philo final joe notes

Normative theory

A theory that proposes what people ought to do; it’s prescriptive, not descriptive.

Relativism

The view that moral truths are not universal, but depend on individuals or cultures.

Individual Relativism

Morality is based on personal beliefs/opinions.

Cultural Relativism

Morality is based on societal or cultural norms.

Arguments for relativism

Moral disagreements exist across cultures. No absolute method for resolving moral disputes. Promotes tolerance of different practices.

Problems with relativism

Can’t criticize other cultures. No moral progress possible.
Contradictory beliefs all become "true".

Cross-cultural/temporal moral judgments

Judging actions of other cultures/times. Relativists say these are meaningless due to differing moral frameworks.

Divine Command Theory

Morality is determined by God's commands—what God says is good is good.

DCT as a form of relativism

Morality depends on God's will, which can vary (e.g. Abraham and Isaac).

DCT's Problem

What if God commands something cruel? Are actions good just because God commands them?

Euthyphro dilemma:

Option 1 - Things are good because God commands them → morality is arbitrary.
Option 2 - God commands them because they are good → morality is independent of God.

DCT vs. Relativism

DCT is more objective within a theistic system; God's will is the standard.

Common problems with DCT:

Ambiguity in interpreting God's will.
Moral disagreements among religions.

One goal desired for its own sake

Eudaimonia (flourishing/happiness).
Human function

Eudaimonia

A life of virtuous activity, not just pleasure. More than subjective happiness.

Virtue

An excellence of character

two types of virtue

Moral virtues (e.g. courage, generosity)
Intellectual virtues (e.g. wisdom)

Virtue as a mean

The balance between extremes (e.g. courage = mean between rashness and cowardice).

Becoming virtuous

Through habituation—practice leads to a stable character.

Virtuous action vs. same result

Intention and character matter, not just outcome.

Problems with virtue ethics:

Vague guidance.
Disagreement over what counts as a virtue.
Cultural bias.

Contrast with deontology:

Consequentialism judges actions by outcomes.
Deontology judges actions by principles/duties.

Principle of Utility

The right action maximizes happiness for the greatest number.

Principle of Equality

Everyone’s happiness counts equally.
Example - Saving five people over one is moral if happiness is maximized.

Not relativism

Based on an objective standard (overall well-being), not individual/cultural belief.

Problems:

Justifies harmful actions if they benefit more people.
Hard to measure happiness.

Ross’s critique

Overly demanding and ignores personal obligations.

Only thing good in itself

Good will—acting from duty, not inclination or consequence.

Categorical imperative

Universal moral law (applies to all rational beings).

Hypothetical imperative

Conditional, based on desires.

Maxim

The principle behind your action.

Formula of the End in Itself:

"Act so as to treat humanity… always as an end, never merely as a means."
Don’t use people only for your own gain.

Problems with the end in itself formula

Too rigid.
Conflicting duties (e.g. telling the truth vs. saving a life).

O’Neill’s support:

Emphasizes respect and autonomy
Provides clear rules and dignity for all

Prima Facie Duty

A duty that is binding unless overridden by a more important duty.

Actual Duty

The duty you ought to perform after considering all duties.

Conflicting duties

Ross allows for moral conflict and weighs duties based on intuition.

Key difference from Kant:

Kant - one supreme moral rule.
Ross - multiple moral principles (no single formula).

Examples of Prima Facie Duties:

Fidelity (keeping promises)
Reparation (making up for wrongs)
Gratitude
Justice
Beneficence
Self-improvement
Non-maleficence

Intuitionism

Mature moral agents can intuitively judge the most important duty in a situation.

Determinism

Every event (including human actions) is determined by prior causes/laws of nature.

Theistic Determinism

God determines everything, including human actions.

Naturalistic Determinism

The physical laws and initial conditions of the universe determine all events.

Quantum/Microphysical Indeterminism

Events at the quantum level are not determined.

Agent-based Indeterminism

Human agents can initiate actions independently of prior causes.

Compatibilism

Free will is compatible with determinism.

Incompatibilism

Free will and determinism cannot both be true.

Hard Determinism

Determinism is true, so free will doesn't exist.

Soft Determinism (Compatibilism)

Determinism is true, but we can still be free in a meaningful way.

Libertarianism

We have free will, and thus determinism is false.

Conditional Analysis of Free Will

An action is free if the person would have done otherwise if they had wanted to.

Libertarian Analysis of Free Will

A free act must originate in the agent, requires alternative possibilities and agent causation.

Fate

Events are destined and unavoidable, regardless of human action.

Dilemma of Free Will:

If determinism is true → no free will.
If indeterminism is true → actions are random, not free.
Therefore, either way, no free will.

Consequence Argument:

If determinism is true, then our actions are the consequence of laws of nature and past events → not up to us → no moral responsibility.

Hard Incompatibilism

Free will is not compatible with either determinism or indeterminism.

Compatibilism

Still attractive because it preserves moral responsibility.

Libertarianism

Struggles with the luck objection—if actions aren’t determined, they seem random.

Agent Causation

Agents can initiate causal chains themselves (non-event causation).

What we give up with hard incompatibilism

Moral responsibility (in the traditional sense), praise/blame.

What we keep with hard incompatibilism

Rational agency, love, relationships, forward-looking social practices (like rehabilitation).

Why compatibilism is appealing:

Respects our intuitions of responsibility.
Works with science (natural laws).

Conditional analysis

An action is free if the agent could have done otherwise if they had wanted to.
Example

Consequence Argument's problem

Challenges the idea that we could’ve done otherwise under determinism.

Frankfurt Examples:

Show that someone can be morally responsible even if they couldn't do otherwise (e.g. manipulated but still acting from own reasons).

Semi-Compatibilism

Even if freedom to do otherwise is false, moral responsibility can still exist.

Fischer’s Point

There's a "robust alternative" in how we begin to choose otherwise.

Microphysical Indeterminism

Quantum randomness might undercut strict determinism.

Implications for Free Will

Randomness alone doesn’t secure freedom it needs to be controlled by randomness.

Libertarian Analysis

Free will requires real choice (alternative possibilities) and actions that originate from the agent.

Agent Causation

Agents, not just events, can start new causal chains.

Event Causation

One physical event causes another.

Agent Causation

A person initiates an action.

Chisholm

Agent causation is like a god-like power—initiating action without prior causal determination.

Problem

Can we give a precise account of agency? Still unclear.

Surface Freedom

Freedom to do what you want.

Deep Freedom

Freedom to form your will/character.

Indeterminism isn’t enough

Randomness doesn’t equal control or responsibility.

Self-Forming Actions (SFA)

Key moral decisions where you're torn—your effort tips the scale.

Micro-indeterminism (neurons)

Can play a role without undermining control.

Key idea

The indeterminism creates possibilities, your effort makes the decision.

Mystery of agency

Even with this, actions still seem mysterious. Are they brute facts?