All of Moral Philosophy

define moral realism

theory that there are mind-independent, external moral properties and facts (objective)

define moral anti-realism

theory that mind-independent, external moral properties and facts do not exist (subjective)

define cognitivism

moral judgements express cognitive mental states (aim to describe reality) and can be true or false

define non-cognitivism

moral judgements express non-cognitive mental states (aim to describe opinions and attitudes) and can not be true or false

What are the cognitive realist theories?

ethical naturalism and ethical non-naturalism

What is the cognitive anti-realist theory?

error theory

What are non-cognitive anti-realist theory?

emotivism and prescriptivism

Define ethical naturalism

moral beliefs exist, are cognitive (can be true or false) and are natural ( reducible/identical to physical properties)

what are two examples of ethical naturalism?

utilitarianism

virtue ethics - aristotle’s discussion of ergon/function is a discussion of natural facts about humans so being good in virtue ethics refers to a set of natural facts, believes moral beliefs exist and believes they can be true or good

What is a strength of ethical naturalism?

Utilitarianism is an ethical naturalist theory : moral properties exist, moral properties are natural (pleasure is good and pain is bad), aims to prove actions are moral or immoral (true or false).

Mill’s proof of utilitarianism: if you can prove utilitarianism and utilitarianism is an example of ethical naturalism, then ethical naturalism is proved.

What are criticisms of ethical naturalism?

GE MOORE: naturalistic fallacy

HUME: is-ought gap (attacks cognitivism)

HUME’s fork: (attacks cognitivisn)

HUME: moral judgements motivate action (attacks cognitivism)

AYER: verification principle (says are meaningless)

MACKIE: relativity (attacks realism)

How does the naturalistic fallacy criticise ethical naturalism?

GE MOORE naturalistic fallacy: open end argument, can disprove any definition of good by asking “is (definition) really good?” eg utilitarianism is pleasure really good?

what are criticisms of ethical non-naturalism?

HUME: is-ought gap (attacks cognitivism)

HUME’s fork: (attacks cognitivisn)

HUME: moral judgements motivate action (attacks cognitivism)

AYER: verification principle (says are meaningless)

MACKIE: relativity (attacks realism)

MACKIE: argument from queerness (attacks realism)

how does the is-ought gap attack cognitivism?

says that when moral philosophers jump from talking to what is the case to what ought to be the case, there is always a logical error, this can be argued to be because what is the case is cognitive and what ought to be the case is non-cognitive, so cognitive moral theories can’t work

how does Hume’s fork attack cognitivism?

there are two types of judgements of reason (cognitive judgements) which are relations of ideas and matters of facts

moral judgements are not relations of ideas as we can conceive of them not being true eg murder is not wrong

moral judgements are not matters of fact as we can not experience them

so moral judgements are not cognitive judgements

how does the argument moral judgements motivate action attack cognitivism?

judgements of reason (cognitive judgements) do not motivate action eg the grass is green doesn’t make me do anything

emotions and desires do motivate us to act eg i want to see the hrass makes me go see the grass

since moral judgements motivate us to do or refrain from certain actions, they are not cognitive judgements but judgements of emotions and desires

how does the verification principle attack moral judgements?

a statement only has meaning if it is an analytic truth or empirically verifiable, moral statements are neither of these things so they are meaningless eg murder is wrong is not an analytic truth and you can’t experience it being wrong, you can experience it being painful but never wrong

how does the argument of relativity attack moral realism?

MACKIE: there are variations of moral beliefs between different cultures eg some believe eating animals are wrong and some don’t

if moral realism was correct, there would be one objectively correct moral belief

the disagreement between cultures on moral beliefs can be explained in two ways:

one culture has discovered the objective moral beliefs while the others haven’t

each culture has different conditions and ways of life which create different moral beliefs that aren’t objective

Mackie says 2nd option is more plausible so moral realism is incorrect

how does the argument from queerness attack moral realism?

if moral properties existed they would have to be queer. they are

• epistemically queer- it is a mystery ho we acquire knowledge of moral properties

• metaphysically queer- it doesn’t make sense for actions to have moral properties in real life eg the act of stealing does not have the property of wrong built into it the same way the property of green is built into grass

Mackie argues that because moral properties are queer, it proves they do not exist

define ethical non-naturalism

moral properties exist (moral realism), moral properties can be true or false (cognitive), moral properties are non-natural properties meaning they are non-physical and can’t be reduced to anything simpler

what is Moore’s intuitionism?

