Philosophy 150 - Exam #3

Lectures from Nov. 6 -

Preference Utilitarianism

The right action is the one that maximizes the degree to which people get their preferences satisfied

Avoids Experience Machine Objection —> people prefer real life 

Apples and Oranges Problem

If preferences conflict, how can they be compared or quantified? 

The Fanatical Majority

If you have an objection to people’s preferences, you moral objection does NOT allow you to ignore these preferences

Fanatical Majority Objection

A nonconformist minority may have to tolerate morally objectionable actions/laws in a society where fanatics are the majority

Mill’s Response to FMO in “On Liberty”

People should be free to do what they want as long as doing so does not hurt others

Why do people think utilitarianism is too demanding?

1. Demanding —> requires complicated calculations

2. Motivation (no rest) —> requires us to be benevolent all the time

3. Action —> forbids us from doing things like vacations

Decision Procedure

A method that allows us to reliably make the right decisions about what to do

Standard of Rightness

Tells us the conditions under which actions are morally right

Supererogatory Action

Actions that are morally praiseworthy, but not wrong to not do

Utilitarianism & Justice Claim

Utilitarianism can conflict with commonsense views about justice

Vicarious Punishment 

Target innocent people as a way to deter the guilty 

Exemplary Punishment

Makes an “example” of somebody

Act Utilitarianism

The moral action is the one that directly produces the best balance of happiness over unhappiness

Rule Utilitarianism

The morally right action is the one that, if everyone accepted as a general rule, it would be optimific

The Problem of Impartiality

No one is more morally important than anyone else

One is not allowed to weight the interests of loved ones more than strangers

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

• German Philosopher 

• Wrote Critique of Pure Reason and Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals 

Advantages of Kantian Ethics 

• Intentions matter, results do not 

• Morality depends on what is within our control —> our intentions and actions

Kant Evil Intentions

Acting immorally even if there are good results

Kant Good Intentions

Acting morally even if there are bad results

Kant Moral Judgements cannot…

Be thoughtless or self-centered, so they can’t be based on inclination

Beliefs + Desires =

Actions

According to Hume: ____ do not come from reason alone, there is always a _____ source

Actions; non rational

Moral Law

A set of principles or rules stated in the form of imperatives or commands 

Imperatives

Commands of reason

Hypothetical Imperative

Tells us what to do in order to get what we want 

Categorical Imperative

Requirements of reason that apply to everyone, regardless of their desires

Kant’s Claim on Moral Law

Morality consists of categorical imperatives (not hypothetical imperatives)

Primary Categorical Imperative

Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law

An act is permissible if…

1. Its maxim can be universalized 

2. You would be willing to let that happen

Maxim 

A principle that one gives to oneself when acting

False Negatives

Classify an action as immoral that seems moral

False Positives 

Classify an action as moral that seems immortal 

Means-End Principle

“So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own persona or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only.”

Kant’s Definition of a Human

Someone who is rational and autonomous

The Good Will

ONLY thing that is good in all circumstances 

1. The ability to reliably know what your duty is 

2. A steady commitment to doing your duty for its own sake 

Problems for the Principle of Humanity

1. Difficult to determine if someone is being treated as an end 

2. The principle fails to give us good advice about how to determine what people deserve

3. The principle assumes that we are genuinely autonomous, but that assumption may be false 

Lex Talonis

Eye-for-an-eye principal

Moral Luck

Cases in which the morality of an action depends on factors outside of our control

Moral Nihilism

The view that there are not moral truths (METAETHICAL)

Two Types of Moral Nihilism

1. Error Theory

2. Expressionism

Categorical Reasons

Reasons that apply to us regardless of whether acting on them gets us what we want

Fundamental Error

The belief in categorical reasons

Nihilism (Pessimism)

What would make life meaningful either cannot obtain or as a matter of fact simply never does

Anti-natalism

It is immoral to bring new people into existence because doing so is to harm them

Ultimate Moral Goal of Utilitarianism

To maximize utility (happiness/pleasure)

