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