Phil 230 review

Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism

No universal truths, morality is relative to something

Cultural Relativism

Moral code relative to culture, culture decides what’s right/wrong

Moral Objectivism

Some universal moral truths exists

Sound Argument

Premise is true, conclusion logically follows

Valid Argument

Conclusion follows set of premises. If premise is true, conclusion must happen

Peter Singer’s Argument (3 premises and a conclusion)

1. Suffering is bad

2. If you can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong to do so

3. Donating to aid agencies prevent suffering without sacrificing much

4. In conclusion, not donating to aid agencies is morally wrong.

What term does Arthur use when referring to Singer’s argument?

Greater Moral Evil (GME) Rule: If you can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is morally wrong not to do so.

2 Types of Entitlements, according to Arthur

1. Rights

   1. Positive: Rights of recipiency

   2. Negative: Rights of noninterference

2. Deserts

   1. Example: Farmer and the lazy neighbour

What rule does Arthur propose instead of the Greater Moral Evil Rule

Moderate Greater Moral Evil (MGME) Rule: If you can prevent something bad from happening without substantial cost to yourself, it is morally wrong not to do so.

Philippa Foot’s Doctrine of Double Effect

Sometimes permissible to allow bad effect in course of achieving some good goal

Negative Duties: Duty to refrain from harming people

Positive Duties: Duty to aid others

note: NEGATIVE DUTIES ARE MORE STRINGENT THAT POSITIVE DUTIES

What are Judith J Thomson’s 2 main points in relation to Philippa Foot’s Doctrine of Double Effect?

1. People have autonomy

   1. Directing the runaway trolley to 1 person instead of 5 deflects a threat from a large group to a small one. But, killing 1 healthy person to save 5 brings a new threat to bear on the larger population.

2. Sometimes people have claim on things

   1. That’s why deflecting the health pebble to the group of 5 is okay because neither the 5 or the 1 have any more claim over it

Why does Marquis think killing is wrong?

It deprives the victim of the value of a future like ours.

Marquis’ Future-Like-Ours (FLO) Argument against abortion (2 premises and a conclusion)

1. Depriving someone of value of future like ours makes killing prima facie wrong.

2. Killing fetus deprives it of value of a future like ours.

3. Killing a fetus, abortion, is prima facie wrong.

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition

Neccessary Condition: B only occurs if A.

Sufficient Condition: B occurs if A.

What are the 2 points in Judith J Thompson’s Defence of Abortion?

1. Right to Life: Does not entail moral requirement on the part of others to give you the bare minimum required for a continued life.

   1. Eg. Trapped (in the house with giant baby)

2. Right to Autonomy: Your right to self-defense or autonomy can outweigh a person’s right to life

   1. Eg. Violinist

   2. Eg. People-Seeds

Is praise/blame directly tied to right/wrong?

No

• Eg. Praiseworthiness — celebrity donates for getting press, action was right but the person is not praiseworthy

• Eg. Blameworthiness — friend helps another friend study but misinforms them by mistake, action was wrong but the person is not blameworthy

Consequentialism

Whether an action is right or wrong depends only on its consequences

Utilitarianism

For action A to be right in certain circumstances, A needs to produce the greatest net well-being, compared to all relavant alternative actions

Hedonism

Well-being consists in happiness/pleasure

What does Bentham think the best net well-being entails? (Hedonism)

Quantity of pleasure (determined by intensity, duration, remoteness, certainty)

Mill called this the Doctrine of Swine

What does Mill think the best net well-being entails? (Hedonism)

Quantity and quality of pleasure

What does the Experience Machine teach us?

That something matters in addition to experience, beyond how our lives feel from the inside

3 Difficulties with Utilitarianism

1. Demandingness

   1. Deliberation — having to find net-value for everything

   2. Motivation — always have to aim to bring about net wellbeing

   3. Action — always self-sacrifice

2. Impartiality

3. No Instrinsic Wrongness

Why does Kant think we are naturally bound to moral law?

Because it is derived from our natural, unique ability to think rationally.

