Contemporary Moral Problems Midterm Exam Review

What is affected ignorance?

The deliberate act of remaining uninformed or pretending not to know something to avoid responsibility, consequences, or moral obligations.

What is the inability thesis?

A person's cultural upbringing can make them so unable to comply with law or recognize a moral wrong that they should not be held fully responsible or punished for the violation.

Moody Adams opinion on the inability thesis

Because a culture only exists to the extent that individual people exist and act, it doesn't make sense to hold a culture responsible for a society's wrongdoings without holding individual people responsible too.

The Banability of Evil

Ordinary, thoughtless people can commit horrific acts by blindly conforming to authority and bureaucratic systems without critical thinking or moral reflection.

Milgram experiment.

What does Moody-Adams think our attitude towards wrongdoing should be?

Blame wrong-doers but understand that ordinary people do wrong, be forgiving

Thinking about what a culture is and where it comes from, why does Moody-Adams think it is wrong to blame our bad beliefs on our culture

Moody-Adams believes it's wrong to blame culture for bad beliefs because culture is constituted by individuals, not a monolithic entity, and individuals have agency to modify and challenge their cultural norms

Necessary truths are

knowable with certainty via deductive reasoning

Matters of fact/contingent truths

Particulars known via

- sense

- memory

- testimony (generally worth believing)

No certainty, but generally not worht doubting without inductive reasons to doubt.

Generals

Known because human understanding takes in experiences and produces expectations

How Hume talks about inductive reasoning

Inductive Reasoning

A type of logic in which generalizations are based on a large number of specific observations.

Deductive Reasoning

the process of applying a general statement to specific facts or situations

The source of all our simple ideas?

Senses

For a Humean, can we get get certainty about ideas? Can we get certainty about things?

You can achieve rational certainty about ideas (relations of ideas) but not about things in the world (matters of fact).

What are the three sources of particular truths according to the Humean framework?

Sense, memory, testimony

Inductive reasoning, according to Hume, is when the mind transforms ___________ into___________ according to the proportion we experience

1 - Past experiences

2 - Expectations

Which sort of knowledge is relevant to the study of ethics - knowledge of ideas / ideals OR knowledge of particular matters of fact?

Knowledge of ideas/ideals - what ought to be, rather than what IS

What does the path to knowledge look like in Plato's works?

In Plato's works, the path to knowledge is often depicted as a gradual ascent from ignorance to understanding

What does the path to knowledge look like in Aristotle?

grounded in experience and observation rather than abstract forms

What does the path to knowledge look like in Euclid?

Axiomatic and deductive, focused on mathematics rather than observation of the physical world.

Divine Command Theory

Ethical truths depnd on a divine being/creator much like laws of nations depend on a government/ruling body. There is a god, and ethics depend entirely on the will of that god.

Epicureanism

A hedonistic (pleasure-centric) philosophy that prioritized simple pleasures, moderating desires, and living as worry-free a life as possible.

Kantianism

A kind of deontological (duty-based) ethichs, grounded in moral law understood through reason.

Natural Law Theory

A eudaimonistic ethical theory (human flourishing) - thomas aquinas. Study of human nature reveals a natural order

Platonism

Emphasized a divisin between the intelligible reality and the sensible reality.

Relativism

Ethics is apart of the social order. Ethical truths are relative to the society judging them.

Skepticism

A philosophy which suggests that nothing can ever be known for certain.

Stoicism

Prioritizes acception with resignation whatever happens.

Subjectivism

There are no objective moral values. Ethical truths are more like expressions of taste than they are like facts

Utilitarianism

A kind of consequentialism (right/wrong determined only by consequences) that focused on the total good produced by an action.

Act utilitarians

We should evaluated each choice

Should i tell this lie?

Rule utilitarians

We should evaluate maxims

Should i tell lies?

Virtue theory

An eudaimonistic (human flourishing) closely associated with Aristotle. Human nature reveals an understanding of the good human life.

What is socratic ignorance?

Socratic ignorance is the philosophical concept where one acknowledges the limits of their own knowledge, understanding it as the first step toward true wisdom and the pursuit of deeper understanding.

What virtue is the focus of Socrates's conversation with Euthyphro?

