Philosophy Exam 2

moral objectivism

the view that there are moral facts, facts about what is morally right or wrong are true (or false) regardless of what any individuals or groups happen to believe in any particular place or time.

moral relativism

The view that there are no moral facts that are objectively true for all people, but that all moral evaluations are only true or false relative to standards people hold. It has two forms: moral subjectivism and cultural moral relativism.

moral subjectivism

the view that moral judgements are true or false relative to an individuals moral standards

cultural moral relativism

The view that moral judgements are true or false relative to moral standards of a particular culture (usually that of the agent).

moral nihilism

the view that all moral judgements are meaningless. all moral judgements are just irrational expressions of our emotional attitudes toward certain actions or people. (a cview also called emotivism).

Utilitarianism

judges ethical actions to be morally right to the extent that they maximize happiness (or utility) producing pleasures and preventing pains for all parties involved. John Stuart Mill was a proponent and defender of this view.

Greatest Happiness Principle

Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse happiness.

Consequentialism

actions are to be judged right or wrong solely on the basis of their consequences. no action is simply right or wrong intrinsically, or in and of itself; it is only right because it happens to produce good consequences, wrong because it produces bad consequences.

Hedonism

In assessing consequences of a particular action, the only thing that matters is the amount of pleasure produced and the amount of pain prevented.

Egalitarianism

Every person’s happiness counts the same regardless of their staus in society, or their relationship to the agent.

Problem of omniscience

Utilitarianism is criticized as impractical and counterintuitive because it seems to demand that we be able to predict the future when deciding a moral question, possibly foretelling an action’s long-term consequences.

problem of rights

Utilitarianism does not recognize people’s “rights” that might protect them from being “used” or sacrificed for the sake of maximizing others’ happiness.

Problem of injustice

Utilitarianism does not require that happiness be equally distributed between all concerned parties, again leaving open the possibility that a minority might be exploited or made to suffer for the sake of a majority.

Deontology

due to its focus on the concept of moral duty (its root word is deon, the Greek word for “duty”). This theory is nonconsequentialist because, in contrast with utilitarianism, it does not see an act’s consequences as determining its moral value, but rather the intention behind the act. Morally right actions are those carried out according to one’s intention to do one’s (moral) duty.

maxim

general moral principles or rules that one would want others to follow in similar circumstances. kants terminology

A good will

a human will (i.e., motivation) that acts out of respect for moral law, in other words, the good will acts out of a sense of moral duty.

ex: person helping the poor because they enjoy it vs. person helping the poor cause they know its their moral duty.

Hypothetical Imperative

These take the form “If one wants to x…, then one should y…” They are only “binding” on us if we have certain desires. For example: If you want to become a better chess player, then you ought to study the techniques of chess grand masters.

Categorical Imperative

If one is a “rational being” (and all humans are) this is binding no matter what you may feel, who you are, or what the circumstances of a given situation are. Example: You ought to help others when they are in need.

Universal Law: Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law. an action is morally right if the general principle (i.e., maxim) that you are following when performing the action is a principle that you would want others to act on in similar circumstances. If you cannot will that others behave likewise in similar circumstances, then the action is morally prohibited

Formula of Humanity: So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only. one shouldn’t use a person as a mere “means” (or “tool”) to achieve one’s ends (i.e., goals). To do so is to lose sight of another’s humanity – of their status as a fellow rational agent with their own goals—and to treat them instead as just a thing. Any action which uses humanity in this disrespectful way is morally prohibited,

Divine Command Theory

The view that an action is morally right if that action is accordance with God’s will. In other words, something is morally right simply because God commands it, morally wrong simply because God forbids it.

Theistic Natural Law Theory

The view that moral right and wrong are grounded in the natural order of things, as they were created by God. In other words, a God-created universe is instilled with God’s purposes and design, and so it has a built-in “moral structure” in which everything has its own purpose and function. As rational beings, we can figure out these “purposes,” and therefore learn to live morally, in harmony with the universe’s God-given structure.

Two different sense of Identity

1. Two things are very similar (as in: “The two pens are identical – they look exactly the same.”)

2. One thing, which is “identical” to itself (as in: “Clark Kent is identical to Superman.”)

Car identity problem

a car that, one by one, has all of its various parts replaced over

time, including all parts of its interior (the engine, etc.) and its exterior (the body). Is the resulting car the same car?

– If we answer “no” – at what point in the replacement process does the car lose its original identity? Is there some essential part of the car that makes the difference when its replaced? Or some threshold (e.g., 50% of the parts) that changes the identity when it is reached? It’s difficult to find an answer that is not arbitrary here….

– If we answer “yes” – what if we then take all the old original parts (which we saved) and rebuild a car using those? You now have two cars. Which one is identical to the original car?

Transitivity of identity

if X is identical to Y, and X is identical to Z, then Y is identical Z. If “X” is the original car in our example, and Y and Z are the two new cars, we see that the two new cars cannot be identical to each other (i.e., they are clearly two separate objects). Therefore, they cannot both be identical to the original.

Same soul theory

what makes me me is my soul, which is somehow attached to my body during my lifetime, but then becomes detached at death, perhaps continuing in disembodied form. For the same soul theorist, your physical appearance and body are not relevant for who you are.

Psychological continuity theory

According to this theory, I am the same person over time because I have a continuous cluster of psychological properties (that are allowed to change slowly and continuously over time). However, philosophers disagree as to what these ”properties” are. As a result, there are three different versions of the theory, corresponding to different properties:

A. Personality Characteristics: The properties that determine my identity are my personality traits, dispositions, value system, long-term desires and goals, etc.

B. Stream of Consciousness: The property that determines my identity is my continuous stream of consciousness (i.e., series of conscious experiences).

C. Memory: The properties in question are my memories – I am the same person I was last year because I can remember the perceptions that person had, etc.

Physical continuity theory

According to this theory, you are the same person that you were at birth because your physical body and physical features have changed in a continuous way from then up until now. Even if you don’t share any cells with your infant self, they have changed only gradually, in a continuous way... This allows for many changes in the physical body while still maintaining one’s identity – e.g., getting a haircut or a tattoo