philosophy exam 4
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- Metaethics
-
concerning whether or not we can know which normative ethical judgments are true / & how can we know
{the nature of ethical properties, attitudes, & judgments...'what is goodness?')
*what kinds of statements are moral claims*
1)moral objectivism
----(one theory must be true and the rest false)
2)moral subjectivism
----(true for some but not for all) - Normative Ethics
-
*concerned w/classifying things as right or wrong*
what things are good/bad,
right/wrong,
what things should/shouldn't be done
*how can we tell which actions are right / wrong*
1)Deontological Ethics
----[KANT]
2)Consequentionalism
----I}Utilitarianism [Mill]
3)Just Care
-----[Manning]
-----I}Ethical Egoism [Hobbes] -
MORAL OBJECTIVISM
[part of Metaethics] -
one judgment must be true and the rest false
(like judgments in science)
-such thing as "moral truth"
(it took a long time to recognize that slavery was wrong but we discovered it finally)
1)DIVINE COMMAND THEORY -
MORAL SUBJECTIVISM
[part of Metaethics] -
where we have one moral judgment v another neither has to be false
(like questions in taste)
-NO such thing as "moral truth"
-express attitudes rather than descriptions
-we create moral truths (according to personal perspectives)
-live & let live
1)EMOTIVISM
2)PRESCRIPTIVISM -
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
(part of Normative Ethics) -
*KANT*
-duty based
-emphasis on motives
-would say Elma's moral duty is just to Tell the Truth!
*NOT concerned with consequences*
-the only thing unconditionally good by itself is GOOD WILL (which is properly alligned w/moral duty) -
CONSEQUENTIONALISM
(part of Normative Ethics) -
-BASED on CONSEQUENCES
(say you like food so don't hurt feelings)
--I--) UTILITARIANISM
*MILL*
-based on happiness
-the more happy people the better it is = right
-more unhappy = wrong
-save scientist w/ cancer cure over a loved one -
JUST CARE
(part of Normative Ethics) -
*MANNING*
-takes into consideration relationships that exist
(more obligation to loved ones than strangers)
--I--)ETHICAL EGOISM
*HOBBES*
-should always act out of self interest
--self interest leads to moral rules -
EMOTIVISM
(type of Moral Subjectivism)
1/2 -
-moral claims similar to statements of TASTE
(no more meaning than "my fave color is blue")
-NO EVIDENCE available to settle the matter
-all about personal preference -
PRESCRIPTIVISM
(type of Moral Subjectivism)
2/2 -
-beleiving a moral claim is true and trying to prescribe it to others
-distinguishes between:
----1)personal preference
----2)moral preference
-if you don't have a moral preference yet then adopt a moral pt of view (how would we affect others) THEN adopt moral preference -
Subjectivism CRITICISM
***BY DAVIS*** -
"if you don't beleive in slavery don't have one"
Davis' argument sucks:
-we don't have evidence to settle moral issue
-life on mars we KNOW what KIND of evidence would settle debate
--science = objective, morals = subjective
ARGUMENT DOESN'T WORK BC:
-can't say what evidence would prove a difficult scientific question (diff ? makes science subjective)
-if we pick a difficult science ? and simple moral ? we can prove the opposite
(that science is subjective and morals are objective)
*criticizes subjectivism arguments, not subjectivism itself* -
Subjectivism CRITICISM
(cont) -
2) "the cultural difference argument"
-FAILS: beleifs don't make facts
3)"no evidence"
FAILS: claim goes too far
4)"Self Referentially Inconsistent"
[self contradictory]
FAILS: say no moral truth exists - must be tolerant
--->BUT that in itself is a moral objective truth -
Assisted Suicide
by Davis -
(active = killing)
(passive = letting die)
VOLUNTARY ACTIVE:
-Dr. Kavorkian
VOLUNTARY PASSIVE:
-"living wills"
-would rather be allowed to die
INVOLUNTARY ACTIVE:
-injecting poison into malformed infant
INVOLUNTARY PASSIVE:
-disconnecting life support from comotose patient w/living will -
3 propositions in popular morals
[determining right/wrong]
deontological ethics BY KANT -
1)for action to have moral worth must be done from duty not just inclination
-person inclined to do good & person inclined to do bad have no moral difference
--you must do good bc its your DUTY
2)the consequences do NOT matter
-they're often outside your control
3)for action to have moral worth it must be done out of respect for moral law
-*we can't have respect for a law we helped create*
-we can only have respect for laws that we DISCOVER
-the law we must respect we must act on the principle that you would want it to become a universal law
(davis calls "universibility maxim) -
"universability maxim"
by davis -
(maxim = principle / general rule)
personal motive of action
*if you can imagine everyone acting the same way and its the right thnig to do then its universal and morally acceptable* - Contrary to Kant?
