Ethics Final Study Guide - Jenna

Extrinsic Approach

Extrinsic approaches say morality is independent of human reality and is added onto reality by someone's decision, actions are right or wrong when someone decides they are. Morality is related to human existence like ham is related to an omelet; it is added onto it from the outside.

Intrinsic approach

morality emerges out of human reality itself because some aspect of human reality makes actions right or wrong.Morality emerges out of human reality itself. Some aspect of human reality makes certain actions right or wrong.

Four extrinsic approaches

voluntarism, ethical relativism, subjectivism, and emotivism.

What determines who makes actions right or wrong in voluntarist approach

an authority (whoever has power) chooses to make an action right or wrong; I am your mother and I said so

Voluntarism practical consequences

Everyone subject to that authority must obey. For example, a parent's rule applies to that parent's children.

Why is Divine Command Ethics an historical example of voluntarism?

because moral obligations are created by God's will; God chooses to make an action right or wrong

Divine Command Ethics: who decides

God decides what is right and wrong; action is right or wrong because God says so

Divine Command Ethics: practical consequences

Believers or those who recognize God's authority have to obey

authroity in Ethical relativism

society has the authority to determine whether an action is right or wrong.

Ethical relativism practical consequences

An action is right or wrong for a person in that specific society.

Subjectivism authority

the individual conscience has authority to determine whether an action is right or wrong; ex: murder is wrong because my conscience says so

Subjectivism practical consequences

An action becomes right or wrong for that person, but not necessarily for everyone else.

Following conscience and subjectivism

Believing that I have an obligation to follow my conscience does not make me a subjectivist. our conscience doesn’t make an action wrong, it only discovers that it is wrong.

Emotivism

moral statements are based on preferences or emotions, not moral truth.

Emotivism practical consequences

There are no real practical moral consequences because preferences do not create obligations; eliminates the basis for moral debate because there is no conflict over truth

Natural Law vs. Divine Command Ethics

Aquinas's natural law theory says sins are wrong because they harm human welfare, not simply because God says they are wrong; able to understand natural law without access to scripture

Aquinas's definition of law

an order of reason for the common good (not for private interest) made by the person who has care for the community (authority to make law) and promulgated (has to be revealed to everyone subjected to it).

Eternal Law

the plan for creation in the mind of God promulgated through scripture as Divine Law and everything that exists participates in it

Divine Law

God's revealed law, especially through Scripture, and it makes God's plan accessible.

Natural Law in Aquinas

how the rational creature participates in Eternal Law (figuring out what is good or bad for humans)

Human law echoing natural law

A civil law against murder echoes natural law because natural law says murder is bad for human beings.

How is human law related to natural law for Aquinas

Human law may specify details natural law leaves open, such as the punishment for a crime and can echoe what the natural law says (civil law against murder)

Basic purpose of human law according to Aquinas

the purpose of human law is to lead people to virtue.

Why human law does not prohibit every wrong

Human law should not prohibit every wrong because it is made for imperfect people and would become unenforceable if it tried to regulate everything.

Human law and natural law limits

Human law does not prohibit everything forbidden by natural law.

Modern definition of natural law

Natural law is the basic standards of right and wrong that can be recognized, at least theoretically, by all human beings capable of moral agency.

Moral agency

Moral agency means the ability to perform human acts and make moral decisions.

Who natural law excludes

Natural law excludes those who lack moral agency, such as infants and people in comas.

Who natural law includes

Natural law includes everyone capable of moral agency, whether or not they believe in God.

Why not all moral rules are natural law

Not all moral rules are built into human reality because some rules are conventional and depend on historical or situational circumstances.

Conventional moral rules

Conventional moral rules are rules that arise from particular decisions, histories, or contexts rather than being built directly into human nature.

Amish education example

The Amish leaving school in the eighth grade made sense historically in the 1800s, showing how some moral or communal rules depend on context.

Historical source of Christian natural law: Romans

Paul's Letter to the Romans asks whether Gentiles who do not know the Torah have the law written on their hearts.

Historical source of Christian natural law: Greek and Roman philosophy

Greek and Roman philosophy contributed the idea of a higher law above the laws of particular societies.

Actual knowledge of natural law as a practical problem

Although humans should theoretically know natural law, actual human beings still commit terrible wrongs such as genocide, showing that knowledge is limited by sin, ignorance, bias, and context.

Natural law function: moral convergence

Natural law explains moral convergence because nonbelievers can still know what is bad for human beings.

Natural law function: cooperation

Natural law fosters cooperation across religious lines because it offers moral standards accessible to people outside Christianity.

Natural law function: higher law

Natural law offers a higher law than the standards of particular societies.

Teleological approach

Teleological ethics judges actions by whether they move us toward an appropriate goal.

Teleological right action

Actions are right if they move us toward an appropriate goal.

Teleological wrong action

Actions are wrong if they impede progress toward an appropriate goal.

Teleological approach and consequences

Consequences tell us whether an action advances or hinders progress toward the goal.

Pure teleological approach

In a purely teleological approach, the only thing that matters in determining right and wrong is the consequences that follow.

Deontological approach

Deontological ethics judges actions by whether they conform to duty.

Pure deontological approach

In a purely deontological approach, the only thing that matters is whether the action is consistent with duty.

Utilitarianism as intrinsic

Utilitarianism is an intrinsic theory because morality is rooted in human happiness and suffering.

Utilitarianism as teleological

Utilitarianism is teleological because consequences are what matter, especially whether an action maximizes happiness.

