PHI Exam 1

What is an argument

An argument is an arrangement of statements into premises and conclusions.

What makes an argument good?

True, well supported premises and a clear conclusion

Come up with an argument in standard form with at least three premises for X=it will rain tomorrow

[1] It rained today.

[2] The weather app said it would rain today

[3] The weather app says it will rain tomorrow

[4] Therefore, it will rain tomorrow

Example of a linear argument

[1] It is cloudy today

[2] Often with clouds comes the rain

[3] So, it will probably rain soon

Example of a branching argument

[1] The sun is very strong today

[2] The humidity is rising

[3] The weather app predicts high temperatures today

[4] Therefore, today is going to be hot

Example of a joint argument

[1] The temperature is dropping quickly

[2] Strong winds just started

[3] Thick storm clouds are moving in

[4] Therefore, a storm is about to begin

Act consequentialism

An act is morally right just because it produces the best actual or expected results

Act utilitarianism

The version of act consequentialism that says that only wellbeing is intrinsically valuable, and so says that an act is morally right just because it maximized overall well-being

Rule consequentialism

An act is morally right just because it would be required by an optimific social rule

Rule utilitarianism

An action is right if it follows a rule that, when generally adopted, produces the greatest overall well-being

Imagine you have to choose between going to the movies and donating the money you would spend on the movies ($25) to a charity that will use it to feed five people suffering from poverty. Explain what an act utilitarian would say you should do and why.

Donate the $25 to charity.

Donating the money feeds five people, which creates more overall benefit than the personal, single enjoyment you’d get from watching a movie.

What does it mean to be a member of the moral community?

Moral community = The set of those beings whose interests are intrinsically important

Membership signifies that you are owed respect, that you have moral rights, and that others owe you moral duties for your own sake.

Who is included in our moral community

Human being and animals, not inanimate objects

How do some utilitarians argue that animals are members of the moral community?

Animals count because they can suffer. Their importance does not depend on whether we care about them.

Argument from Value Measurement

[1] Utilitarianism is true only if there is a precise unit of measurement that can determine the value of an action’s results

[2] There is no such unit of measurement

[3] Therefore, utilitarianism is false

How might the utilitarian respond to the Argument from Value Measurement? What premise would they reject and why?

Utilitarians reject premise 1.

Some actions create more overall benefit than others, even though there is no precise way to quantify these benefits.

The good produced by a grandmother who takes in her ophaned grandchildren compared to the benefits of a couple enjoying a game of cards.

Supererogation

Praiseworthy actions that are above and beyond the call of duty.

Example: A bystander dashing into a burning building to rescue strangers trapped inside

According to consequentialism, are any actions supererogatory? Why or why not

Utilitarians deny that any actions are supererogatory.

Morality can be quite demanding and may ask us to sacrifice our own interests for those of others.

List one feature of rule consequentialism that makes it more plausible than act consequentialism

Rather than determine an action’s morality by asking about its results, we ask instead about whether the action conforms to a moral rule, as in the optimific social rules.

It supports our belief that morality permits a certain degree of partiality, because policies that allow us to give preference to friends, loved ones, and fellow citizens will very often be highly beneficial.

Then, explain a possible objection an act consequentialist might have to rule consequentialism.

Rule consequentialism sometimes tells people to follow a rule even when breaking it would clearly produce better consequences in a specific situation, making the theory too rigid and sometimes morally counterproductive.

Give an example of a maxim

Donate $50 per month to the Salvation Army to help reduce world hunger.

What is a universalizable maxim?

The feature of a maxim indicates that every rational person can consistently act on

The three part test:

1. Carefully frame the maxim

2. Imagine a world in which everyone shares and acts on that maxim

3. Determine whether the goal within the maxim can be achieved in such a world

4. If so, the maxim is universalizable. If not, it isn’t

What is the Principle of Universalizability?

Kant’s thesis that an act is morally acceptable if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable

Example of a maxim that’s not universalizable

“When I need money, I will make a lying promise to get a loan”

If everyone acted on this maxim, trust in promise would disappear making the act of promising impossible.

Example of a maxim that’s universalizable

“When I see someone in need, I will help them”

Helping others don’t rely on any practice that would collapse if universalized.

It’s logically consistent and can be willed as a universal law.

Why does Kant think that an action’s maxim, not its actual consequences, determine whether that action was morally good?

• Because the morality of our actions depends entirely on what is within our control. We can control which maxims will govern our actions. We decide for ourselves what we intend to do and what reasons we endorse for doing it.

• It supports the idea that those who set out to do evil are acting immorally, even if, through sheer chance, they manage to bring about good results.

