

A nominal account of a virtue

thin account of a virtue, doesn't help to figure out what to do, e.g. generosity is the virtue associated with giving & receiving things

Possible responses to Baier's challenge

this means that the MMPs are not just inadequate but bad & we need to create a new framework, alternatively the MMPs are good enough that they can still give an account

Utilitarianism

type of consequentialism Distinguished by accepting the principle of utility that an action is right to the extent that it brings about the greatest balance of good over bad for everyone involved

Indirect consequentialism

type of consequentialism, e.g. rule utilitarianism or character trait consequentialism

Rule utilitarianism (or rule consequentialism)

type of indirect consequentialism, An action is right if it conforms to the rules, the general adoption of which maximizes utility; Actions are not evaluated directly in terms of their consequences, but the rules are evaluated by their overall consequences & our actions are evaluated by their compliance with the rules

decisions making

v-rules is used by Hursthouse to show taking a virtue & making it into a rule, responds to the argument that virtue ethics is not action-guiding, for the others we can use these as resources in determining the most moral actions, moral wisdom is sensitivity to the relevant considerations, gained through experience & education

What it means for a thing to be an end in itself

valuable simply through existence, have intrinsic & absolute value,

Mill's response to the methodological difficulties

value assignment problem (how good, what probability of it happening, etc.), unknown consequence problem, time-crunch problem; Mill doesn't agree with these concerns at all, says they are unimportant & we have been learning what actions bring the most utility that it is very easy to perform these actions, & when there is an exception we just evaluate based on the principle of utility

Logical Positivist Argument for Non-cognitivism and why it fails

verification principle, the only things that have meaning are those that are analytically true or can be empirically verified, thus, ethical claims are not analytically true or empirically verifiable, so they must not have propositional content

Psychological Hedonism

view about psychology, the only thing that motivates human beings is seeking pleasure & avoiding pain, descriptive view

Libertarianism

view about the relationship between causality & free will, the past + the causal laws does not determine all human actions, no determinism

How virtue ethics aims to provide action guidance in concrete situations

virtue ethics is only action-guiding if the virtues are extremely detailed, when detailed enough includes directly applicable principles

How virtue ethics (particularly Eudaimonistic virtue ethics) is a response to the concern

virtues are rich enough to avoid the problem of inadequately describing the world

Contemporary argument that virtue is a constituent of eudaimonia

virtues compose eudaimonia

What it means to say a virtue is 'a state that decides' regarding feelings and actions

virtues evaluate what the proper emotions & feelings are regarding a situation or context & tell you how to appropriately act given your feelings

Nonidentity problem

we do not know what future people will exist, existing is better than not existing, can't think about future generations in the standard harming/benefitting way

Argument from Tolerance

we should be subjectivists because we should be tolerant of other ideas & perspectives

Value Axiology

what sorts of things are good/bad, can vary between theories

Why technology is not just a means to ends

when you adopt a technology, it is doing much more than merely being used as a means/tool

Total Act Description

when you think about an action, you can't just think about the action itself, you have to look at the basis of the outcomes, the agent, the broader social context

How normative theory and accounts of moral status vary independently

which things matter & how they matter vary independently, you can create different normative theories based on how you differ on those two

Responses to Hume's Argument for Subjectivism

why do we conclude subjectivism from this? objectivism/some higher principle can also provide this answer

What is the problem of inconsequentialism (as a rational choice problem)

why should an individual take on the costs of addressing the problem (e.g. not flying, reducing meat consumption, etc.) if one person's doing so is inconsequential to whether the problem will be addressed (bc no one else is doing so)?

Aristotle's argument that external goods are necessary for eudaimonia

worthwhile and subjectively satisfying life includes such things as honor, wealth, friends, and political power

Arguments that the skeptical standard for knowledge ought to be rejected as the standard for ethical knowledge

you can't know anything that way, this standard is stronger than the standard we use in science, unreasonable

Kant's indirect duties view (e.g. regarding animals)

you have indirect duties to the things that humans care about (including animals), also you have certain duties to animals due to how it affects how you interact with humans (can't hurt animals bc it makes you more likely to hurt humans)

Why Mackie thinks that ethical claims aim at objectivity

you need objectivity to explain our beliefs & practices around ethics, dependent on texture of ethics & disagreement, improvement, ethics doesn't make sense without this claim