Philosophy - Ethics Exam #1

When are arguments valid?

-If the premises are true then the conclusion must be true.

-Conclusion logically follows premises

When are arguments sound?

-Valid (logical)

-True premises

What is Cultural Relativism?

-"You should X iff you're in a society that approves of X."

What are some of the worries facing Cultural Relativism?

-"The Cultural Differences Argument"

-Just because something is a social or cultural norm does not make a wrong act right and vice versa.

-Infanticide example

What is Non-Factivism (Non-Cognitivism)?

-"Moral claims aren't true or false"

-non-factive language includes questions, commands, cheering/booing

What is Emotivism (the "final" version we discussed)?

-Considered a branch of non-factivism

-Statements that are COMMANDING and CHEERING/BOOING

What are some worries facing Emotivism?

-Plausible for both commanding and complaining, NOT contemplation

What are some worries facing any form of Non-Factivism?

-Worry #1: Moral (Dis)Agreement - doesn't necessarily "sound wrong" although theory states that it should

-Worry #2: Moral Reasoning - Validity doesn't apply because saying "You shouldn't kill me' couldn't be considered as right or wrong

What is Moral Nihilism?

- "All positive (,factive, and relative) moral claims are false"

What is Moral Objectivism?

-"There are positive claims that are (i) factive, (ii) non-relative, and (iii) true.

What is the Observation Argument?

-Moral facts don't play any explanation in explaining what we observe

-Contingent on "The Observation Principle" - "We should only believe in things that appear in the best explanation of our observations"

P1: The Observation Principle.

P2: Moral facts don't appear in the best explanation of our observations.

C: We shouldn't believe that there are moral facts.

What are some potential replies to the Observation Argument?

-Response #1: Moral facts will appear in the best explanation (reject P2)

-Ex: Happiness > chemicals > physics > ARE INCLUDED.

-Response #2: The Observation Principle would condemn mathematics (reject P1)

-Ex: 1+1=2, cannot observe the mathematical law that makes statement true > invalidates O.P. or we shouldn't believe math?

-Response #3: The Observation Principle condemns itself (reject P1)

-Ex: "Epistemic facts" - The things that make epistemic claims true > O.A. rejects epistemic facts > the O.P. itself is an epistemic fact > O.P. isn't true?

What diagnostic criteria do contemporary ethicists use to assess our moral beliefs?

-1) Give reasons for your moral judgements

-2) Check reasons for consistency (with each other and with other beliefs)

-3) Check these reasons for plausibility (especially arbitrariness)

What is the Divine Command Theory?

-"You should X iff (and because) God wants you to X"

-Everything we do is because God wants us to.

-(Theory only plausible iff God has the canonical attributes)

What are the canonical attributes of God?

-G1: All powerful (Omnipotent)

-G2: All knowing (Omniscient)

-G3: All good (Benevolent)

What is the Euthyphro Dilemma? (And why is it a dilemma?)

-For G1-G3

-Suppose you should X, and suppose God wants you to X

-Euthyphro Dilemma - poses conflict between DCT and canonical attributes

-O1: Should you X because God wants you to X?

-Accepts DCT, Conflicts with G3

-Life becomes contingent on whatever God wants you to do; What He wants = the right thing

-trivializes G3 (benevolence)

OR

-O2: Does God want you to X because you should?

-Rejects DCT, Conflicts with G1

-God cannot make something morally right > something God can't do > NOT omnipotent (G1)

What is St. Aquinas's response to the Euthyphro dilemma? (And to the rock dilemma?)

-Poses suggestion that He cannot do anything logically impossible

-Reframes O2: Omnipotent means being able to do anything that is POSSIBLE > it is logically impossible to make something wrong morally right > God is still omnipotent > DCT and Canonical attributes can both exist

-(Rock dilemma: Making a rock so heavy he can't lift is logically impossible > He can make a rock as big as He wants and can lift anything > impossible > God still omnipotent)

Why don't religious sources make ethics easy?

-Difficulty #1: Omission

-There are some topics never addressed

-Difficulty #2: Need for interpretation

-Ambiguity

-Prima Facie "at first glance" conflicts

-Prima Facie implausibility

-Difficulty #3: Fallibility of Interpretation

-Not always right, not the end all be all

What is Utilitarianism?

-"One should X iff X maximizes utility"

-Whose? Everyones.

-When? Always, over time.

What is Hedonic Utilitarianism?

-"One should X iff X maximizes utility"

-Utility = Pleasure

(pleasure and absence of pain)

How would a Hedonic Utilitarian respond to the "philosophy of the swine" objection?

-Philosophy of the Swine Objection: Utilitarians would behave irresponsibly, and degradingly. Life would be madness and society would fall apart.

RESPONSE

-A)Objection forgets scope of utilitarianism.

-Counts for happiness across ALL TIME, account for consequences to actions

-B)Utilitarianism cares about animal pleasures and higher pleasures (reading, art, learning, etc.)

How would a Hedonic Utilitarian respond to the "it's useless" objection?

-It's Useless Objection: Is of no help figuring out what to do and we'd never get anything done.

RESPONSE

-A)Maximizes expected utility, that's useful.

-B)(alt) It's a criterion of rightness, not supposed to be useful.

What are some attractive features of Utilitarianism?

-1) Impartial - Everyone in moral community is equal.

-2) Simple and Elegant

-3) Explains why "The Virtues" are virtues - (courage, honesty, charity, etc.)

-4) Explains many ordinary moral judgements

-5) Gets a lot of cases that are hard to get on other theories

What is the form that objections to Utilitarianism take? And what are the standard lines of defense a Utilitarian can appeal to in order to respond to objections?

