CS201 Final

Utilitarianism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics are different moral theories. Each of them purports to explain, in different ways, what makes actions right or wrong. Because they are different theories, they will always disagree about whether a particular action is right or wrong.

False

How does a Virtue Ethicist understand virtues and vices?

A. Virtues are those dispositions that respect rights and obligations, while vices are those that do not

B. Virtues are those dispositions that follow from a good will, while vices are those that undermine the dignity of others

C. Virtues are those dispositions that contribute to a good life, while vices are those that do the opposite

D. Virtues are those dispositions that maximize happiness, which vices are those that cause pain

C. Virtues are those dispositions that contribute to a good life, while vices are those that do the opposite

In virtue ethics, what is "phronesis"?

A. being a happy, good person

B. flourishing life

C. possessing excellent character traits

D. Knowing how to apply one's character

D. Knowing how to apply one's character

According to Aristotle, what is the "telos", or goal, of being human?

A. Happiness or flourishing

B. the become worthy of being happy

C. to accumulate material wealth

D. Achieving excellence in all things

A. happiness or flourishing

In discussing where we get our virtues, Schur characterizes Aristotle's take on "natural states" of virtue which we have from birth as what?

A. blank slates to be carved by us

B. an array of vices to be overcome

C. indicators of what god wants us to be

D. virtue starter kits

D. virtue starter kits

In applying virtue ethics, why is it not enough to ask "what would person X do?" (check ALL that apply)

A. being virtuous in one way does not mean virtuous in other (or all) ways

B. it doesn't tell us why they did it

C. it leads to issues of cultural relativism

D. we may not be able to do what they did or would do

All

Which of the following are core concepts in Utilitarianism? (check ALL that apply)

A. the calculus of felicity

B. the greatest happiness principle

C. the golden mean

D. the community of interests

E. the formula of humanity

A. the calculus of felicity

B. the greatest happiness principle

D. the community of interests

According to Utilitarianism, the right act is the act that:

A. Respects the fundamental rights of others

B. Maximizes the amount of virtue in the world

C. Maximizes aggregate utility

D. Maximizes utility for the person performing the action

C. Maximizes aggregate utility

For a Utilitarian, what is the intrinsic good in moral behavior?

A. Basic human rights and entitlements

B. universal reason

C. social cohesion and rule of law

D. Happiness, understood as pleasure and the absence of pain

D. happiness, understood as pleasure and the absence of pain

According to JS Mill, in Utilitarianism calculus, not all happiness is considered equal?

True

According to the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, "perhaps the greatest difficulty with utilitarianism is that is fails to" what?

A. tell us to maximize utility

B. take into account considerations of justice

C. encourage us to be better people

D. account for differences in cultural values

B. take into account considerations of justice

According to Philosophy bro's take on Kantian Ethics, what is the only thing that is intrinsically good?

A. intelligence

B. courage

C. happiness

D. a good will

D. a good will

What is the Categorical Imperative?

A. Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law [of nature]

B. actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness

C. do no harm

D. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

A. Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law [of nature]

With the formula of humanity, what is it that we are mandated to respect about others?

A. their choices, even if we don't agree with them

B. their dignity, autonomy, and humanity

C. what increases their happiness

D. Their best interests

B. Their dignity, autonomy, and humanity

According to Kantian Deontology, we must always treat rational beings (such as ourselves and other humans) as ends in themselves and never as mere means. It follows from this that according to Kant we must never allow ourselves to benefit from other people.

False

What is the difference between a statement (or claim or proposition) and any other type of sentence?

A. A statement (or claim or proposition) can have a truth value of true or false

b. A statement (or claim or proposition) gives the conclusion of the argument

C. A statement (or claim or proposition) asks a question

D. A statement (or claim or proposition) gives an entire argument

A. A statement (or claim or proposition) can have a truth value of true or false

Which of the following is true of a valid deductive argument?

A. Its conclusion must be true if its premises are true

B. its premises are always true

C. Its conclusion is probably true if its premises are true

D. its conclusion can be false even if its premises are probably true

A. its conclusion must be true if its premises are true

P1: Every president of the United States thus far has been a woman.

P2: Bernie Sanders is the current American president.

C: Therefore, Bernie Sanders is a woman.

