John Stuart Mill(utilitarianisim),Kant, Rachel’s, Hay

How does Carol Hay use Kant to address contemporary feminist issues?

Hay draws on Kant's categorical imperative and duties to argue that victims of oppression have a duty to resist their oppression. She re-examines Kant's idea of "rational nature" to address criticisms that Kant prioritizes autonomy over social relations.

How does Carol Hay argue that victims of oppression have a duty to resist?

Hay uses Kant's second version of the categorical imperative to argue that victims have a duty to resist oppression because allowing it to continue denies their status as rational, autonomous beings. However, she emphasizes that this is not "blaming the victim."

Does the fact that each of us desires his or her own happiness (assuming this is true) mean that we ought to desire the happiness of everyone else? Is it possible to be an "impartial spectator"?

Mill argues that the principle of utility requires us to consider the happiness of others, not just our own. The idea of the "impartial spectator" is central to this, where one evaluates actions from a neutral perspective, considering the well-being of all affected.

Teleological

Consequentialist moral theories, they aim at the some goal state and evaluate the morality of actions in terms of progress toward that state.

Maxim

conventional or personal notions of what is moral/immoral, i.e., the reasons we give for our actions. We might believe it is wrong to tell lies, either white lies or any other kind. Kant wants us to determine whether our maxims [e.g., the above] are really morally right. It is not enough just to think they are--we must be sure there are no loopholes. You may have a belief [maxim] that is it wrong to steal. Kant's concern is about why it is wrong to steal.

Categorical imperative

moral principle used to test our maxims to see if they can be universalized--and are therefore morally right. There are lots of maxims and some will pass the test and others won't. Keep in mind that we determine what is morally right not by whether everyone agrees but whether we can will that everyone follow a tested maxim. It might be the case that people agree on doing something wrong. Agreement does not determine what is morally right.

Heteronomy

This is just acting according to desires (inclinations) and has no moral worth. In other words, acting on the basis of desires is being determined by something outside oneself, e.g., wanting to buy the latest tech gadget, new clothes, whatever. This is not what morality is about. It is not necessarily moral or immoral.

Hypotheical Imperative

This is "if...then" thinking--calculation. "If I do x, then I will have y." We use this kind of reasoning all the time to navigate our lives. It is not about morality, despite what the utilitarians say. This is not true freedom, according to Kant. It is not necessarily wrong--it just isn't necessarily right either.

How does Mill define utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism is defined by Mill as the idea that actions are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they produce the opposite of happiness. The principle of utility, or "the greatest happiness principle," focuses on achieving the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

Can each person's desire for their own happiness mean they ought to desire the happiness of everyone else?

Mill suggests that because we all desire happiness, we can empathize with others' desires for happiness and, thus, ought to aim for the happiness of all. The impartial spectator and competent judge help us assess situations ethically, promoting general happiness.

What is the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism?

Act utilitarianism evaluates the morality of individual actions based on their consequences. (Surveying the situation and weighting positive and the negative). While rule utilitarianism focuses on following rules that, in general, lead to the greatest happiness.(Uses knowledge of outcomes from the past.)

How does Mill view the role of motive in determining the morality of an action?

Mill believes that motives are not essential for determining the morality of an action—only the outcome matters. This contrasts with Kant, who prioritizes the motive behind an action.

How does Kant define "will" and "duty"?

For Kant, "will" is the capacity to act according to moral law, while "duty" is the necessity of an action done out of respect for the moral law. Both concepts are essential for moral action.

What is the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative?

A hypothetical imperative applies conditionally based on personal desires (e.g., "If you want X, do Y"), (This has nothing to do with morals.) While a categorical imperative applies universally and unconditionally (e.g., "Do Y regardless of your desires"). (Can I will everyone to do this?)

Why does Kant believe human beings are ends in themselves?

Kant argues that humans possess inherent dignity and rationality, meaning they must always be treated with respect and never merely as a means to an end. This is connected to his categorical imperative.

What is Rawls' "veil of ignorance"?

The "veil of ignorance" is a thought experiment where individuals make decisions about justice without knowledge of their own position in society, ensuring fairness and impartiality.

How does Mill differ from Aristotle regarding virtue?

Mill links virtue to happiness by stating that virtuous actions promote general happiness, but virtue is not inherently the highest good. Aristotle sees virtue as central to achieving eudaimonia (flourishing), with happiness being a result of living virtuously.

How does Kant use the example of the shopkeeper to illustrate duty?

Kant's shopkeeper example demonstrates the difference between acting from duty and in accord with duty. The shopkeeper who treats customers fairly to maintain a good reputation is acting in accord with duty. A truly moral shopkeeper treats customers fairly purely because it's the right thing to do.

How does Kant's categorical imperative test maxims?

To test maxims, Kant asks if the action could be willed as a universal law, applying equally to all people. If a maxim passes this test, it is moral; if not, it cannot be universally applied and is immoral.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of Kant's criticism of utilitarianism?

