A Level Philosophy (Year 1) content Flashcards and exam questions

What is philosophical scepticism? [3]

Philosophical scepticism is the position that our usual justifications for claiming that beliefs amount to knowledge are inadequate, it is used a measure to test the strength of our knowledge/ justifications. Philosophical scepticism arises when the sceptic's hypothesis/challenge is said to render one's ordinary evidence insufficient for justifying one's belief that p. The grounds for doubt cannot be removed by ordinary evidence (but may be combatted by philosophical argument).

What is propositional knowledge?

propositional knowledge is factual & knowing that a certain proposition is true or false- knowing that 2+2=4, knowing that Shakespeare wrote hamlet etc. We speak of knowing this through language- requires language and concepts, can only be had by humans, more formal form of knowledge, requires self- awareness. The only knowledge you CANNOT be born with.

What is acquaintance knowledge? [3]

Acquaintance knowledge is knowing of; knowing of a place, of a sensation or a feeling, for example knowing the taste of pineapple having tried it, some philosophers regard knowledge by acquaintance with our particular sense data (shape, size, colour etc) and without input of these senses our mind would be a blank slate- tabular rasa. Expressed more through behaviour.

What is ability knowledge? [3]

Ability knowledge is knowing how, practical knowledge; knowing how to swim, how to ride a bike, how to read- through experience. Expressed through actions more than language.

Briefly explain why Aristotle thinks pleasure is not the only good? [3]

According to Aristotle, what is good is a 'final end', something we aim for at it its own sake. Pleasure is not the only good because, he argues, pleasure is not the only things that we aim at for its own sake. There are other things which we seek out, such as knowledge and virtue, that we would seek out even if they brought us no pleasure. The pleasure they bring is not why we seek them out. They are also final ends, not means to pleasure.

Outline the tripartite definition of knowledge [3]

Tripartite definition of knowledge claims that If someone knows a proposition then all three conditions must be satisfied- justified true belief, so the it has to be justified, true and you have to believe. JTB is necessary and sufficient for propositional knowledge (S knows P if and only if S is justified in believing that P, P is true, S believes that P). They are jointly sufficient and individually necessary.

Outline the no false lemmas definition of knowledge [3]

No false lemmas adds an extra condition to the JTB definition to avoid the gettier cases.

P1) P is true

P2) You believe that P

P3) Your belief that P is justified

P4) You did not infer that P from a false belief

Outline the infallibilist definition of knowledge [3]

P1) No one can know what is false

C1) Therefore, if I know that P then I can't be mistaken about P.

C2) Therefore, for justification to secure knowledge, justification must guarantee truth.

C3) Therefore, If i am justified in believing that P, I can't be mistaken about P.

C4) Therefore, if it is possible that I am mistaken, then I can't be justified in believing that P.

C5) Therefore, Infallibilism is true

It rules out Gettier cases and fake barn but rules out all other forms of knowledge essentially.

Outline the Reliabilist's definition of knowledge [3]

P1) P is true

P2) You believe that P, and

P3) Your belief is formed by a reliable cognitive proccess

C) Reliabilism shows knowledge

A reliable process is one that produces high percentages of true beliefs (e.g. perception, memory and testimony). Allows animals and young children to have knowledge but does not solve the gettier cases, fake barn or brain in a vat because your reliable process has let you down.

Outline the Virtue Epistemology definition of knowledge [3]

P1. P is True

P2. You believe that P, and

P3. Your belief is a result of exercising your epistemic virtues.

C) VE provides the correct definition of knowledge.

Solves fake barn and Gettier cases.

Outline Plato's slave boy argument [3]

P1) The slave boy has no prior knowledge of geometry

P2) Socrates only asks questions; he does not teach the boy anything new.

P3) After the questioning the boys discovers a geometric truth.

P4) This truth was not derived from experience with socrates.

C) This truth must have existed in the boy (innately) to begin with.

Outline Locke's argument of the mind as a 'tabula rasa'. [3]

A response to innatism:

P1) The theory of innate ideas claims that we are born with innate ideas.

P2) All our ideas are shown to be derived from experience (tabula Rasa)

C) The theory of innate ideas is redundant.

Outine Leibniz's argument from the necessity of truth [3]

P1) The senses can only reveal instances of general truths

P2) The senses cannot reveal the necessity of general truths.

P3) Our minds can see the necessity of some general truths.

C) Our ability to see the necessity of general truths is not derived from the senses, but is based on innate principles.

Explain the Locke's argument of no universal assent (in response to innatism) [3]

P1) Any innate idea, x, if it exists would be universally held.

P2) Children and idiots do not have the idea of X

P3) If an idea is held in the mind then you must be aware of it.

C1) So x is not univerally held

C2) Therefore, x, is not innate.

What is indirect realism [3]

Indirect Realism is a Realist theory of perception that claims that the external world exists independently of the mind. The immediate objects of perception are caused by and represent mind-independent objects which we perceive indirectly via sense-data.

What is direct realism [3]

Direct Realism is a realist theory of perception that claims that we view the external world directly and independently of our minds. The way we perceive objects is how they truly are. The immediate objects of perception are the physical objects themselves. They continue to exist regardless of whether there is anyone there to perceive them or not.

What is idealism [3]

Idealism is an anti-realist theory of perception.The immediate objects are mind-dependent objects or ideas. These objects don't represent reality, they are reality. There are no mind-independent objects. Everything that exists, exists in our minds.

What is reliabilism [3]

Reliabilism claims that we should seek our knowledge through a reliable source, for example the clock tower case, the clock tower is a reliable source but it fails it.

Explain Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities [5]

Primary qualities: Inherent and inseparable to the physical object, they will always be retained regardless of how small the object is broken down. Primary qualities include: Size, motion, extension, solidity and shape. Primary qualities are mind-independent and have special powers which create the secondary qualities in our minds. Primary qualities are retained whether they are perceived or not. They are not related to the perceiver.

Secondary qualities: Produced by the powers in the primary qualities of an object. These include: Smell, colour, taste,sound ,feel and temperature. These are mind-dependent. Secondary qualities are 'nothing but powers to produce various sensations in us'. Secondary qualities like colour only exist in relation to being perceived by someone else.

Explain local scepticism [3]

Scepticism about some specific claim, or area of supposed knowledge. For instance, scepticism about the notion that the earth is spherical.

Explain global scepticism [3]

Scepticism about all knowledge claims, particularly concerning the existence and nature of anything outside of the mind.

Explain Mill's secondary principles [3]

In Mill, 'rules of thumb' that, if followed, generally produce happiness e.g. 'tell the truth'. Mill argues that we have learned secondary principles through trial and error in human history.

Define relativism [3]

The theory that some areas of discourse, e.g. concerning truth, knowledge or morality, is 'relative' to a society or person. According to relativism, a proposition may be true 'for' one person but not for another; or an action may be moral in once society but not in another.

Define solipsism [3]

Solipsism claims that the mind is the only thing that can be known to exist and that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. Only the mind of oneself can be known to exist. There are no mind-independent physical objects or other minds.

What is sophism (unmarked question)

The use of plausible arguments that are actually fallacious, especially when someone dishonestly represents such an argument as it were legitimate reasoning. For example, Inventing statistics to back up your personal belief that dogs are smarter than humans.

Define rational intution [3]

Descartes refers to an "intuition" as a pre-existing knowledge gained through rational reasoning or discovering truth through contemplation. This definition is commonly referred to as rational intuition. It is the ability to understand that something is true just by thinking/without any experience (a priori) for example 2+2=4

Define deduction [3]

A reasoned inference from one set of claims - the premises - to another claim - the conclusion. Descartes uses deduction, alongside rational intuition, to establish knowledge of God, physical objects, and oneself.