Utilitarianism and the goal

Morality is judged by the end result or goal produced.

Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham is the original major figure associated with utilitarianism.

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill is a major utilitarian thinker who refined utilitarianism, especially by distinguishing higher and lower pleasures.

Utilitarian end in itself

For utilitarians, happiness is the one thing people desire as an end in itself.

Utilitarian definition of happiness

Happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain.

Hedonism

Hedonism says the goal of life is physical pleasure.

Utilitarianism vs. hedonism

Utilitarianism is different from simple hedonism because it recognizes higher and lower pleasures and is concerned with total happiness, not merely personal physical pleasure.

Higher and lower pleasures

Mill argues that some pleasures are higher and more fully human, while others are lower and more physical.

Principle of Utility

The Principle of Utility says to maximize happiness: the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Utilitarianism and personal happiness

Utilitarians do not give greater weight to their own happiness because one individual's happiness is no more significant than anyone else's.

Total happiness

Utilitarianism seeks to maximize total happiness, not personal happiness.

Joseph Fletcher's Situation Ethics

Situation Ethics says to maximize Christian love instead of happiness.

Fletcher's modification of utilitarianism

Fletcher replaces happiness, understood as pleasure and absence of pain, with Christian love.

Christian love in Situation Ethics

Christian love becomes the goal or standard that should be maximized in each situation.

Test cases in ethical theory

Test cases are used to test how ethical theories work in difficult or extreme situations.

Cabin boy test case

The cabin boy case tests whether killing one person could be justified if it maximizes happiness for others.

Child in Omelas test case

The child in Omelas tests whether it is moral to sacrifice one innocent person for the happiness of many.

Panda, person, and Mona Lisa test case

This test case raises the practical problem of calculating what will maximize happiness when different kinds of value are involved.

Problem of calculation in utilitarianism

Utilitarianism can be impractical because it is difficult to calculate which action will truly maximize happiness.

Trolley Problem

The Trolley Problem is a thought experiment where a runaway trolley will kill five people unless it is diverted to kill one person instead.

Trolley Problem as utilitarian test case

The Trolley Problem tests whether one should intervene to minimize death and maximize utility, even if doing so directly causes one death.

Utilitarian response to Trolley Problem

A utilitarian would likely divert the trolley because saving five lives produces the greater overall good.

Trolley Problem and deontological ethics

Deontological ethics may resist diverting the trolley because it involves directly causing the death of an innocent person.

Kant's rejection of utilitarianism

Kant rejects utilitarianism because morality is not about making ourselves happy but about making ourselves worthy of happiness.

Kant on morality

Morality is about the person you become and whether you act from duty.

Kantian Ethics as intrinsic

Kantian Ethics is intrinsic because morality is found in the nature of the act and the intention behind it, not in external consequences.

Kant and moral motive

For Kant, morality comes from inner motive, especially acting from duty.

Kantian Ethics as deontological

Kantian Ethics is deontological because it judges actions by whether they follow moral duties, rules, or obligations rather than outcomes.

Kant and moral rightness

An action is morally right when it is done out of duty, not because it produces good consequences.

Kant's view of human nature

Kant emphasizes rationality and freedom as essential to human nature.

Utilitarian view of human nature

Utilitarianism emphasizes shared experiences of desire for happiness as characteristically human.

Good will

For Kant, the only thing that is good in itself is good will.

Good will definition

Good will is the will to do what is morally right because it is right, out of duty.

Kant on desires

Kant pays little attention to desires because an action motivated by desire is not fully free; we do not choose our desires.

Freedom and rationality in Kant

Freedom and rationality create the possibility for autonomous moral action.

Autonomy in Kant

Autonomy is important because moral responsibility requires freedom.

Kant and moral responsibility

A person is moral when they choose to follow rational moral law because they recognize it as right, not because they are forced or driven by impulse.

Action conforming to duty

An action conforms to duty when it outwardly matches what duty requires.

Morally worthy action

An action is morally worthy when it is done from duty, meaning the person does the right thing because they recognize it as right.

Why motive matters in Kant

Right actions alone are not enough; true morality comes from acting from the right motive.

Calculating shopkeeper

The calculating shopkeeper gives fair prices to keep a good reputation and business, not because it is the right thing to do.

Calculating shopkeeper moral meaning

The calculating shopkeeper's action conforms to duty but is not morally worthy because it is motivated by self-interest.

Moral misanthrope

The moral misanthrope feels no affection for others but still helps people because they recognize their duty.

Moral misanthrope moral meaning

The moral misanthrope's action is morally worthy because it is done from duty, not desire.

What determines duty for Kant

Duty is determined by universal moral law, especially the standards of the Categorical Imperative.

Categorical Imperative

A categorical imperative is an unconditional moral rule that applies in all circumstances to all moral agents regardless of consequences.

Hypothetical Imperative

A hypothetical imperative tells you what to do if you want a certain goal.

Categorical Imperative example

"Keep promises" is a categorical imperative because it is morally required.

Hypothetical Imperative example

"If you want good grades, study" is a hypothetical imperative because it depends on a goal.

First formulation of the Categorical Imperative

Act only on the maxim or rule that you can at the same time will to become a universal law.

First formulation meaning

You should act only according to rules that you could reasonably want everyone to follow.

First formulation and promises

You cannot universalize breaking promises whenever convenient because the practice of promising would collapse.

Second formulation of the Categorical Imperative

Act so that you treat humanity never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.