PHIL 213 Exam 1 TA Review

BYU; Professor Gates

FUL (verbatim)

“Formula of Universal Law”
AKA: the Categorical Imperative
Act only on those maxims that one can will to become universal laws.

FHE (verbatim)

“Formula of Humanity as an End”

Treat humanity, in oneself and others, always as an end and never merely as a means.

The Revised Golden Rule (verbatim)

Treat others only how you would consent to be treated in the same situation.

ethical relativism

there are no universally valid moral principles; all moral principles are valid relative to culture or individual

the problem of tolerance

ethical relativism claims that all must be tolerant of other cultures… which in itself is a universal principle

other problems: no basis to criticize anyone (Hitler vs Gandhi); devolves into subjectivism — what is a culture?

psychological egoism

NOT A MORAL THEORY!!
the belief that all actions stem from self-interest; nothing is truly altruistic (selfless)

main points from “argument from Strongest Desires”

we always act according to our strongest desires; acting from your strongest desire is self-interested; thus, we always act from self-interest

Shafer-Landau’s response

the second premise “begs the question” (assuming our strongest desire can’t be altruistic (selfless)

Abraham Lincoln example and guilt

Lincoln left the carriage and helped the pigs “because it would’ve bothered me all day;” shows that guilt stems from altruistic (selfless) desires or personality

What does ethical egoism claim?

We ought to act only according to our self-interest.

What does ethical egoism not claim?

does not advocate selfishness

main argument against ethical egoism

The interests of others, considered in themselves, count for nothing.

the argument for ethical egoism and the gospel

1) according to ethical egoism, we ought only to act in our self-interest

2) according to the gospel, only righteousness is in our self-interest

3) according to the gospel, we ought only to act in harmony with righteousness

3) therefore, the gospel advocates ethical egoism

the rebuttal for ethical egoism and the gospel

1) The normative objection: “righteousness” in the gospel is not based on self-interest

2) the motivational objection: self-interest can’t give you pure charity

Aristotle Virtue Ethics

“The Goldilocks Zone”

ex: deprivation ← self control → indulgence

The Literal Golden Rule

Treat others the way you want to be treated.

Problems with the Literal Golden Rule

people in different situations must treat each other differently

ex: appendix; parent/child; teacher/student; cultural differences

The Golden Rule and Competition

We can consent to fair referees, judges, competition, the games’ rules, even if we don’t like the call

How Kant’s notion of treating other as an “end” helps interpret the revised version of the Golden Rule

following the golden rule treats someone as a rational agent, because it follows standards they could accept as rational beings

Kant’s ethics formula

1) formulate your maxim

2) universalize it

3) look for contradictions (not consequences)

contradictions in conception (Kant’s ethics)

In my universalized world, I can no longer act on my maxim.

ex: false promises; robbing banks; cheating
(if everyone is acting on that maxim, the maxim can no longer exist)

(can’t even conceive/imagine that world existing)

contradictions in will (Kant’s ethics)

My universal world exists, but contradicts the will of any rational being.

ex: neglecting one’s talent; never helping anyone

(not willing to live in that world)

acting according to duty (Kant)

doing the right thing

acting from duty (Kant)

doing the right thing because it’s the right thing

according to duty from indirect inclination (Kant)

doing the right thing for punishment/reward

according to duty from direct inclination (Kant)

doing the right thing because you want to/love the person

according to duty against inclination (Kant)

doing the right thing when you don’t want to
**Kant likes this one best

obligatory ends (Kant)

1) self-perfection

2) happiness of others

perfect duties

exceptionless, specific obligations

ex: do not kill; do not lie

imperfect duties

flexible, general obligations

ex: love; service; charity

acting from duty adds:

1) a sense of obligation and restraint

2) commitment (we have to put it as a priority)

(right sentiment is not a sufficient condition for right action)

utilitarianism

AKA: consequentialism

• an action is good/bad because of its consequences

• no do/allow distinction; they have the same consequences

• no intend/forsee distinction; they have the same consequences

ex: trolley problem

morality is based on the consequences of the action (bigger umbrella)

deontology

AKA: non-consequentialism

• an action is good/bad because of literally any other reason

• doing harm is way worse than allowing harm

• constraint against intending harm; no constrainst against forseeing harm

• it is worse to harm than not to help

• doing harm is worse than allowing harm

ex: organ transplant

morality is defined as what does the most good for the most amount of people (smaller umbrella)

utilitarianism goal

maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the maximum number of people

utilitarianism DIPS

Duration

Intensity

Probability

Scope

the problems with utilitarianism

1) personal rights objection (nobody has rights; literally any right could be violated for the greater good)

2) over-demanding objection (makes literally every decision into a moral conflict)

prima facie duties

principles we generally have a duty to follow unless overridden

actual duty

what you should do in a certain circumstance after weighing the prima facie duties

8 prima facie duties

1. beneficience

2. self-improvement

3. gratitude

4. reparation

5. justice

6. fidelity

7. non-harm

8. veracity

Boys Should Grow Radishes Just For Nutritional Value

3 characteristics of prima facie duties

1. self-evident

2. non-absolute

3. always morally relevant

Gert’s 10 Moral Rules

Moral Rules

1. do not kill

2. do not cause harm

3. do not disable

4. do not deprive of freedom

5. do not deprive of pleasure

6. do not deceive

7. keep your promises

8. do not cheat

9. obey the law

10. do your duty

moral rules

prohibits actions that cause harm; necessary for a functioning society; requires impartiality

moral ideals

encourages actions that prevent or relieve harm; necessary for a flourishing society; impartiality is neither required nor possible

ex: kindness; service; gratitude

2nd step in breaking the moral rules

estimating the consequences of everyone knowing that this kind of violation is allowed or not allowed

3 ways to determine what counts as a violation of the moral rules

1. Which rule is being violated?

2. Are there any alternatives to the action?

3. Is the violation being done intentionally or only knowingly?

why people don’t agree on morality (unresolvable differences)

1. differences in ranking harms and benefits

2. differences in estimating the harmful and beneficial consequences of everyone knowing a certain violation is allowed

common morality

if we can explain how rational people view morality, that is sufficient to justify it

Rationally Required Beliefs

1. all people want to avoid death, pain, disability, etc.

2. all people know they are fallible and vulnerable

self-betrayal

going against what we ourselves feel is right

results of self-betrayal

self-deception (excusing and accusing)

3 Beliefs that Make Up Self-Deception

1. we are being morally conscientious

2. others are the problem

3. we are passive victims

true emotion

experiencing an emotion and the claim is true; underlying micro-judgement is true

false emotion

experiencing an emotion, but the claim it makes is untrue; underlying micro-judgement is distorted