ethics final exam

some good shit on here

ERP Moral Standard

ERP Moral Standard

an action is right iff that action respects the dignity and well-being of each rational agent.

rational: possessing logic and reason

agent: a person who possesses rationality and chooses to do specific action

dignity: the ability to choose/use their reason

well-being: happiness, flourishing, what is needed to carry out choices

NLT Moral Standard

an action is right iff that action promotes the 4 values of the natural inclinations of human beings (and doesn’t directly violate any of them)

4 values: two biological (life and procreation) and two characteristically human (knowledge and sociability)

Virtue Ethics Moral Standard

a person has moral worth if they act from virtue

moral worth: character status of doing what is good

acting from virtue: possessing virtues and having them motivate your actions

OR

an action is right iff it is what a virtuous person would do in the circumstances

virtuous person: one who possesses virtue

virtue: character trait that lends one to act morally

Consequentialist vs Non-Consequentialist

Consequentialist theories assess the morality of actions by examining their outcomes. Non-consequentialist theories emphasize that morality is intrinsic to the action itself, regardless of the outcome based on some sort of rule.

Universalization Principle

a logical test that posits that one must act only in such a way that you can universalize your actions. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone always did some specific action and whether or not it’s even possible. (lying, murder, etc. fails)

if it fails, it’s impermissible. if it passes, go to the means/ends test

Means/Ends Principle

the respect test posits that one should act only in such a way that you treat human beings (including yourself) as an end and never merely as a means.

end: self-directed, freely choosing individual

mere means: using someone w/o their knowledge or consent, or as an instrument.

means: someone employed someone to obtain a goal with his/her consent without violating their ability to choose

If an action treats oneself or another as a mere means, the action is impermissible. If it treats yourself or another as a means, it is permissible. If it treats yourself or another as an end, it is morally obligatory.

Principle of Forfeiture

In ERP

a person loses his/her right to be treated as an end when they act irrationally.

when is one irrational: they commit a violation of a MP or they intend to.

if one intends to murder (or whatever violation) me, they forfeit any ethical consideration as a rational agent and can be dealt with in an appropriate manner

In NLT

the principle is only applicable in life/death situations where self-defense is necessary. if someone is attempting to violate your value of life, they forfeit any ethical considerations they have

Doctrine of Double Effect

a test that is used when values conflict with each other in NLT. consists of 4 steps

1. action under deliberation must be permissible in itself

2. all alternatives must be exhausted

3. bad effect must be a side-effect and no the direct means to the good

4. the good must be greater than or equal to the bad

Just War Theory

a moral principle that determines the justness or moral worth of offensive war efforts. it consists of 4 steps

1. war must be declared legally, by a lawful authority

2. war must have a just cause against one of the 4 values in NLT

3. Just cause must be known to be just, no ex post facto justification

4. war must employ the right means (no targeting civilians)

Paternalism

Government (or social structure) that restricts freedom in order to promote the wellbeing of the population
For example seat belt laws, cause it’s better to wear your seat belt even though it restricts our freedoms. They need the law cause ppl wouldn’t do it if they didn’t have the law

Incommensurability

In NLT, values are incommensurate with means that they cannot be measured or compared with one another. We cannot say that one is more or less important than another

Moral Absolutism

an ethical understanding that there are certain universal moral principles by which all peoples actions may be judged; there is objective right and wrong. In absolutism, actions are always good or always bad.

Natural Law, Conventional Law, & Law of Nature

Natural Law: ethics based on some description of human beings, regarding their nature and their ends and goals

Conventional Laws: made by humans and is prescriptive. these include everyday laws like speed limits and taxes

Laws of Nature: regularities found in nature, descriptive and include things such as they law of gravity, F=ma, etc.

Golden Mean

a test to determine whether an action or behavior is virtuous. Virtues lie in the middle of two extremes (vices) and is determined by the context and by the person who is acting. The golden mean is determined on a personal basis as well.

ex. Honestly is the mean between lying and being brutally honest.

