PHIL 225 Exam

Define Utilitarianism

an action is morally right when it produces the greatest overall happiness (or minimizes overall suffering) for everyone affected; focuses on consequences over rights, intentions or desert

Describe The Queen v Dudley and Stephens

4 men are stranded at sea after a shipwreck and are starving with little hope of rescue. Dudley and Stephens killed Parker (the youngest/weakest) and ate him. Argue killing Parker was necessary for survival, but ultimately convicted of murder.

Bentham points

Humans are governed by pleasure/pain which determines what people seek/avoid; introduces the principle of utility; describes utilitarianism as impartial (sometimes justifies an action that seems individually wrong if the consequences produce enough overall benefit)

Explain the principle of utility

an action is right insofar as it tends to increase happiness/pleasure and decrease pain

Mill points

Further develops Bentham’s case & introduces the greatest happiness principle; discusses higher/lower pleasures; argues that justice can be understood through utility and is ultimately grounded in the promotion of happiness

Explain the greatest happiness principle

Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness

Singer points

Applies utilitarian reasoning to global poverty and emphasizes the impartiality of utilitarianism; drowning child, geographical distance makes no difference; if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, w/out sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought morally to do it; greater resources —> greater capacity to prevent suffering —> obligation

Kravinsky points

Provides extreme ex. of Singer’s altruism; gives enormous amounts of his wealth away & donates a kidney to a stranger; raises distinction between supererogatory action (morally admirable) and moral obligation (demanded)

Fagone points

Argues Kravinsky’s behaviour challenges our assumptions about what morality requires; if Kravinsky is rationally following a moral principle, perhaps his behaviour is not irrational —> where does the moral obligation to help others stop?

Caplan points

The Stranger; challenges/complicates the way we consider our obligations towards strangers; humans naturally care more about family, friends, etc. than strangers, HOWEVER, utilitarianism demands impartiality; prompts questions like can our ordinary moral instrinct accomodate the utilitarian demand that strangers’ interests count equally? is the impartiality demanded by Singer psychologically/morally reasonable?

Rawls points

What principles would people choose if they had to establish a fair society? The original position & the veil of ignorance; principle of equal basic liberties; principle of social & economic inequalities; the difference principle

The original position/the veil of ignorance

Imagine people are deciding fundamental rules of society but placed behind a veil of ignorance (don’t know their role/traits) to prevent designing a rule that would benefit themselves

Principle of equal basic liberties

Everyone should have equal basic fundamental liberties (ie. freedom of speech, conscience, etc.)

Principle of social & economic inequalities

Inequalities can exist, but must involve fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle

The difference principle

inequalities should benefit the least advantaged members of society

Friedman & Friedman points

Emph. economic freedom as being connected to individual freedom (ppl should be free to choose to work/trade/spend etc. w/out extensive govt control); economic control becomes political control; free markets can help protect individual liberty; does not treat economic inequality as evidence of injustice (questions whether ppl are free to particpate & make voluntary choices)

Hayeck points

Challenges that society can fairly distribute rewards according to merit; equality of treatment vs equality of outcomes; argues market rewards don’t necessarily correspond to moral merit, arises more from decisions/circumstances; trying to distribute income according to some govt. determined conception of “desert” would require enormous centralized control —> this economic inequality X necessarily imply unjust market distribution

Nozick points

CHALLENGES RAWLS; distributive justice; focuses on rights/legitimate ownership —> how did ppl come to possess what they have > is the final distribution equal; wilt chamberlain example; the fact that smth is undeserved/unchosen doesn’t auto. mean the govt. is entitled to redistribute it

The entitlement theory

1) justice in acquisition (how did someone og. acquire smth) 2) justice in transfer (was it transferred voluntarily? 3) rectification (what happens when past injustice occured?)

Wilt Chamberlain & distributive justice

Imagine begin w/ a distribution everyone agrees is just —> ppl voluntarily pay chamberlain a small amt to watch him play —> chamberlain becomes richer —> distribution unequal, but not unjust bc voluntary transfers —> requiring redistribution to restore equalities interferes w/ ppl’s freedom

Rawls vs Nozick

Rawls: natural talents = morally arbitrary —> society’s institutions should be structured to benefit the least advantaged

Nozick: natural talents aren’t chosen —> this does not by itself est. a right to forcibly redistribute someone’s legitimate earnings

Answer from the utilitarian/singer/rawls/friedman or hayeck/nozick perspective: When, if ever, is it legitimate to interfere with what individuals have in order to produce a more desirable distribution of resources?

