PHI 214 - Exam 2

moral skepticism

there are no true moral propositions

emotivism, prescriptivism, error theory

what are the three types of moral skepticism

moral non-skepticism

there are true moral propositions

moral relativism and objectivism

what are the two types of moral non-skepticism

subjective moral relativism and cultural moral relativism

what are the two types of moral relativism

argument from disagreement and argument from tolerance

what are the two arguments for moral relativism

argument from disagreement

different individuals and cultures hold different moral beliefs

implicit premise for argument from disagreement

there is no objectivity about morality when there is disagreement over morality

argument from tolerance

we should be tolerant of diverse moral views

implicit premise of argument from tolerance

if holding a view could lead to bad consequences, we should reject that view as false - apply this same standard to germ theory

moral progress objection and objectivity objection

what are the two types of objections to moral relativism

moral progress objection

1. if moral relativism is true, then there is no better set of moral beliefs for an individual or culture to adopt

2. if there is no better set of moral beliefs to adopt, then moral progress is impossible

3. moral progress is possible

4. therefore, moral relativism is not true

objectivity objection

1. if moral relativism is true, then claims like slavery is wrong, rape is wrong, and child abuse is wrong, etc. would not be true

2. claims like slavery is wrong, rape is wrong, and child abuse is wrong are true

3. therefore, moral relativism isn’t true

utilitarianism

an action is right to the extent that it produces (or tends to produce) more overall happiness (i.e. pleasure and the absence of pain) than other alternative acts. (aka: GHP - greatest happiness principle)

Act C

a small business has one delivery van left at the end of the day and can make only one more delivery

A
based on utilitarianism, which is the correct thing to do

1. Act A: deliver an expensive order to a wealthy customer who wants it tonight but does not need it urgently

2. Act B: deliver supplies to a local restaurant that will lose some business without them

3. Act C: deliver medicine to an elderly customer who needs it that evening.

Mill’s argument for utilitarianism

1. the only thing desired as an ultimate end is happiness

2. the correct moral principle is the one that, if followed, would produce that which is desired as an ultimate end

3. so, the correct moral principle is the one that if followed would best produce happiness

4. the moral principle that if followed would best produce happiness is utilitarianism

5. thus, utilitarianism is the correct moral principle

the swine objection

1. if (as premise 1 suggests) the highest aim of humans is pleasure, than humans have no higher aspirations (or are no more noble) than swine

2. but humans have higher aspirations (or are more noble) than swine

3. thus, the highest aim of humans must not be pleasure

the experience machine objection

this takes all the information it needs to simulate a maximally happiness or pleasure inducing experience and the simulation is indistinguishable from your everyday experience in the real world

1. if (as premise 1 claims) our ultimate am is pleasure, then we would plug into the machine

2. but people wouldn’t plug in

3. thus, it’s not our ultimate aim/premise 1 is false

the swine objection and the experience machine objection

these are objections to the argument of utilitarianism, not utilitarianism itself

practicality objection, too demanding objection, contingency objection, scapegoat case, organ transplant case, runaway train case, promise case

these are objections to utilitarianism itself

the practicality objection

in the real world, we don’t have the time to calculate the effects of our actions on general happiness. therefore, utilitarianism is useless

too demanding obejction

utilitarianism implies that we should always act in order to maximize happiness; this is too strict of a requirement.

contingency objection

utilitarianism makes morality reliant on specific situations. so if the circumstances were such that committing rape or murder would produce the best overall consequences, then doing so would be the right thing to do

the scapegoat case

suppose that the sheriff of a small town can prevent serious riots (in which hundreds of people will be killed) only be framing and executing an innocent man. utilitarianism says this is the right thing to do

the organ transplant case

Jack is in the hospital for routine tests and there are people there who need vital organs right away. a doctor has the opportunity to kill Jack and make his death look natural. It would maximize happiness to cut Jack up and give his organs to five patients in need. utilitarianism implies that the doctor should kill Jack for his organs.

runaway train case

there’s a runaway train headed for five workers who are stuck on the track with no route for escape. between the train and the workers there is a footbridge above the track. you are on the bridge and see the situation unfolding. directly above the track there is a large man leaning over the railing. you realize that if you push him over the train will hit him and be stopped. he’ll die but the five others will live. utilitarianism suggests you should kill the man

promise case

suppose that I make a promise to my dying Aunt to give some money she has hidden under the bed to charity A. Suppose further that after she dies I do some investigating and find out that charity B does better work and helps more people. Mill’s utilitarianism seems to suggest that the right thing for me to do would be to give the money to charity B, but is this the right thing to do given the promise I made to my Aunt?

