Philosophy Final

What is metaethics, and what kinds of questions does it explore?

Metaethics is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of ethics and ethical questions. It explores foundational issues such as:

• Do ethical questions have objectively correct answers?

• Do moral properties like “goodness” actually exist?

• What do moral terms like ought, right, or good really mean?

• How do we know what is right and wrong?

What is normative ethics, and what questions does it try to answer?

Normative ethics is the field of philosophy that tries to determine what is morally right and wrong. It asks questions like:

• Which codes of conduct are true or rationally defensible?

• What should I do? How ought I behave?

• What kind of person should I be?

• What makes actions right or wrong?

What is applied ethics?

Applied ethics is the branch of philosophy that studies how we should act in real-world situations. It addresses concrete moral problems such as abortion, climate change, animal rights, and medical ethics.

Applied ethicists often take concepts or principles from normative ethics and apply them to these specific cases—hence the name applied ethics.

Some major subfields of applied ethics include:

• Bioethics (abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering)

• Environmental ethics (climate change, conservation, animal rights)

• Conflict ethics (war, self-defense)

Consequentialism

says that an action is morally required because it produces the best results

Utilitarianism

an ethical theory that determines right from wrong based on consequences of actions, aiming to maximize overall well-being or happiness for the greatest number of people.

What are the three main ideas of Utilitarianism, and how do they work together to determine what makes an action right?

Utilitarianism is based on three key ideas:

1. Consequentialism – The right action is the one that produces the best overall consequences. You should always choose the option that results in the greatest amount of good.

2. Hedonism or Preferentism – The only intrinsic good is pleasure (for hedonists) or desire-satisfaction (for preferentists). These are called “utility,” which is good for its own sake, unlike instrumental goods like money or food.

3. Impartialism – Everyone’s utility counts equally. You should not give special treatment to yourself, your family, or your species.

Together, these ideas mean that an action is right if it produces the greatest overall utility (pleasure or desire-satisfaction), and each person's utility matters equally. For example, in the Trolley Problem, you should switch the trolley to save five and kill one. In the Footbridge case, you should push the man onto the track to save more lives.

What is an objection to Utilitarianism?

An objection to Utilitarianism is that it can justify morally wrong actions if they maximize overall utility. For example, imagine a healthy person walks into a hospital and a doctor realizes their organs could save five dying patients. According to Utilitarianism, killing the healthy person to save five lives would be the right thing to do because it produces more overall good. However, most people believe this is deeply wrong, which suggests that Utilitarianism can lead to immoral conclusions when it ignores individual rights.

Deontology

says that some actions are morally requried regardless of the consequences

What is the Principle of Humanity, and what does it mean to treat someone as an end versus a mere means?

The Principle of Humanity says: Always treat a human being (including yourself) as an end, never as a mere means. A “human being” here means a person or rational agent.

• Treating someone as an end means treating them with the respect they deserve as a rational being.

• Treating someone as a means is using them to achieve a goal, which can be morally acceptable if done respectfully.

• Treating someone as a mere means is using them without regard for their dignity or autonomy, which is always morally wrong.

Example: Hiring an electrician and paying them treats them as a means, but also with respect. Killing them afterward to avoid paying would be treating them as a mere means, which violates the principle.

Normative claims

claims about how people should act; what they ought to do

Moral philosophers are generally concerned with normative claims rather than descriptive ones (and we’ll follow suit)

Descriptive claims

claims about how people do in fact act; what they actually do

What is Rossian Pluralism, and how does it differ from other moral theories?

Rossian Pluralism is a moral theory developed by W.D. Ross. Unlike other theories that rely on a single absolute moral principle (like Utilitarianism or Kantianism), Rossian Pluralism holds that there are multiple moral principles—called prima facie duties—and none of them are absolute.

• Prima facie means "at first glance." A prima facie duty is something we are morally obligated to do unless it conflicts with another duty that takes priority in a given situation.

• These duties are fundamental and permanent, but not always decisive. They can be overridden by stronger moral considerations.

Example: You may have a duty to keep a promise, but it can be morally acceptable to break that promise if doing so would save someone’s life.

What are the key advantages of Rossian Pluralism?