Utilitarian: interference can be justified if it produces better overall happiness (Bentham’s utility principle/mill’s greatest happiness principle)

Singer: this can generate significant obligations to sacrifice our resources to reduce suffering.

rawls: interference/redistribution can be justified when necessary to est. fair institutions and improve the position of the least advantaged, while protecting basic liberties (principle of equal basic liberties/social & economic inequalities/difference)

friedman/hayeck: govt. redistribution and economic control can threaten individual liberty & economic freedom (hayeck - equality of treatment vs equality of outcomes)

nozick: if ppl legitimately own their resources, forcibly taking them to achieve a preferred distribution violates their rights

Trolley problem

• A runaway trolley is heading toward five people who will die if nothing happens.

• You can pull a lever to divert the trolley onto another track, where it will kill one person instead.

• Do you pull the lever? Utilitarian says yes

Singer’s Pond Analogy

Singer's pond analogy imagines that you see a child drowning in a shallow pond and could save them at little cost to yourself, so you obviously should. Singer argues that distance does not change our moral obligation, meaning we should also help people suffering from poverty when we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance.

The Singer Solution to World Poverty

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Singer argues that wealthy people have a moral obligation to give up some luxuries to help prevent serious suffering and death from poverty. His argument follows the utilitarian principle that if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought to do so.

What do we owe the stranger?

In “The Stranger,” Bryan Caplan questions how much we are morally obligated to sacrifice for people we do not know and will never meet. The reading challenges the demanding implications of Singer’s argument by asking whether our obligations to strangers should be as strong as our obligations to people close to us.

Zell Kravinsky

In “The Gift,” Zell Kravinsky represents an extreme example of Singer’s argument by giving away most of his wealth and even donating a kidney to a stranger. His actions raise the question of how much we are morally obligated to sacrifice for others, and whether extreme altruism is admirable or actually required.

Original Position

The hypothetical situation. Rawls asks us to imagine people choosing the basic rules of society from behind a veil of ignorance, where they do not know their own wealth, talents, social class, race, gender, or position in society. This ensures that the principles they choose are fair and impartial, since they could end up anywhere in society.

Veil of Ignorance

The condition within the OG position. Rawls imagines that people choose the rules of society without knowing what position they will occupy in that society—such as their wealth, talents, class, or social status. This prevents people from creating rules that unfairly benefit themselves and ensures that the rules are fair to everyone.

System of Natural Liberty

Rawls describes this as a system where people have equal formal opportunities, but social and economic outcomes can still be heavily influenced by their natural talents and social circumstances. Rawls argues that this is not sufficiently fair, because people do not choose their starting positions or natural abilities.

Equality before the law

The idea that all people should be treated equally by the legal system, regardless of their wealth, social class, status, or other personal characteristics. It means the law should apply equally to everyone, rather than giving some people special legal advantages.

Liberal Equality of Opportunity

The idea that everyone should have equal formal opportunities to compete for jobs and positions, regardless of their social class or background. However, it still allows differences in outcomes because people may have different natural talents, abilities, or circumstances.

“Life’s not fair”

Rawls uses this idea to recognize that people are born into different social circumstances and with different natural abilities, none of which they choose. Since these differences are morally arbitrary, Rawls argues that society should structure its institutions to make their effects fairer, especially for the least advantaged.

Desert

The idea that people deserve rewards or outcomes based on their effort, ability, or contribution. Hayek questions whether society can fairly distribute rewards according to desert because people's success depends on many factors they did not choose or control.

Merit

The idea that people should receive rewards based on their qualities, abilities, effort, or performance. Hayek argues that market rewards do not necessarily reflect moral merit—someone can earn more without being more deserving as a person.

Value

In Hayek’s discussion, value refers to the worth that something has to other people, especially as reflected through the market, rather than how morally deserving someone is. Something can have high market value without the person who produces it being more meritorious or deserving.

Entitlement

Nozick’s idea that a person is entitled to what they possess if it was acquired and transferred justly. Justice depends on the history of how something was obtained, not whether the final distribution is equal or benefits the least advantaged.

Patterned or End State principles

Nozick's term for theories of justice that judge whether a distribution is just based on the pattern or final outcome of who has what—for example, requiring equality or distributing resources according to need or merit. Nozick argues that maintaining a particular pattern requires interfering with people's freedom to voluntarily transfer what they own.

Redistribution

The government takes resources from some people, usually through taxation, and uses them to provide resources or benefits to others. Nozick argues that redistribution can violate individual rights when it takes legitimately acquired property from people without their consent.

Right to receive

The idea that a person has a claim or entitlement to receive something from others, such as resources or assistance. Nozick questions whether people have such rights simply because they are in need, arguing that someone’s need does not automatically give them a right to another person’s property.