PHIL22 FINAL

What is Aristotle’s view of virtue?

• Virtue is a state, rather than a feeling or capacity

• Virtue is about finding a balance between two extremes, that of excess and deficiency

• A virtuous person uses reason and judgment to find the right balance between the two for any situatuion

What is the doctrine of the mean?

• Just as the body needs balance to stay healthy, our character needs balance to be virtuous

• The mean doesn’t mean the exact middle, as it is relative to every person. It means what’s right the situation and determined by reason

What is the difference between doing something virtuous and doing something virtuosuly?

To do something virtuous AND out of virtue, one must..

1) have knowledge

2) Choose the act for its own sake

3) Act from a firm and unchangeable character

What does Aristotle think is the relationship between pleasure and virtue?

A virtuous person takes pleasure in being virtuous; that is, they enjoy doing it. Through habit and practice, we train ourselves to take pleasure in virtuous actions.

1) Pleasure reveals what a person’s habits/dispositions are

2) If you take pleasure in good actions, you’re virtuous

3) If you take pleasure in bad actions, your character is off

What is Li? What is Kongzi’s understanding of it?

• Translated as “ritual”

• A set of practices/guidelines for conduct. Strict adherence to these rules would serve to cultivate and habituate virtue

• Large scope. Not just behaviors, but physical presentation, tone, and speech style

• Examples are funeral rites and official ceremonies and sacrifices

Why is virtue important, according to Kongzi?

• Makes you a morally excellent person

• Creates social harmony; society becomes orderly and peaceful

• Makes people behave out of genuine moral commitment. More powerful than punishment

• Virtue is cultivated through practice

Types of moral evaluation

1) A person’s character (questions of virtue)

2) Actions (questions of permissibility, rightness)

3) How a person’s actions reflect on that person (questions of moral worth, quality of will, praiseworthiness)

What is the good will?

• The only unconditioned will, valuable no matter what happens

• One that acts from from duty, because its the right thing to do, and guided by reason.

What is Kant’s view of why virtue is important?

• Virtue is important because it is the strength of the will to do what is morally right, out of duty. Follows moral law

• Self-control, and commitment to duty. Basically, it’s the ability to do the right thing, even when it’s hard or you don’t want to

• Ensures your actions come from duty or reason, not b/c it feels good

Maxim

General principle on the basis of which you act

eg; I will give to charity to help those in need

What is consequentalism?

The view that the moral permissibility of an action is determined by whether it produces the best results

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 the circumstances

What is a consequentalist’s theory of morally right action?

• An action is morally right if it produces the best overall consequences

• The outcome matters most, not one’s intentions or the action itself

Rights-based objections to utilitarianism

The objections: Utilitarianism can justify violating individual rights if doing so produces better overall consequences.

• Since utilitarianism focuses on maximizing total good, a rights-based view argues that every person’s rights should be respected, even if it reduces total good

• eg; killing one person to harvest their organs and donate them to 5 others. Utilitarianism may justify it, but the rights-based view is completely against it because it violates that person’s right

What is Peter Singer’s view of what we owe to those suffering around the globe?

We ought to preventing a lot more people from dying due to lack of food, shelter, and medical care than we currently are.

• We have a strong moral obligation to help people suffering from extreme poverty even if they are far away

KEY POINT: If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything nearly as important, we ought to do it.

What are Amia Srinivasan’s worries about the Effective Altruism movement? (1)

1) When the decisions get too complicated, effective altruism’s calculations become less useful. One can’t reliably calculate the “best outcome” so effective altruism loses its advantage. So, people end up relying on intuition or common sense anyway.

Srinivasan’s worries about the EA movement (2)

2) Effective altruism models are susceptible to telling people what they want to hear

Srinivasan’s worries about the EA movement (3)

3) Utilitarianism demands the wrong things. It asks us to give up personal relationships, our loyalties, and identities

John Taurek

• Pushed back on utilitarian thinking, which says that saving 5 lives is better than 1.

• His core idea is that each person’s life matters to that individual, but we can’t add up people’s claims like numbers in math.

• He agrees that it’s okay to save a friend instead of 5 strangers, because numbers don’t always override personal reasons.

What is the seperateness persons objection to Utilitarianism (as John Taurek presents it)?

Taurek rejects aggregation. Utilitarianism wrongly treats different people’s experiences as if they can be added together into one total, but people are separate moral beings.