Strengths include Kant's focus on individual dignity and universal moral laws. Weaknesses lie in Kant's disregard for consequences and the rigidity of his moral rules, which some critics argue lack flexibility for real-world situations.

What are Rawls' three principles of justice?

Rawls' principles are:
1. Equal basic liberties for all.
2. Fair equality of opportunity.
3. The difference principle, which allows social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged.

Utilitarianism

This theory defines morality in terms of the maximixation of net expectable utility for all parties affected by a decision or action

The basic principal of Utilitarianism is:

Actions are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

For Bentham it was simply,

"The tendency to augment or diminish happiness or pleasure." This is no distinctions to be made between pleasures or persons -- all measures are strictly quantitative.

Statements of categorical imperatives

1) "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal [moral] law"; 2) "treat humanity whether in your own person or in another as an end never as a means." Categorical = unconditional. It is our moral duty to be motivated by what is intrinsically right.

Moral worth

only actions that are done for the sake of the moral law have what Kant calls "moral worth." This does not mean that everything else we do is immoral. Much of what we do has nothing to do with morality, e.g., making plans to finish school, go on a vacation, meet with friends for Thanksgiving.

autonomy

we are autonomous beings in the sense that we are capable of acting morally. We are the only species we know of that can give oneself a moral law, i.e., choose to act according to what is right.

How did John Stuart Mill define the "Greatest good"?

He defined "the good" in terms of well being and idstinguished not just quantitatively but also qualitatively between various forms of pleasure.

What is Mill's "greatest happiness principle"?

The greatest happiness principle states that actions are moral if they lead to the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure and the least amount of pain for the greatest number of people.

How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?

Mill argues that higher pleasures, such as intellectual and moral satisfaction, are superior to lower pleasures, like bodily or sensory pleasures. For example, reading a book (higher pleasure) is more valuable than eating a good meal (lower pleasure).

What does Mill mean by "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied"?

Mill means that it is preferable to experience dissatisfaction while pursuing higher pleasures as a human than to be fully satisfied by lower pleasures, like a pig, because higher pleasures have greater intrinsic value.

What is Mill's response to whether the principle of utility can be proven?

Mill argues that the principle of utility does not need proof in the same way other ethical systems do, because it is based on a fundamental intuition that happiness is desirable and ought to be pursued.

How does Rachels critique Kant's ethics?

Rachels suggests that while Kant's vision of ethics has strengths, such as the focus on respect and dignity, it also has weaknesses, such as being overly rigid in its treatment of moral principles.

What is the categorical imperative, and what are its two versions?

Kant's categorical imperative is a moral law that applies universally and unconditionally. The two versions are:
1. Act only according to maxims you can will as a universal law.
2. Treat humanity, whether in yourself or others, as an end in itself, never merely as a means.

What are Rawls' two principles of justice?

Rawls' principles are:
1. Equal basic liberties for all individuals.
2. Social and economic inequalities are permitted only if they benefit the least advantaged and are attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

What is Mill's position on motive in determining what is morally right?

Mill argues that motive does not determine morality; rather, the consequences of actions do. He critiques Kant's emphasis on motive, suggesting that good outcomes, not intentions, are the key to moral evaluation.

What does Kant mean by an action done "from duty" vs. "in accord with duty"?

An action done "from duty" is motivated purely by respect for moral law, while an action done "in accord with duty" aligns with moral law but might be motivated by self-interest. Kant values actions from duty as truly moral.

What does Kant mean when he says human beings are "ends in themselves"?

Kant believes that every person has intrinsic worth and must be treated with respect, never used as a means to an end. This principle is connected to his view that rational beings possess dignity.

How does Hay apply Kant's distinction between perfect and imperfect duties to feminist issues?

Hay draws on Kant's distinction between perfect duties (strict obligations) and imperfect duties (flexible obligations) to argue that resisting oppression is an imperfect duty—meaning individuals have a moral obligation to resist, though not at every moment.

How does Rawls' "original position" and "veil of ignorance" work in his theory of justice?

The original position is a hypothetical situation where individuals make decisions about justice without knowing their own social status (behind the veil of ignorance). This ensures fair and impartial principles of justice, as decisions must benefit everyone equally.

How does Rawls' view of equality differ from classical liberalism?

Rawls argues for "social liberalism," where equality is not just about formal liberty but ensuring fairness in opportunities and resources. This contrasts with classical liberalism, which focuses primarily on protecting individual rights and minimizing government interference.

What is the "difference principle" in Rawls' theory of justice?

The difference principle states that social and economic inequalities are justified only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society, ensuring that the inequalities improve overall welfare.

How does Kant illustrate the concept of the categorical imperative with the example of the person who makes a false promise?

Kant uses the example of making a false promise to demonstrate the universalization of a maxim. If everyone were to make false promises, the concept of a promise would become meaningless, and trust would erode. Therefore, making a false promise fails the test of the categorical imperative because it cannot be universally applied without leading to a contradiction.