How to formulate universal law? (Kantian Ethics)

Act on a maxim only is you can

1. Act for that reason

2. Will that it be universal law (that everyone does it)

What are the 2 contradictions to the formulation of universal law? As well as the duties associated with each? (Kantian Ethics)

1. Contradiction of Conception: A maxim cannot be universal because it’s impossible to conceive a world where the maxim is universally practiced

   1. Narrow (perfect/strict) Duties: There’s no leeway in deciding when and how one will comply with them

2. Contradiction of Willing: A maxim cannot be universal because it’s impossible to live in a world where you could always practice this maxim.

   1. Wide (imperfect/flexible) Duties: There leeway in deciding when and how one will fulfill them

What are the 2 components of the Formula of the End in Itself? As well as the duties associated with each? (Kantian Ethics)

1. Never treat people as mere means (involve them in a scheme of action where they couldn’t in principle consent to — eg. deciever, coercer)

   1. Narrow (perfect/strict) Duties: Duties derived from the prohibition on using others are means

2. Always treat people as ends in themselves (act beneficiently)

   1. Wide (imperfect/flexible) Duties: Duties derived from requirement to sometimes foster others’ ends

2 problems with Kantian Ethics

1. May create erroneous results (eg. Trains)

2. Issues with maxim formulation (eg. Bank Robbery maxim)

Rossian Pluralism

There are a plurality of morally significant relations (eg. promisee to promiser, friend to friend, etc.) to take into account when optimizing good consequences

What are the 7 Pro Tanto Duties (Rossian Pluralism)

1. Fidelity (keep promises, don’t lie)

2. Reparation (right past wrongs)

3. Gratitude

4. Justice (distribute goods according to merit)

5. Beneficience (improve conditions of others)

6. Self-Improvement

7. Non-Maleficence (don’t harm others)

What is the “Unconnected Heap” objection to Rossian Pluralism?

The theory is a heap of arbitrary pro tanto duties with no explanation of why one’s on the list. Ross’s theory merely mirrors ordinary moral thinking.

What did Aristotle think was the fundamental question of ethics?

What makes someone a good person?

Eudaimonia and its 3 characteristics

Human flourishing, what’s fundamentally good is also a good person

1. Complete

2. Self-Sufficient

3. Most choice worthy (all other goods are chosen for its sake)

A thing’s essential capacities determine its function. Apply this to humans. (Virtue Ethics)

Humans have an essential capacity of practical reasoning, thus we have a rational function.

According to our rational function, how do human beings live well? (Virtue Ethics)

For human beings to live well (eudaimonia) is for them to engage in rational activity excellently (virtuously).

• Eudaimonia is living a life of excellent rational activity

Virtue is a [blank] between 2 [blank]

Virtue is a mean between 2 extremes, excess and deficiency.

How do we become just? 3 Steps to acquiring virtue.

1. Know an action is virtuous

2. Do an action because it is virtuous

3. Develop a firm disposition to do virtuous acts so that it becomes ingrained in your character

2 arguments that Virtue theorists could argue

1. All apparent conflicts between virtues are merely apparent

   • There is always an action that a virtuous person would perform, making it the right action

2. There are some genuine conflicts, but any option that a virtuous agent would choose is right

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development, also applied to the Heinz drug stealing example

1. Preconventional Level

   1. Stage 1: Punishment & Obedience — No, Heinz will go to prison

   • Stage 2: Self-interest — Yes, Heinz will feel better

2. Conventional Level

   1. Stage 3: Interpersonal concordance — Yes, Heinz’s is a good husband and should do anything to save his wife

   • Stage 4: Law and order — No, stealing is illegal

3. Postconventional Level

   1. Stage 5: Social contract — No, others have to pay for it so it’s only fair that he pays for it as well

   • Stage 6: Universal ethical principle — Yes, the woman’s right to life trumps the druggist’s right to his property

What did Gillian notice when women discussed abortion?

That they would balance questions on selfishness and selflessness. The obligation to exercise care and avoid hurt.

Gillian’s Development of an Ethic of Care (3 Levels)

1. Preconventional Level: What’s best for me?

2. Conventional Level: What’s best for them?

3. Postconventional Level: What’s best for us?

Nodding’s definition of Natural Caring

Effortless, act on behalf of another because we want to.

Nodding’s definition of Ethical Caring

In response to emmory of natural caring, we remember our best moments of caring/being cared for and feel an obligation to help others.