Piety (holiness)

What is the euthyphro dilemma?

"Is something pious (or morally good) because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious (or morally good)?"

Critiques of Divine Command Theory

1. The Arbitrariness Problem

- If something is morally right just because God commands it, than morality becomes arbitrary (a personal whim, no reasoning)

2. The Euthyphro Problem

- Is something pious because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is pious?

3. Objection from Reason

- If morality depends solely on divine will, then human cannot reason about ethical principles.

4. Multiple Religions

- Different religions claim different divine commands.

Which ethical theory presents the strongest analogy between the moral law and the laws of nations?

Kantianism

Which ethical theory or tradition claims that the good life is one full of simple pleasures?

Epicureanism

What is the foundation of moral truths according to moral relativism?

Social, cultural, or individual standards

If you are a standard moral relativist, what grounds do you have for critiquing the standards of your society?

If you are a standard moral relativist, you generally cannot claim that your society's moral standards are objectively wrong, because moral relativism holds that morality is relative to a society or culture.

What is a subjectivist?

A subjectivist in ethics is someone who believes that moral judgments are based on individual feelings, attitudes, or opinions, rather than on objective or universal truths.

Mackie presents himself as a subjectivist. Does he reject ordinary, everyday beliefs about ethics?

A subjectivist is someone who believes that moral judgments are expressions of individual attitudes, feelings, or preferences, rather than statements of objective fact.

Mackie is often associated with ethical subjectivism or more precisely error theory, which claims that:

There are no objective moral values.

When we make moral claims, we are in error in thinking they refer to objective facts.

Does he reject everyday beliefs about ethics?

Mackie does not reject that we act on moral beliefs or talk about them—people naturally make moral judgments.

What does an emotivist claim about the meanings of our everyday

language about morality?

An emotivist claims that our everyday moral language does not state objective facts, but instead expresses emotions, attitudes, or approvals/disapprovals.

What is the veil of ignorance?

a philosophical concept introduced by John Rawls in his theory of justice, where individuals deciding on the principles for a fair society do so without knowing their own social status, personal characteristics, or future circumstances

Does Rawls think we would choose a society where everyone is equally well off?

No, Rawls does not think we would choose a society where everyone is equally well off.

- Behind the veil of ignorance, people would accept some inequalities as long as they benefit the least advantaged.

What sort of equality does Rawls's theory support?

Rawls's theory supports equality of opportunity and fairness for the least advantaged, rather than strict equality of outcomes.

Glaucon and Adeimantis are playing the devil's advocate. What is the position they are arguing for?

- They argue that justice is not desirable in itself, but only for its consequences.

- Their position: people are just only because they fear punishment or desire reputation, not because justice is inherently valuable.

What is the point of the Ring of Gyges?

A story about a shepherd who finds a ring that makes him invisible.

The point: if someone could act unjustly without fear of being caught, they would do so, suggesting that people are just only because of social pressure, not because justice is intrinsically good.

Glaucon attempts to explain why the idea that justice is desirable in itself is so widespread. (Itresembles a social contract). Explain this argument.

People recognize their vulnerability and the harm of being treated unjustly.

Justice becomes a mutual agreement (social contract): we behave justly toward others to avoid being harmed ourselves.

This explains why justice is valued instrumentally, not necessarily intrinsically.

What is the point of imagining a perfectly unjust individual with a reputation for justice?

Glaucon asks us to imagine someone who does everything unjustly but appears perfectly just.

Point: such a person would enjoy all the benefits of justice (good reputation, social rewards) without suffering consequences.

This shows that justice is often practiced for external rewards, not for its own sake.

Why does Adeimantis think appeal to the gods doesn't make justice more likely to be desirablein itself?

Adeimantus argues that relying on divine punishment or reward doesn't prove justice is desirable in itself.

Morality might still be valued for fear of punishment or hope of reward, not for its inherent goodness.

Socrates asserts that justice in the soul is closely related to justice in the state. What is justice like in the state?

Socrates models a just city where each class performs its proper role: rulers govern wisely, auxiliaries defend courageously, and producers work productively.

Justice in the state = everyone doing their own job and not interfering with others' roles.

Socrates asserts that justice in the soul is closely related to justice in the state. What is a just soul like?