Do you think Kant’s distinction between acting on the basis of “preferences” and “desires” versus acting on the basis of “reason” is too absolute?

Kant’s distinction may seem too absolute because it separates rational duty entirely from human desires, which are a natural part of decision-making. Critics argue that preferences and desires often play a significant role in moral reasoning. However, Kant emphasizes that moral actions should be guided by reason and the categorical imperative, not by individual preferences or consequences, as utilitarians propose.

Why does Kant say that we have a duty to preserve our lives and develop our talents?

Kant argues that we have a duty to preserve our lives and develop our talents because we are rational beings with intrinsic worth. Preserving life is necessary to fulfill our moral duties, and developing talents helps us contribute meaningfully to society. Both actions respect our rational nature and uphold our dignity as individuals capable of moral action.

How does Anscomb suggest we modify Kant? Do you agree or not? Give reasons.

Anscomb suggests that Kant’s approach needs modification by incorporating moral psychology and considering human motives and emotions. She critiques Kant’s focus on abstract duties without considering the moral complexities of real-life situations. You might agree or disagree based on how much importance you place on human motivation versus Kant’s emphasis on duty.

What does Rachels suggest are strengths of Kant’s vision of ethics, as well as weaknesses? Is he correct?

Rachels points out that Kant’s strengths include his focus on universal moral laws and respect for individuals. However, a weakness is Kant’s rigid separation of reason from desires, which might oversimplify human behavior. Whether or not Rachels is correct depends on your perspective on the balance between duty and human emotions.

How does Hay find resources in Kant to help us with contemporary moral problems?

Hay uses Kant’s ideas of rational nature and duty to the self to address contemporary issues like oppression, particularly in feminist contexts. Kant’s principles of autonomy and dignity are applied to argue for the moral responsibility of resisting oppression.

How does Hay use Kant’s resources to address whether victims of oppression have an obligation to resist their oppression? Does she succeed?

Hay argues that Kant’s emphasis on autonomy implies that victims of oppression have a moral duty to resist, as failing to do so diminishes their rational nature. She builds on Kant’s categorical imperative to show that individuals must uphold their dignity. Whether she succeeds depends on whether you find her application of Kant’s theory convincing.

Hay refers to feminist criticisms of Kant, such as privileging rationality and autonomy over social relations. How does she re-examine the idea of “rational nature”? Do you think she is shortchanging feminist criticisms?

Hay re-examines Kant’s concept of rational nature to argue that rationality is crucial in addressing oppression, despite feminist criticisms that Kant overlooks social interdependence. Whether she shortchanges feminist criticisms depends on how much weight you give to the interdependence aspect versus individual rationality.

How does Hay apply Kant’s version two of the categorical imperative and duties to the self to sexual harassment? Why does she argue victims have a duty to resist oppression? Do you agree?

Hay uses Kant’s principle that people are ends in themselves to argue that victims of sexual harassment have a duty to resist because failing to do so denies their own dignity. This is not the same as blaming the victim, as the moral responsibility lies in protecting their autonomy. You might agree if you believe resistance is a necessary affirmation of dignity.

How does Hay draw on Kant’s distinction between perfect and imperfect duties? Does this seem plausible?

Hay applies Kant’s distinction by stating that resisting oppression is a perfect duty (absolute and obligatory), while working to improve one’s situation or society is an imperfect duty (something we should do, but with flexibility in how). Whether this seems plausible depends on how much you think individuals can realistically take on these duties in oppressive situations.

What assumptions does Rawls make about human beings?

Rawls assumes that humans are rational and motivated by self-interest, but that they are also capable of justice when placed in a fair situation like the original position under the veil of ignorance.

How are these assumptions used in Rawls’ theory?

These assumptions are foundational for Rawls’ theory of justice, as they allow individuals in the original position to choose principles of justice without knowing their social status, ensuring fairness and impartiality.

What is the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance”? What part do they play in Rawls’ theory?

The original position is a hypothetical scenario where individuals design a just society, while the veil of ignorance prevents them from knowing personal details like wealth or status. This ensures decisions are made from an impartial standpoint, promoting fairness.

What is the result of applying Rawls’ principles of justice?

The result is a society where inequalities are minimized, and fairness is prioritized, especially for the least advantaged. This ensures that social cooperation is based on justice.

What is Rawls’ view of equality?

Rawls believes in fair equality of opportunity, meaning that while inequalities may exist, they should be arranged to the benefit of the least well-off and ensure equal access to opportunities.

Is Rawls’ view of justice defensible? If so, why? If not, why not? Give reasons.

Rawls’ view is defensible because it seeks to create a fair society by addressing inequalities and ensuring that the least advantaged benefit. However, critics argue that it may be too idealistic and challenging to implement in practice, as real-world complexities make perfect fairness difficult to achieve.