All moral philosophy

3 marks: What is eudaimonia?

Eudiamonia is the ultimate good for humans. It is best translated as ‘flourishing’ or ‘living well’.

3 marks: What is the ‘final end’ of human action, according to Aristotle?

The final end for humans is “eudaimonia”. It is the ultimate good which all humans aim at. It is loosely translated as “flourishing” or “a life well lived”

3 marks: What is the distinction between Eudaimonia and pleasure?

pleasure alone is not the ultimate good because it can be improved upon by adding another good, but one cannot improve upon eudiamonia, so eudiamonia is a higher good.

3 marks: What is a virtue?

the right response in a situation, and it lies in the mean between the vices of excess and deficiency.

3 marks: What is the distinction between a virtue and a vice?

A virtue is the right response in a situation, and it lies in the mean between the vices of excess and deficiency, a vice is Acting or feeling with excess or deficiency.

3 marks: What does Aristotle mean by a ‘voluntary’ action?

An action that a person can be morally responsible for, and it must be one that was made with intention and full knowledge of what you are doing.

3 marks: What does Aristotle mean by an ‘involuntary’ action?

Cannot be held accountable for, lacks one of the conditions of a voluntary action. It could have been externally forced or made in ignorance.

3 marks: What does Aristotle mean by a ‘non-voluntary’ action?

A non voluntary action is an involuntary action, done through ignorance, for which the person Is not pained nor sorry for afterwards.

3 marks: What is the distinction between an ‘involuntary’ and a ‘non-voluntary’ action?

Involentary – sorry for, non- volentary – done through ignorance and not sorry for.

5 marks: Explain Aristotle’s account of ‘the good’ for human beings

 Eudiamonia:  Annas uses the term "flourishing" someone who is making the best of life and their talents; a life well-lived.

 eudaimonia is more objective than happiness: Happiness is subjective and changeable, we can feel happy one day and. not the next, even if our overall situation hasn't changed, and someone can self-identify as happy or unhappy. Eudaimonia doesn't change with emotion and can be judged by others. So, The final end for humans is "eudaimonia". It is the ultimate good which all humans aim at. It is loosely translated as "flourishing" or "a life well lived"

5 marks: Explain the relationship between eudaimonia and pleasure

Define eudiamonia

pleasure is the ultimate good because any other good is improved when pleasure is added 

Example - being charitable is better if one gets pleasure from it

A - pleasure alone is not the ultimate good because it can be improved upon by adding another good

Example - it is good to have pleasure, but better to have pleasure and wisdom.

A - one cannot improve upon eudaimonia

eudaimonia is a higher good

5 marks: Outline Aristotle’s function argument.

P1: The function of something is its distinctive activity.

P2: Being alive or perception can't be the function of humans as these are shared with other animals.

P3: Being guided by reason is distinctive of human life. 

 C1: The function of a human is to be guided by reason

P4: A human is a good human if they perform their function well 

C2: A good human is one which is guided by reason

5 marks: Explain how Aristotle views the relationship between virtues and function

The function argument:

 

Aristotle argues that in order to determine what eudaimonia is for man, we need to consider the ergon or 'function' of man. He asks: how do we function well as humans?  He determines that Every different type of person has a function/role in society and we judge if they are good on how well they perform that function.So the good for man in general is to perform their function well.

 

Pl: The function (ergon) of something is its characteristic form of activity

P2: Being alive or perception cannot be the function as these are shared with other animals.

P3: Being guided by reason is distinctive of human life.

Cl: The function of a human is to be guided by reason.

P4: A human is a good human if s/he performs his/her function well

C2: A good human lives a life well guided by reason

 

But: Sartre famously said "existence precedes essence". Opposes this view. Sartre thought there was no predetermined purpose or function of a human. The existence of a human comes before any meaning is established, it is up to each individual to create their own purpose. Sartre would argue that Aristotle is wrong to claim all humans have a function.

5 marks: Explain Aristotle’s account of virtue (doctrine of the mean)

doctrine of the mean explains what virtues are and what is involved in living virtuously.  Moral people need to find the mean between the two vices of exes and deficiency, and they do so by thinking ab their actions.

Define virtues. Moral virtues involve both "passion and action" and hence it is matter of both feeling and acting appropriately about certain situations.  Virtue is a mean between two extremes, excess and deficiency: when we choose appropriately/virtuously then we are avoiding vices of excess and deficiency.

5 marks: Issues with the doctrine of the mean and responses.

Are all virtues really a mean between two vices? For example, courage may not be the mean between cowardice and rashness, it seems more opposite to cowardice and could be seen as more similar to rashness.

Also, are the vices he identifies always vices? Modesty can be seen as a virtue - it is useful in a new situation or can be used to make someone else feel better. Boasting could be the right thing to do, for example on a job interview.