The soul has three parts: rational, spirited, and appetitive.

Rational seeks truth and wisdom.

Spirited seeks honor and courage.

Appetitive desires bodily pleasures and material goods.

A just soul is one where each part performs its proper function, with reason guiding spirit and appetite.

How does Socrates's explanation of the just soul support the idea that justice is desirable in itself?

A just soul is harmonious and internally ordered, leading to true happiness and fulfillment.

Socrates concludes that justice benefits the soul directly, so it is desirable for its own sake, not just for external rewards or reputation.

What is the principle of utility?

The principle of utility (or "greatest happiness principle") states that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest overall happiness or pleasure and minimizes overall pain or suffering.

Explain how a utilitarian makes moral evaluations

A utilitarian evaluates actions by asking:

What are the consequences of this action?

How much pleasure or pain will it produce for everyone affected?

Choose the action that maximizes overall happiness and minimizes overall suffering.

This approach is consequentialist—the morality of an action depends on its results, not intentions or rules.

Distinguish between act and rule utilitarianism

Act Utilitarianism - Evaluates each individual action based on its consequences.

Example: Lying might be acceptable in a particular case if it produces more overall happiness.

Rule Utilitarianism - Evaluates actions based on rules that, if generally followed, maximize overall happiness.

Example: Lying is generally wrong because following a rule of truth-telling produces more overall happiness in the long run.

What does Mill say about how justice figures into a utilitarian system? Be able to argue aboutthe effectiveness of this argument.

Mill argues that justice is important because it promotes overall happiness.

Rights, fairness, and equality are justified instrumentally: respecting them usually leads to better social outcomes and greater happiness.

He tries to reconcile justice with utilitarianism by showing that upholding justice is a reliable way to maximize well-being.

Effectiveness of the argument:

Strength: Connects widely respected moral intuitions (justice, fairness) with the utilitarian framework.

Criticism: Some argue this makes justice

Singer and the pond

The pond analogy: In Peter Singer's famous essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", he asks us to imagine seeing a child drowning in a shallow pond. You can save the child at little cost to yourself (ruining clothes, being late, etc.). Most people would agree you ought to save the child.

Significance: This is meant to show the moral intensity of utilitarian thinking: if you can prevent suffering without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, you are morally obliged to do it.

Leibniz and the elephant

Elephant example: Leibniz, in Theodicy, imagines a case where a man harms an elephant unnecessarily. The point is to show that moral considerations are not just about human interests, but about the suffering of any sentient being.

Connection to Singer:

Both use vivid examples to show our moral intuitions about harm.

Singer's pond is immediate and personal, focused on humans; Leibniz's elephant is about extending moral concern beyond just humans, foreshadowing what we might now call "species impartiality."

Is Leibniz more demanding than Singer?

Not really. Singer's utilitarianism is much more demanding in practical terms—he asks people to make continuous sacrifices to prevent suffering. Leibniz is more concerned with the moral principle of avoiding unnecessary harm, which doesn't require constant giving.

Is Leibniz better than Singer?

Leibniz might be "better" if you value principled respect for life without requiring extreme personal sacrifice.

Singer might be "better" if your goal is maximizing overall well-being and reducing suffering wherever possible.

According to Kant, for our choices to have moral worth, they need to be made because of what?

They must be made from duty, that is, out of respect for the moral law, not because of inclination, self-interest, or expected outcomes.

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

Hypothetical imperative: A command that applies only if you want a certain end (e.g., "If you want to be healthy, you should exercise").

Categorical imperative: A command that applies universally, regardless of desires or goals (e.g., "You ought not to lie"), binding simply because it is the right thing to do.

What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative? What does it mean?

Formulation: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Meaning: Only act on rules that you could rationally want everyone to follow. If universalizing the action leads to a contradiction, the action is immoral.

What is the second formulation of the categorical imperative? What does it mean?

Formulation: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, and never merely as a means."

Meaning: Every person has intrinsic worth and must be respected as an end in themselves, not exploited or used solely as a tool for someone else's purposes.

Under what circumstances might a Kantian think it's ethical to tell a lie?

Kant is very strict: he usually says never—lying violates universal law and disrespects others' rationality.