• Justify that people who live by noble principles are acting morally even when some unforeseeable accident intervenes, and their action brings only bad results.

Give an example of a maxim that can be universalized, but still, is morally wrong

• Someone wants nothing more than to have a picture-perfect lawn. His basic maxim is to do whatever it takes to preserve the beauty of his grass. But his mail carrier, who he repeatedly warned, keeps on trotting across his yard to deliver the mail. So, the homeowner pulls out a gun and kills him.

• The man’s maxim tells him to take whatever steps necessary to preserve the beauty of his lawn. So, if everyone was to act upon this maxim, his goal could be met, and the principle of universalizability is true. This is not murder, but justifiable killing.

A doctor must decide whether to give her patient drug A or drug B. The doctor’s evidence overwhelmingly indicates that drug A would cure the patient, but that drug B would kill him. Unbeknownst to her, however, the reverse is true: due to an undetectable feature of the patient’s physiology, administering drug A would kill him, though administering drug B would cure him.

What would an “actual consequences matter” consequentialist say is the right thing to do, here (assuming we’re only thinking about the number of lives saved, and holding everything else constant)?

Doctor should give drug B, because in reality that action saves the patient’s life.

A doctor must decide whether to give her patient drug A or drug B. The doctor’s evidence overwhelmingly indicates that drug A would cure the patient, but that drug B would kill him. Unbeknownst to her, however, the reverse is true: due to an undetectable feature of the patient’s physiology, administering drug A would kill him, though administering drug B would cure him.

What about an “expected consequences matter” consequentialist?

Doctor should give drug A because based on her evidence, A is expected to save the patient.

A doctor must decide whether to give her patient drug A or drug B. The doctor’s evidence overwhelmingly indicates that drug A would cure the patient, but that drug B would kill him. Unbeknownst to her, however, the reverse is true: due to an undetectable feature of the patient’s physiology, administering drug A would kill him, though administering drug B would cure him.

How could the “expected” consequentialist criticize the “actual” consequentialist? How could the actual consequentialist respond?

Expected consequentialists would say that actual-value theories unfairly judge people for outcomes they couldn’t possibly foresee, making morality depend on luck rather than rational decision making.

Actual consequentialists would say that what truly matters morally is the rela outcome (whether the action produced the best results), not what the agent believed would happen.

Explain the utilitarian argument for the view that eating meat is wrong. Then, think of one criticism of that argument

Argument from Marginal Cases:
[1] If it is immoral to kill and eat “marginal” human beings, and to painfully experiment on them, then it is immoral to treat nonhuman animals this way.

[2] It is almost always immoral to kill and eat “marginal” human beings, and to painfully experiment on them

[3] Therefore, it is almost always immoral to kill and eat animals, and to painfully experiment on them

Criticism: Marginal human beings are more important than animals just because they are human, so still more important than any animal.

Break down the following phiosophical argument into premises and a conclusion:

Rule consequentialists demand that we obey moral rules, even when we know that breaking them would yield better results. But that is irrational, since in these cases, rule consequentialists know in advance that their ultimate goal (making the world the best place you can make it) will not be fulfilled. It is irrational to knowingly defeat your own goals. Rule consequentialists do this whenever they issue a recommendation that differs from act utilitarianism.

[1] Rule-consequentialists have the ultimate goal of making the world the best place it can be

[2] Sometimes breaking the RC rules yields better results

[3] It is irrational to knowingly defeat your own goals

[4] In some cases, RCs know that their goal won’t be met if they follow their moral rules

[5] So, in cases where breaking the RC rules yields better results, it would be irrational for a RC to follow the rule

[6] So, in every case where rule-consequentialism disagrees with act utilitarianism, the RC should side with the act utilitarian

[7] So, it is irrational to endorse rule consequentialism

Argument against utilitariansm and utilitarian’s response: The problem of injustice

Justice involves respecting rights and getting what is deserved. The correct moral theory will never require use to commit serious injustices. But utilitarianism sometimes requires us to commit serious injustices

• If we carefully consider all of the results of unfair actions, we will see that those actions aren’t really optimific. Committing injustice will never have the best consequences.

• E.g. A policy of vicarious punishment may work in the short run but will cause anger among the target population so that a larger number will join with the opposition.

Argument against utilitarianism and utilitarian’s response: No intrinsic wrongness/rightness

Certain action are intrinsically wrong; we don’t need to check on any consequences to know that

• The moral status of an action comes from its real world impact, not from the built-in moral property

• E.g. You spend many hours per week at an after school tutoring program for disadvantaged youth, but it ends up having bad consequences, even though it seemed intrinsically right.