What is innate knowledge? [3]

Knowledge and ideas that are in some way built into the structure of the mind, rather than gained through experience (sense experience). Descartes asserts that knowledge of God is found this way.

What is the cogito (unmarked)?

Cogito claims that- i think therefore I am- cogito ergo sum the principle establishing the existence of a being from the fact of its thinking or awareness

Outline Descartes three waves of doubt [5]

1. Doubting the senses: Senses can decive. Descartes says it is better not to trust them at all. The possibility of perceptual error is sufficient to lead him to doubt all sense experience.

2.Descartes second wave of doubt is that he could be dreaming and in this way he doubts the existence of his body and the world around him. It comes after the first wave when he doubts his senses.

3. The evil demon: Descartes imagines the possibility of an evil demon (extremely powerful and malicious) who deveives humanity. He could cause deception about everything in the physical world and also the basic operation of reasoning like maths.

Outline Foot's argument that morality is a system of hypothetical rather than categorical imperatives [12]

Intro: Foot argues that, contrary to commonly-held belief, moral judgments are not categorical imperatives, but rather are hypothetical imperatives like other judgments.

Key terms: Hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

Outline Aquinas' Third Way [5]

Aquinas' Third Way is a cosmological argument from contingency. Something exists contingently if it is possible for it to exist and for it not to exist. Something exists necessarily if it must exist i.e. if it is impossible for that thing not to exist.

P1) Things in the universe exist contingently.

P2) If it is possible for something not to exist, then at some time, it does not exist.

P3) If everything exists contingently, then it is possible that at some time, there was nothing in existence.

P4) If at some time, nothing was in existence, nothing could begin to exist.

P5) Since things did not begin to exist there was never nothing in existence.

C1) Therefore, there is something that does not exist contingently but must exist necessarily.

P6) This necessary being is God

C2) Therefore God exists.

Explain how Berkeley's idealism differs from indirect realism [5]

Berkeley's idealism differs from indirect realism in three fundamental ways:

Idealism is anti realist; it denies the existence of mind-independent physical objects. Indirect realism claims that mind-independent physical objects exist. Berkeley argues that the very concept of mind-independent physical objects is incoherent; indirect realists claim that their existence explains our perceptual experience.

Idealism claims that the only objects of perception are ideas, and we perceive these immediately. Indirect realism claims that while we perceive ideas (sense data) immediately, these are caused by and represent physical objects. Therefore, we also perceive physical objects indirectly.

Indirect realism claims that there is a distinction between primary and secondary qualities. primary qualities are qualities, including size, extension and number, that physical objects have independent of their being perceived. Secondary qualities are ones such as colour, taste and sound, which are defined in relation to being perceived. Berkeley argues that there is no distinction between primary and secondary qualities because all sensible qualities are mind-independent.

outline mind-brain type identity theory and explain how the issue of multiple realisability challenges this view (not comprehensive but a mini essay plan) [12]

Intro: Define mind-type identity, mental states and dispositions. It is an ontological reductive form of physicalism. There is nothing more to mental properties than being a certain type of physical property.

Para 1) Type identity isn't a claim about language or concepts but reality. The claim isn't that the concept of pain = the firing of noiceptors. Identity claims are not analytically true. The claim is that both concepts refer to the same thing.

Para 2) Multiple realisability - offered by Putname- claims that mental properties are not identical to physical properties because the same mental property can relate/ superevene on different physical properties. The brain state of pain could be different in different species. Thus pain is not identical to one particular physical property.

para 3) suppose pain = some neurophysiological property, N1 in humans. If they are the same then whatever has N1 is in pain and whatever has pain has N1. Imagine the pain is identical to a different property: N2, in birds. If pain = N1 then Pain = N2. Type identity theory must claim that for any being to be in pain it must have N1, rather than another neurophysiological property. This is highly implausible.

Offer a standard form interpretation of the argument.

Explain the problem of multiple realisability for behaviourism [12]

Intro:

- Define philosophical behaviourism and explain it.

- This is criticised by multiple realisability.

Putnam's criticism:

- Proposed in 'The nature of mental states'.

- There are many ways in which one mental state can be expressed behaviourally.

- Mental states can result from different physical properties.

- Putnam says physical properties are not = mental properties.

- same mental property can supervene, a relation between two types of property, on different physical properties.

- Difference in pain between species

Explain how this is an issue for behaviourism:

- Central claim is that mental states = behavioural states.

Putnam suggests that the composition of the mind for one species and another are wholly different (silicone based alien).

P1) It is conceivable, and therefore possible, for a being with quite different physical constitution from us to have the same thoughts and sensations.

P2) But it is inconceivable, and therefore, impossible, for something both to have and not have a certain property.

C) Therefore, mental properties cannot be the same as physical properties.

Conclusion: How multiple realisability objects to behaviourism (summarise key arguments).

Outline Foot's argument that morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives [12]

Intro:

- Foot objects to Kant's assertion that failing to act in accordance with the categorical imperative is morally wrong. She claims that morality consists of hypothetical imperatives.

- Hypothetical imperatives state that you should or need to do the action as a means to something you want. Examples.

- Categorical imperatives present the action as some something you should or must do, full stop, 'without regard to any other end'. Kant argues that these are

objective.

Explanation:

- Foot notes that we common contrast moral judgements with hypothetical imperatives.

- We find two uses of 'should' or 'ought' in how we use language. First, if the action is unsuitable or the person doesn't want that end anymore then we suggest that they no longer act on that imperative.

- Language alone isn't enough to show that Kant is right that moral judgements are categorical.

- In the UK etiquette dictates that handshakes ought to be brief yet there isn't an underlying hypothetical imperative of 'if you want to fit in'.

- Likewise, in Foot's (now old-fashioned) example, if the club rules say, 'Do not take ladies into the smoking room', there isn't a hidden assumption 'if you want to remain part of the club'. These are examples of non-hypothetical imperatives and in this case moral judgements.

- Foot claims that Kant assumes that acting immorally involves disregarding a rule that you have accepted (e.g. that no one should lie).

- Why do we think that the rules of morality are categorical when the rules of etiquette are not, even though both are non-hypothetical? Foot argues that the answer lies in our feelings about morality. The 'binding force' of morality is simply the feeling that moral judgments are inescapable.

- Foot recognises two possible objections to her view. First, if she is right, then what does 'acting out of duty' amount to? If moral judgments are not categorical, it seems that doing what is right 'because it is right' no longer gives us a reason to act. Foot's response is that Kant is mistaken in thinking that the motive of duty was the only morally good motive. We genuinely care about others' good quite apart from thoughts of duty. We can understand 'doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do' as being motivated by morally good concerns. This looks like moral action on the basis of hypothetical imperative.

- Second, doesn't Foot's view undermine morality? In particular, what can we say to people who simply don't care about morality ('amoralists')? Isn't it true they ought to care? And isn't this a contrast with the case of someone who doesn't want to join the club? Foot responds that amoralists could accept that the moral 'ought' is non-hypothetical, but still not think it gives them a reason to live by moral rules. Amoralists takes themselves to have no reason to be moral. We can say that they may well be mistaken, and could spoil their own lives. But there is no more that we can say than this, for the moral 'ought' has no magical force to give everyone a reason to be moral, irrespective of what they want in life.

