Phil 350 Exam 1 Study Guide: Hume, Ayer, and Kantian Ethics

Why does Hume think that reason has no power to influence behavior?

Hume believes reason can't motivate action because it's driven by emotions or passions. Reason helps us figure out how to achieve our desires, but it doesn't determine what we want or push us to act.

How does this position relate to Hume's fork?

Hume's view relates to his fork example by showing that reason, which deals with facts and ideas, can't motivate action. Only passions (emotions) drive behavior, not reason.

How does this position lead to emotivism?

Hume's view leads to emotivism by suggesting that moral judgments are expressions of emotion, not reason, reflecting approval or disapproval rather than objective facts.

Why does Ayer reject subjectivism?

Ayer rejects subjectivism because it makes moral statements personal and unverifiable, lacking universal standards. The article says something like "He rejects subjectivism because it is not contradictory to say that there are actions which are generally held to be good which are not". This somehow leads to Humes Fork but idk.

Why does he reject utilitarianism?

Ayer rejects utilitarianism because it tries to make moral judgments empirical and measurable, which he believes is impossible. Moral statements, for him, are expressions of emotion, not verifiable facts.

Why does he reject intuitionsim/absolutism?

Ayer rejects intuitionism and absolutism because they claim objective moral truths that are unverifiable, and he believes meaningful statements must be empirically testable. If two individuals have contradictory beliefs that they both derived from intution, how do you resolve it? One may say, "I know I have the right intuition" but the other individual could make the exact same claim. There is no objective standard to resolve differing moral judgements formed by intuition.

Why does Ayer think it is impossible to find a criterion for the validity of ethical claims?

Ayer believes ethical claims can't be verified or proven true, as they express emotions, not objective facts, making it impossible to find a valid criterion for them.

How does Hume argue for a gap between facts and values?

by claiming that one cannot logically derive "ought" statements (moral values) from "is" statements (factual descriptions) - essentially stating that just because something is a certain way, it does not mean it should be that way; this is often called the "is-ought problem.".

How does Searle argue against Hume's claim about the gap between facts and values

some facts inherently contain value components due to the social rules and institutions we create, thus allowing a move from "is" to "ought" in certain contexts; essentially, he suggests that values can be embedded within certain social realities.

What are the objections Searle considers to his own solution?

You can't derive moral claims from facts; Searle agrees that more is needed for moral reasoning.

How does he respond to them?

Searle agrees that moral claims can't be directly derived from facts. He argues that moral reasoning requires more than just descriptive facts and is rooted in human social practices and shared agreements.

What are the conditions, according to Gewirth, that any satisfactory solution to the is/ought problem must meet?

Gewirth argues that a solution to the is/ought problem must be universal, applying to all rational agents, and consistent, meaning it should be logically coherent and free from contradictions.

Why does Searle's proposed solution fail, according to Gewirth

Gewirth rejects Searle's solution because it relies on social facts, which are not universally applicable, whereas moral principles must be grounded in the nature of human agency.

What is Gewirth's solution to the is/ought problem?

Gewirth's solution argues that since everyone has basic goals and needs, we ought to respect others' ability to pursue their goals, just as we want our own goals respected

How is it Kantian in character?

it focuses on respecting people's freedom, just like Kant's idea that we should treat others as ends in themselves, not just as means.

What is the eudaimonistic solution considered in class?

Necessarily, if human beings are capable of flourishing only when acting in accordance with their function, then human beings ought to act in accordance with their function.Necessarily, human beings are capable of flourishing only when acting in accordance with their function (rational activity)Necessarily, human beings ought to act in accordance with their function.

What are Gewirth's objections to this type of solution?

Gewirth says that this solution is Circular, because it premisses about what consitutes human wellbeing, which is not factual, or descriptive. It lacks determinate oughts because depending on what one would call flourishing between different groups (militarist/pacifict, religionist/secularist), different oughts could come out the same situation, making them indeterminate. This same issue also shows the solution fails in the categorical sense, because it depends on differing opinions. Lastly it also fails in an Egalitarian distribute, of whose well-being should be focused on? Whose harm should be avoided? What if those things conflict?