 

Aristotle says that virtues can be 'relative'. Eg. A virtue that is relative to a person: Running into the sea to save a drowning person would be rash for a non swimmer but courageous for a confident swimmer.

Or,  A virtue that is relative to a situation: Being good tempered is a virtue in most situations but a large amount of anger might be the right thing if you see someone being mistreated and needing defending.

 

But, Aristotle himself recognises a difficulty that arises the golden mean: The right thing to do is vague and ahard to work out. Aristotle says that not everyone can know what the mean is, and to do the right action to right person to the right extent at the right time is a difficult skill.

5 marks: Explain Aristotle’s account of the role of education/habituation in the development of a moral character.

Aristotle thinks we cannot just  instantly choose to be virtuous, and we are not just naturally virtuous. We acquire moral virtues through habit -  it is the result of practicing acting in a virtuous way. We begin to learn what virtues are as children and develop them through commitment and practice. Once developed virtues are stable traits of our character.

Annas adds to this and explains why virtue does not merely result from habit, but also from education:  The function of humans is to act according to rational principles, so people must be able to think about why they are doing what they are doing. People need role models to show them how to act, and how to think carefully about their actions in order to find the golden mean.

5 marks: Explain the analogy drawn between virtues and skills within Aristotelian ethics

Skill analogy:

Nobody is born knowing how to play the piano, but we are born with the capacity to know how to play the piano. Likewise, virtues

You don't learn to play the piano by simply reading books and just studying the theory, you have to actually do it. Likewise, virtues

When you first start learning to play the piano, you follow the rules and try not to press the wrong keys - but you don't really understand what you're doing. In the case of virtue, we start by teaching children rules for behaviour and they just follow these rules because they're told to - not because they understand why.

But as you progress with playing the piano, you become able to play automatically without thinking and, eventually, you might become so comfortable playing the piano that you're able to improvise and understand what sounds good, what doesn't, and why. Likewise, by following rules for acting virtuously, it eventually becomes part of our character. Further, we begin to understand what virtue is and this enables us to improvise according to what the situation demands.

5 marks: Explain Aristotle’s account of moral responsibility

Aristotle believes a person can only be held morally responsible for voluntary actions. There are two necessary conditions for a voluntary action: intention: origin of action lies within us and we freely choose to do it. Knowledge: we know what we are doing, and understand the impact of our action.an involuntary action is an action you cannot be held accountable for, lacks one of the conditions of a voluntary action. It could have been externally forced or made in ignorance. Eg. Someone knocks you in a pub and you spill your drink on someone. Finally, there are non voluntary actions, which is an involuntary action, done through ignorance, for which the person Is not pained nor sorry for afterwards.

5 marks: Explain the role of practical wisdom/reasoning in Aristotelian virtue ethics

Someone who has practical wisdom knows how to live well, or in other words how to achieve eudaimonia. As the function of human is to act according to rational principles, the person with practical wisdom is able to think and deliberate about what is good for them. Someone with practical wisdom is skilled in responding appropriately to moral situations and can choose the mean virtue in any given situation. They are able to think about possible courses of action, deliberate and choose the best action and voluntary carry out that action. It is a skill which needs practice to become habituated and fully developed. Someone with practical wisdom knows how to achieve eudaimonia (a life well lived).

5 marks: Explain the issue of whether Aristotelian virtue ethics can give sufficiently clear guidance about how to act

Describe virtue ethics, and practical wisdom. Someone with practical wisdom knows what the right thing to do is, and practical wisdom is developed over a life time, so not everyone will be equally skilled in working out what the right thing to do is.

Response: hursthouse says a v-rule is a rule we follow if we want to develop a certain virtue. So if we wanted to develop honesty a v-rule would be something like: "do not be dishonest". However, it still seems it requires wisdom to know when it is appropriate to bend/break the v-rule and the extent to which we follow it.

5 marks: Explain why Aristotelian virtue ethics has an issue with clashing/competing virtues

Virtue ethics does not give sufficiently clear guidance how to act. He himself says that finding the "mean" is difficult as it involves acting or feeling in the right way, to the right person etc. In this sense if we are faced with a scenario where virtues clash. example - someone cooks us a meal we don't like, we are faced with the choice of being kind and lying, or being truthful and hurting their feelings.

Virtue ethicist response: Aristotle might say there are no clashes, and that part of being a truly virtuous person is the ability to choose the most appropriate course of action. Or, they could suggest proposing a hierarchy of virtues. We could propose, for example, that kindness is of more value than being truthful. However this would fundamentally alter the moral theory as we would have a duty to prioritise some virtues and it would look more like deontology.

5 marks: Explain the issue of circularity involved in Aristotle’s definition of ‘virtuous acts’ and ‘virtuous persons’

We can't easily clarify what a virtuous act or person is without a circular reference to the terms "virtuous act/person" this makes it hard to explain how one can be virtuous as these descriptions are circular.

