PHI 221 (001) - Exam 2 (Chp 5, 6, 7, 9)

1) Consequentialism / Utilitarianism

a family of theories that places the emphasis on the consequences of our actions as the way to determine whether they are right or wrong

• Good because it produces the BEST results

• Optimific: producing the best results

  • built from hedonism, takes pleasure and pain -> what it takes to lead a good life.

Moral theories

try to tell what the right actions/intention is 

• foundation -> question, logic + reason to evaluate behavior and decision making 

• Used in crafting legal policies, laws, etc

Deciding the “optimific choice” (Consequensialism)

a. ID intrinsically (valuable in itself) good

b. ID intrinsically bad

c. Dete ALL options open

d. For each option, dete value of it’s results (how much good/bad)

e. Pick action that yields the greatest net balance of good over bad

Act utilitarianism (Consequensialism / Utilitarianism)

1. action morally req just because it does more to improve well being than any other action given the circumstances (greatest next balance of happiness of the majority)

• Depe on what happens NOT what you thought was going to happen

• Action was wrong if it brought to pass worse circumstances

Utilitarianism is ____________ and is driven by _____________.

a) consequential (depe on consequences NOT intention)

b) commitment to egalitarianism (belief that all human beings are equal, equals should be treated equally) and liberty 

1. Betham and Mill

Greatest happiness principle

actions right in proportion that they promote happiness and wrong in the proportion that they promote sadness

Measuring happiness by Jeremy Betham

measurable scales of quantity (intensity, duration, purity) 

Measuring happiness by JS Mill

vary in terms of quantity and quality (higher/lower dist)

1. Creative + intellectual pleasure are best

Utilitarianism applies to _________

EVERYONE who can suffer, enjoy happiness

• If you experience pain -> you matter (not nec. equally but it matters) 

Principle of utility (Consequensialism / Utilitarianism)

the central rule of act utilitarianism = maximize overall well-being

Consequensialism benefits

a) Impartiality (equally morally valuable)

b) Resolves moral conflicts (maximize overall well-being, helps decide)

c) Moral flexibility (No moral rule is absolute)

d) Moral community (Everyone counts morally)

e) justifies basic moral beliefs 

• (promote moral actions because they create more good than harm); helping poor, condemns immoral actions cause they do more harm than good; murder)

Consequensialism detriments

a) too demanding (constant self-sacrifice)

b) decision procedure vs. standard of rightness (const calc, less time to do good)

c) problem of partiaility (no priority to family, friends, over strangers)

d) injustice (biggest concern, sometimes require injustice or violate rights if doing so maximizes well-being)

Consequensialism detriments - Injustice

could sometimes require injustice or violate rights if doing so maximizes well-being

• punishing innocent people, changing grades unfairly, or allowing criminals to escape punishment if it produces better consequences'

• Extreme inequality, people with a lot have higher happiness / utility v. equal society

Absolute moral rule (Consequensialism)

a moral rule that can NEVER permissibly be broken

Rule consequentialism

• Alternative: we should follow optimific social rules—rules that would produce the best results if generally followed.

This better protects justice, rights, and relationships, but critics call following rules when breaking them would produce better results “rule worship”

Kant vs. Utilitarianism (Kantian ethics)

• Kant argues that morality is based on fairness, consistency, intentions, and duty, NOT on consequences or maximizing happiness

Utilitarianism: What produces the best consequences?

Kant: What is my reason/maxim for acting, and could everyone act on it consistently?

2 fairness tests (Kantian ethics)

Both raise the issue of fairness, but neither provides a foolproof test of the morality of actions

1. Golden rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated. Kant criticizes it because morality shouldn’t depend on individual desires

• How would you like it if someone did that to you?

  • Counterexamples: masochists (pleasure from pain), fanatics (extreme, obsessive tendencies)

2. What if everyone did that?

   • Counterexample: celibacy: voluntarily being unmarried, no sex, or both

Maxim (Kantian ethics)

principle/reason for action that a person gives themselves when they act (intention)

For Kant, the morality of an action depends on its maxim, not its results.