Outline Zagzebski's the nature of definitions argument about how propositional knowledge should be analysed / defined [5]

In Zagzebski's 'What is knowledge' she investigates the nature of definitions in order to define knowledge. She notes that there are different types of definitions which depend on the different natures of the concepts of objects involved. Zagzebski offers cognitive contact with reality as a category for acquaintance and propositional knowledge.

- Some objects have what Lock calls a real essence (an underlying cause that makes it the way that it is). E.g. Water's underlying essence is H2O, the chemical composition that makes it what it is. If an object has a real essence it can have a real definition.

- In contrast, another definition is that there is no underlying cause of an object but a definition can still be given. e.g. weeds.

Zagzebski is skeptical about whether knowledge has a real essence. The term has varied so much in its use historically, which suggests the concept may be socially constructed. However, she recommends that we treat knowledge as it it does have a real essence, so should seek a real definition. The only way we will know that we cannot give necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge is by trying and failing to succeed. Definitions also differ in the role that 'causes' play. Some emphasise the cause of the thing being defined. E.g. a definition of sunburn would not just outline the symptoms, but also what caused the sunburn (UV light). In contrast, in defining a bike, there would be no mention of how the bike was made/ caused.

Zagzebski outlines some pitfalls to avoid in giving any sort of definition. Definitions should not be:

- Circular

- Obscure

- Negative

- Ad hoc

What pitfalls does Zagzebski provide that must be avoided to provide true definitions? [3]

ACON

- Circular: This means they should not include the term being defined.

- Obscure: The term in any definition should not be more obscure than the original term.

- Negative: Defining a term by what it isn't is not helpful.

- Ad hoc: A definition that is specific to meeting a particular problem e.g. knowledge = JTB that is not a gettier counter example.

How should propositional knowledge be defined? [25]

Intro: Virtue Epistemology is the correct definition of propositional knowledge.

- Key terms: Propositional knowledge (outline the key theories).

Argument 1: JTB

- Response: Gettier cases

Argument 2: JTB + No false lemmas

- Response: Fake Barn county

Argument 3: Virtue Epistemology (solves Fake Barn and Gettier cases as neither Henry nor Smith's beliefs are a result of exercising their epistemic virtues).

- Response: Zagzebski = A person may form a belief virtuously i.e. as a virtuous person would, but without having the intellectual virtues.

- Reply to response: To be completely good, a belief should be good a belief should be true because it is the product of excercising epistemic virtues.

Conclusion: Virtue Epistemology avoids fake barn county and gettier cases so is the correct definition of propositional knowledge.

Discuss whether justification is individually necessary for knowledge [5].

This question is asking you to evaluate reliabilism.

Reliabilism argues that justification is not a necessary condition for knowledge.

P1) P is true

P2) Your believe that P, and

P3) Your belief is formed by a reliable cognitive process.

A reliable process is one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs. It includes memory, perception and testimony.

Example: John has a rare gift that allows him to know what day of the week any date in the past or future has/will be. He is unable to say how he is able to do this but he is always correct, this is a case of true belief without justification, yet very reliable. .

Pros: Allows kids and animals to have knowledge

cons: doesn't solve Gettier cases, Barn county, Brain in a Vat because reliable process fails.

Infallibalism by comparison argues that justification must guarantee truth.

Discuss whether truth is a necessary condition of knowledge [5]

Cave people living 100,000 years ago believed that the world was flat. Correspondence theory of truth: there is a correspondance between a claim and the relevant fact. In this theory the claim does not correspond to the fact so it isn't true. Raquel cannot know the world is flat as her (somewhat) justified belief is not true. The coherence theory of truth proposes that a belief is true if it is one of the webs of beliefs held by a society to be true and is coherent with other commonly held beliefs of the society. So according to coherence theory the cave people had JTB and so the world was flat.

Discuss whether belief is a necessary condition of knowledge [5]

The belief condition asserts that it is necessary to believe the proposition you believe to be knowledge. It would be incoherent to claim that 'I know that it is raining but I do not believe it'.

- However, this is disputed. Other philosophers believe that it is not incoherent to say ' I know it is raining but I do not believe it' because this belief stems from the fact that belief is a necessary condition in asserting anything. But beyond asserting belief may not be necessary for knowledge.

- some equate knowledge with a more successful action e.g. you may get the correct answer in a quiz without truly believing that it is the correct answer.

- Some claims that knowledge and belief are very different mental states. In the Meno and Theatetus Plato, argued that knowledge entails belief, but in his later work the Reoublic he claims that they are seperate. He reasoned that since knowledge is infallible and belief is fallible, they must be fundamentally distinct.

Discuss whether the JTB conditions are jointly sufficient or individually necessary [12]

This question is asking you to evaluate the Gettier cases.

- Gettier cases show that the JTB conditions are not sufficient. Gettier shows that smith has JTB in showing that the man who gets the job has 10 coins in his pocket, however, it is intuitive to say he does not have knowledge because his belief was based on false lemmas.

- Zagzebski offers a Gettier style counter example (she says there is always a gap between justification and truth). She generates the example of double luck:

A doctor believes that a patient has virus X. The tests show that this is the only virus consistent with the evidence. However, the symptoms are actually caused by a new, unknown virus Y (she was unlucky with her prior justification). But it turns out, the patient has virus X also, but at a stage too early to turn up on a test (her belief was luckily true). Zagezebski says that by linking the justification to the truth of the belief can we avoid gettier cases (only VE solves it).

- Fake Barns

- Brain in a Vat.

Outline Kant's good will [5]

Central to Kant's moral philosophy is reason (rather than experience; like Mill). Kant defines the good will as "the only thing that is good without qualification", everything else is either bad or contributes to something bad. The good will is motivated by duty, doing one's duty (the right thing) because it is one's duty e.g. Shopkeeper thought experiment . The good will is, in some way, good in and of itself, intrinsically good (does not aim at some other end e.g. Happiness, and what it achieves does not make it good since it is maxims not consequences that assign moral worth). The good will is the source of all moral value. The good will is a will that makes choices on the basis of a principle for everyone.

Outline what Kant means by Maxims [3]

Maxims are Kant's interpretation of intentions, they are principles of choice. It is the maxim of an action, rather than consequence, that assigns moral value. They are subjective, they are distinct based on what they aim at and why (it aims to reward good intentions). However, they are all principles.

Outline how Kant defines duty [3]

Kant defines duty as a moral principle that agents should be guided by in making choices. These are motivated solely by doing the right thing because it is your duty and for no other reason. Kant divides these into perfect duties (a duty you must always follow e.g. Do not kill) and imperfect duties (a duty you have some choice in fulfilling e.g. giving to charity).

Outline Kant's distinction between acting in accordance with duty rather than acting out of duty [5]

Acting in accordance with duty means to do the right thing but as a result of the wrong motives (any maxim that is not the good will) and so this action, according to Kant, has no moral worth. E.g. in the case of a Shopkeeper who provides consumers with the correct change in order to keep his customers he is not acting out of duty but rather doing the right thing from self interest. Kant reasons that if this man's motivation is his business then if he could maintain his customers and cheat them out of their change he would also act on this maxim, showing that acting in accordance with duty is insufficient to assign moral worth to the shopkeeper's actions (wholly because he lacks duty in conducting his actions).

By comparison, acting out of duty means to act on a maxim with good will (duty) because that is the right thing to do and for no other end. Instead, the Shopkeeper provides the correct change because he is motivated by duty; knowing that it is the right thing to do as it does not use his customers as means to an end. In this case the shopkeeper's actions have moral worth.

what are the criticisms of the good will?