Type I (thieving shopkeeper)

this act is not in accord with duty - Timmy goes into the store to buy some candy and the shopkeeper intentionally shot changes him

Type II (selfish shopkeeper)

in accord with duty but done out of selfishness, so this type of action does not fit true moral worth - a shopkeeper treats his customers fairly but only because he doesn’t want to get a bad reputation around town

Type III (sympathetic shopkeeper)

in accord with duty but done out of sympathy/love, this action is worthy of praise and/or encouragement, but not of esteem or true moral worth - Timmy goes into the store and the shopkeeper has no thought of short changing him, the shopkeeper just genuinely wants what is best for all customers

Type IV (dutiful scrooge)

in accord with duty and done because it is their duty or out of respect for moral law, this action is worthy of esteem and true moral worth - shopkeeper thinks Timmy is a brat but recognizes he has a duty to treat people fairly and by that duty he is obligated to give Timmy fair change

Kant’s Theory of Moral Worth

an action has moral worth (or is morally right) iff: (i) it accords with duty, i.e. it respects the dignity of the people involved and does not use thme merely as a means to an end (acts relation to duty); and (ii) it was done only out of duty or respect for the moral law. (motive)

Kant’s Theory of Duty

an act accords with duty if it respects the dignity of the people involved and doesn’t use them as mere instruments; it treats people as ends in themselves and never merely as means to an end

hypothetical imperative

• conditional duty to achieve a goal

• has the form: if you want X, you ought to do Y

• the obligation is conditional on a desire or end

• tell us what is instrumentally useful

business ethics examples of the hypothetical imperative

1. “if you want to keep your customers, you ought not to lie to them”

2. “if you want a stable and productive workplace, you ought to ensure that employees are treated fairly in your business practices”

categorical imperatives

• unconditional duties, independent of any goal

• has the form: you ought to do Y

• apply to all rational agents, at all times

• tell us what is morally required, not merely instrumentally useful

how; must

hypothetical imperatives tell us ___ to achieve our goals; categorical imperatives tell us what we ___ do

Kant’s argument that the supreme principle of morality must be categorical in form

1. moral principles or laws are unconditional and universal (in form). (this is part of what it is to be a law

2. no hypothetical imperatives are unconditional or universal

3. thus, moral laws are not hypothetical imperatives

4. moral laws are either hypothetical or categorical imperatives

5. thus moral laws generally, and the supreme or fundamental moral law in particular must be categorical in form

humanity formulation of the categorical imperative

treat humanity, whether in yourself or another, as an end in itself and never merely as a means

The humanity formulation as an ought statement

you ought to always treat humanity, whether in yourself or another, as an end in itself and never merely as a means

one particular formulation/instantiation of that principle

humanity formulation

the formulation of what makes a content categorical

supreme moral principle

the role Kant assigns to the moral law

• the fundamental standard of morality

• categorical in form

• from it, particular duties are derived

• by it, we judge whether an act accords with duty

Kantian style argument for the existence of a supreme moral principle

1. if there was no supreme or fundamental principle of morality, then the common-sense duties would just be an unexplained miscellaneous heap of duties

2. but they are not just an unexplained or miscellaneous

3. therefore, there must be some moral supreme principle

Schiller’s poem mocking Kantianism

gladly I serve my friends, but alas I do it with pleasure

hence I am plagued with doubts that I am not a virtuous person

sure, your only recourse is to try to despise them entirely

and then with aversion to do what your duty enjoins you

Schiller’s Objection

1. Kant suggests moral worth is found in actions done with aversion

2. Kant suggests moral worth is not found in actions done out of love or sympathy

3. So, according to Kant, for my action to possess moral worth, I must seek to despise my friends and do my duty toward them with feelings of repugnance

4. everyone knows it is not morally worthy to [seek to] despise our friends, and act towards them with feelings of repugnance

5. Thus, Kant’s account of moral worth is deeply flawed

psychological egoism

holds that all humans are ultimately motivated by selfish desires

psychological egoism objection

1. on Kantianism, acting morally requires acting only out of duty

2. it’s impossible for a human to act only out of duty

3. so on Kantianism, acting morally is impossible

4. thus, Kantianism is flawed

the knowledge objection

it is impossible to know the reason/motive behind an action

1. on Kantianism, knowing whether an action has moral worth requires knowing the agent’s true motive

2. we cannot know another person’s true motive (we can’t even know our own)

3. thus, on Kantianism, we can’t know whether an action has moral worth

4. a correct moral theory would allow for such knowledge

5. thus, Kantianism is flawed

the murderer at your door objection

1. on Kantianism, it is morally wrong to lie to a murderer at the door to prevent a murder

2. buy lying in this case is morally permissible, perhaps even required

3. a correct moral theory would not forbid what is morally permissible or required

4. thus, Kantianism is flawed