• Categorical imperative: Moral duties apply REGARDLESS of what you want

Ex. It’s okay to steal if you need to do so to feed your family (the principle)

• It’s okay because of this…

Principle of Universalizability (Kantian ethics)

• An action is morally acceptable if and only if its maxim can be followed by everyone while still achieving the goal. This prevents people from making exceptions for themselves.

  • Main problem with universalizability: A maxim can be universalizable and still be immoral (e.g., a consistent but discriminatory Nazi).

Universalizable (Kantian ethics)

A maxim when its goal could still be achieved if everyone acted according to that maxim

• To be universal means every single person can adopt this without society breaking apart 

  
  

Hypothetical Imperative (Kantian ethics)

WHAT IS OUR DUTY?

A command of reason that tells you what to do to achieve something you want (e.g., “If you want to lose weight, exercise”)

•  based on personal desires (if then type statements), and categorical imperatives are unconditional and apply to all rational beings (does not take into account desires)

  
  

wrongdoers who are good at achieving their goals are being rational

Categorical Imperative (Kantian ethics)

rational requirements that apply to a person regardless of what they care about (apply to anyone who is rational; humans, supernatural beings [God], extraterrestrial, etc)

1. require us to do things whether we want to or not, with the result that if we ignore or disobey them, we are being irrational.

2. It is in this sense that wrongdoers are always being irrational. (fail to do morals)

Absolute moral rule (Kantian ethics)

• A rule that is never permitted to be broken. 

• Kant’s theory does not necessarily require absolute moral rules, despite Kant’s belief that lying is always wrong

Good Will (Kantian ethics)

1. The only thing valuable “without limitation,” i.e. in all circumstances .

2. A steady disposition to act from duty.

   1. Believe you have an obligation to do smth and want to do the right thing

   2. Desire to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do

Good in and of itself

Principle of Humanity (Kantian ethics)

• Always treat people as ends, never merely as means. People deserve respect because of their rationality and autonomy.

• Never treat people merely as tools.

• Main problem: “Treat people as ends” can be too vague to provide clear moral guidance.

Mere Means (Kantian ethics)

Treating someone only as a tool for achieving your own goals, without respecting their autonomy or intrinsic worth.

Paternalism (Kantian Ethics)

Restricting another adult’s freedom “for their own good,” as though you have the authority of a parent.

Important Kantian ideas:

Human beings have dignity, rationality, and autonomy, which justify respecting their rights and allowing them to make their own choices.

3) Social contract theory, ”contractarianism”

• OG a political theory, later a theory of morality. 

• Laws are just if, and only if, they reflect the terms of a social contract that free, equal, and rational people would accept as the basis of a cooperative life together. 

  • Stems directly from that political ideal: actions are morally right just because they are permitted by rules that free, equal, and rational people would agree to live by, on the condition that others obey these rules as well.

International Olympic Committee (Social contract)

Example of an institution that can enforce rules and discourage cheating

Prisoner's Dilemma (Social contract)

• any situation in which all people would be better off if all could agree to scale back their pursuit of self-interest

• Two thieves facing jail time, #s = years in jail (assume they are perfectly rational and self-interested)

  • If the partner doesn’t talk, self interest talks 

  • Rational and self interest is to talk 

    • Cooperation breaks down because people are worried about being the sucker in this scheme

Al and Bob (Social contract)

• Fictional criminals in the Prisoner's Dilemma

  • Demonstrate how individually rational decisions can produce a collectively worse result

Athletes (Social contract)

• Baseball players, Tour de France cyclists, and Olympic weightlifters are used as examples of competitive situations where individual incentives can undermine collective cooperation.

State of Nature (Social contract)

A condition of anarchy without a central authority capable of enforcing rules.

• no central authority → insecurity and competition.

  • Lord of the Flies

    • Literary example the author uses to help readers visualize a society without effective authority

Thomas Hobbes (Social contract)

• English philosopher

• Major figure in contractarianism

• Author of Leviathan

• Developed the idea of the state of nature

• Saw centralized authority as necessary to prevent destructive conflict

  • Associated with the idea of a "war of all against all"

• state of nature + need for strong authority/social contract.

• Rationality

  • In the Hobbesian context especially, the capacity to pursue one's self-interest effectively.

