Ethical Theory

pg 18-24 (1-7); pg 27-28 & 35-44 (8-17); pg 48-51 & 54-59 (18-30); pg 68-77 (31-41)

moral relativism

what a persons views as morals will differ from where they live/grew up and the age in which they live/grew up

moral knowledge

proving that one belief is right or wrong

ethical absolutism

they believe that there is a universal set of morals that are always true

the dangers of ethical absolutism

it can claim one cultures morals absolutely true thus disregarding any and all objections/other beliefs

the problem with moral relativism

they only look at what people do not what people believe

why it is difficult to say something is "morally true"

its difficult to prove because we haven’t figured out how to prove which is true

subjectivism

moral beliefs are just subjective feelings about behavior

Why the Greeks didn't look to their gods for morality

the gods were anthropomorphic - they behaved even worse than humans

Plato's teacher

socrates

Plato's greatest philosophical book

the republic

Plato's two kinds of knowledge

* empirical knowledge
* sense driven
* reason
* vastly superior
* permanent and eternal

Forms

* permanent timeless and real
* fits into categories
* ex, a blue shirt: its a “shirt” and its “blue”

Guardians & their potential problems

* the guardians will know the correct answer to any problem

Plato's student

aristotle

mean

a middle ground between profoundly reckless and overly cautious

Aristotle's best way to determine ethics

if you choose to do something you deal with the consequences w/e they may be

Main problem with Aristotle's approach to ethics

sometimes there’s just no middle ground to be found

what Augustine tried to do

tried to harmonize the gospel teachings and plato’s philosophy

Augustine's two kingdoms

* kingdom of the world
* kingdom of god

Thomas aquinas

* greatest medieval theologian
* agreed with Augustine’s views

natural law

impressed on us by god

humanism

placed greater emphasis on human achievement and less on the role of god in human affairs

Thomas Hobbes’ famous book

leviathan

psychological egosim

human nature is basically icky

social contract

without laws and such people gonna do sucky and icky things, so now we have a legalistic forms

government contract

a neutral third party who agrees to enforce the first “social” one

jean-jacque rousseau

“started” the romantic view

romantic innocence

we are born naive and with innate goodness and innocence

general will

forming a society virtually dispensed

noble savage

“primitive” ppl lead simple, more fulfilling, and superior lives than westerners

utilitarianism

instead of relying on vague ideas about feelings or conscience, you classify and measure any action in terms of how many units of pain and pleasure it will produce

Jeremy Bentham

* founder 1 of utilitarianism
* radical empiricist
* invented the panopticon
* a prison where you can be watched 24/7
* a lawyer
* wrote *introduction to the principles of morals and legislation* in 1789

John Stuart Will

* founder 2 of utilitarianism
* radical empiricist
* Bentham’s disciple
* wrote *on liberty* and *utilitarianism*

"ipse dixitism"

nonsense on stilts

* people saying English law was a good thing simply because they said so

pleasure-pain organisms

humans always seek out pleasure and avoid pain

what good law should do

maximize pleasure and minimize pain

happiness sums

how intense the happiness will be, how long it will last, how likely it is to occur, etc., etc.

general good

the greatest happiness of the greatest number

consequentialism

* only consequences count
* aka utilitarianism

tyranny of the majority

so long as people dont interfere with the freedoms of others they should be able to and think what they’d like

how much happiness Utilitarianism is concerned with

the huge amounts of mild happiness registered by the majority

immanuel kant

* paid to study and teach philosophy
* thought that morality rarely had anything to do with happiness

deontology

believer in duties

the “internal struggle” of deontology

what our duty is vs what we would really like to do

the universability test

* like a moral compass
* basically if you feel like stealing ask yourself what would happen if everyone ever stole too

categorical imperative

a compulsory rule

moral imagination

always imagine you’re on the receiving end of others decisions

David Hume

* radical empiricist and a sceptic

how Hume thought we got "knowledge"

Knowledge has to come through our senses

the "is–ought" gap

Arguments that “jump” to conclusions

psychological vs. empirical belief

* Psychological Belief
* Morals are really just subjective feelings
* Empirical Belief
* beliefs you can prove

subjectivists

* morality is no more than individuals telling us their feelings
* feelings aren’t fact

objectivists

think its possible to make morality a form of empirical and scientific knowledge

Jean-Paul Sartre

* existentialist
* Believed every individual is unique so “human nature” is to general and doesn’t apply to everyone
* We choose how we are

the kind of philosophy associated with Sartre

existentialism

for Sartre, what matters more than what moral decision you make

the freedom of choice

the most important influence on post-war ethics

World war 2

“celebration of relativism"

loss of ethical certainty

beliefs of postmodernism

language is self-contained and “liquid”

potential problems with postmodernism

there’s nothing to be certain about because we have no clear morals

Richard Rorty

* american pragmatist philosopher
* thinks everyone accepts and celebrates the postmodernist vision

deconstruction of "grand narratives"

giving everyone a different story

what happens when grand narratives lose credibility

people can start making stuff up with no one to call them out on it

what moral decision-making is like in postmodernism

All about you; self centered thinking

"neo-tribes"

Group of people with the same beliefs and its own set of changing, local moral values

the danger of neotribes

creates competition