Phil 230

Exam #1

Types of Moral Relativism

Subjectivism and Cultural relativism

Subjectivism

holds that what is right or wrong is determined by what an individual person thinks is right or wrong

Problem 1 with subjectivism

Confuses the distinction between thinking something is right or wrong and something actually being right or wrong.

Problem 2 with subjectivism

implies there is no point in debating ethics

Cultural relativism

holds that what is right or wrong is determined by the moral code of a persons culture

Cultural relativism is more plausible than subjectivism because

we find great diversity of societies in the world and morality varies from culture to culture.

What type of theory is cultural relativism?

Normative theory

Descriptive theory

Tells us what is the case

Normative theory

tells us what ought to be the case

Common argument 1 for moral relativism

different societies have different moral codes

Common argument 2 for moral relativism

there is no non-ethnocentric standard by which to judge actions; the only ethical standards that exists are those of particular societies

Problem 1 with moral relativism

cultural relativism is not required to explain why moral obligations may differ from society to society

Problem 2 with moral relativism

We give reasons to justify our moral judgements

Problem 3 with moral relativism

Implies we cannot engage in moral criticism

Problem 4 with moral relativism

It’s not clear what counts as the “morality” or “moral code” of a society

Problem 5 with moral relativism

It’s not clear what counts as a “society”

Problem 6 with moral relativism

Implies that we cannot have a concept of moral “progress”

Teleological theory of ethics

ethics is explained or determined by the purpose or goal at which it aims

Aim or goal of Aristotle’s teleological theory of ethics

Supreme good - happiness or “eudaimonia”

Function argument

the best way to determine what constitutes happiness/flourishing, is to figure out what is the function of a human being

How to perform the human function with excellence

activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. acting virtuously

Two qualifications that need to be added to human function

1. some external goods will be necessary

2. we must add “in a complete life”

Types of virtue

Intellectual virtue and moral virtue

Intellectual virtue

Ways of thinking that must be taught, and require time & experience to learn

Moral virtue

Character traits produced through habituation, which involve forming habits of emotion & action

Relation between nature and virtue

Nature is a habit that allows us to actually possess and perfect a virtue

Vice

bad character traits

Duties we have regarding vice

we have a duty to maintain a certain character in our actions

Golden Mean

In order to physically develop properly, we must avoid both deficiency and excess

What is involved in acting according to virtue

the reason it’s hard to be good, is because it is difficult to find the mean (middle)

Basis utilitarianism

the only thing that has intrinsic value if pleasure and freedom from pain

Principle 1 of Utilitarianism

actions are to be judged right or wrong only by their consequences

Principle 2 of Utilitarianism

the only consequences of an action that matter are the happiness and unhappiness it provides for individuals

Principle 3 of Utilitarianism

each individuals happiness must be given equal consideration

Utilitarian ethic

the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness, with each person’s happiness counted as equally important

Utilitarianism Criticism 1

“The swine objective": since utilitarianism treats pleasure as the highest end (or goal) of life, it is a moral theory “worthy only of swine”

Mill’s response to Utilitarianism Criticism 1

This criticism fails to recognize that it is not only quantity of pleasure that matters, but also the quality of pleasure

Utilitarianism Criticism 2

“The Selfishness Objection”: Utilitarianism promotes the selfish pursuit of personal pleasure

Mill’s response to Utilitarianism Criticism 2

Sometimes the best way to bring about the greatest overall happiness is to sacrifice your own happiness

Utilitarianism Criticism 3

“The Godless Objection”: Utilitarianism is an irreligious or godless moral theory, because it offers no place for, or mention of, god

Mill’s response to Utilitarianism Criticism 3

Religious believers claim that God desires the happiness of people above all else, and that this was God’s purpose in creating us

Utilitarianism Criticism 4

“The Not Enough Time Objection”: There is not enough time before an action to calculate the happiness/unhappiness that will result from it, so Utilitarianism is an impractical or unrealistic moral theory

