philosophers for p1 (copy)

skinner (freewill)

we are products of our environment trained to act in certain ways

hume (freewill)

hard determinism → we have no concept of causation without causal necessity → freedom lies in being able to carry out our desires without interference and restraint from external factors → everything is determined including our behavior and choices, but we have responsibility for actions determined ONLY by our character.

reid (freewill)

libertarianism → the cause of the action is that man willed it

nietzsche (freewill)

disagrees that if the sub-atomic world is indeterminate, then causation cannot be determined, but that the question should be whether or not the will is strong or weak, and nature is not causally determined, but a matter or wills imposing themselves.

Frankfurt (freewill)

the will we have is complex → we have first order desires (to have or do certain things e.g., wine) and second order desires (desires about first order desires → what we will motivates us to do something, for my will to be free, I must be able to will what I will → gives freewill

Sartre (freewill)

“man is condemned to be free” → we are free from the chain of causation that causes predictability in animals, and free from values and commands that have to be obeyed as there are none → our ==self consciousness== gives us freedom

kant (deontology)

moral law is objective → moral statements are synthetic a priori (not true by definition) → people should not be treated as a means to an end but rather an ends in themselves → moral actions based on duty to others - categorical imperative

kant (freewill)

how can there be meaningful moral duties unless people are free? → it is crucial that human behaviour is not determined, for we cannot be held accountable unless we make choices. ==compatibilism== → ought implies can - freewill means that if they had chosen differently, then they would have acted differently

mackie (deontology)

divine command theory → moral truths exist independently but are the product of the creative will of god → humans were created by god and are now free and separate from him - same thing happened with moral laws

newman (deontology)

divine command theory → feelings of guilt only make sense if there is someone who is morally accountable, without a commander e.g., god, moral laws become impersonal

plato (deontology)

euthyphro dilemma → is something good because god loves it or does god love it because it is good → leaves no religious reason to be good as god defers to a higher set of absolutes

ayer (deontology)

no morality can be founded on authority → commanding something doesn’t necessarily make it morally right

Watson (freewill)

rejected freewill entirely → character and actions is entirely determined by upbringing

locke (freewill)

freewill is an illusion → we think we have freewill because we feel free and have experiences of choosing but we are just unaware of how chemical processes influence us → we willingly give up our freedom because we recognise the importance of governance

descartes (mind-body)

dualism → there are two kinds of substance, matter, of which the essential property is that it is spatially extended, and the mind, of which the essential property is that it thinks → “i think therefore i am”

ryle (mind-body)

monism → all mental events are physical events interpreted in a mental way by the brain

fletcher (situation ethics)

ethics must be pragmatic (work on a practical level), relative, positive, and personal

temple (situational ethics)

sin was universal and gods only law was the law of love → one of the strengths of utilitarianism is the level of moral responsibility

Bonhoeffer (situational ethics)

questioned possibility of moral certainty → actions cannot be justified in advance, and self-justification is a sin

barclay (situational ethics)

fletchers situations are extreme examples + suggest that laws can be abandoned → hard for individuals to make their own moral decisions in every situation

Hobbes (human condition)

if we lived in a world with no political organisation it would be “nasty, brutish and short” → it is the nature of man to be selfish → due to the need to survive, we form a social contract with others → “where there is no common power, there is no law, no injustice”

rousseau (human condition)

we are naturally good people “noble savage” → society corrupts us - “man is born free but everywhere he is in chains” → within society, we will always be striving for more, and we will never be happy with what we have → “the savage lives within himself, sociable man \[…\] can only live in the opinion of others”

locke (human condition)

believed that most people are morally good → “it is the natural condition of mankind to conduct ones life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others” → “the state of nature is pre-political, but not pre-moral” → we willingly give up some of our free will because we know it will benefit us in some way → in this sense we are selfish human beings

mill (human condition)

human nature is to be rational, and being in complete isolation is damaging to humans

Maslow (human condition)

humans need to exist in a hierarchy and are not equal in importance → the hierarchy of needs have basic needs at the bottom, and self-actualisation at the top → we are willing to sacrifice our higher needs in order to satisfy our basic needs

Aristotle (human condition)

we are “social and political animals” → we need other people because it helps us progress → language is evidence that we need to live in a society → desire for progress is the distinction between humans and animals → we want to achieve ==eudaemonia==, and it is only in a society that is cultural and self-sufficient that this can be achieved

freud (human condition)

childhood shapes human nature → lack of structure in early life causes unconscious mind to desire structure, meaning that humans have developed society and it is inevitable

