Studied by 0 people
-Ethical theories -Metaethics -Applied ethics
What were Bentham’s 3 claims
1) Whether an action is good or bad solely depends on its consequence
2) The only thing that is good is happiness
3)No individual’s happiness is more important than anyone elses
What does the felicific calculus contain of
Intensity, Duration, Certainty, Purity, Extent
What do act utilitarians think
That the morally good action is the one that maximizes the total happiness
What is the problem of act utilitarianism
It’s difficult to calculate, One isn’t able to predict the future, how can we quantify variables & compare the variables
What is the tyranny of the majority
If 100 people get pleasure from seeing one innocent person suffer, utilitarianism says this is still good
Response to the problem of the tyranny of the majority
Rule utilitarianism
What is the problem of moral status of particular relationships
Certain people like friends/family are more important to us. The time you spent with one family member making them happy, could have been spent making more strangers happy
How does utilitarianism ignore intentions
If someone tries to do something evil but accidentally increases happiness, utilitarianism says this was still a good action, or visa versa
What is the problem with higher & lower pleasures
The felicific calculus reduces the value of human life to the same simple pleasures felt by animals
Response to the problem of higher & lower pleasures
Mill rejects Bentham’s felicific calculus & argues the people who have experienced the higher pleasures of thought always prefer them to lower pleasures of the body & senses. Mill says that humans prefer higher pleasures because they value dignity.
What is the problem with other values
There are situations where we might prefer something even if it makes us less happy. Nozick’s experience machine; many people would prefer to not enter the machine even thought it maximises happiness.
Response to Nozick’s experience machine
preference utilitarianism
What is rule utilitarianism
Focuses on the consequences of general rules rather than specific actions, this provides a reponse to the tyranny of the majority
What is preference utilitarianism
A non-hedonistic form of utilitarianism, says that instead of maximizing happiness, we should act to maximize people’s preferences, this provides a response to Nozick’s experience machine
What are Kant’s deontological ethics
-The only thing that is good without qualification is good will
-Good will means acting for the sake of duty
-You have a duty to follow the moral law
-You can tell if a maxim is universal if it passes the categorical imperative
-Don’t treat people as a means to an end (the humanity formula)
What is the good will
Good will is one that acts for the sake of duty, according to Kant this is the source of moral worth
What is duty
Kant argues we have a duty to follow the moral law, summarized by the categorical imperative
What is the categorical imperative
There are two kinds of maxims; categorical & hypothetical
Categorical- not qualified by an ‘if’ statement, they apply universally
Hypothetical- rules are qualified by an ‘if’ statement
What is contradiction in conception
A way to test whether a maxim possess the categorical imperative. This is something self-contradictory and for a law to be universal it must result in a contradiction of conception
E.g in a world were stealing is acceptable the concept of private property disappears, so then stealing is impossible
What is the contradiction in will
Assuming the maxim doesn’t result in a contradiction of conception, we ask whether we can rationally will a max
E.g we cannot rationally will to not help others in need because we have goals (ends) that cannot be achieved without help of others, although not all goals require the help of others, hence Kant argues this results in an imperfect duty
What is the humanity formula
Another formulation of the categorical imperative; treating someone as a means to your own end to use them, i.e don’t use people
What is a problem with universal maxims
Not all universal maxims are moral, Kant argues that ignoring a perfect duty leads to a contradiction in conception, but by tweaking the maxim we can avoid this even if they’re morally wrong
Response to the problem with universal maxims not being moral
Modifying the maxim doesn’t make it acceptable because the changes are morally irrelevant to the situation. The categorical imperative is concerned with the actual maxim
What is the problem with ignoring consequences
There is a strong intuition that consequences (utilitarianism) are important when making moral decisions.
E.g stealing, if you steal food to save your family, Kant says we have a perfect duty to never steal so you should let your family starve
What is the problem with ignoring other motivations
Kant argues that acting for the sake of duty is the source of moral worth, i.e if we help someone out of care it has no moral value
Response to the problem of ignoring other motivations
Making a distinction between acting for the sake of duty & acting in accordance with duty, there is nothing wrong with being motivated with things like love, but we shouldn’t choose how to act because of them, instead we should always act out of duty
What is the problem with conflicts between duties
Kant argues it’s never acceptable to violate our duties, if you have to choose between a conflict of duties whichever your chose will seemingly violate one of your duties
Response to the problem of conflicts between duties
If there is a conflict between duties Kant says we have made a mistake in formulating them,
E.g Kant would say that if the only way to keep a promise is to lie, we shouldn’t have made a promise that could conflict with our duties
What did Philippa Foot say about morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives
Hypothetical imperatives are qualified by an ‘if’ statement, i.e you should do x if you want y
categorical imperatives aren’t qualified by an if statement, they are applied universally
What does Foot say about disobeying the categorical imperative
There is nothing wrong with it if you have never accepted the categorical imperative in the first place. The categorical imperative itself doesn’t provide any rational reason to follow it.
You shouldn’t steal - if you don’t want to upset the person you’re stealing from
You shouldn’t lie - if you care about having integrity
Note
Flashcard