Mill’s response to Utilitarianism Criticism 4

We have the collective experiences of the entire human race, through which we have learned the likely results of most actions

Basis of Kant’s ethical theory

Rationality has ultimate value and provides the basis for morality. Rationality allows a being to have autonomy

How principles determine the morality of an action

a morally right action is one that’s based upon the right type of principle and moral wrong action is one that’s based on the wrong type of principle

Hypothetical Imperatives

the non-moral us of “ought”

Categorical Imperatives

moral use of “ought”

Two formulas of categorical imperative

Formula of Universal Law and Formula of Humanity

Formula of Universal Law

Act only on that principle which you can will to be universal law

Formula of Universal Law step one of process for determining whether an action is moral

identify the moral upon which your action is based

Formula of Universal Law step two of process for determining whether an action is moral

determine whether or not you could will that principle to be a universal law that everyone follows at all times

Formula of Humanity

act in such a way that you always treat humanity never simply as a means, but always act at the same time as an end

To treat someone as a means

use the person as an instrument to achieve your goals

To treat someone only as a means

involve the person in a scheme of action to which he/she could not in principle consent

Two standard ways of treating someone only as a means

Deceit and coercion

Deceit

misleading, lying, tricking, or dealing fraudulently with another person, so that he/she is unable to consent to the true course of action

Coercion

Threatening or forcing another person to do something, so the person is not consenting to what I am making him/her do

To treat someone as an end

Never treat the person only as a means and sometimes seek to promote the person’s plans & goals

Two types of moral duties

Duties of justice and duties of beneficence

Duties of justice

do not act on principles that treat others only as a means

Duties of beneficence

we act on some principles that advantage others as an end

How moral duties relate to the basis of Kant’s ethical theory

no person should be treated only as a means for the enjoyment or happiness of another

Facts of the Batman Case

Batman could take one life (The Joker) and potentially spare many other lives

Ethically question the Batman case raises

Should Batman kill hte Joker?

How Utilitarianism applies to Batman case

do action that maximizes happiness so, Batman should kill the Joker

How Deontology applies to Batman case

judges morality of an action based on the principle of the action, not by consequences. So, Batman should not kill the Joker

The Trolley Case

Should you pull lever and kill one person or not pull it and kill 5 people

The Surgeon Case

Drug receptionist for her organs or let 5 people who need transplants die

What the Trolley and Surgeon case shoe us about the Batman case

In the Trolley and Surgeon case all people are morally equivalent. In the Batman case, the Joker is not morally equivalent

Conclusion about Utilitarianism from Batman case

claims that the good determines the right

Conclusion about Deontology from Batman case

claims that the right always comes before the good

Division of labor

dividing production into more and more steps, with each worker specializing n a slice of the process

Factor 1 that facilitates the division of labor

Improvement in the skill of the worker

Factor 2 that facilitates the division of labor

Saving time lost in passing from one kind of work to another

Factor 3 that facilitates the division of labor

Invention of new tools and machines that assist and facilitate labor

Origin of the division of lavor

Came about because of a certain propensity in human nature

Results of the division of labor

the individual’s self-interested action is led by an invisible hand to produce a result that the individual did not intend: great benefit for society as a whole.

Smith’s moral justification for a capitalist market economy in argument form

When we pursue out self-interest in market exchange, this will produce the greatest overall benefit for society as a whole

Free-market capitalist system

a system where government regulation of the economy is permissible only to prevent fraud or coercion

Problem 1 with Smith’s justification of a free-market capitalist system

Government regulation is necessary

Problem 2 with Smith’s justification of a free-market capitalist system

externalities or uncompensated losses on third parties

Problem 3 with Smith’s justification of a free-market capitalist system

Unequal representation of interest

free-market capitalist system conclusion

a free-market capitalism does not yield the greatest overall benefit for society

why some argue a free-market capitalist system will produce the best overall

consequences.

by allowing individuals to bargain for themselves - giving them the freedom to decide what they want and how much they are willing to pay - we reach a point where we have optimally satisfied the wants/preferences of all parties