- Is a good will always good? there may be an agent who always acts with the good will, motivated to aid others as a result of their duty, however, they are clumsy and disoriented and often make the situation much worse? Is this of more moral worth than a person who wants to act with kindness and improve the functionality of the village and help people successfully (however not out from good will).

- What does the good will will? The good will doesn't aim at certain ends (because there are no good ends without qualification).

Explain the distinction between Hypothetical and Categorical imperative [5]

Hypothetical imperatives are statements about what one ought to do, in order to achieve a specific end. For instance, you must leave the house in ten minutes in order to catch the bus. The imperative in this case is conditional upon the end you wish to achieve. They can have implicit of explicit desires (implicit 'eat five fruits or vegetables' is implict that you want to stay healthy. Explict 'you must arrives 10 minutes before the show in order to get good seats'). Kant explains that willing the end entails willing the means, this is an analytic truth. You can avoid hypothetical imperatives by simply giving up the desired end.

Categorical Imperatives are our moral duties, by comparison to hypothetical imperatives, they are unconditional, they apply universally regardless of desires or ends (because they use the good will to assign moral value based only on a motivation by duty). All categorical imperatives are derived from the cateorical imperative: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". E.g. Do not steal is a categorical imperative.

Outline what Kant means by the Categorical Imperative (First Formulation) [5]

Moral Imperatives are Categorical, the universal law of formulation. It does not aim at some specific end. For Kant this serves as a criteron for which an agent should apply the good will. He defines it as "Act on on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that is should become a universal law", meaning that it is consistently universalisable and other rational beings must act upon it. This policy should be adopted to select universal moral maxims. To illustrate: Suppose I form the maxim that I wish to borrow some money and promise to pay it back (with the intention of not paying the money back). This, according to the categorical imperative, is wrong because it is not universalisable - not every person can act on this maxim else the lie would not be believed and so would fail to work. This is an example of a perfect duty which we are obliged to always follow.

Using the Categorical Imperative outline the difference between perfect and imperfect duties [3]

Perfect duty: a duty we are obliged to always follow, for instance to keep promises. Breaking a perfect duty is always wrong and your action would be blameworthy. To explain: I promise to repay money that I have borrowed (acting on the maxim that I will not repay this money). In order to work out if this is acting with good will you must conceive if you can imagine a world where every person acted on this maxim. You cannot as if everyone did the lie would not work and so the maxim fails, it leads to a contradiction in conception.

Imperfect duty: I form the maxim that I do not wish to give to charity. Kant says that it is possible to conceive of a world where people do not help each other (it passes the first formulation of the categorical imperative). However, can you rationally will that this should become a universal law? Kant argues you can't (everyone has been and will be in situations that require external help) and so this leads to a contradiction in will, as it cannot be rationally willed. However it is an imperfect duty because it is not a contradiction in conception. So failing to satisfy an imperfect duty is not always blameworthy.

Explain the difference between a contradiction in will and a contradiction in concpetion [5]

There are two ways in which we could fail to be able to will our maxim to become a universal law.

Contradiction in conception: The situation in which everyone acting on a maxim would be self contradictory. For example, in the case of stealing. If every person where to steal every time they wanted something the concept of private property would be eroded and so the concept of stealing would simply not exist (as no one owns anything so it cannot be stolen as stealing requires that people own a thing). Therefore, stealing would become logically impossible and inconceivable thus it is a contradiction in conception to rationally will this maxim.

Contradiction in Will: The maxim is not self-contradictory, however, it cannot be rationally willed, it would be rationally incoherent to will (you can't will never to help people because then when a person is drowning in front of you you and everyone else even if they desire to are not allowed to help). For instance the maxim to never help people cannot be willed because we have and will be needing the help of others to achieve certain ends (we simply would not exist without the help of others e.g. our parent help us come into existence by conceiving us).

P1. A will, by definition, wills its ends.

P2. To truly will the ends, one must will the necessary means.

C1. Therefore, we cannot rationally will a situation in which it would be impossible for us to achieve our ends.

C2. Therefore, we cannot will that this possibility is denied to us.

C3. Thus we cannot will a situation in which no one ever helps others.

Explain Kant's second formulation of the Categorical Imperative [5]

Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative is the Humanity formulation. He describes this as "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end'. For Kant Humanity means humans ability to reason and autonomy (which animals lack). Rational wills are ends which are unconditionally good, he identifies this as dignity.

To treat someone simply as a means, and not also as an end, is to treat the person in a way that undermines their power of making a rational choice themselves. So to treat someone as an end implies, first, that we should appeal to other people's reason in discussing with them what to do, rather than manipulating them in ways they are unaware of. Coercing someone, lying to them or stealing from them all involve not allowing them to make an informed choice. Second, treating someone as an end implies leaving them free to pursue the ends that they adopt. So we should refrain from harming or hindering them. Third, we should help them pursue their ends, just as we pursue our own ends. In other words, we should help other people.

Explain how universability and morality are issues for Kant's deontological ethics [12]

There are maxims that are universalisable that are not necessarily moral and maxims that are non-univsersalisable that should be considered moral. For example this is particularly the case in the criticism from cleverly phrased maxims. E.g. I form the maxim: 'To steal from large shops and when there are seven letters in my name (Michael)'. Universalising this maxim, would not lead to the breakdown of private property so is universalisable - this doesn't make it right.

- Kant contends that the theory recognises your true maxim which is to steal so in fact it doesn't pass the test.

But there may also be maxims that do not pass the test that your should act on. E.g. lying in the case of the axe man experiment.

- Kant replies that lying is still wrong because you cannot universalise deception. However, we could reply that the maxim is really to save a life which is universalisable. Another example: I am a hard-working shop assistant, who hates the work. One happy Saturday I win the lottery, and I vow 'never to sell anything to anyone again, but only ever to buy'. This cannot be universalised. If no one ever sold things, how could anyone buy them? It is logically impossible, which makes it wrong according to Kant's test. But while the maxim is perhaps eccentric, it doesn't seem morally wrong.

What are the strengths of Kantian Ethics?

- Objective and universal

- Reasoned

- Emphasises human dignity and autonomy.

What are the issues with Kantian Ethics?

- Conflicting duties

- Competing imperfect duties

- cleverly phrased maxims.

- Not all universalisable maxims are moral

- Not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral

- Trivial duties

- Foot and Hypothetical Imperatives

- Ignores the value of consequences and other motives

Explain the issue of competing duties for Kantian Ethics [12]

There may arise a situation in which I have two perfect duties which conflict with one another. For instance, Do not break a promise and do not lie. In this case Kant's ethics is not sufficiently action guiding.

This is a serious issue for Kant as his moral system involves not acting on maxims which cannot be consistently universalised. Inconsistent rules give rise to duties (a duty not to follow the rule), so duties are all about consistency. If it is the case that two moral duties do conflict (which in reality they do) then Kant asserts that they cannot be true duties, he says by definition clashes do not occur. For instance, If I make the promise to lie for my friend, Kant asserts that you cannot rationally make this maxim because it is not possible to rationally will to lie, so clashes don't occur. Aristotle argues that there are no strict rules in ethics, and if we interpret the situation correctly, we can resolve the conflict. But Kant argues that our moral duties do not allow exceptions. Nothing can override a moral duty, because it is categorical. Yet he argues, like Aristotle, that if there appears to be a conflict, we have misunderstood what at least one duty requires of us. Is this convincing?