Marx (human condition)

human nature driven to achieve both social and individual satisfaction → society is just a part of our nature, whether humans are naturally selfish or selfless → people are not equal in society

herder (human condition)

disagrees with Aristotle and thinks that the way people act varies on how they were raised → deterministic views → our character is formed by society, therefore human nature is not universal

kant (human condition)

believed our ability to rationalise distinguishes us from humans and animals

nietzsche (human condition)

all moral principles are effectively intentions → greed in society may have caused pain, but it has also spread ideas → we have a will to power with drives such as greed, lust, wrath and pride → our primary motivating factor is to dominate others + struggles emerge when we cannot dominate others

singer (utilitarianism)

preference utilitarianism → important to consider preferences of individuals until they come into conflict with preferences of others

sidgewick (utilitarianism)

it is hard to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures in practice due to subjectivity

williams (utilitarianism)

rule utilitarianism is not too different from absolutism, and the point is flexibility so the whole theory risks collapse. act utilitarianism “debases moral currency” and the theory demands too much from us

McIntyre (utilitarianism)

social engineering argument → the very concept of pleasure is dangerous because people can be manipulated into doing anything

mill (utilitarianism)

“better socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” → higher pleasures promote happiness and are pleasures of the mind → lower pleasures are of the body

Bentham (utilitarianism)

the act that brings the greatest good is the correct act → hedonic calculus to calculate pleasure

stevenson (meta-ethics)

emotivism → such things as real disagreements in attitudes rather than just different emotions → attitudes are based on beliefs → gives more meaning to moral disagreements

hume (meta-ethics)

is-ought gap → is has factual value, ought is a statement of ethical value, and there is a gap

Bradley (meta-ethics)

ethical naturalism → morals can be defined or explained through natural terms → they develop their ideas with non-moral evidence

Moore (meta-ethics)

ethical non-naturalism → naturalistic fallacy (facts or statements about the world cannot lead to ethical statements) → intuitionism (you cannot define goodness, it is intuitive)

Searle (meta-ethics)

there is an exception to the is-ought gap in the statement “I promise” as it automatically entails an ought

pritchard (meta-ethics)

moral obligations form immediate apprehensions → intuitions involve more than just goodness

ross (meta-ethics)

moral principles are not absolute or defined in natural terms → prima facie duties (duties at first sight e.g., promise keeping, reparation, gratitude…) → the prima facie duties are apparent and we are bound by them

ayer (meta-ethics)

logical positivist → language is only meaningful if it can be verified either analytically or synthetically → he did NOT think this applied to religious beliefs or moral ideas

Aristotle (virtue ethics)

virtue theory → emphasises individual character rather than rules → things are good to the extent that they fulfil their purpose → virtue is a skill that can only be learnt through experience → there are 3 types of pleasures: pleasure seekers, seekers of honour, those who love contemplation → there must be a balance between intellectual (developed through learning in rational part of brain) and moral virtues (developed through habit in irrational part of brain)→ wellbeing of group more important than individual

Aristotle (mind-body)

there are 2 parts to the soul → rational contains calculative + scientific holding factual a priori knowledge → irrational contains vegetative parts concerned with basic needs

McIntyre (virtue ethics)

modern ethics put too much emphasis on reason → as societies develop, different virtues develop → underneath the virtues there must be goodwill and maybe freewill → 2 types of goods: internal (specific to the activity itself) and external (not specific to the act)

foot (virtue ethics)

something that is good is both intrinsically and extrinsically good → virtues and skills are different things

camus (meaning of life)

absurdism → there is no objective or universal meaning to life → there is fundamental disharmony in our existence → each of us individually has a sense of significance → we matter, even if only to ourself. myth of sisyphus → all we are doing is rolling a ball over a hill with no meaning → we can choose to give meaning to our lives as we decide what to do

Aristotle (meaning of life)

purpose is aim orientated → we give ourselves meaning and purpose by finding an end purpose to life → success of life can be judged by how many things we achieve and there can be purpose in pointless tasks (process purpose)

Rowlands (meaning of life)

if a task cannot be achieved, then life seems to be pointless → if it can be achieved and is achieved, then once completed life becomes pointless

nietzsche (meaning of life)

nihilism → there is absolutely nothing that has meaning or value → there are no truths about the world, only interpretations → truths are just illusions we have forgotten are illusions

simone de Beauvoir (relations with others)

existentialist → “one is not born a woman, but becomes one” → “one’s life has value as long as one attributes value to the life of others”

plato (relations with others)

gender is not a factor that determines an individual’s nature or capacity to fulfil a certain task, therefore each individual should be given opportunities based on their personal nature, not on their gender

Wollstonecraft (relations with others)

it is not until men and women are seen to be equal that both sexes will be able to develop the same virtues

Marx (relations with others)

modern work is alienated and insecure → capitalism is unstable + generates a consumerist ideology → religion is the opium of the people + holds back social change

nietzsche (relations with others)

the majority of people are too weak to assert their own will to power and so have to follow the herd into religion → all human relationships are framed through the will to power and the innate desire to dominate others

Aristotle (relationships with others)

the whole must necessarily be prior to the part, and therefore the city state is prior in nature to the household and individuals → if the individual when separate is not self-sufficient, then he must be related to the whole state as other parts are related to their whole → impulse to form a partnership of this kind present by all men in nature