Ethics exam 3

John Rawls

American political philosopher (1921–2002). Best known for A Theory of Justice (1971). Revived social-contract theory as a way to justify principles of justice.

Justice as fairness (Rawls)

A fair society is one whose basic rules could be accepted by people regarded as free and equal.

Veil of ignorance

Because you don't know who you will be, you must consider rules from everyone's point of view. The goal: create a society that is fair and beneficial for everyone, regardless of the position they are born into

Rawls's two principles of justice

1: Equal basic liberties.

2: Social and economic inequalities.

Principle 1: Equal basic liberties

Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties, compatible with the same scheme for all.

THE Equal basic liberties

Freedom of thought and conscience.

Political liberties, including the right to vote and participate in societal structures.

Freedom of association and personal liberty (autonomy).

Rule-of-law protections and safeguards against arbitrary arrest.

THE Social and economic inequalities

Inequalities must meet two conditions:

1. Fair equality of opportunity.

2. The greatest benefit to the least advantaged (the difference principle).

Difference principle

Rawls does not require everyone to have the same income. Some inequalities may create incentives, investment, or productive cooperation. Inequalities are justified only within a system that improves the prospects of the least advantaged.

Pros of the difference principle

Encourages people to work hard and innovate because there are rewards for success.

Allows economic growth while still helping people who are less fortunate.

Gives people more opportunities to improve their lives, regardless of their financial situation.

Cons of the difference principle

Wealthier people may still end up with significantly more money than others.

Higher taxes may discourage some people from working harder or investing.

Even with equal opportunities, some people may still face disadvantages

Rawls vs. Utilitarianism

Rawls focuses more on fairness and protecting the disadvantaged, while Utilitarianism focuses more on maximizing overall happiness for the whole group.

Deontology

Ethical actions are determined by a set of rules, duties, or principles.

Pure reason for Kant

These rules/duties are pre-set and accessed through pure reason. Not constructed by groups/opinions.

Kant's duty

If we know that an action is ethical, then we have a duty to act in accordance with it. If we know an action is unethical, we have a duty to avoid it. It is our duty as humans to act morally

Moral worth

Actions are only moral (ethical) if they are motivated by proper (good) reasons. Good wills motivate good actions.

Good will

A good will is the only thing that is good without qualification (intrinsic, necessarily always good).

Human life

The only other intrinsically good thing, not because living is good in itself, but because human life gives us the ability to reason well and have moral responsibility.

Kant's view of kindness, happiness, and resources

Can be used for good OR bad things, so they are NOT good in themselves.

Hypothetical Imperative

An action that you ought to take based on a desire/goal that you have. Ex: If you ought to have money, then you ought to work.

Categorical Imperative

Unconditional, absolute, universal moral laws that can never be rejected.

Kant's Categorical Imperative

“Act only in accordance with that maxim through which at the same time you will that it becomes a universal law”

Categorical Imperative characteristics

Necessarily universal.

Cannot be tweaked due to circumstances.

We have a responsibility to ourselves to act morally.

If we accept an action in some cases, that entails that we must accept it in all cases.

Kant's human value

Humans must always be ends, never means for something else. We often ‘use’ people for things, yet we still view them as valuable.

Treating humanity as an end

“Always act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely a means”

Kant's four guiding principles

1. Morals are universal

2. Every action has a universal value of good or bad.

3. Humans have a duty to act morally

4. Humans have a duty to only participate in universally good actions.

Kant's moral decision test

Before we act, we should ask “would it be acceptable for this action to be applied at all times?” If no, we ought not do it.

Why possible bad outcomes are not an issue for Kant

1. Definitionally, deontology is not concerned with outcomes, only categories of actions. 2. Kant is concerned with personal moral responsibility. We are only responsible for what we directly control.

Emotivism

Ethical theory which claims that moral judgements are the result of feelings. People express attitudes/reaction of approval or disapproval towards ethical statements, and such reactions determine the moral weight of that statements.

Emotivism vs. Relativism

Emotivism: states that there is no truth or falsity to moral claims.

Relativism: states that there is truth to moral claims, just not universal truths

Non-cognitivist view

Meaning ethical claims have no cognitive content and cannot be analysed as true/false. They are simply accepted or rejected, but there is no true to point to.