For imperfect duties the directions are less clear. Since we do not have to complete these duties all of the time, our moral duty here is vague. They don't tell us when to perform our imperfect duties. Knowing which to prioritise is challenging. Utilitarianism has an advantage here because it uses the quantifiable approach of measuring happiness. However, Kantian Ethics provides little guidance.

Explain the issue of other valuable motives for Kantian Ethics [12]

- Value of consequences: lying seems less important than saving a life in the axeman example.

- Kant says focusing on your sphere of control is the best way to handle the situation(you do what is moral and the axeman should do what is the good will and so the sitation solves itself). Our autonomy is implicated by this. Kant seems more concerned with being rationally consistent than whether a life is preserved.

- Kant, at times has consequentialist tendancies, working out whether a maxim can be consistently applied depends on conseuquences.

- Kant would argue that a parent that does the right thing for their child because they love them is not morally praiseworthy because they are not motivated by duty. A parent that does the right thing for their child but does not like them (even actively disliking them), but does the right thing because of duty is more morally praiseworthy than the other parent.

- This seems counter-intuitive

- Friendship: Kan't approach encourages cold, impersonal and calculative approaches by demanding we neglect the personal approach - stating that these do not contribute to moral value.

Outline Foots objection to the categorical imperative [5]

Are there any real categorical imperatives? Categorical imperatives present the action as some something you should do, independent of what you want. Acting on them is (supposedly) a matter of being rational rather than fulfilling a desire. Philippa Foot rejects this. It is true that moral judgments are not hypothetical imperatives in Kant's sense. However, think of club rules. In Foot's (now old-fashioned) example, if the club rules say, 'Do not take ladies into the smoking room', there isn't a hidden assumption 'if you want to remain part of the club'. Suppose someone doesn't want to remain part of the club, thinking it fusty and sexist, and he will quit tomorrow for good. Is he now allowed to take ladies into the smoking room? No. In these examples, we don't withdraw the 'should' depending on what someone wants. The club rule is a non-hypothetical imperative, but it is not unconditional in the sense that Kant thinks moral judgments are. If you don't like the club rules, don't join. Foot argues that moral judgments are non-hypothetical imperatives, but Kant does not prove that they are categorical in his sense. To act irrationally, claims Foot, is simply not to take the right means to your ends. An immoral person can still act rationally. If we feel that morality is categorical in some deeper sense, this is because of how morality is taught - we feel that we 'must do' what is morally right, whatever our desires

Explain how Kant's deontological ethics should be applied to whether we should ever tell lies (12)

Intro:

Kantian Deontology, the theory that one should only act on maxims that can be universalised, promotes the view that telling lies is morally wrong. Kant asserts that telling lies leads to a contradiction in conception thus failing the first test of the categorical imperative meaning that the maxim cannot be universalised and is therefore, not a morally permissible action.

- It is crucial to apply the key concepts of the theory (particularly duty) to the specific situation.

- Need to fully apply and define key terms: Maxim, duty, Good will, categorical imperative.

Explanation:

- In order to lie we must form the maxim: 'I will lie in order to get what I want'. this must be universalisable. But it isnt because it is a contradiction in conception.

- Kant dismisses the claim that the maxim 'to lie when it is necessary to save a life' is morally permissible. He uses the thought experiment of the axeman to explain this. Suppose you lie to save your friends life. Kant's categorical imperative would suggest that if every person lied in order to save a life then the axe man would be aware of this and would not believe you and so your lie would not be unsuccessful (due to a contradiction in conception) and thus not universalisable.

- Lying uses people as a means to an end so contradicts humanity formula also.

- Kant says that in lying you cannot know the fully consequences of your actions and then you become responsible for the consequences that you lying brings about.

- Kant states that "telling the truth is a duty" in his On a supposed right to lie from Benevolent Motives

Explain the issue of eating animals for Kantian Ethics [5]

Kant argues that animals do not have a rational will. They have desires, but to have a will is to be able to stand back from one's desires and reflect on whether or not one's desires are good and whether or not to act on them. The maxim that human beings eat animals can be universalised - we can all will this without contradiction. Similarly, because animals are not rational wills, they are not ends in themselves, and can therefore be treated as means to our ends. We may therefore eat them. However, Kant argued that if we lack kindness towards animals, we may become unkind towards other people - and this would be morally wrong. Therefore, we need to treat animals in such a way that we don't become vicious.

- However, a criticism is that Kant's theory here is that it implies the same result for human beings who aren't rational wills, including babies and some people with severe mental disabilities. Can we treat them as means to an end?

Outline Kantian Ethics' approach to stealing [5]

- Categorical Imperative: Stealing erodes private ownership leading to a contradiction in conception. so the maxim is inconcievable.

- Humanity formula: Bypasses other rational being's autonomy using them as means to an end. You have the perfect duty not to steal.

- Does this allow exceptions on the basis of a different maxim? 'To steal in order to save a life' would not, if universalised, lead to the end of property, because it is rare that anyone would need to steal for this purpose. However, it is unlikely that Kant would agree with this amendment. Stealing to save a life is still stealing, it is the same kind of action as stealing because one wants something. To steal from someone involves not allowing them to make an informed choice, so it treats them as a means to an end. Why not just ask them to give you what you want? The whole idea of justice and rights is that there are constraints on how we pursue good ends. The duties of justice are more stringent than the duties of virtue (doing good). So we should not steal.

Outline the Kantian Ethics' approach to simulated Killing [5]

- Universal law. The maxim to Engage with simulated killing when I want to be entertained is seemingly conceivable and consistent.

- Kant notes that it is an issue if it makes us less compassionate towards other animals and people. We have an imperfect duty to cultivate compassion in ourselves. We cannot consistently will things that make us less compassionate.

- This argument hinges on whether there is a causal connection between simulated killing for entertainment and becoming less compassionate in reality and in our tendancies. There is little evidence in reality to support that this is the case. However, evidence does show that empathy does decrease.

- Humanity formulation: engaging in this activity does not seem to impede on someone's autonomy. The actors chose to engage and the video games are simply pixels which do not hold rational wills. However, it still depends on whether this increases our violence and anti-social behaviour towards other.

- Kant, it is important that simulated killing involves no violation of moral duty. But if simulated killing damages one's rational will or leads to neglecting or violating one's duty to other people, then we can object. Cultivating cruelty and an indifference to virtual suffering through simulated killing could undermine our willingness and ability to treat others as ends in themselves in real life. But, again, there is currently not enough evidence to say that this is true.

Explain what Aristotle means by the good for human beings [5]

Aristotle holds a teleological agent-centred perspective of the universe, believing that everything in the universe is directed towards some final end or 'good'. Aristotle begins Nicomachean Ethics by arguing that everything aims at some end and so humans have some final telos too.

P1. Everything we do is aimed at some good.

P2. Each good is also done for the sake of a higher good.

P3. This cannot go on forever

C1. Therefore, there must be an ultimate good, which everything we do is aimed towards.

Aristotle determines that the good for humans beings (their telos) is Eudaimonia 'living and fareing well'. A good life is one that realises the full potential for human life.

Define Eudaimonia [3]

Eudaimonia is living a life in accordance with reasons through exercising virtues, it develops our character. It is the final end (telos) of human beings and means 'living and faring well' or 'flourishing'. It is an objective quality of someone's life as a whole (successfully living a good life).

Name three things that Eudaimonia is not

1. A psychological state. Eudaimonia characterises an account of someone's life as a whole, 'living and faring well'.

2. It is not subjective. It is an objective judgement. This shows why it is not happiness because you can say that another person is experiencing happiness (a subjective experience and a psychological one).