Ultimate Moral Goal of Kantianism

To respect autonomy and duty

Ultimate Moral Goal of Virtue Ethics

To become a virtuous person

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

Ethics is about character and eudaimodia (flourishing)

Aquinas

Integrated Aristotelian virtues with Christian theology

The Eclipse

• During Enlightenment (17th-19thC)

• Ethics shifted from character to rules/duty (Kant & Mill)

G.E.M. Anscombe

• Argued modern “moral obligation” is incoherent without a Lawgiver

• Urged a return to psychology

Alasdair MacIntyre

• Wrote After Virtue

• Argued that the Enlightenment failed and we must recover the teleological tradition

Moral Exemplar

Someone who serves as a role model for the rest of us; the “virtuous person”

Virtues

A character trait is a fixed disposition to think, feel, and act in harmoniously related ways under relevant circumstances

Eudaimonia

translates as “happiness” or “flourishing”; the highest fulfillment of one’s basic potential as a rational social animal

Perception

Emotions help us see what is morally relevant

Detection

Emotions help us tell what is right and wrong

Motivation

Emotions move us to act

The Standard of Right Action (Virtue Ethics)

An act is morally right just because it is one that a virtuous person, acting in character, would do in that situation

Problems with Moral Rules

• Strict observance will lead to errors

• Moral rules conflict with each other

The “Big Four” Cardinal Virtues

• Justice

• Wisdom (Prudence)

• Temperance (Self Control)

• Courage

The Golden Mean

The amount of virtue that can be possessed/portrayed before it becomes a vice

Aristotle’s Function Argument (Egon)

What is “good” for human beings

Aristotle’s Three Part Test for the Ultimate Good

1. Ultimate good must be intrinsically valuable 

2. Possession of the ultimate good by itself already makes a life a worthy life 

3. Ultimate good is something that is uniquely human (exercising our reason well)

Modified Standard for Right Action

1. An act in a given situation is morally required just because all virtuous people, acting in character, would perform it. 

2. An act in a given situation is morally permitted just because some but not all virtuous people, acting in character, would perform it. 

3. An act in a given situation is morally forbidden just because no virtuous people, acting in character, would perform it.

If the actions are right because the virtuous person performs them

Then morality seems arbitrary

If the virtuous person performs them because they are right

Then the standard of rightness is independent of the virtuous person and we don’t need the moral exemplar

Moral Skepticism

The view that we cannot have moral knowledge (meta ethical)

The Skeptical Argument from Disagreement

1. If well-informed, rational people persistently disagree about some claim, then we are not justified in believing that claim.  

2. Well-informed, rational people persistently disagree about all moral claims. 

3. Therefore, we are not justified in believing any moral claims.

The No Certainty Argument

1. You know that a claim is true only if you are certain of its truth. 

2. You cannot be certain that any moral claim is true. 

3. Therefore, moral knowledge is impossible.

The Argument from Authority

1. We have moral knowledge only if we have the authority to determine what is moral or immoral. 

2. No one has that authority. 

3. Therefore, no one has moral knowledge.

Designated Authority

Someone we must obey

Author

Someone who creates the rules

The Irrelevant Influences Argument

1. If you hold your moral beliefs just because your parents/cultures/evolution influenced you, then your beliefs are not justified. 

2. Everyone holds their moral beliefs just because of such influences. 

3. Therefore, no one’s moral beliefs are justified.

Genetic Fallacy

The origin of a belief does not necessarily determine its truth

Hume’s Argument

1. We can know only two sorts of claims: conceptual truths or empirical truths. 

2. Moral claims are not conceptual truths. 

3. Moral claims are not empirical truths. 

4. Therefore, we can have no moral knowledge.

Hume’s Conceptual Truths

• True by definition

• Known by reason/logic

• Ex: Squares have four sides

Hume’s Empirical Truths

• True by observation 

• Known by five senses/science

• Ex: Water boils at 100 degrees celsius

The “Is-Ought” Gap

• Science describes what is (Empirical) 

• Morality prescribes what ought to be 

• Hume argued you cannot derive an ought from an is

Self-Refutation

A logical fallacy where a statement or argument proves itself to be false