The preceding argument is (pick all that apply):

A. Valid

B. Inductive

C. Sound

D. Invalid

A. Valid

P1: The vaccine prevents infection in 75% of people who get the vaccine

P2: Pat has gotten the vaccine.

C: Therefore, Pat will not get infected.

This argument is (pick all that apply):

A. Inductive

B. Strong

C. Valid

D. Deductive

A. Inductive

B. Strong

A deductive argument can be sound without being valid

False

"It's either a garden hose or a snake. It's not a snake. Therefore, it's a garden hose." (P or Q. ~Q. therefore, P)

This passage follows which valid argument form?

A. Disjunctive syllogism

B. Denying the antecedent

C. Inductive casual reasoning

D. Hypothetical syllogism

A. Disjunctive syllogism

If it's a cat, then it's a mammal. It's not a mammal. Thus, it's not a cat. (If p, then q. Not p. Thus, not q)This passage shows which fallacy?

A. Modus Tollens

B. Affirming the Consequent

C. Naturalistic Fallacy

D. Denying the Antecedent

D. Denying the Antecedent

"I have met a few people and they have all been ugly and evil. I conclude that all people are ugly and evil."

This passage commits which informal fallacy?

A. Ad hominem

B. Hasty generalization

C. Ad populum

D. Red herring

B. hasty generalization

"President Trump claims that masks are not very effective at limiting the spread of COVID-19. But Donald Trump is a narcissistic sociopath who wears ill-fitting suits and orange makeup and who cares only about his own short-term welfare. Therefore, it's false that masks are not very effective at limiting the spread of COVID-19."

This passage commits which informal fallacy?

A. Hasty generalization

B. Tu quoque

C. None

D. Ad hominem

D. ad hominem

"Joe Biden claims that the tax cuts passed by the Trump administration primarily benefit the wealthy and that undoing these cuts will benefit the majority of Americans. But did you hear about Vice President Biden's son, Hunter Biden? The guy had a serious drug problem. There are pictures of him smoking crack on the internet. The guy really hit rock bottom. Pretty pathetic."

This passage commits which informal fallacy?

A. begging the question

B. red herring

C. false dichotomy

D. tu quoque

B. Red herring

What does "Arete" mean in virtue ethics?

Excellence or virtue; full realization of potential

Virtues definition

deep=seated habits of mind and temperament (one's character) that contribute to a good life

Eudaimonia

Flourishing - living a life beyond our usual definitions of happiness or "the good life"

The Golden Mean

Virtue Ethics - defines a vitue as the desirable middle between two extremes, one an excess and one a deficiancy

bravery is the mean between cowardice and foolhardishness

Deontological

Kantian ethics, social contract, natural law theory

Theories derive moral obligations from a duty to follow a higher authority - such as Reason, God, common societal interests, etc, independent from the action's effects

Consequentialist

Utilitarianism - These theories focus on the effects that actions would have. good actions have good effects

Greatest Happiness Principle

actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure

Community of interests

we need to put our interests and desires in perspective with that of other people - other beings motivated just like us (towards happiness). Involves 3 things - imparitality, comparing alternatives, and maximizing value

impartiality

everyone counts as one, thus everyone's interests count equally. this also includes interests you may not want to count, such as distasteful ones

comparing alternatives

look at as many possible actions as one can, such as compromises or things one does not want to do, and impartially measure the consequences of each

maximizing value

we look to serve as many people's interests as possible, so we choose the action which best promotes as many people's interests as possible

Calculus of Felicity

the method of measuring the happiness produced by an action, includes scope, intensity, duration, aftereffects, and immediacy

Problems with Utilitarianism

No sense of justice; no understanding of rights

Repugnant/abominable conclusions

5 ways to apply utilitarianism

1. identify stakeholders

2. identify how stakeholders are harmed and benefitted

3. assess the quality of the harms and benefits

4. access 1 -3 for at least one viable, relevant alternative

5. use 1-4 to show which action maximizes utility

Deontology

these theories derive moral obligations from a duty to follow a higher authority - such as Reason, God, common societal interests, independent from the action's effects

Reason - Kantian

our power to reflect and form judgements based on logic and Good Will, our duty to follow the law of morality

Law of morality

grounded in one's being human - having capacity to reason, to understand one's duty and the moral law, and to act based on reason (unlike animals for example)

