phil 3350: environmental ethics exam 2

who pioneered virtue ethics?

aristotle

virtue ethics provides a _____ _____ of the person

holistic evaluation

virtues are _____ _____ __ ________ that dispose one to act/feel in the right way in appropriate circumstances

abiding states of character

what kind of ethics focuses on what kind of people we are rather than moral rules?

virtue ethics

• stable character traits explain that behavior is central to virtue ethics

moral virtues

We are neither virtuous by default, nor prevented from cultivating a virtuous character

Rather, it is possible for humans to develop virtuous character traits from performing the correct actions over time.

We learn virtue by doing actions that a virtuous person would perform.

• However, actions that are consistent with virtue are not necessarily virtuous

intellectual virtues

Philosophy and higher education seek to instill intellectual virtue in students

• Common intellectual virtues include open-mindedness, thinking critically about one’s own beliefs, seeking evidence before deciding on an issue (including the arguments of one’s intellectual opponents)

3 criteria for a truly virtuous act:

We must have knowledge of what is virtuous.

We must choose virtuous acts for their sake.

We must act from a virtuous character in choosing the acts.

why is upbrining important for becoming virtuous?

Being brought up in the morally correct way gives us the proper starting point from which to engage in moral philosophy, because we will already have a handle on moral truths, etc.

• Otherwise, it seems that one will start off at a moral disadvantage as an adult

In the case of one’s moral starting point, being good is a matter of luck. One has to be born to the right family in the right society to start life well.

what is the Doctrine of the Mean?

says that virtue is a mean between two extremes

• two extremes are two vices: one falls short of the virtuous and the other goes beyond

  • cowardice → courage → rashness

  • stiginess → generosity → prodigality

  • apathetic → angry → irascible

why don’t all actions have a mean?

because some actions are bad themselves

• it is already a vice to commit adultery or injustice, so there is no appropriate way to do it

• there are some actions that must never be done because they are inconsistent with virtue

if we perform actions that are inconsistent with virtue…

they make it more likely that we will do these bad actions in the future

• those who consistently do bad actions would be bad people

what is the highest human good according to Aristotle?

happiness (eudaimonia)

happiness is the only end that is…

self-sufficient

• the only end that is chosen for its own sake

what does the state of happiness require?

the possession and activity of virtue

• must take place over the course of a lifetime

____ ____ by itself does not give clear guidance on actions whihc we are concerned with in life

virtue ethics

common objections to virtue ethics

it concentrates too much on pleasure and happiness of the individual moral agent

• morality is fundamentally about self-restraint

• Aristotle identifies self-restraint as a component of the flourishing life; flourishing is not fun

makes virtue too dependent on extrenal factors such as wealth

• the good life depends in the possession of wealth, family, and other external factors

• having bad luck doesn’t make you a bad person, it just makes it hard to live a virtuous life; hard to be good when you’re struggling

not action-guiding

• the right action is that which the virtuous person would do

• aristotle says we learn by doing and we must be habituated into virtuous action to know what to do in any situation

humans lack stable character traits

• virtuous people perfrom certain actions either just because or because it promotes flourishing

• the first option is bad, but second is empirically false or the wrong reason

Hill’s example of the wealthy eccentric

a wealthy eccentric bought a house surrounded by beautiful flowers, grass, and an old avocado tree. The eccentric didn’t want to care for the flowers or cut grass and wanted more shade so he cut it all down and paved the yard in asphalt. what sort of person would do this?

• there is a defect in the person; they lack humility, are ignorant, and have a negative perspective

  • stems from an inability to see oneself as a natural being

what does someone lack who won’t acknowledge themselves as apart of nature?

proper appreciation for one’s place in the natural order

• this makes people value nature in itself

• intellectual failure and the wrong attitude

• main obstacle in the way of humility is undue self-importance

aesthetic appreciation

• Hill says we should worry if someone doesn’t appreciate the beauty of nature

• lack of appreciation reflects a lack of openness

the ability to cherish nature for itself

• we must cherish the things that have enriched our lives

• lack of this tendency indicates a lack of gratitude to other people

kant argues that ___ ___ is the only thing that can be called good with qualification

good will

• good will has intrinsic value and is good in itself

• a good will does not aim to do bad things

• good will is good on the condition that the world cooperates

• the good will is motivatd by morality

all other qualities can be used for ___ _______

bad purposes

• ex: talent, intelligence, wealth

acting from duty

The good will does the right thing regardless of circumstance

• The person motivated by self-interest does the right thing only when it happens to be in their self-interest

• The person motivated by sympathy does the right thing only when it happens to make them feel good

• The person with a truly good will must do the right thing regardless of circumstance

A person motivated by duty will do the right thing regardless of circumstance

• The good will is motivated by duty

• It is only when we act for the sake of duty that our action has moral worth

acting in conformity with duty

Kant thinks our decisive, overarching motive must be the motive of duty if our action is to have moral worth

• We can also be sympathetic and feel good from doing the right thing; Kant thinks it is good to be sympathetic

  • As long as it is not the decisive reason motivating us to do the right thing

a hypothetical imperative tells us…

what we ought to do if we have the desire to attain a particular goal

• ex: you will study if you want a good grade

someone who does not have this desire will not need to follow the hypothetical imperative

it is a practical guide to achieving a goal that we may have or not have

a categorical imperative tells us…

a universal law that must be followed by all rational beings and does not depend on circumstances

• it does not give us an optional direction

• the universal law is an end rather than a goal to an end

  • imperative of morality rather than of achieving personal goals

first formulation of the categorical imperative

Formula of Universal Law: act as if the maxim of your action were to become a universal law of nature

• can you rationally will the result of everyone following this rule?

