PHIL 22 FINAL | CONSEQUENTIALISM --> ROEDER
Call Kai
Learn
Practice Test
Spaced Repetition
Match
Flashcards
Knowt Play1/147
There's no tags or description
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai | Chat |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
148 Terms
what would consequentialists say to the question:
“what makes an action morally permissible or impermissible?”
“it’s result’s!”
what is consequentialism?
the view that the moral permissibility of an action is determined by whether it produces the best results
why do versions of consequentialism vary widely?
they vary widely with respect to what counts as the “best results”
“what makes an action morally permissible or impermissible?”
consequentialists: “its results!”
how would utilitarians respond to: “what about its results?”
“how its results affect the overall balance of wellbeing”
what is utilitarianism?
an action is morally permissible if and only if it does more to improve the overall balance of wellbeing than anything else one could have done in its circumstances
what is an alternate definition for utilitarianism?
an action is morally permissible if and only if its results are optimific for wellbeing
what is optimific?
the policy that yields the greatest balance of benefits and drawbacks
what does utilitarianism equal?
consequentialism + 3 further commitments
utilitarianism = consequentialism + 3 further commitments
what are the 3 further commitments?
the best results are the ones that have the best effect on wellbeing
the best results are the ones that maximize wellbeing
the best results are the ones that maximize overall wellbeing (everyones wellbeing counts equally)
what does mill’s utilitarianism equal?
consequentialism + 4 further commitments
mill’s utilitarianism = consequentialism + 4 further commitments
what are the 4 further commitments?
the best results are the ones that have the best effect on wellbeing
the best results are the ones that maximize wellbeing
the best results are the ones that maximize overall wellbeing
wellbeing is a matter of having pleasant experiences and not having painful ones (Hedonism)
what is mill’s utilitarianism?
an action is morally permissible if and only if it does more to improve the overall balance of happiness than anything else one could have done in the circumstances
what is the “greatest happiness principle?”
“actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”
what if i didn’t know what the consequences of my actions were going to be?
all the consequences matter, even long into the future — but that’s hard to predict
i might do something something that turns out to have bad consequences even though i thought they would be good
or good consequences even though i thought they would be bad
what does kant call praiseworthiness?
moral worth
what is the demandingness objection?
an objection towards utilitarianism that basically says it demands too much
“Utilitarianism is implausibly demanding; therefore, Utilitarianism is false.”
demanding for deliberation
demanding for motivation
demanding for action
what are some responses to the demandingness objection?
bite the bullet — accept that the objection accurately characterizes the theory, but claim the implication is unproblematic
modify the theory — accepts that the objection accurately characterizes the theory, but claim that it doesn’t apply to a modified version
challenge the implication — deny that the objection accurately characterizes the theory
what is the “demanding for deliberation” objection?
figuring out which action will produce the best consequences is hard. how are we supposed to have the time?
how does mill respond to the “demanding for deliberation” objection?
there is no need to calculate what the best results will be for every action, because the generally accepted moral principles are usually a pretty good guide to this
what is the “demanding for motivation” objection?
how can utilitarians expect people to be concerned with the general happiness all the time?
how does mill respond to the “demanding for motivation” objection?
utilitarianism doesn’t demand that maximizing happiness be our motive. and in order to maximize happiness, most of the time its sufficient just to attend to the wellbeing of those around us.
what is the “demanding for action” objection?
doing the most good we can do with every action means making a lot of personal sacrifices
moreover, there’s rarely any distinction between permission and obligation
and nothing is supererogatory
what does supererogatory mean?
going above and beyond the call of duty
what is the rights objection?
sometimes the best consequences come from infringing someone’s rights
how would utilitarianism respond to the “rioting mob” situation?
“Suppose that a sheriff of a small town can prevent serious riots (in which hundreds of people will be killed) only by ‘framing’ and executing (as a scapegoat) an innocent man.”
Utilitarianism seems to imply that the sheriff should be executed by the innocent man (but surely that violates his rights impermissibly…)
what is singer’s argument for this question:
what obligations do individuals and governments have to help people suffering in poorer nations across the world
P1: People dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad
P2: If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it
P3: We can prevent a lot more people dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care than we currently are, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance (e.g., by sacrificing inessential consumer purchases).
Conclusion: We ought to be preventing a LOT more people from dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care than we currently are (e.g., by sacrificing inessential consumer purchases).
how does singer respond to this objection?
“We have much less proximity to people in foreign nations.”
how is that morally relevant?
how does singer respond to this objection?
“Other people are in as good (or even better!) position to help than I am”
other people failing to fulfill their moral obligations doesn’t relieve us of our moral obligations
what are some effective altruism organizations?
a life you can save (singer’s charity)
givewell
good ventures
centre for effective altruism (oxford, macaskill)
80,000 hours and giving what we can
what are the aims of effective altruism organizations?
to collect and publish information about the effectiveness of charitable donations
to advise people on how they can do the most good (e.g. in their careers)
what are some principles of EA calculation?
innovations in how to compare outcomes
look at marginal value and counterfactuals
what are amia srinivasan’s objections to effective altruism?
when the decisions get too complicated, EA’s calculations become less useful (and they just have to rely on commonsense moral understanding).