-Form of objections - "X maximizes utility, but you should not X"

-Form of replies -

-#1: Does X really maximize utility?

-#2: Is X really wrong?

-#3: (Last resort) Are we using the right notion of utility? (This method gives up Hedonic Utilitarianism)

What is the Experience Machine objection to Hedonic Utilitarianism? And how might they respond?

-Experience Machine Objection: You can plug yourself into an experience machine where all of your wildest fantasies come true and you are programmed to believe that it is real life.

-Reply #1- Does it maximize the utility of... your friends and family?

-Drain on resources

-Contributes nothing

-Reply #2- Is X really wrong?

-Reply #3- Are we using the right notion of utility?

-Preference Utilitarianism (satisfies the greatest amount of preferences)

What is the Rights and Justice objection to Hedonic Utilitarianism? And how might they respond?

-Rights and Justice Objection: In certain cases, (ex: A peeping Tom) justice is not the solution that provides the maximum amount of utility.

-Reply #1- Chance of getting caught takes away from happiness

-Reply #2- Is X really wrong?

-Say, the spyee never finds out?

-Reply #3- Are we using the right notion of utility?

-Preference Utilitarianism (Not true, say the spyee prefers privacy...)

-Rights-Adjusted Utilitarianism (Then theory is no longer simple)

What is the Personal Relationships objection to Hedonic Utilitarianism? And how might they respond?

-Personal Relationships Objection - One should be able to give preferential treatment, and therefore be impartial, towards those they are close with. For example, saving your drowning child over a strangers' drowning child.

-Reply #1: If not:

-Extra guilt?

-Communal horror?

-Reply #2: Is X really wrong?

-Reply #3: Are we using the right notion of utility?

-Moorean Utilitarianism: utility = pleasure, friendship, and aesthetic experience.

What is the Too Demanding objection to Hedonic Utilitarianism? And how might they respond?

-Too Demanding Objection: Hedonic Utilitarianism is too demanding, it should not be morally wrong to treat yourself when there are others doing less well than you.

-Reply #1: Need psychological incentives to earn more?

-The global nature of economics?

-Reply #2: Is X really wrong?

-Reply #3- Are we using the right notion of utility?

-Not clear changing this would help...

What is a Maxim?

-Principle by which you will live

-Ex: I will X, when Y, in order to Z

-X=Act

-Y=Situation

-Z=Goal

What is the Categorical Imperative (Universal Law formulation)?

-"You should only act in accordance with the maxim that you can, at the same time, constantly will to be a Universal Law"

What are the 4 steps for evaluating the Categorical Imperative?

-1) Formulate Maxim - (Identify X,Y, & Z)

-2) Generalize Maxim - (Apply to everyone)

-3) Think - What would the world be like if that generalized maxim was a law of nature?

-4) Apply Two Tests

- T1: Would doing X in Y still achieve Z at such a world?

-T2: Would Z be furthered in general at such a world?

What is the Consistent Evils objection to the Categorical Imperative?

-There will be times when evil passes both tests and can be applied as a universal law.

Ex: Nazis

1-I will [kill jews] when [I'm able] in order to [get rid of jews].

...

4- T1: Pass T2: Pass

What is the Inconsistent Trivialities objection to the Categorical Imperative?

-Some maxims the Categorial Imperative tells us we can't do seem totally unreasonable.

-Ex: Rush hour traffic

1- I will [take the backroads] when [it's rush hour] in order to [beat the traffic].

...

4- T1: Fail

What is the Sly Universalizer objection to the Categorical Imperative?

-If you're clever enough about how you phrase a maxim, you can make anything morally permissible. (You can phrase a maxim to evade universal law.)

-Ex: Cheating

1- I will [lie to my partner] when [they've found evidence that I'm cheating and it's 9/16/20 and my name is Cate Cataldo and...]

...

3-World would be exact same with just one instance of being able to get out of trouble.

4-T1: Pass T2: Pass

What's the Prisoner's Dilemma? (Why is it interesting?)

-If you both confess (5 yrs, each)

-If they don't confess and you do (1 yr vs. 10 yrs)

-If you don't confess and they do (10 yrs vs. 1 yr)

-If you both don't confess (2 yrs, each)

-Note 1: Rationally self-interested option is to confess

-Note 2: If you both confess, you'll both do worse than if you don't confess

-Affects our lives daily, dependant on the other person

What is the Veil of Ignorance?

-Rawls's idea

-Ignorant of: race, class, gender, physical/mental abilities*, religion, culture, values

-Still know: -They are rational, -It's in everyone's best interest to have certain basic goods (liberties, protections, resources, etc.)

What is Rawlsian Contractualism?

-"You should act in accordance with the rules that would be agreed to by (1) rational, (2) self-interested agents who are, (3) behind the veil of ignorance."

How does Rawlsian Contractualism avoid the worries facing Kant's view?

-Worries 1 & 2 - "Consistent evils" & "Inconsistent trivialities"

-Diagnosis: "Doesn't take other people's wishes into consideration the right way"

-Fix: Replace consistent willing of universal laws with casual agreement to universal rules

-Worry 3 - "Sly universalizer"

-Diagnosis: Allows you to take advantage of what you know about your situation.

-Fix: Require agreement behind veil.

What are some worries for Rawlsian Contractualism?

-Worry 1: Non rational beings get left out.

-Disincentives giving special treatment/protection to non rational beings - curtails their liberties.

-Worry 2: Whats "rational?"

-2a: How will rational agents weigh risk?

-Ex: Lotteries

-2b: How will "rational" agents weigh liberties vs. protections vs. resources?

-Ex: Hate speech