Rossian Pluralism is good because it says there’s more than one important moral rule. It doesn’t say rules can never be broken — sometimes you have to choose the more important rule, like breaking a promise to help a friend in an emergency. It also explains why we sometimes face real moral conflicts and feel bad when we can’t do everything we think we should.

What is a major problem with Rossian Pluralism?

It doesn’t give clear advice on what to do when moral duties conflict because Ross doesn’t rank duties by importance. This means the theory doesn’t tell us exactly how to choose between duties in real-life situations, which is a problem since moral theories are supposed to help guide our actions.

What is Virtue Ethics and how does it differ from other normative theories?

Virtue Ethics starts by focusing on what kind of person we should be, not just what we should do. An action is right if a virtuous person would do it, not because of fixed rules. A virtuous person has admirable character traits (virtues) like courage or honesty that help them live a flourishing life. Virtues require practical wisdom—understanding why traits matter. Aristotle said virtues are a balance between extremes, like courage is the middle between cowardice and recklessness.

What are the main advantages of Virtue Ethics?

Virtue Ethics recognizes that morality is hard and requires wisdom, not just knowing rules or facts. Unlike rule-based theories, it focuses on guiding us to live a good life by developing virtues, which are skills that take practice and understanding to master.

What is a key objection to Virtue Ethics?

Virtue Ethics doesn’t clearly tell you what you should do in specific situations. It says to act like a virtuous person, but it can be hard to know what that means if you’re not virtuous. Also, virtuous people might disagree on what to do, so it can be unclear which example to follow.

What is Moral Realism?

Moral Realism is the view that moral facts exist independently of anyone’s opinions or beliefs. For example, if no one believed "murder is wrong," it would still be objectively wrong. Moral truths are like mathematical facts (e.g., 2+2=4) — true no matter what people think.

Why do people support Moral Realism, and what is a criticism of it?

People support Moral Realism because it matches our common sense — some things, like murder being wrong, seem objectively true no matter what. However, a criticism is that moral realists often rely on intuition rather than strong arguments, mainly saying other views are wrong because of “common sense” instead of proving their own view fully.

What is the motivation objection to Moral Realism?

Moral facts, like other facts (e.g., 2+2=4), don’t motivate us to act. So even if moral facts exist, they don’t actually influence what we do. For example, if moral facts said to be selfish, but I care about others, those facts won’t change my behavior. This “problem of motivation” challenges how moral facts can guide actions.

Anti realism

family of views that all reject the existence of mind-independent moral facts

What does Cultural Relativism say about moral truths?

Cultural Relativism says that the truth of moral claims depends on the culture or society. What’s right or wrong in one culture might be different and still true in another.

What is a major problem with Cultural Relativism?

It suggests we can’t judge the moral norms of other cultures, even harmful ones like Nazi Germany, which many find unacceptable.

What is Constructivism in metaethics?

Constructivism is an anti-realist view that says moral truths are not independent of people’s minds. Instead, morality is constructed from someone’s standpoint or perspective.

How does Constructivism compare to Moral Realism and other anti-realist views?

Constructivism is a middle ground — it rejects mind-independent moral facts like realism but isn’t as extreme as some other anti-realist views.

What is Error Theory in metaethics?

Error Theory is a type of moral nihilism that says morality doesn’t exist at all—not even as a constructed concept. It views moral rules as just inherited traditions based on ignorance, superstition, or fear, or as convenient fictions without any real authority.

What are the three main claims of Error Theory?

1. There are no moral features in the world (no qualities like good/bad, right/wrong).

2. No moral judgments are true because there are no moral facts.

3. Our moral judgments try to describe moral features but always fail, so we are always mistaken when thinking morally.

What are some features of Error Theory?

It highlights how strange it is to think objective moral values just exist in the world. The widespread disagreement about morality—more than in science—undermines its objectivity. Scientists study an objective reality, but ethicists may be mistaken in thinking morality is objective.

What are common responses to Error Theory?

Error Theory only rejects objective morality but doesn’t deny morality altogether—it leaves room for non-objective morality like relativism. Also, there’s massive disagreement about other supposed objective things (e.g., whether God exists), showing disagreement doesn’t always disprove objectivity.

Metaethics RECAP

• Moral realism (morality exists and its objective)

• Cultural relativism (moral truth depends on the culture)

• Kantian constructivism (morality is constructed and is objective)

• Humean constructivist (morality is constructed and is relativism)

• Error Theory (morality does not exist, we pretend it does)

What is Expressivism in metaethics?