EA models are susceptible to telling people what they want to hear
Utilitarianism demands the wrong things
what is the utilitarians FIRST reply they use in order to defend their theory against objections?
in many of these cases, ultilitarianism doesn’t actually have the suggested implications
what is a worry with the utilitarians first reply?
"“in many of these cases, utilitarianism doesn’t actually have the suggested implications”
concedes that utilitarianism sometimes requires violating rights
what is the utilitarians SECOND reply they use in order to defend their theory against objections?
adopt rule utilitarianism
what is rule utilitarianism?
one ought to follow the set of rules which, if accepted by most people, would have the best consequences for wellbeing/happiness
e.g., follow a rule that says: never perform a medical procedure on a healthy person without their consent
what is one worry regarding rule utilitarianism?
if you think the morally best set of rules is the one that has the best consequences for overall welfare, then why not think the same thing of actions?
what do utilitarians get right, regardless?
the consequences for overall welfare matter for moral obligation
what is the nearly universally accepted principle?
if i can save 5 strangers’ lives or 1 stranger’s life, and all else is equal, then I am morally requited to save the 5
“if i can sav 5 strangers’ lives or 1 stranger’s life, and all else is equal, then I am morally requited to save the 5”
when might other things NOT be equal?
when it could be worse for the 1 to die (e.g., they are the only one that can save many more).
when saving the 5 would violate the rights of the 1, or my special obligations to the 1
why does taurek disagree with the nearly-universally accepted principle?
P1: If it’s permissible for me to save David instead of 5 strangers (just because I know and like him), then it’s permissible for me to save 1 rather than 5 strangers (even when all else is equal)
P2: It’s permissible for me to save David instead of 5 strangers (just because I know and like him).
Conclusion: Therefore, it’s permissible for me to sav 1 rather than 5 strangers (even when all else is equal) — i.e., I’m not morally required to save 5 over 1, even when all else is equal
why doesn’t taurek think it’s worse for 5 people to die than 1?
because he doesn’t think the value of human life can be aggregated
what is “the separateness of persons” objection to Utilitarianism?
what’s valuable to separate people can’t just be aggregated (formed into a group)
what does kant think about moral permissibility
the moral permissibility of an action is determined by its principle/maxim
what is a maxin?
a person’s idea of what they are doing and why
e.g., “i will perform act A, in order to achieve end E.”
in general. moral theories (like kant’s) on which permissibility is determined by the principles or rules one follows are called…
deontological moral theories
what is the freedom argument?
a response to the question: why think moral permissibility is a matter of principles rather than consequences?
P1: the permissibility of our actions depend only on what is under our control
P2: whether our actions produce a certain kind of consequence is not under our control
C1: Therefore, the permissibility of our actions does not depend on their production of a certain kind of consequence.
P3: Only the principles that we use to govern our behavior are under our control
C2: Therefore, the permissibility of our actions depends on the principles we use to govern our behavior
how does kant use his theory of praiseworthiness?
to derive a theory of morally permissible action
what is kant’s idea with praiseworthiness?
if a praiseworthy person is one who acts from the motive of duty, then, in order to find out which types of action are morally permitted, we need to figure out what overarching principle the person who acts from the motive of duty is acting on
whatever (most ultimate) principle guides the good willed person is going to be the “supreme principle of morality”
what is the supreme principle of morality?
an action is morally permissible if and only if its principle is universalizable — i.e., a principle i can will to be shared by all other rational beings
what does Kant call the supreme principle of morality?
the ‘Categorical Imperative”
what is an imperative?
a command; something a person should do
who is subject to imperatives?
only rational beings who follow their wills
what are the two perspectives on principles?
as a maxim — a principle i follow
as an imperative — a principle i should follow
what are the two logical forms of judgment?
hypothetical (if P, then Q) and categorical (Q)
are hypothetical judgments conditional or unconditional?
conditional
are categorical judgments conditional or unconditional?
unconditional
what does a hypothetical imperative say?
if you will that E, and A is a necessary means for achieving E, then you should A
what does a categorical imperative say?
do A. there are no conditions
what is a hypothetical imperative?
what you ought to do if you have particular goals/ends
you should take the necessary means to your goals/ends
what is a categorical imperative?
what you ought to do regardless of what your particular goals/ends are
what are some examples of hypothetical imperatives of skill?
“if you want to cook the salmon properly, you should set the oven to 375 degrees.”
(Said to a competitive swimmer): “you should swim for at least an hour every morning.”
(said to many students): “you should do your homework.”
what are some examples of hypothetical imperatives of prudence?
(presuppose the end of happiness)
“it’s good to save money.”