-
Consequentialism
(right/wrong determined by consequences)
[MILL] -
UTILITARIANISM
-MILL-
(type of Consequentialism) -
*MILL*
-utility principle:
(we should act so as to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest #
{includes all sentient (conscious) beings}
-happiness NOT pleasure
--distinguish high qual pleasures from low qual pleasures [ask someone who's experienced both pleasures]
-mill doesn't talk about act v rule utilitarianism
-individual's happiness COULD be sacrificed for the majority good -
ACT UTILITARIANISM
from lecture (not mill) -
-can tell a lie (situational)
-apply utility calculus to every act we perform
(then we're assured in promoting the greatest happiness) -
RULE UTILITARIANISM
from lecture (not mill) -
-apply utility calculus to general types of actions
(most of the time the greater happiness is if you never tell a lie)
-criticizes act utilitarianism bc if we all do calculus individually it could lead to too much variance --> Unreliable
--tries to build exceptions into rules (do not tell a lie unless it will save someone's life) - UTILITY CALCULUS
-
when you apply it differs between act utilitarianism & rule utilitariansim
-what will promote greatest happiness for greatest # - slippery - slope fallacy
- assuming (w/o specific evidence) that any move in a certain direction will lead to a terrible extreme
- Kant?
-
Deontological Ethics
[part of normative ethics] - Mill?
-
Utilitarianism
(sector of consequentialism)
[part of normative ethics] - Manning?
-
Just Care
[part of normative ethics] - Hobbes?
-
Ethical Egoism
[part of...?] -
"moral worth is determined by MOTIVES, not consequences"
WHO? -
KANT
(deontological ethics) -
"the proper motive is to do one's duty"
WHO? -
KANT
(deontological ethics) - what is one's duty according to kant?
-
act out of respect of the law,
follow the "categorical imperative" - what is kant's "categorical imperitive"
-
our action should be universifiable
-we must act in which it would be acceptable for everyone to act
-if action isn't universifiable its immoral -
what ultimately determines the morality of an action
ACCORDING TO KANT - the "categorical imperative"
-
"utility"
definition - the greatest good for the greatest number
-
"good"
according to MILL -
means happiness
Happiness means Pleasure with the absence of pain -
the greatest number
according to MILL -
all sentient beings
(all beings capable of feeling pleasure and pain) -
"the moral thing to do is the action that causes the greatest sum of total pleasure for all sentient beings involved"
Who? -
MILL
(utilitarianism)
---[part of consequentialism] -
Manning's two components of
"ETHIC OF CARING" -
1)disposition to care
(willingless to care)
2)obligation to care for
(put caring into ACTION)
**1, a caring disposition, arises when
-some have needs they can't meet themselves
-relationships & applying relationships to strangers - who should you care for according to manning
-
all entities that can't meet a need w/o help
(humans, animals, values, institutions) - what is "just caring" according to manning?
- since range of caring is limited we must expand our caring by considering justice, rules, & rights
-
"caring burnout"
according to manning -
decreases ability to care in the future
prevented by limitations on the obligation to care -
WHEN to care
according to manning -
-calculus is unreasonable
-natural caring (caring one's inclined to do--tied to affection for others)
-ethical caring (absence of natural caring
-apply experiences with intimate others for general rules (only way to guide actions toward strangers) -
Obligatinos to respond as a "carer"
according to manning -
1)THE NEED
(we have power to prevent bad from happening might as well do it)
2)RECOGNIZE RELATIONSHIPS REQUIRE CARING
(unless we want to do away w/relationships we must care)
3)WE CAN'T DEVELOPE & SUSTAIN ABILITY TO CARE W/O ACTIVE CARING
which we should strive for bc lives devoid of caring would be terrible -
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
(part of moral objectivism
which is sub of metaethics) -
we can know which actions are right/wrong because GOD has told us
[ten commandments & such]
-challenged by Euthyphra's Dillemma - "Euthyphra's Dillemma"
-
-challenges Divine Command Theory
-Euthyphro= priest talking to Socrates
-Euthyphro--bringing murder charges against father
1)is something good because god commands it?