There is no obligation to feel an “I must” response, but there is obligation to…? (Nodding Care Ethics)

There is an obligation to accept the impulse and summon the impulse in case it doesn’t come naturally.

What is obligation to accept and call forth the “I must” impulse grounded in? Is there a universal principle for how to care? What is the limit to the caring relation?

• Our obligation to accept and call forth this impulse is grounded in the intrinsic goodness of the caring relation.

• There is no universal principle for how to care. We must be guided by our vision of our ‘best self,’ which is rooted in the universal caring relation.

• A limit to the caring relation is that there is only an obligation to summon the “I must” impulse if it’s possible for others to receive and show that they’ve been “cared for”

What does Ubuntu mean? What is its principle?

Definition: Humaneness

A person is a person through other persons, “I am because we are”

What makes an action right according to Ubuntu?

Action is right insofar as it promotes shared identity among people grounded in good-will, and wrong to the extent that it fails to do so and encourages the opposite (division and ill-will)

Moral Status vs. Moral Standing

Something has moral status when they count morally in their own right. Something has moral standing when they count morally, but not necessarily in their own right.

Threshold vs. Superlative Views of moral status

Threshold View: A person’s moral status is binary, they either have it or they don’t.

Superlative View: A person’s moral status is graded, their moral status is on a scale.

Internal vs Relational Views of moral status

Internal View: Moral status is grounded in internal features (individualism)

Relational View: Moral status is grounded in relationships that people have (communalism)

Moralized Relationalism

Being has moral status to the extent that they are a part of existing communal relationships

Modal Relationalism

Beings have moral status to the extent that they have the capacity to participate in communal relationships

What does it mean to be a subject of communal interactions? (Ubuntu)

To cognitively, emotionally, and behaviourally relate with others

What does it mean to be an object of communal interactions? (Ubuntu)

To be identified as part of the group

Full/Partial/No Moral Status (Ubuntu)

Full Moral Status: Person has the capacity to be a subject and object of communal interactions.

Partial Moral Status: Person lacks the capacity to be a subject of communal interactions.

• Those who are at least objects of communal interaction are considered persons, and are given full status regardless.

No Moral Status: Person lacks the capacity to be both the subject and object of communal interactions.

Metaethics

Questions about nature of moral thought and talk itself

Moral Skepticism, first and second order

There are no objective values, no facts other that what’s true in the physical world

1. “First-Order” Skepticism: We morally ought to reject everything that conventionally passes for morality

2. “Second-Order” Skepticism: Examine the status of moral values, how and where they fit into the world although they don’t exist

3 reasons why moral skepticism is right (why there are no objective truths)?

1. There’s widespread moral disagreement because they reflect people’s different ways of life and that people morally approve of what they involve themselves in.

2. If there were objective values, they would be utterly different from anything else in the universe

3. If there were objective values, they could be utterly different from our ordinary ways of knowing

Tests for Moral Objectivism: Spinach Test

The joke — “Child hates spinach. She’s glad she hates spinach. If she liked it, she would have eaten it, and it’s gross.”

If the joke works, it indicates the subject matter is subjective (eg. liking/disliking). If it doesn’t work, it’s objective.

Tests for Moral Objectivism: Phenomenology-of-Disagreement Test

If you’re having an argument and it feels like you’re stating a preference, the subject matter is subjective. If it feels liek you’re trying to get at an objective truth, then the subject matter is objective.

Tests for Moral Objectivism: Counterfactual Test

If a truth does not depend on our beliefs to exist, it is objective.

• Fedoras are out of style. Had our fashion practices been different, had we work them and thought they were cool, would it still be true that fedoras are out of style? No.

• Smoking causes cancer. Had our practices and belief regarding smoking been different, had we been ok with it and not banned it, would it still have been true that smoking causes cancer? Yes.

Moral Saints, Loving and Rational

Person whose actions are as morally good as possible.

1. Loving Saint: A loving saint is a saint gladly. They promote the welfare of others because their happiness lies in the happiness of others.

2. Rational Saint: A Rational Saint sacrifices their own interests for the interests of others (they feel these sacrifices as sacrifices)

Why is it not worth being a moral saint?

Moral saints wouldn’t be able to cultivate interests and personal characteristics that contribute to a healthy well-rounded character because their resources and attitudes are given only to others.