  • if yes, action is permitted. if not, it is forbidden and you have a duty to refrain from doing it

it is morally arbitrary to perform acts that we would not want other people to be allowed to perform

problems with the categorical imperative

identifying an action’s maxim is hard as Kant does not provide clear guidance

it is not always clear whether a maxim is universalizable

sometimes, problematic maxims can be universalized (false positives)

sometimes, non-problematic maxims can’t be universalized (false negatives)

what is the core difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives?

hypothetical are conditional, categorical are unconditional

Kant calls the moral law the…

categorical imperative

accoridng to Kant, humans are..

ends in themselves; they are the source of goals, not instruments for achieving goals

• persons are of absolute moral worth

  • grounds the Formula of Humanity

Formula of Humanity

the second formulation of the categorical imperative: use humanity as an end, never merely as a means

• principle governs our actions towards ourselves and others

• one can use a person as a means, but only if the person is rationally on board with this course of action

to truly value others, we must…

make their ends our own and help them with their ends

• all humans have a natrual end of achieving their own happiness. to fail to take the happiness of others into account is to fail to respect them as beings of worth

why does Kant think we should tell the truth to the murderer?

when we lie, we weaken the practice of truth-telling

we are bad at prediciting the consequences of our actions; if we tell the truth, we are not responsible for what comes next

absolute deontology

certain actions are strictly required, permitted, or forbidden regardless of their consequences or context

• murderer example

moderate deonolgy

at least some rules have a threshold

• if the consequences of following the rule are bad, the rule is not binding

according to Singer, has a consensus been reached on the equality of humans?

yes: all humans are taken to be equal by the prevailing orthodoxy and discrimination is rejected

what is equality based on?

equal consideration of interests, which is rooted in the capacity to suffer and experience enjoyment (sentience)

• ex: an identical amount and duration of pain is just as bad in one person as it is in another, so it deserves equal consideration

who takes moral personality to be a range property?

John Rawls

• such properties can vary, but as long as you’re within the limits of the range, you have the property equally

being an equal moral person is grounded in having…

a sense of justice

equal consideration ≠ equal treatment

morphine shot example:

• two people in pain, one in more pain and another in less pain

  • Equal Consideration justifies giving two morphine shots to the one in more pain and none to the other because it will be more significant for their welfare

objections to equality

Objection 1: Where is the Minimum?

• Singer points out that there is a great degree of variability in the human sense of justice. This raises the question: where should we set the minimum?

  • Placing the limit anywhere may seem arbitrary

Objection 2: Why not have grades of status?

• Instead of setting a minimum that makes possession of moral status all or nothing, why not have grades or degrees of status?

  • There doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to refuse to make this move

• It may be a more plausible way of construing moral status

Objection 3: Not all Humans are Moral Persons

• There is a consensus that all humans are equal, so any view that explains why they are equal needs to account for the equality of ALL humans

  • However, not all humans are moral persons in Rawls’s sense

    • Infants, young children, and the severely cognitively disabled are not moral persons, so Rawls’s account does not apply well to them

the prevailing attitude toward animals is…

to not take thier interests seriously, and not as equal to humans

speciesism

giving greater consideration to the interest of one’s own species

• violates the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests (non-arbitrary basis of equality)

major vs minor interests

The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests does not permit the sacrifice of major interests to satisfy relatively minor interests

• Singer argues that eating meat does just this, so it is not permitted as we produce meat in factory-farming

• We subject nonhuman animals to many harms and ultimately kill them for our minor interest in liking the taste of meat

the Ben Franklin argument

“Animals eat each other, so it’s okay for us humans to eat them too.”

Singer offers several objections:

• Many nonhuman need notanimals must eat meat to survive, but we don’t

• It is odd for the person who has a low view of animals to then look to them for moral guidance when it suits them

• Humans are moral agents: we can think about reasons for and against our behavior and change it, while animals cannot

• Just because something naturally occurs does not mean that it is morally right

  • ex: aggression in males may be natural, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing

the slippery slope argument

stresses the importance of having a sharp dividing line between those we may eat and experiment upon and those we must not, otherwise we can slide into a moral abyss

• Singer has two main objections:

  • In elevating the status of animals, he is not lowering the status of humans

  • Why not think that treating animals poorly itself leads us into a moral abyss?

  • Ex: children who are cruel to animals will grow up to be more likely to be cruel to humans