since we can not fully understand non-natural properties in the same way as natural properties, Moore argues that the way we can know if moral judgements are true or false is through our rational intuition.

eg we know murder is wrong is a true moral belief because our intuition tells us so

how does the open question argument attack reductive metaethical theories?

an example of a closed question would be is good good? or is pleasure pleasure? on in which there is no doubt what the answer is because they are asking if the same thing is the same

so if goodness and any natural property were the same, they would form a closed question

but they form open questions eg is pleasure good?

so you can not equate goodness to natural properties

define error theory

moral properties do not exist but moral judgements are cognitive

this means all moral judgements are false

in the same way blellow does not exist but saying grass is blellow is false, the property of wrongness does not exist but saying murder is wrong is false

define emotivism

moral properties do not exist (anti realist), moral judgements are not able to be true or false (cognitive), moral judgements describe feelings of approval or disapproval eg when someone says murder is wrong, they are saying they disapprove of murder

define prescriptivism

moral properties do not exist (anti realist), moral judgements are not capable of being true or false (cognitive), moral judgements express instructions to guide behaviour eg when someone says that murder is wrong they are saying you should not murder

who created error theory?

mackie

who created emotivism?

Ayer

who created prescriptivism?

Hare

what are criticisms for emotivism and prescriptivism?

moral arguments and reasoning (attacks non cognitivism)

moral nihilism (attacks anti-realism)

moral progress (attacks anti-realism)

what are criticism to error theory?

moral nihilism (attacks anti-realism)

moral progress (attacks anti-realism)

what is the moral argument and reasoning attack on non-cognitivism?

non-cognitivism would not work with the way we reason morally

for example we can reason:

if murder is wrong, paying someone to murder is wrong

murder is wrong

so paying someone to murder is wrong

this seems like a valid argument but if non-cognitivism exists then it isn’t

since the first premise is a premise which implies that if ‘murder is wrong’ is true then the next part is also true but this would not work with non-cognitivism

seeing as we are able to make valid arguments of our moral reasoning, non-cognitivism must be wrong

what is the moral nihilism attack on moral anti realism?

believing in anti realism could cause people to believe in moral nihilism which is the belief that no action is inherently wrong

this is dangerous as it means people would no longer care about behaving morally and the world could turn very bad

what is the moral progress attack on anti realism?

if moral anti-realism were true then there would be no moral progress

there has been moral progress eg slavery no longer accepted

so moral anti-realism is false

How is virtue ethics different to utilitarianism and Kantian ethics?

Utilitarianism and kantian ethics are action-based (define giid by the actions we do) whereas virtue ethics is agent based (defines good by tge people we are)

Define summum bonum

The highest, ultimate good

Give a quote from Aristotle about the summum bonum

“ Every art, every procedure, every sction and undertaking aims at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared that at which all things aim” 1st good refers to a goal that adds value to our life whilst the 2nd good refers to the summum bonum

Define means

Actions we do to achieve other things.

Define ends

Actions we do for the sake of doing that action eg watching a sunset

What is Eudaimonia?

The Summum Bonum. It means a life of flourishment and is a life full of actions chosen according to reason.

What is the criteria for Eudaimonia?

• it must be an end

• it must be the final end

• it must be self-sufficient (needs nothing to make it desirable)

• it is the most desirable of all things

• it must be something intimately related to us as humans

What is the function argument?

To have a good life, you must be a good human and the function argument tells us how to be a good human through reason.

What 3 points does the Function Argument have?

• the Good for humans consists in us fulfilling our function

• Humans do have a function

• Reason is the function of humans

Expand on the first point if the function argument

The Giid for humans consists in us fulfilling oir function:

• An object is good if it fulfills its function (ergon). Eg a knife is a good knife if it has the successful quality (arete) of being sharp as this fulfills its ergon (function) to cut things.

• Similarly humans are good if they fulfill their function by having aretes.

Expand on the 2nd point of the function argument

• Occupations have functions so is it likelu for occupations to have functions while man has none

• Different parts of the body have a function so human being as a whole should have a function.

• So humans have a function

Expand on the 3rd point of the function argument.

Reason is the function of humans:

• function of humans can not be shared with animals or plants.

• Animals/ plants can’t reason but we can - we have rational souls.

• So the function of humans is to reason.