3. Eduaimonia is not fleeting. It is lasting. Therefore it is not: Wealth, pleasure, Honour, goodness or contemplation.

Define a final end

Something that is done for its own sake, in and of itself, not as a means to achieve some other goal or desire.

Explain the relationship between Eudaimonia and pleasure [5]

(see answer to 'pleasure is not the only good').

- Pleasure is not a final end.

- There is more to us than pleasure seeking animals

- There are other virtues that we aim for other than pleasure (like knowledge).

- Pleasure is part of the good but not the good.

- We should avoid excess indulgence in physical pleasures. But should enjoy physical pleasures at the virtuous level, defined by his doctrine of the mean.

- Pleasure plays a crucial role in developing Eudaimonia.

- The most pleasure we can gain is through theoretical reasoning and philosophy.

What is an agent-centred theory?

It looks at the virtue or moral character of the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, dictation of reason ,or the consequences of particular actions.

Outline Aristotle's function argument [12]

Explain the relationship between functions and virtues.

-Aristotle's function argument shows that Eudaimonia is only achieved through exercising reason. Aristotle believes that everything has a telos, and the telos of anything is related to its 'function' (ergon). When a thing functions well, it achieves its telos. E.g. a shotgun achieves its function if it has accurate aim and it is reliable. An arête is a quality that aids the fulfilment of a thing's ergon. It can be translated generally as an 'excellence' or a 'virtue'.

- Everything has an ideal form of functioning. Humans:

P1. Every person has a distinct role/ function in society.

P2. Human beings must have a distinct function

P3. Our function cannot be shared with other species e.g. a plant's function is to flourish and produce flowers.

P4. Reason is distinct to human beings.

C1. Therefore our function is to live guided by reason.

- Secondly Aristotle shows that in order to perform our ergon well we must develop the right virtues.

P4. X is good if it fulfills its ergon well.

P5. X fullfils its ergon well if it has the right virtues (qualities).

P6. Therefore, a good human is one with the right virtues which allow them to live guided well by reason.

C2. Therefore Eudaimonia is reached by someone with the right virtues which enables them to be guided well by virtue

define virtue [3]

Traits or dispositions of a person that enable them to achieve some good purpose, particularly living a good life. Virtues are traits that enable us to live rationally. .For Aristotle these are traits in accordance with reason, and distinguishes virtues of intellect and character. For instance, the virtue of an eye is good focus, it aids the fulfilment of an ergon.

How does Sartre respond to Aristotle's function argument?

20th century French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre claimed that 'existence precedes essence'. This was intended as a direct rebuke to thinkers such as Aristotle who assumed the opposite: that each thing has a particular purpose that is somehow essential to it. For Sartre, there are no imbued functions - particularly for human beings. In fact, he believed 'man is thrown into the world'; life is meaningless, and it is up to the individual to bring meaning to it.

define character traits [3]

Character traits are dispositions that relate to what, in different circumstances, we feel, how we think, how we react, the sorts of choices we make, and the actions we perform. They relate to our desires and emotions - what Aristotle calls 'passions'. So someone is shorttempered if they are disposed to feel angry quickly and often; quick-witted if they can think on their feet; and so on. Some traits of character, such as being short-tempered or greedy, stop us from leading a good life - these are vices. Other traits of character, such as being kind or courageous, help us to lead a good life - and these are virtues. A virtue of character is a disposition to feel, desire and choose 'well', which is necessary if we are to achieve eudaimonia.

What does Annas comment about virtues?

Annas notes that virtues in the fullest sense aren't simply dispositions to behave in certain ways; they are expressed in the choices we make and the reasons for which we act, and it involves a commitment to an ethical value.

Outline what Aristotle means by practical wisdom [5]

Explain Aristotle's division of the soul [5]

To Aristotle, a Virtue is a trait of a person's soul (Eudaimonia is an activity of the south in accordance with virtue). He provides an analysis of this. We can divide the soul into a rational and arational part. The arational part can be further divided into 'growth and nutrition' and 'desire and emotion'. And the rational part can be divided into Theoretical reason and practical reason (practical wisdom) . The desire and emotion part can be shared with animals. Through exercising our reason, and using reason as our guide, we can develop virtues within each part of the soul. Virtues are usually thought of as character traits relating to our emotions and desires, resulting in dispositions such as honesty, generosity etc.

Explain what Aristotle means by Virtues as Character traits or dispositions [5]

Aristotle defines states of character as 'the things in virtue of which we stand well or badly with reference to the passions'. Character involves a persons dispositions that relate to what, in different circumstances, they feel, how they think, how they react., the sorts of choices they make and the actions they perform. Humans have habitual ways of behaving and these dispositions form our character. When reason guides our emotions and desires then over time we develop positive character traits - called virtues (arete)- which enable us to reach Eudaimonia. When reason fails to shape our emotions/ desires we develop flawed character traits - called vices.

Explain Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean [12]

- In order to judge how to achieve what is good in a given situation, Aristotle compares living well with other activities. such as eating well or physical training. In these cases, we need to avoid too much or too little food or exercise. We achieve health and physical fitness by following an 'intermediate' course of action, which Aristotle calls the 'mean'. This is differs from person to person. For example, a professional sportsman needs more food and exercise than most people.

- Similarly with living the virtue lies between displaying too much and too little of the activity.

- To be virtuous, says Aristotle, is 'to feel [passions] at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way'. This is Aristotle's 'doctrine of the mean'.

Table: Insert a table/ make reference to it in exam:

Vice (excess), Golden mean (virtuous), Vice (deficient)

Injustice, Justice, injustice

Negligence, Prudence, Inconstancy

Rash, courageously, cowardly

Insensibility, tempereance, intemperance

Short tempered, good tempered, Unirascible.

- Aristotle's doctrine of the mean does not claim that when we get angry, we should only ever be 'moderately' angry. We should be as angry as the situation demands, which can be very angry or only slightly irritated.

- What the right action, time, object, person and so on is, for both feeling and action, practical wisdom helps us to know. However, Aristotle says that there are no rules for applying knowledge of the good life to the current situation. What is right can vary from one occasion to another. This does not make ethics subjective, as we still need to discover what is right on each occasion. But it does mean that practical wisdom cannot be taught 'theoretically'. Rather, it is something that has to be acquired through experience.

What importance does Aristotle give to feelings in his virtue Ethics?

Feelings have a central role in his moral theory. All our actions are some display of emotion: desire, anger, fear, confidence.

1. Virtue means expressing the appropriate amount of these feelings, not to little or enough but just right 'the mean'.

2. A virtuous person has no inner conflict; they don't have to overcome their feelings in order to do the right thing.

Briefly explain the role of education and habituation in the development of a moral character [3]

This concerns how to acquire virtues which are necessary for Eudaimonia. They are not innate and so require development over time. Aristotle argues that we acquire virtues of character through habit, in particular the habits we form during our upbringing. We need to develop virtues because, we are not virtuous by nature. He points out that what we can do naturally, we first have the potentionality and then exhibit the activity. For instance you don't acquire sight by seeing but rather you have sight and then you see. But for the virtues, you must first practice acting in a virtuous way - courageously, generously, kindly - before you can be virtuous. We are not naturally virtuous but we are naturally capable of becoming virtuous.