However, some modern Kantians argue that if telling the truth would undermine respect for persons (e.g., revealing someone's hiding place to a murderer), then lying might be morally justified as a way of preserving humanity as an end in itself.

Why does Kant think consequences aren't important in ethics?

Because morality is grounded in rational will and duty, not in uncertain or unpredictable outcomes. Consequences are beyond our control, but our intentions and principles are within our control and are what make actions moral.

What does divine justice look like according to Leibniz?

Divine justice is God's ordering of the world for the greatest harmony. It balances wisdom, power, and goodness. Justice for Leibniz is not arbitrary; it reflects God's rational love for all creation.

How does Leibniz think we should use the golden rule?

We should treat others as we would want to be treated, but Leibniz emphasizes this as a principle of universal benevolence and harmony, not just fairness in exchanges.

What is Leibniz's formal definition of justice: the _______ of the wise.

Charity of the wise.

Justice is essentially wise love: promoting the good of others with understanding.

Leibniz employs a strange definition of pleasure that helps inform the centrality of love in his ethics. What does he mean by pleasure?

Pleasure = a perception of perfection.

When we recognize order, harmony, or goodness, it gives us joy. This connects morality and love, since to love others is to delight in their perfection and flourishing.

What is the same and what is different about Leibniz's view as opposed to utilitarianism?

Same:

Both care about promoting the good of all and reducing harm.

Different:

Utilitarianism = maximize pleasure/minimize pain (quantitative focus).

Leibniz = justice is love guided by wisdom (qualitative focus: harmony, perfection, benevolence).

For Leibniz, morality is grounded in rational love, not just consequences.

What does Leibniz think the relationship between God and moral truths is? (What other truths does he compare it to)

Moral truths are eternal and necessary, like mathematical truths.

God recognizes and acts according to them, but He does not arbitrarily create them. Just as even God cannot make "2 + 2 = 5," He cannot make injustice good.

Valjean's decision to steal bread to save his family.

Utilitarian: Justified—saves lives, outweighs the harm of theft.

Kantian: Wrong—stealing cannot be universalized.

Leibniz: Might be justified—charity of the wise could value saving lives over property.

Valjean's decision to break parole and live without 'legal status'.

Utilitarian: Justified—he does far more good free than imprisoned.

Kantian: Morally wrong—breaking promises/laws undermines duty.

Leibniz: Could be justified if it promotes harmony and love more than strict rule-following.

Valjean's decision to hide his identity from adult Cosette.

Utilitarian: Good—protects her well-being and peace.

Kantian: Problematic—deception fails the duty to truthfulness.

Leibniz: Could be acceptable if rooted in benevolence and protection

Javert's allegiance to the law.

Utilitarian: Harmful—rigidity causes suffering.

Kantian: Noble—duty to the law, even when hard.

Leibniz: Lacks charity; rigid justice without love is incomplete.

Javert's ongoing commitment to seeing Valjean punished.

Utilitarian: Bad—ignores greater good.

Kantian: Praiseworthy in principle—law enforcement is duty.

Leibniz: Fails justice as "charity of the wise"—punishment should serve harmony, not vengeance.

Marius's decision to violently oppose the government.

Utilitarian: Depends—violence may bring more harm than good.

Kantian: Likely wrong—violence and rebellion defy order/duty.

Leibniz: Only justified if it leads to lasting harmony and justice.

Young Gavroche's decision to violently oppose the government.

Utilitarian: Tragic but admirable sacrifice; small chance of good.

Kantian: Wrong—violence is not universally justifiable.

Leibniz: Noble in intention, but true justice seeks harmony, not destruction.

Consider what Hugo's story says about the relationship between morality and happiness? How might he respond to Glaucon and Adeimantus's challenge?

Hugo shows that morality and happiness are deeply intertwined but not always in obvious ways:

Valjean finds peace and joy in doing good, even through suffering.

Javert, rigidly dutiful but without compassion, finds no happiness and self-destructs.

Gavroche and Marius risk happiness for justice, suggesting meaning is deeper than pleasure.

Response to Glaucon/Adeimantus: True happiness comes not from injustice with good appearances, but from genuine moral goodness. Hugo would say morality gives life its deepest fulfillment.