What is a quote about the 3rd point of the function argument?

“The function of man is an activity of the soul which follows or implies a rational primciple”

What are weaknesses to the function argument?

The argument that humans have a function is not strong enough:

• is a weak argument from analogy since objects in the analogy are not similar enough to humans, why should humans be like occupations. (Eudaimonia requires something to be intimately close to us as humans).

• Fallacy of the composition: just because all parts of a system have a function does not mean the whole system has a function eg like how a tv is made up of squares it does not mean the whole tv is square.

What are ways in which you can fulfill your function?

• virtues

• Doctrine of the mean

• Phronesis

Define ergon

Function

Define arete

A quality that helps complete a function

Define disposition

Tendency ti behave habitually and reliably in a certain way

Define vice

A disposition possessed by bad people

Define virtue

a disposition possessed by good people

Give 2 quotes about the role of education and habituation in virtues

• “The moral virtues are engendred in us neither by nor contrary to nature; we are constituted by nature to receive them but their full development in us is due to habit”

• “Like actions produce like dispositions”

How do virtues make you a good person?

Humans are born with the potential to have virtues but they only have a virtue if that virtue is a habit. You cultivate it like a skill:

• initiak observation and taught it

• Practice and improve

• Become independent from being taught

A good person also has no internal conflict when doing good actions.

To have a virtue, you must understand it, have a history of doing it and enjoy doing it.

Give a quote about virtues and feeling

“ virtues are concerned with actions and feeling”

What is a strength of Aristotle’s virtue theory?

Overcomes the Father A and Father B problem which Kant had. Father A does not love his child but plays woyh him out of duty. Father B loves his child and plays with him because he enjoys it. Whereas Kant argued Father A was the better father but aristotle would argue father b is a better father which seems more correct to us.

What is the doctrine of the mean/ the golden mean?

The idea tgat actions or feeling should not be done is excess or deficiency to be good. Eg if we lack in courage we are cowardly but if we have too much we are stupid and reckless so its good to have a midfle level.

The mean is subjective , it is equidistant from the two extremes in our sepcific situations eg a person stubbing their toe has a much lower mean of anger compared to a person whose whole family was just murdered.

Give a quote about the doctrine of the mean

“ we have a bad disposition … if our tendency is too strong or too weak, and a good one if our tendency is moderate”

What is a strength of the doctrine of the mean?

Supports the idea of emotional intelligence which is prominent in psychology and modern day.

What is a criticism of the doctrine of the mean?

It has unclear guidance. Unlike utilitarianism whivh has the utility calculus and kantian ethics who have the categorical imperative, the golden mean is very much up to interpretation which may be comfusing at times.

What is phronesis?

Means practical wisdom. Aristotle doesn’t see morality like a set of rules to be followed but rather as practical wisdom being applied to different situations. Phronesis is about:

• having a general understanding to what is good for human beings

• being able to apply this understanding to situations

• able to find what virtuous goal comes from a situation

• Aabke to act accordingly to that virtuous goal.

An example would be how you hug a friend whi is afraid of dogs when around dogs but you would not hug a friend who is experiencing claustrophobia.

What are the three types of action?

• Voluntary- actions intended by the agent

• Involuntary - actions performed under impulsion or through ignorance, you can get mixed acts under compulsion where you choose to do an action because you are being forced between two options.

• Non-voluntary - actions done by accidnet eg spilling a drink on someone

What does Aristotle believe about moral responsibility?

Only responsible for voluntary actions, mixed acts do deserve judgement as there was some form of choice but also deserve more understanding and forgiveness.

What is the circularity criticism?

Aristotle defines virtuous acts as simething a virtuous person woukd do and a virtuous person as someone who does virtuous acts, doesn’t pass ZaGZEBSKI crietria for a good definition.

What is the comoeting virtues criticism?

Some virtues would give different outcomes to tye same situation. So you would have to pick one virtue and act in an unvirtuous way. Eg the virtues of justice and mercy would give different outcome sto sentencinga prisoner. CA: could do both virtues in a suitable amount eg act in a just way but show a little mercy.

What is the ‘difference between Eudaimonia and moral good criticism’?

Imagine a nurse spending all her life nursing in another country, not enjoying her work and she does from a virus at age 30. Most peopel see herblife as morally good but she has not achieved eudaimonia. So you can have a moral life without eudaimonia. CA: the nurse could have had a more moral life with eudaimonia . Can argue was immoral for her not to look after herself more.