Explain Aristotle's skill analogy [5]

Aristotle draws an analogy between developing a virtue with developing a skill in order to illustrate the process. He divides this into two parts. First regards how to develop the skill/ virtue. We come to form dispositions and feel and behave in certain ways by what we do. The same is true for practical skills. You cannot learn a musical instrument through studying the theory alone, you have to practice the activity. 'The virtues we get by first exercising them, as also happens in the case of the arts as well (e.g. learning an instrument). For things we have to learn before we do them, we learn by doing them. Doing so we become habituated with the virtues.

second: while we learn from others, this is only 1/2 of the process and the aim of moral education is to get the student to think for themselves (just as with practical education). The 'expert' progresses from simply following rules to developing a highly attuned sensitivity to how each situation is different, and how to respond appropriately; just as a good carpenter can work with different knots and grains in wood. Additionally, in developing a practical skill, we understand why certain approaches are better than others (why this tool is better than this one etc.). So, in its development of virtue, the student comes to reflect on the reasons why they act in certain ways, and so tried to make their moral judgments more coherent and unified, and is able to justify their choices.

In summary: You learn by doing (you learn to be just by being just and by replicating the action of a virtuous person). Start by copying others -> practice until its a habit _> learn to apply it in different contexts.

To be virtuous:

1. Act in a virtuous way

2. Acts as a virtuous person acts.

Define Practical Wisdom [5]

Practical wisdom (Phronesis) is an intellectual virtue, a virtue of practical reasoning. A person with practical reasoning deliberates well about how to live a good life. So practical wisdom is 'a true and reasoned state or capacity to act with regard to the things that are good or bad for man'. It involves insight into what is good and bad in general and in particular situations, the ability to deliberate well and act on that deliberation.

How to apply it:

There is no set rules for applying general knowledge of what is good in a particular situation. Practical wisdom simply grasps the particular relevant facts directly. So knowledge of what to do is practical. It can't be taught. It requires experience. To do a fully virtuous action, we must aim at the right end. This is set by being virtuous but we must know what we are doing, understood as a means to that end. This is provided by practical wisdom. We cannot have virtue without practical wisdom, since virtue involves fully virtuous acts. We cannot have practical wisdom without virtue, since practical wisdom involves general knowledge of what is good ad this requires virtue.

Outline the debate over whether Eudaimonia is pleasure.

Like Mill, Aristotle claims that pleasure is good, and thus eudaimonia involves pleasure. However, he must clarify just how and when pleasure is good:

Objection: the temperate person avoids pleasure

Reply: no, the temperate person avoids an excess of certain bodily pleasures.

Objection: the practically wise person doesn't seek pleasure, they merely avoid pain

Reply: they do seek pleasure, in accordance with reason, and the fact that they avoid pain shows that pleasure must be good.

Objection: pleasure interferes with thought

Reply: the pleasures of thinking assist thinking

Objection: not all pleasures are good, e.g. bodily pleasures, or taking pleasure in something bad or disgraceful, such as voyeurism or sadism.

Reply: if we say bodily pleasures are not good, then how can we say that bodily pains are bad? It is only an excess of pleasure that is bad - disgraceful pleasures are not good, as they are i) not real pleasures, as they are only pleasant to bad people, ii) pleasures are of all different kinds, and only some are good pleasures.

Another philosopher, Eudoxus, claims pleasure is the only good - Aristotle considers his argument, but says it is a good, not the only. The strongest reason Eudoxus provides for this is that every creature aims at pleasure, and this indicates that it is the good. Aristotle agrees; however, pleasure is not our only aim; it isn't our final end. There are other things we seek out, such as seeing, knowing, being virtuous, that we would seek out even if they brought us not pleasure. The pleasure they bring is not why we seek them, as they are ways to achieve eudaimonia, not pleasure.

Define 'Voluntary action' [3]

A voluntary action indicates the level of moral responsibility a person holds for a particular action (this helps us to understand whether an action is praise/blameworthy and which actions are relevant to character development/ virtue).

A voluntary action is an intended action (it is the only action which contributes towards our character and virtues). It is one which:

- We intended to do and the origin of the action lies with us.

- We carried out the action in full knowledge and understanding of our action.

- This action was freely chosen.

E.g. Aristotle provides the example of sailors throwing goods overboard in order to prevent the boat from sinking - he notes that this should be caetgorised as a voluntary action.

Define 'involuntary action' [3]

Involuntary actions carry a lower degree of moral responsibility. They are actions that are contrary to our intentions and without full knowledge and understanding. Aristotle subdivides this category further into involuntary actions from ignorance (non-voluntary) and involuntary actions from compulsion. For example, the train lurches forward and you lose your balance, accidentally steping on someone's foot (this is an involuntary action from compulsion as it caused by force).

Define 'non-voluntary action' [3]

Non-Voluntary action is the second part of involuntary actions.

The degree of moral responsibility assigned to non-voluntary actions depends on how we behave when we come into full knowledge and understanding of the facts. A non-voluntary action is unintended because it is done from ignorance. For example, Opedius did not know that he had killed his father in order to marry his own mother (this is non-voluntary). Whether he is blamed for this action depends on:

- If he regrets the situation and wished he'd acted differently. In this case the action is involuntary, we would still be responsible but could be forgiven.

- Showed no regret or wished a different outcome, then we would not be forgiven and the action would be classed as voluntary.

Outline Aristotle's account of Justice [12]

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle outlines a deontological, duty guided, version of justice - arguing that it is the act that defines the virtue and so the virtue of justice is the disposition to do what is just , to act justly and wish for justice (this is comparable with Mill and Kant's interpretations). Aristotle argues that justice is the distribution of what is fair and the correction of what is not.

Aristotle argues that justice has two meanings:

1. Anything legal is just and anything illegal is unjust. The law instructs us to be virtuous and prohibits us from being vicious. Justice is equivalent to virtue - in terms of how we treat others.

2. In the narrower sense, Justice is fairness, and to be unjust is to act 'graspingly'. Justice is concerned with those goods such as money, safety or happiness which provide people with relative advantages. Being unjust means to seek more than one's fair share of something good or avoid one's share of what is bad. Justice is the principle that each person should receive their due. For Aristotle this is further divided into (the two kinds of justice as fairness).

a) Justice in the distribution of what is good. Justice requires us to treat every person equally. If people are unequal then we should treat their differences proportionally. People should receive goods according to their merit.

b) Justice in rectification. Injustice must be corrected. What is unequal must be made equal. E.g. if two people sign a contract and one breaks that contract taking more than their fair share, justice will require that the wrongdoer returns the profit and recompenses. Justice is the mean of acting unjustly (vice of excess and deficiency).

Again Aristotle draws on the voluntary/ involuntary nature of the actions to determine justice. And he distinguishes between an unjust state of affairs (unfair distribution) and an unjust act (an act which results in injustice) to determine moral responsibility.

Describe Aristotle's claim that bad people are morally responsible for their actions [5]

P1. If the bad person is not responsible for their bad actions, and these are not done voluntarily, then the good person is not responsible for their good actions, and these are not done voluntarily.

P2. But we said earlier that what is good cannot force us to act, and what is involuntary is painful and causes us regret.

C1. So good actions are done voluntarily.

C2. Therefore, so are bad actions.