Expressivism says moral statements aren’t descriptions of facts but expressions of attitudes. For example, “Kale is green” describes the world, but “Hurray for Kale!” expresses a feeling. Similarly, “Murder is wrong” means “boo murder” — it shows disapproval rather than stating a fact

What is the language problem objection to Expressivism?

Expressivism treats moral statements like “Abortion is wrong” as expressions of attitudes (“Boo abortion”), but this fails in some sentences like “I wonder whether abortion is wrong.” Saying “I wonder whether boo abortion” makes no sense, so Expressivism struggles to explain how moral language works in all contexts.

What is Divine Command Theory (DCT)?

Divine Command Theory says morality depends on God. Morality can’t exist without God, and God decides what is right and wrong. This view fits many theistic religions, including those with one or multiple gods.

What is the Euthyphro Dilemma in relation to Divine Command Theory?

It asks: Does God command actions because they are morally right, or are actions morally right because God commands them? Both options raise problems for Divine Command Theory.

What is the problem if God commands actions because they are morally right?

It means God isn’t the source of morality—there’s something moral outside of God that determines right and wrong. God just knows or reports these moral truths but doesn’t create them, which challenges the idea that morality depends on God.

What is the problem if actions are morally right simply because God commands them?

This makes God’s commands arbitrary—He could have commanded anything, even morally bad acts like torture. This seems implausible for a morally perfect God and suggests morality is independent of God, circling back to the first problem. True Divine Command Theory advocates must accept this arbitrariness.

What is Anthropocentrism?

Anthropocentrism is the view that we should protect and help the environment mainly because of the benefits it provides to humans.

What is Nonanthropocentrism?

Nonanthropocentrism is the view that the environment has intrinsic value—it is valuable for its own sake, not just because it benefits humans—so we should help protect it.

What does Hedonism say about a good life and happiness?

Hedonism says a good life is a happy life, where happiness is the presence of pleasure and absence of pain. Happiness is the only intrinsic good—valuable for its own sake. According to J.S. Mill, pleasures differ in quality: higher (intellectual pleasures like enjoying art or learning) and lower (animalistic pleasures like eating or drinking).

What are some attractions to Hedonism as a theory of well-being?

Hedonism gives individuals a say in what makes life go well since happiness is personal. It strikes a middle ground between objective and subjective theories of well-being. Plus, it feels obvious—happiness clearly improves life, which is why we’re bothered when bad people are happy (because happiness still benefits them).

What are some problems with Hedonism?

1. The Deceived Partner Problem – Two women are in equally happy marriages, but one’s husband is secretly cheating. Hedonism would say both lives are equally great, but we intuitively feel the deceived partner’s life is worse. This suggests happiness isn’t the only thing that matters.

2. The Experience Machine – Imagine a machine that gives you endless, perfect pleasure. Hedonism says you should plug in for life, since it would bring the most happiness. But many people wouldn’t plug in, which suggests we care about more than just pleasure—like authenticity or real achievement.

What is the Desire-Satisfaction Theory of well-being?

It’s a purely subjective view that says your life goes well when your desires are satisfied. It doesn’t matter what your desires are—there’s no objective standard. If you get what you want, your life is good. If your desires are frustrated, your life goes poorly.

What are the main attractions to the Desire‑Satisfaction Theory (DST)?

• Personal authority: You decide what makes your life good by choosing your own desires.

• No universal standard: There’s no “correct” set of desires—whatever you want matters.

• Avoids objective‐good pitfalls: If you don’t value “Thing X,” it can’t be forced on you as good.

• Intuitive guidance: To know what’s good for you, simply identify and satisfy your desires.

What are the main problems with the Desire‑Satisfaction Theory (DST)?

• Good things without desire: Some things benefit us even if we don’t want them

  • Example: pleasant surprises, disciplining children, suicide prevention

• Problematic desires: Wanting something doesn’t always make it good

  • Example: indoctrinated slave who only wants to serve their master

  • Example: someone who just wants to count grass forever—do they really have a good life?

What is the Objective List Theory of well-being?

The Objective List Theory says that certain things are good for you regardless of your desires or beliefs. There is a set list of goods—like knowledge, friendship, achievement, etc.—that make your life go well even if you don’t want or value them.