What is the principle of utility?

Moral system that tells us to maximise pleasure and minimise pain for the maximum number of people.

Define psychological hedonism

Theory that an individual’s actions are only caused by their desire of pleasure and avoidance of pain

What are the factors of the Utility Calculus?

Intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, fecundity, extent, purity

What are weaknesses of the utility calculus?

• Motives of actions are ignored

• People find different things pleasurable so is impossible to compare actions in terms of how much pleasure they give (solved by preference utilitarianism)

• Different activities bring about different pleasures so is impossible to compare two activities (like comparing apples and oranges for how well they are a fruit). (solved by higher and lower pleasures)

What is Bentham’s utilitarianism?

Act utilitarianism - every action must be judged by the principle of utility

Why could Bentham’s utilitarianism be problematic?

He introduced it to the government rather than the public bc he thought if introduced to the public they would pursue their own individual desires but if he introduced to government they could make laws that would make the public individual desires align with the general pursuit of maximising pleasure. Is problematic because implies Government House Utilitarianism - the idea that utilitarianism is best achieved by the state manipulating the mass

What is an example of Government House Utilitarianism and why does it feel so wrong?

In the book ‘A Brave New World’ by Aldous Huxley, ‘Alphas’ are trained to enjoy ruling and ‘Gammas’ are trained to enjoy manual labour so everyone enjoys their role. Everyone is also given a drug called ‘Somma’ to make tgem even happier’. If this is an example of perfect utilitarianism, then it can’t be good because it disregards human autonomy and freedom.

What are the 3 steps to John Stuart Mill’s proof for utilitarianism?

• Happiness is a good end for each person

• General happiness is a good end for all

• Happiness is the only good end we seek

What are the three criticisms to Mill’s first step to the proof of utilitarianism?

• equivocation - two senses of desirable

• Hume’s Law - the is-ought gap

• Naturalistic Fallacy

Outline the first step of Mill’s proof of utilitarianism

• tge only evidence something is visible is that it can be seen

• So the only evidence that something is desirable is that it is desired

• Each person desires their own happiness

• So each person’s happiness is desirable

What is the equivocation criticism to the first step of Mill’s proof of utilitarianism?

G.E Moore says Mill is guilty of using equivocation (using a term with more than one term misleadingly). Visible means able to be seen but when Mill switches to talking about being desirable he does not mean what is able to be desired but rather what ought to be desired. So ‘the evidence that something is desirable is that it is desired ‘ does not work because everything can be desired but not everything would be classed as desirable. So Mill’s analogy of conparing desirability to visibility does not work because visible does not mean what ought to be desired.

What is the Hume’s Law criticism for Mill’s first step in his proof of utilitarianism?

Is-ought gap. Hume argues moral philosophers always start their argument with what should be the case and end it with what oight to be the case. He says th jump between this is-ought gap always contains a logical error. For example, Mill states that each person’s happiness is desirable and so concludes with happiness is a good end for all but should it be? Is it a good end for criminals to be happy?

What is the naturalistic fallacy if Mill’s first step in his proof of utilitarianism?

G.E Moore argues there are 3 possibilities to the question ‘what is good?’ : good is definable, good is not definable and ther is no such thing as good. The third is discarded as this would discard all of moral philosophy. Moore argues that good can’t be defined because of the open argument. The open argument states that anyone can define good as X and X can be disproved by asking but is X really good? Eg happiness is good but is happiness really good?

What is a counter argument to the naturalistic fallacy criticism to Mill’s proof of Utilitarianism?

Mary WARNOCK says since Mill is an empiricist he is not trying to define good but merely trying to show what is considered to be goid. So using happiness as goid makes sense in his empiricist point of view.

Breakdown the second part of Mill’s proof of utilitarianism

• Since each person’s happiness is desirable, the general happiness of all is desirable to each oerson.

• Each person’s happiness is a good to that oerson

• So the general happiness of all is a good to the aggregate of all people.

What is a criticism of Mill’s second part of the proof of utilitarianism amd what is its counter argument?

Fallacy of the Composition: just because something is applicable for each part of a system it does not mean it is applicable for the whole system eg everyone wants to win the lottery but no one wants everyone to win the lottery. So just because each individual wants to be happy, it doesn’t mean they want everyone to be happy. CA: Mill is an empiricist and based on experience most people want others to be happy so it is reasonable to assume most people desire general happiness.