Explain the objection that the doctrine of the mean provides no guidance on how to act [5]

Many philosopher criticise the doctrine of the mean for not providing a quantifiable/ objective principle for how to act (like the felicific calculus or the categorical imperative).'Too much' and 'Too Little' aren't quantities on a single scale, the concept of 'right person' 'right motive' shows that this theory is complicated. Second, it does not give any help on understanding. For instance, knowing what level of anger is appropriate, how can we know what is the 'mean' in each given circumstance. While Aristotle did not intend for the doctrine of the mean to be used as a calculator or rule, it nonetheless provides insufficient guidance on how to determine and apply the practical wisdom to determine the correct virtues. (Aristotle argues that the complexity of the mean reflects the complexity of life). The natural response from the virtue ethicist is that the virtuous person does not need exact instructions on how to act because their highly refined character will automatically be able to determine the morally correct action. There are certain ethical dilemmas where choosing the right or wrong option is not so much reflective of one's good character, but a result of painstaking deliberation. We are told to be brave and not cowardly, but how do we know the situation doesn't call for another virtue, such as patience?

What are the 5 main criticisms of VE?

- It doesn't give us guidance on how to act

- Some virtues clash/compete

- The circularity of defining a virtuous person in terms of virtuous acts

- The relationship between the good for the individual and the moral good

- Elitism and the Nietzschean challenge.

Explain the objection that Aristotle's virtue Ethics provides no guidance to someone who is not already virtuous [5]

Aristotle asserts that practical wisdom, the intellectual virtue of practical reason, enables an agent to determine the right virtue to exercise in a circumstance. However, if I have practical wisdom it seems that I would know what to do, but VE does not explain how a person without phronesis would have the ability to determine the right virtue. Knowing what a virtuous person would do is insufficiently action guiding, because I do not know what a virtuous person would do without phronesis (which I don't have and so the issue of circularity arises). Aristotle concedes that practical wisdom requires virtue. Without a good character I cannot understand what is truly good - this means I may never be able to achieve this level. Either Aristotle's theory provides no guidance to anyone who isn't virtuous or his theory is wrong because we are all sufficiently rational to understand what is right and wrong. (Aristotle argues this is an oversimplification).

Can Virtue Ethics provide guidance when thinking about what to do? [5]

The objection that VE can't provide guidance on how to act is thinking of guidance too much in terms of rules. Just because practical wisdom is not a set or rules, that doesn't mean it provides no guidance at all. Aristotle's theory suggests that we think about situations in terms of the virtues. Rather than asking if every person could do this (Kant) or what will bring about best consequences (utilitarianism), we can ask a series of questios: 'would this action be kind/courageous/ loyal'. Thinking in this way could bring about many good outcomes and be a helpful way of considering a moral way of acting.

Explain the issue of conflicting virtues for virtue ethics (and the VE response) [5]

Moral theories should be tested against 'hard cases' or moral dilemmas to test their ability to cope with real scenarios. For instance, someone you love is suffering with a terminal illness and pleads with you to help them die. This case causes a conflict of VE. The virtue of charity motivates you to help them fulfill their desire but the virtue of justice forbids you.

The advantage of VE over Kant is that it does not demand retraction from the context of the situation. VE may respond to conflicts by:

- Practical wisdom will help resolve the situation by selecting the correct virtue in light of the context.

- Proposes a hierarchy of virtues: Aristotle puts justice above charity.

- admit (like Hursthouse does) that clashes do occur and that there is no resolution. But acting as we see fit will act as a moral reminder, only virtue ethics is sophisticated enough to recognise that this is morally significant.

Explain the problem of circularity for Virtue Ethics [5]

Aristotle defines a virtuous act as: an act is virtuous if it is an act that would be done by a virtuous person in this situation. He defines a virtuous person as: a person who is disposed to do virtuous acts.

A difficulty arises here in that these definitions do not clarify what a virtuous act of person is. To illustrate: If we substitute the definition of a virtuous person, we get 'an act is virtuous if it is an act that would be done by a person who is disposed to do virtuous acts'. The definition is circular, because the term virtuous act is used to define the term virtuous act. The same problem arises when attempting to define a virtuous person: 'a virtuous person is a person who is disposed to do acts that would be done by a virtuous person'.

Can Aristotle answer the objection that virtuous actions and the virtuous person are defined circularly [5]

This objection is mistaken. A virtuous person has the virtues, which are traits that enable them to achieve eudaimonia. Character traits relate to our choices and actions, but they are equally concerned with our passions. And eudaimonia is defined not in terms of virtuous actions, but in terms of feeling, thinking and choosing. A virtuous person also has practical wisdom, so they also understand why certain actions are right. So while (a) is correct, (b) is too simple. With the right definition, the circularity is avoided.

Must a trait contribute towards Eudaimonia in order to be a virtue?

- In his function argument Aristotle is clear that we cannot live the good life for human beings (Eudaimonia) without being a good human being (and having virtues).

- So by being virtuous I contribute towards my own Eudaimonia. But is it possible to have a virtue that doesn't contribute towards Eudaimonia.

- Aristotle thinks not. For him all virtues contribute towards Eudaimonia, whether they are virtues of character or virtues of intellect.

- However, Hume gave a non-Aristotlian account of positive character traits according to VE. Hume does not mention Eudaimonia, but argues that we approve of virtues because of either their utility or agreeability.

- For Hume these virtues arise from our sympathy for other people. So on Hume's account a trait does not need to contribute towards Eudaimonia in order to be a virtue.

Explain the VE response to the issue of stealing [5]

- Ari notes that there are some actions which have no mean - stealing is one.

- Stealing is a matter of injustice because it deprives a person of their fair share (undermines the distribution aspect to Aris' account of justice).

- stealing in an unjust situation: depends on how the situation came about. He distinguishes between unjust state of affairs and unjust act. The first is no one's fault and it is unfortunate. The second is deliberate and so it is worse, unjust and blameworthy.

- However, modern VE note that stealing for distribution to correct injustice in cases like Robin Hood is justified.

- There may be a conflict in virtues of stealing between justice and kindness.

Explain the VE position on simulated killing [5]

- VE is concerned with the role of simulated killing on influencing the development of a moral character.

- We become unjust by doing unjust acts (killing = unjust). So the cumulative effect of playing games which involve simulated killing may lead to the development of character traits that are not virtuous like injustice and unkindness

- Simulated killing is wrong if it prevents the development of virtue, and so prevents the player from achieving Eudaimonia.

- However, is it right to argue that simulated killing is unjust if no actual person is harmed?

Ouline the VE position on eating animals [5]

- For Aristotle Animals do not have reason so can't achieve Eudaimonia. Being concerned only with eudaimonia means that the consideration for animals is subsided.

- How we treat animals influences our dispositions and character and how we treat others.

- Modern VE like C. Diamond argue that this approach is mistaken and that the relationship between human beings and animals is indicative of the relationship between other humans and their treatment of one another.

- Diamond asserts that eating meat is often wrong, but that arguments about speciesism (like Singer) fundamentally misunderstand ethics.

- Diamond argues that our practices - getting married, naming our children, going to funerals and not eating people - recognise human beings as a kind of being to be treated with moral concern.

- Diamond argues that we recognise animals as 'fellow creatures', beings with independent lives which deserve respect and sympathy. While our relationship with them allows us to eat them, however the way animals are treated in the meat industry is immoral.

Ouline and explain the VE approach to lying [5]

In his analysis of the virtue of truthfulness, ari describes is as a mean between someone who boasts or exaggerates too much, and someone who is self-depricating. Ari believes that 'truthfulness' should be understood as honesty with oneself. However, lying in a moral sense has no mean, it is already the vice of excess and so can never be virtuous and hinders our ability to obtain eudaimonia. Truth is a final end, it should be sought for its own sake. However, practical wisdom ensures that lying is not always wrong but rather that it may be appropriate in a given situation.

- A virtuous person will exhaust all other means before lying.

- Lying can become habit making our character un-virtuous.

- Lying is a voluntary action which is blameworthy.