Authority is absolute - it applies to everyone, at all times, everywhere

Categorical Imperative

Kantian ethics

moral law comes down to a single principle that can apply to everyone, everywhere, at all time

act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law [ of nature]

maxim

rule or principle on which you act ; should be tested against the universal law requirement. if universalizing the maxim leads to a contradiction, it is morally impermissible to act on that maxim

Formula of humanity

kantian

act as to treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means

rationality dictates we must respect the dignity, autonomy, and humanity of ourselves and others - no maxim that fails to respect in this way would ever pass the universal law requirement

in order to respect ourselves and others we cannot use people immorally (as mere means to our ends)

Issues with Kantian ethics

1. Kantian ethics can seem counter-intuitive

2. Kantian Ethics resists contexts

3. Kantian Ethics is extremely rigid and demanding

difficult to ignore consequences and happiness and simply do what Kantian ethics dictates all the time. Moral principles often put one in conflict with others

3 steps to applying kantian ethics

1. formulate the maxim guiding the action (identify the ends and the means

2. identify if the maxim in question would exhibit hypocrisy or violate a respect for humanity

3. Apply the maxim to the formula of universal law (hypocrisy) or the formula of humanity (Respect)

argument

series of claims one of which (the conclusion) is supposed to be supported by the premises

claim

proposition - a declarative sentence - a statement that can be true or false

deductive argument

an argument attempting to give certainty: a guarantee that the conclusion it asserts will be true if the premises it asserts are also tru

valid or invalid

sound if they are valid and the premises are true

tend to go from the general to specific

often seen in math, logic, and programming (Logic gates)

inductive argument

an argument attempting to give probability: that the conclusion is likely to be true, if the premises are true

are strong or weak

cogent if they are stong and the premises are true

tend to go from the specific to the general

are often seen in science, criminology, use of statistics

modus ponens

if P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q

Modus tollens

if P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore Not P

disjunctive Syllogism

P or Q. Not Q. Therefore, P

Hypothetical syllogism

if p, then Q. If Q, then R. Therefore, If P, then R

fallacy

a defect in an argument that consists in something other than false premises alone

formal or informal

formal fallacies only occur in deductive arguments and can be identified by examining the structure of the argument alone

Denying the antecedent

if P, then Q. Not P. Thus, not q

if its a cat, its a mammal. Its not a cat, therefore it's not a mamma

affirming the consequent

if p, then q. Q. thus, p

if its a cat, then its a mammal. its a mammal thus its a cat

undistributed middle

all p are q. x is a q, thus x is a p

if its a cat, then its a mammal. Spot is a mammal, thus spot is a cat

ad bellum

the right to war

1. just cause

2. right intention

3. legitimate authority

4. reasonable prospects of success

5. proportionality

6. last resort

jus in bello

justice in the conduct of war

1. discrimination

2. proportionality

3. necessity

discrimination

only combatants may be targeted

proportionality

harms may accrue to non-combatants but these harms must be in proportion to the benefits of the action

necesity

collateral harm to non-combatants is permissible only if it is not only proportional by also necessary to the achievement of the military aim

informal fallacy

fallacy that can be detected only by examining the content of the argument, as opposed to its form alone

appeal to force

using the threat of a consequence, whether implied or explicit

do X or you may lose your job when x is something objectionable

appeal to popularity

using the shared opinion of a large group as the reason to accept or reject something

consumers would really like x, therefore we should do it

appeal to tradition

basing correctness on past or present practices

that's not how we do things around here; thats not how i was taught

appeal to nature

claiming natural means good; unnatural bad

human robotic enhancement isn't natural, so we shouldn't use it

this has bit in common to objections of playing god

tu quoque

appeal to hypocrisy (a hybrid ad hominem / red herring) ; modernly known as whataboutism

putin: the US should not lecture Russia on human rights abuses when they cannot handle the abuse by police in Ferguson

two wrongs make a right

using naother's wrongdoing as justification for yours

i wouldn't normally use cheating hacks, but they did first

hasty generalization

making a general claim based on too small a sample

these 5 lines of code are good, therefore all my lines of code are good

nothing has gone wrong before, so we should be fine

is-ought fallacy

claiming that because things are certain way, they should be that way (or dodging a claim about how things should be by talking about what is)

i don't understand this anti-war stuff. war is necessary just look at history

explanandum

statement that describes the event/phenomenon being explained

explanans

group of statements that do the explaining