Can Winter's eudaimonistic proposal overcome these problems?

Everyone has an obligation to all these things and overcome those worries.

What does Kant mean when he says that a good will is the only thing that is good without qualification?

The goodness of a good will is not dependent on anything else. There are things we consider to be good in life: wealth, power, success, fame, etc but these are not necessarily good in themselves as they can also be corrupt. What makes such qualities good is the will.

What is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives?

Categorical imperatives are unconditional moral obligations, while hypothetical imperatives are conditional actions that depend on your goals. Categorical imperatives are done for their own sake, hypotheticals for some other end.

How are contradictions in the will supposed to arise in Kant's examples?

If a man is burdened by the weariness of life and its hardships, suicide is something he considers to alleviate his burdens. More fundamentally, the man seeks to better his life with the paradoxical solution of ending his life. Supposedly this is the contradiction according to Kant. The problem is it is not exactly clear if this is a contradiction in the will. If a contradiction is formatted as (P * ~P), what would 'P' be in the suicide example? It's hard to say.

What is the difference between the first and second formulations of the categorical imperative?

the first looks at the principle behind an action and its potential as a universal rule, while the second emphasizes the inherent value of individuals as rational beings.

What are some objections to the first formulation?

Objections to the first formulation include conflicting maxims, vagueness, ignoring context, tautology, and conflicting with moral intuitions.

What are some problems with the second formulation?

? it can be hard to determine when someone is being treated solely as a means rather than also respecting their inherent worth as a person in real-world scenarios.

How does O-Neill try to solve the problems

Onora O'Neill addresses the first formulation by promoting universally just decisions, and the second formulation by ensuring policies treat individuals as ends, respecting their dignity and autonomy.

What are some concerns about her solution?

Concerns about Onora O'Neill's solution include its difficulty in real-world application, ignoring cultural differences, and focusing more on individual dignity than on fixing larger social problems.

How do moral rules parallel rules of etiquette according to Foot?

she argues that the distinction between the two is not as clear-cut as some philosophers might claim, with both sets of rules having a similar "should" quality in how they guide behavior. Both moral rules and etiquette function as non-hypothetical imperatives that are done for their own sake.

Why does Foot think that morality is restricted to hypothetical imperatives?

She believes that moral judgments do not inherently provide a reason to act. Furthermore, there aren't objective standards we can refer to that justify an imperative as being categorical. Since this is the case, we can only confine morality to hypothetical imperatives. If you want to be a moral person, you will act as so.

How does LaFollette use language to make a case for relativism?

? He uses an analogy between language and morality - Language is not determinateMorality is like language Therefore, morality is not determinate

What is a plausible criticism of LaFollette's argument?

? 1. Breaking moral codes is way worse than breaking grammatical structures -> disanalogy2. Chomsky definition of language -> universal grammar -> language is very structuralTherefore, there are objective rules in the world

What is the main problem moral relativism is trying to resolve?

Moral relativism is trying to resolve the problem of moral disagreement, that there can be two people in the same circumstances that would do opposite things. For example, Kill someone who breaks into your house, or not kill them.

What is coherentism?

a theory in epistemology that states that a belief is justified if it fits into a coherent system of beliefs.

How does coherentism provide a way of supporting moral relativism?

that what is considered "moral" can vary depending on the specific belief system, effectively validating different moral codes across cultures without a single objective standard of right and wrong.

Why are the two versions/claims about relativism Chomsky considers?

Chomsky considers two types of relativism: cultural relativism (truths vary by culture) and epistemic relativism (truths vary by individual perspective). He critiques both for ignoring universal human cognition and objective truths.

Why is the first trivially true?

Cultural relativism is "trivially true" because it just states that cultures have different beliefs, which is obvious.

Why is the second incoherent?

Epistemic relativism is "incoherent" because it contradicts itself by claiming there is no objective truth, which undermines the idea itself.

How does Chomsky use biological systems in his critique of relativism?

Chomsky criticizes relativism by saying that human nature, shaped by biology, points to universal truths, which relativism overlooks by focusing on cultural differences.