“you should look after your health.”
what is the idea of a moral law?
a law we have to obey no matter what
i.e., a categorical imperative
what is the formulation of the categorical imperative called?
“formula of universal law”
what is the first step in testing the permissibility of an action?
identify the maxin— what principle would you be acting on?
“in order to get some money, i’ll borrow some by promising to repay it, knowing that I never will.”
what is the second step in testing the permissibility of an action?
universalize the maxim— imagine a world in which all rational beings followed that principle
everyone tries to get money by borrowing some and promising to repay it, knowing they never will
what is the third step in testing the permissibility of an action?
ask yourself: “is there a contradiction in following the maxim while also willing that it be universalized?”
no one could get money by making promises to repay them, because they wouldn’t be believed. therefore, i couldn’t achieve my end (of getting money) through promising
if the maxim leads to contradiction…
then the action is morally impermissible
what does kant believe duty means?
it means helping those in need, when you can
what is an example of contradiction in conception?
lying in promise — “some actions are so constituted that their maxim cannot even be conceived as a universal law of nature without contradiction, let alone be willed as what ought to become one.”
what is an example of a contradiction in the will?
helping those in need — “in the case of others, we do not find this inner impossibility, but it is still impossible to will that their maxim should be raised to the universality of a law of nature, because such a will would contradict itself.”
what is a deontological moral theory?
moral theories on which permissibility of an action is determined by the principle or rule it the action follows
what does kant think makes an action morally permissible?
if and only if it obeys the categorical imperative
act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law — a principle I can will to be shared by all rational beings
why does kant call the supreme principle of morality the Categorical imperative?
because it is a command we are supposed to follow categorically — i.e., no matter what
what are the two possible interpretations of “contradiction in conception?”
logical interpretation & practical interpretation
what is the logical interpretation of “contradiction in conception?”
it’s impossible to conceive of the world where the maxim is universalized, because the action or policy it proposes wouldn’t exist in such a world
what is the practical interpretation of “contradiction in conception?”
it’s impossible to conceive of the world where the maxim is universalized, because acting on that maxim in such a world would be ineffectual
what is contradiction in the will basically saying?
it’s impossible to will that everyone adopt my maxim, because, if they did, then something else I will wouldn’t be achievable
what does kant believe duty means in terms of “contradiction in conception?”
it means not commiting suicide for the sake of self-love
what does kant believe duty means in terms of “contradiction in the will?”
it means cultivating your talents
what examples of maxims are there that seem not to work so well with Kant’s test?
“I will play tennis on Sunday morning when the courts are free because my neighbors are in church.”
“In order to help the poor, I will work at an organization dedicated to eradicating poverty.”
“In order to get a job offer, I will murder the other finalist.”
what is a response to this maxim?
“I will play tennis on Sunday morning when the courts are free because my neighbors are in church.”
we can’t include references to particular times, places, or people in our maxims, because, if we do, they aren’t really principles that a person could act on
what is a response to this maxim?
“In order to help the poor, I will work at an organization dedicated to eradicating poverty.”
maybe “helping the poor,” is not really the maxim that benevolent people act on
what is a response to this maxim?
“In order to get a job offer, I will murder the other finalist.”
there is a practical contradiction in trying to get — and keep — something you want, through violence.
what is the “formula of universal law"?”
act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
what is the “formula of humanity?”
act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
what does “humanity” mean?
rational nature = our capacity to act in accordance with principles; to act for the sake of ends
what does “to treat as a means” mean?
to use for the sake of something else
what does “to treat as an end (in itself)” mean?
to treat as valuable (for its own sake)
if the formula of humanity isn’t saying that it’s wrong to treat a person as a means, then what is it saying?
it is wrong to treat a person as a mere means
what does “means” mean?
to use another to achieve one’s goals
rose pays myisha to tutor her in french
what is a “mere means?”
to use another tool to achieve one’s goal without also valuing their humanity
sarah’s classmate, sanjay has a very good-looking older brother. sarah decides to be nice to sanjay, whom she doesn’t particularly like, because she hopes he will introduce her to his brother
what does kant think “treating as a mere means” means?
he thinks it means being unable to share one’s ends; he cannot act together with you
why do we have the “formula of humanity” when we already have the “formula of universal law?”
kant seems to think that, whereas the formula of universal law expresses the form of the categorical imperative, the formula of humanity expresses its end
how can we understand the categorical imperative a little better?
think of it as, “always treat humanity as an end in itself (and never merely as a means).”
what are the two aspects of treating humanity as an end in itself?
negatively respecting humanity and positively respecting humanity
what does it mean to negatively respect humanity?
never treating humans as mere means
what does it mean to positively respect humanity?
cultivating rational nature in oneself and others
e.g., developing one’s talents; helping further others’ projects and ends
“contradiction in the will” states:
it’s impossible to will that everyone adopt my maxim, because, if they did, then something else I will wouldn’t be achievable
where does this “something else I will” come from?
suggestion: from positively valuing rational nature