What is deontology?

Moral theories on which the permissibility of an action is determined by the principles or rule the action follows.

What are deontologist theories of morally right action?

An action is morally right if it follows the correct rules, regardless of consequences.

• Acting from the right motive gives your action moral worth

• But some actions are wrong or right in themselves, not because of their consequences

What is Kant’s view about how to test the moral permissibility of an action, and how can one apply that test?

If your action only works because other people aren’t doing it, then it’s not morally allowed and therefore impermissible.

Universalization test:

Step 1: Identify your maxim (Your rule). What am I about to do and why?

Step 2: Universalize it. What if everyone acted this way?

Step 3: Look for a contradiction. Would this still work if everyone did it?

What is Kant’s distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives?

Categorical: “The supreme principle.” Unconditional (applies to everyone always). What you should do regardless or what your goals or ends are.

• You should do Y, period

Hypothetical: Conditional (depends on desires). What you should do if you have particular goals or ends.

• If you want X, then you should do Y

Imperative (Kant)

A command, something a person should do. Kant believes there is a moral law stemming from reason. But, your will doesn’t automatically follow it b/c of desires, emotions, etc. So, the law shows up as a command to you. “I should follow this”

More on hypothetical vs categorical imperatives (Kant)

• Hypothetical imperatives are unclear until you know the goal

• Categorical imperatives are simple and always the same

Only act on a rule (maxim) that you would want everyone to follow

What is the Formula of Universal Law formulation of the categorical imperative?

Kant says “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”

So…A maxim is right only if the rule behind it could be consistently followed by everyone

• State your maxim, universalize it, then test it

What is the Formula of Humanity formulation of the categorical imperative?

Kant says “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”

So… Treat people as valuable in themselves, not just as tools to get what you want

• Means is okay, mere means is not

What does it mean to use a person as a means, or a mere means?

Means: To use another to achieve one’s goals

Mere means: To use another as a tool to achieve one’s goals without also valuing their humanity

Heteronomous will

One that is determined by external forces

Autonomous will

One that determines itself

The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends

Kant says “Act on the maxims of a member who makes universal laws for a mereluy possible kingdom of ends”

• So… Act as if you are making rules for a community where everyone is rational, equal, and deserving of respect

• Everyone is both a law-maker and a law follower. Focuses on fairness and equality in a moral community

What is psychological egoism?

Descriptive view. People are selfish in everything they do, the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self-interest

What is ethical egosim?

Normative view. People only ever should do what’s in their self-interest

What is Ryan-Preston’s Roeder’s view about what humanity amounts to?

“A certain form of faith in people’s decency.” Not just holding the view that people are generally good, but a stance towards particular individuals that informs how one interacts with them

Cognitive element of faith in humanity: forward looking

A tendency to judge even in the face of reasons for doubt, that people will act decently given the right forms of encouragement

• Believing people will act well, giving people the benefit of the doubt. With the right support and encouragement, they will behave decently

• Future potential

Cognitive element of faith in humanity: backwards looking

A tendency to judge that people are decent, or that they have behaved well

• Judging people based on what they have already done

• Past behavior

Volitional element of faith in humanity

• Volitional: about will, choice, or commitment

• Faith in humanity isn’t just a belief, but something you actively care about and commit to.

• Not just thinking people can be good, but caring that they actually are

Hedonism

Pleasure is the only intrinsic good, and pain is the only intrinsic bad.

A life that has few HIGH QUALITY pleasure is always better than a life that is only made up of LOW QUALITY pleasures.

Desire-satisfaction theory

Something is intrinsically good for you if and because it satisfies your desires. Having one's desire fulfilled/satisfied is the only intrisically valuble good.

Objective list theory

Certain things are good for a person independently of whether they desire or enjoy them. AKA what is intrinsically good for a person is at least partially mind independant.independent

Eudaimonia

• The highest human good

• Happiness, flourishing, doing well

• Virtuous (ie excellent) rational activity

• Has the qualities of 1) Completeness and 2) Self-sufficiency

Kant: Acting in accordance with duty vs from duty

With duty: you do the right thing, for the wrong reason

From duty: You do the right thing, because it is your duty

Contradiction in conception

The maxim cannot work if universalized. Action becomes impossible. Can it exist?

Contradiction in will

Maxim is possible, but you couldn’t rationally will it. Could I accept it?