Relativism

Truth is determined by cultural opinions and judgments

David Hume

Emotivist

Moral actions are the result of personal sentiments (feelings) of approval or disapproval towards situations/claims.

Ethics are not relative, but they are subjective.

Hume's human nature

Not necessarily a “free for all”, Hume thinks all people share the same human nature, which guides our feeling of approval/disapproval in certain ways.

Empiricism

Knowledge is gained through having sense experiences

Rationalism

Knowledge is gained through using skills of reasoning (no experience required)

Hume's empiricism

We need to experience things in order to truly have knowledge of them.

Hume's view of feelings

Feelings are a necessary aspect of human life, thus cannot be removed from philosophy.

Propositional knowledge

Knowledge of statements/facts.

Knowledge by Acquaintance

Knowledge gained through having a direct experience

Phenomenological knowledge

“What-it’s-like for you to be in an experience

Impressions

Vivid experiences with content, in which we gain information.

Ideas

Once we have an impression of information, we can “remember” this impression through forming ideas.

Hume's order of knowledge

Impressions first, then ideas later.

Hume's view of causation

When we see two related events, we only directly see one thing happening, and then another. We do not literally see causation, so we can’t know that it occurs. He did not find it a provable phenomenon.

Hume's Moral Theory

1. Morals have an influence on actions and feelings

2. Reason alone can have no such influence. It’s not the type of knowledge that affects actions/feelings

3. So, morality is not a result of reason

4. Thus, morality does not consist of matters

Hume's view of moral facts

Moral facts are motivated by feeling. Reason does not affect our feelings. Thus, morality is not the result of reason.

Is-Ought Problem

Reason gives us descriptions of the world (matters of fact). He says people jump to conclusions by stating that matters of fact ought/ought not be the case.

Why is the Is-Ought Problem a jump?

The moral conclusion is not present in our experience of facts. Hume says we are making an evaluation that is not based on reason. So, moral conclusions cannot be solely from reason.

Hume's view of the Is-Ought Problem

Phase 1: Description of circumstance

Phase 2: Facts of the matter trigger feelings of approval/disapproval

Phase 3: Our feelings trigger the conclusion that something ought to be a certain way

Hume's view of reason and feelings

Phase 2 must be feelings, not reason, because the forceful effects of sentiments are the type of thing that cause us to act/not act or approve/disapprove.

Hume's view of moral assumptions

Against assumptions. We can’t assume moral facts, we must experience them through sentiments (feelings and emotions)

Hume's view of moral conclusions

In reality, we often make moral conclusions based on feelings first, rather than pausing to make a moral decision. We may use reason to understand our actions afterwards, but they are not the primary factor.

Moral sense

Our human nature causes us to feel the appropriate thing based on the circumstance. A natural aspect of humans

A.J. Ayer

British philosopher who built upon Hume’s emotive theory, yet makes some distinct changes.

Logical Positivism

Statements can only be proven as true if they are analytic (true by definition) or synthetic (can be proven through empiricistic examination)

Verification Principle

Statements can only be proven as true if they are analytic (true by definition) or synthetic (can be proven through empiricistic examination)

Analytic truths

True by definition

Synthetic truths

Can be proven through empiricistic examination

Hume's focus

Human psychology; He believed that moral feelings were largely formed through shared intuition (he called this the human ‘moral sense’).

Ayer's focus

The foundation of Ayer’s ethics is not based in psychology, its based in language.

Hume vs. Ayer

Hume thought our feelings were forceful enough to affect states of affairs. Unlike Hume, Ayer finds moral claims as fully meaningless. In his view, they are simple expressions of one’s belief.

Ayer's view of objective moral truth

Like Hume, he did not think there was any objective truth/falsity to moral claims

Ayer's view of moral claims

Fully meaningless. In his view, they are simple expressions of one’s belief.

Ayer's Argument for (non)Truthfulness

1. Truth claims are only valid if they are analytic or synthetic statements

2. Moral claims are not analytic or synthetic

3. Moral claims are not verifiably true

4. Because they hold no truth, moral claims are meaningless.

Ayer's conclusion

Because they are not true, they do not have any forcefulness to affects states of affairs.

Ayer's view of social structure

Recognized that morals were important for social structure. In a philosophical sense, they were meaningless, yet in a social sense, they were necessary to keep the peace.