English Civil War (Social contract)

Important historical context for Hobbes's thinking about disorder and the state of nature

Social Contract (Social contract)

The hypothetical agreement establishing the rules of cooperation within society.

• give up some freedoms in exchange for cooperation/security.

• Pilgrims

  • Used as an example of people who actually agreed to a social contract

    • Signed the Mayflower Compact in 1620

John Rawls (Social contract)

• The most famous twentieth-century political philosopher; liberal-egalitarian political theory 

• Claimed that the structure of a just society could be determined by imagining what free, equal, and rational people would choose from behind a veil of ignorance.

• BUT: Rawlsian social contracts are about POLITICAL arrangements, NOT about who matters and what they deserve. 
  
  

• Hobbes was talking about MORALITY; Rawls was just concerned with the demands of justice in the distribution of social benefits and burden

Veil of ignorance (Social contract)

an imaginary device that erases all knowledge of your distinctive traits.

• device for helping people more fairly envision a fair society by pretending that they are ignorant of their personal circumstances.

Contractarianism (Social contract)

The theory that morality consists of rules that free, equal, and rational people would agree to as terms of mutually beneficial cooperation.

• morality comes from rules that free, equal, rational people would agree to for mutually beneficial cooperation.

  • Consent

Consent (Social contract)

Agreement to the terms of a contract. In contractarianism, the important consent is generally hypothetical, rather than actual.

Cooperation (Social contract)

People limit their individual self-interest in ways that produce mutual benefits.

Betrayal (Social contract)

Breaking cooperative agreements in pursuit of individual advantage.

Anarchy (Social contract)

The absence of a central governing authority.

1. Objectivity of Morality (Social contract)

The idea that moral truth isn't simply determined by individual opinion or whatever a society happens to believe.

2. Moral Neutrality (Social contract)

• The idea that if contractors cannot agree about an issue, that issue may be neither morally required nor morally forbidden.

Main question (Social contract)

How can self-interested people create moral rules that allow them to cooperate rather than constantly competing against one another?

4) Virtue ethics 

• focuses on character, not primarily duty.

• Virtue involves perceptions, thoughts, motives, emotions, and actions—not just habits.

(VE) An act is morally right just because it is one that a virtuous person, acting in character, would do in that situation

Right action (Virtue ethics)

what a virtuous person would characteristically do.

Right action = what a virtuous person, acting in character, would do.

Moral wisdom (Virtue ethics)

• practical wisdom requiring experience and emotional intelligence

There is no simple mechanical moral formula; difficult cases require judgment.

Moral exemplar (Virtue ethics)

a person who serves as a model of virtue

Required = all virtuous people; permitted = some; forbidden = none

Priority problem (Virtue ethics)

The biggest criticism is the priority problem: perhaps actions are right independently of what virtuous people would do, and virtuous people act that way because the actions are right.

Shifts from other series (Virtue ethics)

Other theories: “What is my duty?” → “What should I do?”

Virtue ethics: “What is a good person like?” → “What would that person do?” → “What should I do?”

Hobbes’ Leviathan

• A state in which there are not yet any governments or laws established. 

• People roughly equal: in size, strength, and intelligence.

• People desire the same goods and compete for them.

• Competition and lack of trust lead to violence.

  • The result: a “war of all against all” in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. 

Ex. Lord of the flies, Mad max, the walking dead

Leviathan aspects

• State of Nature (w/out laws or authority)

• Social Contract (people mutually agree to give up freedom, create a governed society)

• Leviathan (society requires a supreme ruler or govt to enforce rules and prevent chaos)

• Church and State (Religious power must always answer to the civil government to stop holy wars and public division)

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

argues that the ultimate goal of human life is eudaimonia (human flourishing or true happiness), which is achieved by living a virtuous life guided by reason.

Nicomachean Ethics aspects

• Ultimate Goal (True happiness is an active state of doing well, not just temporary pleasure)

• Golden Mean (Moral virtue is always a "sweet spot" (or mean) between two bad extremes)

  • Example: Courage is the balance between cowardice (too little fear) and recklessness (too much fear/no caution).

• Habit is Key (become good by practicing good actions over and over until they become a natural habit)

• Need for Friends: Humans are social by nature. True friends bring out the best in you and make a good life possible.