Care

Care ethics is a normative ethical theory that emphasizes the importance of interpersonal relationships and care or benevolence as a virtue. It offers a unique perspective on ethical decision-making, focusing on the contextual factors and particular needs of individuals and communities. Here are some key points about care ethics. Focus on emotions and relationships.

3 Requirements for Virtue Ethics

Integrity (acting consistently), Benevolence (right motives), and Justice (responding in appropriate ways to situations)

Voting Criteria

consistency, justification, plausibility, usefulness

1.    Consistency/Coherence: LOGICAL CRITERION

consistency-if the external criterion determines the theory consists of logically compatible predictions (external criterion); coherent- if the internal criterion determines there are no logically incompatible parts, such as standards, principles, rules, or concepts

2.     *Justification- RATIONAL CRITERION

Is this theory intellectually convincing? The defense of a moral standard, looks for a reason to accept the moral standard (could be an appeal to religion or by an appeal to social norms) (rational/head component)

3.     Plausibility- EMOTIONAL/COMMON SENSE CRITERION

Does the moral theory produce moral judgments that agree with our prior moral beliefs? Focuses on the moral judgment itself as it follows from the moral theory (from the bottom up), “It is possible that a moral theory that generates a moral judgment different from the one we were inclined to accept is more strongly justified by the other three criteria, so that we should modify the moral judgment that we originally held in such high confidence” (heart component)

4.     Usefulness- PRAGMATIC CRITERION

Is the theory useful in resolving moral disagreements? (pragmatic component)

Normative Disciplines and their relations

prescription of conduct (give direction to behavior)(all are prescriptive; aesthetics is “1/2”); impartiality (does it change from place to place) (ethics and “3/4” aesthetics only), overriding importance (which moral rules take precedence; ethics and legality only), independence of arbitrary authority (I.A.A) (is the morality based on authoritative bodies, texts, or religion?)(ethics and aesthetics only)

Types of normative disciplines: Aesthetics, Etiquette, Grammar, Ethics/Morality, Legality

Moral Relativism

 states that there is no right and there is no wrong, does not follow from cultural relativism because you can’t go from a fact directly to a prescriptive statement

Cultural Relativism

different cultures have different ideals and norms based upon their own set of beliefs in their part of the world

Moral Absolutism

only one objective set of morals governs humanity, often according to religion or more specifically Christianity’s view of right and wrong

Ethical Argumentation

each moral theory makes an argument that it has the right way of understanding, not absolutism or relativism but that we need to have these dialogues with each other

Factual, Conceptual, and Moral Issues

Factual issues- claims over the truth of relevant details in a moral argument resolved by empirical investigation: to decide on the proper distribution of wealth we must know how many people are poor and how wealth redistribution would affect the incentive to produce wealth; would removal of Oates from the party increase the chances of survival?

Conceptual issues- the meaning of a concept (how we define it) and whether the concept applies or “fits” in a particular situation; ex: what is our definition of suicide (vs martyrdom); resolve issue through determining meaning and applicability of subject; may be up for debate

Moral issues- ex: is suicide okay?; claims made in moral arguments that determine the morality of specific actions or rules

Standards, Principles, and Judgements

Moral judgment: level one; give moral evaluations of specific actions or individuals; ex: “John McRay should not have been executed”

Moral principles (rules): level two; make moral evaluations of types or classes of actions, such as capital punishment or acts of discrimination; refer to many actions or individuals not just one (personal and social ethics)

Moral standard: level three; according to the moral theory, any action or person must have to be morally right; give the criterion that makes any action or person right rather than giving an evaluation (single statement that defines the Good)

Types of Moral Judgements

 morally obligatory (right to do the action and wrong not to do it; parents ought to care for their children); morally impermissible (wrong to do and right not to do; murder is morally impermissible in most moral theories); morally permissible (morally neutral bc they do not violate the moral standard); nontrivial permissible- important consequences (get an operation that may or may not prolong life)/trivial permissible-relatively unimportant consequences (give to one charity or another); supererogatory (“above and beyond the call of duty”) of omission (good not to do but morally permissible to do) or commission (good to do but morally permissible not to do).