IntroToEthics
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- Hedonism
- Pleasure is the only Intrinsic good, pain is the only value. Something has intrinsic good only if it brings pleasure.
- Mill’s Quantity / Quality distinction
- Act to maximize not only quantity but quality⬦ some pleasure are higher quality
- a. The Experience Machine Objection
- a life plugged into TEM contains more net pleasure, however a life outside of it is better than one inside, therefore pleasure is not the only intrinsic value
- b. ‘Doctrine of the Swine’ Objection (to Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism)
- According to hedonistic act utilitarianism the only thing morally relevant is the pleasure produced making it a pigs doctrine
- Ethical Egoism
- ⬢ Act in self interest- right= most good for agent ⬢ Should seek to maximize self interest
- Psychological Egoism (know arguments for and against it)
- Whenever one acts, the ultimate motivation is self interest (descriptive)
- Argument from Psych Egoism
- We are morally obligated to adopt only ends if we can⬦ only end we CAN adopt is self interest, always right to do an act that is the most efficient means to an end were morally obligated to adopt
- Argument for Psych Egoism
- Any act can be interpreted as an act motivated by self interest
- Standard Objection to Psych Egoism
- Some acts just DO place others in front of ourselves
- Principle of Equitable Treatment
- People may be treated differently only if some relevant difference between them justifies treatment
- b. Argument from the Principle of Equitable Treatment
- EE says we should assign more importance to ourselves than others, no difference b/t ourselves and others justifies assigning more importance to our own interests than others’
- Entitlement Principle
- Our Property rights entitle us to determine how our property is used so long as its use doesn’t violate the rights of others- not obligated to provide a body part even without risk to ourselves. Supported by Body Part Case and Violinist
- Reply to the Famine Relief Argument
- Even if we prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something morally comparable, our right to property doesn’t make this morally obligatory
- Minimally Decent Samaritan Principle (from Thomson’s article on abortion)
- We’re morally obligated to aid others when doing so causes great good with minimal cost
- Act Utilitarianism
- *Rightness/wrongness judged by outcome only * morally right iff no other action could produce more net intrinsic good *create best possible world
- Consequentialism
- Rightness and wrongness decided by consequences of actions
- a. Mill’s Argument for Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism
- *Its human nature to only desire happiness for its own sake, everything else is a tool to happiness
- b. Promises, Rights, and Equality Objection
- *If a broken promise, violation of rights or lack of favoritism cause more intrinsic good they should be done
- The “Too Demanding†Objection
- *AU implies some superogatory acts and some trivial acts are obligatory, but no act is morally obligatory therefore AU is false
- Rule Utilitarianism
- Retain Utilitarianism view that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by net intrinsic good but also accounts for promises, and rights etc⬦ as morally important b/c honoring them maximizes a societies good
- Motivations for Rule Utilitarianism
- An act is right iff its permitted by a correct moral rule for society
- a. Failure to Maximize Happiness Objection
- According to Utilitarianism the end which we should strive to achieve is a world in which the overall intrinsic good in the world is maximized- in some cases this will only be achieved by violating a promise/right.
- Rights and Promises Objection
- We should keep rights and promises because people DESERVE to be treated well not because as a general rule these actions would produce great amounts of intrinsic good
- Principle of Equality (and its motivation)
- If a being can suffer then its welfare is valuable, but Principle of Equality explains why oppression of races or sexes are wrong because oppression cause suffering, so we should be concerned with the welfare of animals.
- a. Singer’s Utilitarian Argument for Animal Welfare
- a. Actions should take into consideration or all affected (all interests being equal) Interest=ability to suffer, animals have a capacity to suffer so they should be given equal consideration to humans.
- a. The Argument from Hierarchy in Nature
- Only humans are subject to moral evaluation since we are the only moral agents, and some moral tasks like success in life require the use of animals, so humans are more important and have tasks requiring animals, so we may use them
- b. Machan’s Argument Against Animal Rights
- Animals have no moral rights
- a. Utilitarian Argument for Active Euthanasia
- An action or policy of killing hopelessly ill patients who want death would decrease misery in the world.
- b. Rachels’ “Best Interests†Argument
- In at least some cases, AU is in best interest of all concerned and violates no one’s rights
- b. Argument from the Harm Principle
- Under some conditions, AE does not harm others without their consent, therefore E under some conditions should be legally permitted.
- a. Individual Liberty Objection
- The Harm principles rationale for allowing non-harmful activities is that doin so respects indiv liberty. Allowing active euthanasia even with the subjects consent, doesn’t respect indiv liberty, therefore active euth shouldn’t be allowed under Harm Principle.
- b. Negative Consequences Objection
- Contrary to Harm Principle, we shouldn’t permit non-harmful acts if doing so has negative consequences for the general welfare, permitting AE even when it serves all and doesn’t violate rights will have negative consequences for the general welfare, therefore we shouldn’t permit AE
- - what are some of the possible consequences Doerflinger focuses on?
- Some choices should be limited to protect one’s freedom.
- Argument from Common-Sense Morality
- Common sense that we shouldn’t break promises etc… and EE agrees so EE is right
- Unnamed Objection to Ethical Egoism (promises and rights)
- Violating promises/rights can cause intrinsic good so EE is wrong
- Argument from Psychological Egoism
- morally obligated to pursue the only end we can pursue which is self interest , therefore we should do whatever is the most efficient means to our self interest
- Impartiality Requirement
- Whenever we act we should take the interests of all who may be affected by our actions into consideration b/c all interests are equal