• Contemplation Wins: The highest and happiest human activity is using mind

Correct moral theory will ______ require us to commit serious injustices

NEVER

• Justice is intrinsically valuable (um sometimes)

• Injustice is always non-optimific (um sometimes)

Kant thought that morality consists of

categorical imperatives because moral duties must be universal (shouldn’t vary person-to-person) and rooted in reason not desires

Princ of universality

• Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.

Princ humanity 

always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end and never as a mere means

• Means: tool

• End: recognize their preferences and desires 

Utilitarium sacrifice

 can sacrifice the life/happiness of another person to conserve the lives/happiness of more people 

• People can’t be traded off, people are invaluable (batman, superhero)

Acting from duty (Kant)

1. Not the same as acting in accordance with duty (doing the right thing for some other reason, happen to do the right thing but with different motivations, for the money, for the recognition, etc)

2. Doing one's duty for the sake of doing one's duty, not to serve one's desires.

3. Only actions done from duty have moral worth

Better than helping from empathy because duty is not affected by experiences with the people they are helping (durable, does not change based on circumstances)

• Belief that human beings are rational, participate in creating the rules by which we all live (participants to the rules of morality) -> failure to do as such :(

Perfect duties

logically possible, no lying 

• Logically possible 

  • But lying could save someone's life in a certain situation -> would bring the most good (goes against Kant’s idea)

Imperfect duties

 no logical contradiction, the outcome is undesirable.

• Logically possible, but undesirable (decide where to give help, ex. charity) 

Benefits of kantian ethics (princ of humanity)

• Explains why slavery and rape are always immoral 

• Explains outrage at certain forms of paternalism 

  • Sorta protects you from yourself 

• Justifies not abandoning hope in people

• Grounds universal human rights

• Explains practices of holding one another accountable 

  • Wrong to take away someone's freedom, but wrong to hold them accountable

Problems for kantian ethics (princ of humanity)

• Absolutism (lying to the murderer at the door about where the person is hiding)

• The moral status of non-rational beings which we consider have morals (animals, young children, severely cognitively disabled adults, etc.) 

Consensualism - can’t sacrifice individual

Utilitarianism - best for overall happiness to sacrifice individual

Contractualism (Social Contract Theory)

1. We each do best for ourselves by agreeing to limit the direct pursuit of self-interest

2. It is in everyone’s rational self-interest to accept a bargain that gets them a decent life.

State of nature as nonfiction: failed states

• Collapse of a central authority (e.g., following coups; war, including civil war & aggression; hallowing out of government through long-term corruption; natural disasters, etc.) 

Break down -> English civil war (trust breaks down)

Hobbes’ remedy: the social contract, enforced by a Leviathan 

• People exit the state of nature by forming covenants (contracts) with one another and setting up a “common power” (government) to enforce those covenants. 

• A rational principle (“law of nature”): “that a man be willing . . . to be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself.” 

  • Because people are rational, we happy to limit some of our own freedom in order to help others (prevent from harming)

Actual vs. Hypothetical Consent 

• The social contract that fixes our basic moral duties is not one that any of us has actually consented to. 

• It is one that we would agree to were we all free and rational and seeking terms of mutually beneficial cooperation. 

  • Judge how just govt is 

The Advantages of Contractarianism (social contract)

• Morality is a hypothetical social contract in order to live as cooperative beings

  • Explains why morality is a social phenomenon. 

  • Explains and justifies the content of moral rules. 

  • Explains the objectivity of morality. 

  • Explains why it is sometimes acceptable to break the moral rules. • Explains why we have a basic moral duty to obey the law. 

  • Explains why the state is typically justified in punishing those who break the law. 

  • Explains the legitimacy of the state. 

Some problems with Contractarianism (social contract)

Seems to deny moral protections to some members of the moral community: What of those who cannot consent (young children, nonhuman animals) or who cannot advocate for fair terms in a contract (those with less power)?

Animals don’t matter (not rational beings)

Kant (kantian ethics) and Hobbes (contract)

Virtues vs vice

Deficiency (vice)	Mean (virtue)	Excess (vice)
too little fear (rashness)	the right amount of fear (courage)	too much fear (cowardice)