Breakdown the third step in Mill’s proof of utilitariansim.

• Happiness is one of the ends (goals/reason) of conduct.

• Happiness is one of the criteria for morality

• Other elements (virtue, health, money) can be ends of conduct.

• These othere elements are ends of conduct as they cause happiness.

• So happiness is the sole end of conduct and sole good.

What could be a criticism to the 3rd step in Mill’s proof of utilitarianism?

G.E Moore: naturalistic fallacy: Xbiw good but is X really good?

What are three criticism of act utilitarianism?

• tyranny of the majority: act utilitariansim is an example of consequentialist ethics where only the consequences are judged for morality. So would argue that killing 1 innocent person to save 5 lives is perfectly moral even though it feels wrong.

• Impossible to follow: the utility calculus is too difficult to use because how do you quantify the factors and how do you know which factor is more important. And even if was usy to use, it would be too difficultto use for every single action and woukd make you unhappy to have to check consistently.

• Ignores moral status of particular relationships: some people are more important to us than others but utilitariansim doesn’t allow us to prioritise their happiness eg would argue that a parent should not look after their kids more than they look after other kids.

Who created rule utilitarianism?

John Stuart Mill

What is rule utilitarianism?

The principle of utility is applied to general rules to determine moral rules known as SECOnDARY PRINCIPLES which tend to produce tge greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Si an action is determined right if they follow the secondary rules.

What are advantages of rule utilitarianism?

• supports ideas of human rights because believes rules are necessary to protect humans. Its better to always follow a secondary even if one time breaking it would make more happiness and this is because in the long term it might make more pain. Eg if doctor killed one person to save 5 lives , people would be scared of getting killed to save people so would be more pain.

• Easier to follow

• Allows us to prioritise certain relationships.

What is strong rule utilitarianism?

Theory that you should always follow the secondary principles no matter the outcome eg if a murderer asks where your friend is you should not lie and tell them.

What is a criticism of strong rule utilitarianism?

Is an example of divine command ethics where you always follow the rules. Kind if disregards your autonomy and it means some acts do more bad than good even though this is the contrary to what utilitarianism aims to do.

What is weak rule utilitarianism?

When you follow rule utilitarianism but make certain exceptions for when breaking the rules maximises happiness

What is a weakness of weak rule utilitarianism?

Would have to judge each action to see if following the rule would maximise happiness or not and to see if you would follow the rule and at this point it is basically act utilitariansim and no longer easier to follow.

Who created two tier utilitarianism?

Richard Hare

What is two tier utilitarianism?

Form of rule utilitarianism that states we follow secondary rules most of the time but when two secondary rules clash (eg a murderer asks where your friend is you must choose between do not lie and do not kill), you use act utilitarianism to determine your actions.

What is Mill’s Qualitative Hedonistic Calculus?

Mill argues some pleasures are inherently better than others. He argues the pleasure of the mind (higher pleasures) are more pleasurable than the pleasure of the body (lower pleasures) even if the pleasure of the body feels more pleasurable. He argues that anyone who doesn’t prefer the pleasure of the mind just hasn’t experienced both tyles of pleasures to be able to compare them accurately.

What is a quote by Mill about the qualitative hedonistic calculus?

“It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”

What are two criticisms of Mill’s Qualitative Hedonistic Calculus and their counter arguments?

• Mill could just be thinking of the pleasures he prefers. CA: Mill says there are competent judges who are people that have experienced both higher and lower pleasures and only these judges can say which is better so there is some level of objectivity if they all agree.

• No longer hedonistic utilitarianism when you choose the option that feels less pleasurable simply because it is a higher pleasure. CA: higher pleasure can be more pleasurable in terms of duration, fecundity, purity which are all part of the hedonistic calculus.

How does Mill believe we should act in terms of higher and lower pleasures?

We should try to develop abilities to develop higher pleasures since competent judges have done so and state they are more pleasurable.

What are criticisms to using the qualitative hedonistic calculus in real life?

• Harder to apply in real life bc now have to compare quality and quantity of the pleasure that an action brings. Harder to apply the utility calculus.

• Cultural snobbery: more people experience lower pleasures bc don’t have the resources for higher pleasures. So ‘competent judges’ don’t represent most of society. Most people can’t afford higher pleasures so would be unfair to make decisions that only benefit the privileged.