2)OR does god command something because it is good?
FAILS FOR DIVINE COMMAND THEORY:
1)FAILS: then morality is subjective
2)FAILS: allows for goodness to exist independently of god
(most theists wouldn't accept bc good things should flow directly from god) -
"WILL IS SUSPENDED"
by KANT -
our will is suspended between our inclinations & our moral duties
-we must place a command upon our will to follow our inclination or our moral duty
2 commands:
1)CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
[moral weight]
2)HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE
[no moral consequences] -
Categorical Imperative
(according to Kant) -
the command placed upon will to follow MORAL DUTY
************************
-A PRIORI-
-BASED ON REASON-
-OBJECTIVE-
-MORAL DUTIES- - Hypothetical Imperative
-
command that occurs in
1) non-moral situations or
2) in situations in which we're trying to bring about a consequence
*lucky charms or fruit loops?*
***************************
-A POSTERIORI-
-BASED ON EXPERIENCE
-SUBJECTIVE-
-INCLINATIONS- -
Categorical Imperative
2 VERSIONS -
1) universability principle
2)Practical Imperative
(ends/means principle)
-ends held valuable in themselves
-means = steps to promote that end -
"Practical Imperative"
(2nd Version of Categorical Imperative) -
all moral reasoning is practical reasoning
-we should view everyone always as an END, not as a means
-->Everyone is valuable in themselves
--->not dependent on usefullness of someone else
(end: goal/purpose/thing held VALUABLE
means: steps taken/ tools used to acheive or promote the END goal.) - Manning's 3 limits on caring
-
1)need may only be helped by certain individual (eg baby & mother)
2)need professional help
3)we are also legitimate objects of care... can't only care about others -
"no evidence to settle moral disagreements"
"slavery is wrong for our culture but was morally correct prior to civil war"
WHAT? - moral subjectivism
-
"live and let live"
WHAT? - moral subjectivism
- Omegans are?
-
PRESCRIPTIVISTS
moral subjectivists
[form moral pt of view but only include other omegans] -
"many actions are morally neutral"
WHO? - KANT
-
"through reason alone we can come to understand what our moral duties are"
WHO? - KANT
-
"moral obligations can't depend on our environment"
WHO? - KANT
-
when applying the categorical imperative...
(according to KANT) - GOOD WILL --leads to--> MORALS
-
"the only thing valuable in and of itself is pleasure and no pain"
WHO? - MILL
-
the only thing measurable in and of it self is ____
KANT v MILL -
MILL:
pleasure & no pain is the only thing valuable in itself
KANT:
good will is the only thing valuable in itself -
assisted suicide is
____ issue - a NORMATIVE issue
- Prescriptivism
-
adopt a moral point of view when downplay personal interests
-when it affects others positively then its morally permissable
2nd Subjectivist View
[we might adopt moral points of view differently]
*OMEGANS* -
challenging divine command theorists
IS SOMETHING GOOD BECAUSE GOD COMMANDS IT
in euthyphro's dilemma - then morals are subjective of god
-
challenging divine command theorists
DOES GOD COMMAND SOMETHING BECAUSE ITS GOOD
in euthyphro's dilemma -
allows for goodness itself to be objective
fails because standards of goodness are independent of god -
"we create morality for ourselves... its situational"
WHAT? - moral subjectivism
- HOBBES compared to MANNING
-
respective / mutual of eachother (reciprocal)
HOBBES:
pursuit of self interest
MANNING:
concern for others
(essentially comes down to self interest) - Criticisms of Rule Utilitarianism?
- when you build in too many exceptions to the rule you might as well be an act utilitarian in the first place
- ETHICAL EGOISM
-
*HOBBES*
what is in one's self interest is incidentally beneficial to others (or sometimes neutral)
-humans don't do anything thats not out of self interest
-state of nature (war): humans have right and privilage to do anything in their self interest
-SOCIAL CONTRACTS- "i wont steal from you if you don't steal from me"
----still out of self interest -
"happiness is the desirable end"
WHO? -
MILL
UTILITARIANISM
(and thus happiness is a criteria of morality) -
"The greatest happiness is existence exempt as far as possible from pain and as rich as possible in pleasure"
WHO? - MILL
-
Typically says
"utility is determined wholly on basis of the individual action"
WHO? -
MILL
and thus is an ACT utilitarian... individual- not general rule