Possible non circular definition: A virtuous person a) lives well (eudaimonia) and b) has practical wisdom.

A virtuous act a) is voluntary and b) lies in the mean between vices of excess and deficiency.

But, issues with this:

It remains the case that only virtuous people can really understand eudaimonia/practical wisdom/golden mean - so this still might be no use in explaining to someone who isn't virtuous.

5 marks: Explain the issue that not all virtues contribute to Eudaimonia

Describe eudiamonia, as in flourishing. It is possible to think of someone who seems to be living a virtuous life, but who we wouldn't describe as "flourishing",  Eg a political prisoner or a medic who gets sick. These acts may contribute to other good ends, but maybe not to the individual's flourishing.

5 marks: Explain the issue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is too focused on the good for the individual

Russell argues that the virtues (eg courageous, proud, ambitious) mainly affect the individual and not the public good. Russell thinks we might feel uncomfortable around someone who demonstrated these virtues. It seems eudaimonia is a personal goal and not one that necessarily benefits those around us

12 Marks: Outline the Aristotelian virtue ethicist’s position when it comes to telling lies.

Aristotle's view of truth and falsehoods: He says truthfulness lies in the mean between modesty and boastfulness - this isspecifically to do with honesty about oneself. He suggests that in general truth is noble and praiseworthy and lying is mean and culpable, which suggests telling truth should be prioritised in all situations.

 

 what circumstances would practical reason lead a Virtue Ethicist to decide lying was the correct course of action: Virtues do sometimes clash (eg kindness vs honesty), so sometimes it may seem preferable to tell a white lie (this meal is lovely!"). Someone who is honest at all costs may not be eudaimonic as they would upset people. Practical wisdom. would mean selecting the right time to say the right thing.

 

Virtue Ethicist deal with the Kantian problem of the axe murderer:

Maybe in this instance, as a one-off, it would be kind, courageous, loyal to your friend to tell a lie, or at least refuse to co-operate with the murderer. But one should aim to avoid getting into a habit of lying, as that would not be practicing the virtue of truthfulness.

12 Marks: Outline a Aristotelian virtue ethicist view on eating meat.

For Aristotle the question of eating animals was simple - he felt animals were of a lower order than humans and the choice to eat them was not morally significant. Humans have the distinctive function of living guided by reason, and a eudaimonic human would exercise that function well. Animals cannot reason and therefore cannot achieve eudaimonia, and are therefore not morally significant.

A modern virtue ethicist could point to cruelty in the animal industry (eg battery hens) and might argue that properly exercising the virtue of compassion might lead someone to not eat animals, or at least to exercise practical wisdom in determining which meat to buy (eg free range, local etc)

 

Diamond thinks Aristotle is wrong to say that we should only count humans as morally relevant but we should recognise we have the ability to make an - animal's life better or worse and that should appeal to our sense of pity. She says there is a difference between caring well for an animal that does end up eaten, and simply using animals in the process of mass-farming.

12 Marks: Outline an Aristotelian virtue ethicist view on simulated killing

could watching simulated killing or playing video games involving simulated killing help someone achieve eudaimonia: Someone with practical wisdom can determine the right amount, right time, etc. Positives: It could be a way of dealing with emotions. Games and films are a way in which people are creative, we could say it isn't morally relevant as characters involved aren't real. Negatives: excessive playing/watching could be addictive/isolating, it could promote violent thoughts/habits.

 

Aristotle enjoyed Greek tragedies and wrote about how watching such things could be cathartic, how might this contribute to eudaimonia: "Cathartic" means to cleanse/release emotion. A simulation can provide a chance to encounter various emotions in a safe way. It could be a useful part of the education and cultivation of virtuous attitudes and habits. For example it could develop empathy (seeing grief played out on screen, for example).

12 Marks: Outline an Aristotelian virtue ethicist view on stealing

Aristotle says there are some actions that are never in a mean- there is never the "right amount of stealing! However modern virtue ethicists look more flexibly at it virtue ethics is not about rules or prescriptions, but using practical wisdom.

 long term effect on someone's character be if they used stealing as method of solving problems:

A one-off action of theft (eg taking weapon from someone threatening to be violent) may be ok as you could exercising virtues of righteousness, courage etc. But if you develop a thieving habit (eg sneaking some extra shopping from the supermarket) this will be detrimental to achieving eudaemonia.

 

situation where stealing might be considered acceptable by the utilitarian (eg to feed a starving family or a Robin Hood type situation), would the virtue ethicist consider this the best way to contribute to reaching eudaimonia: Maybe Robin Hood can be seen to be righting a historic wrong, giving the people back their fair share, so it could be seen as a virtuous act. However, practical wisdom, when properly exercised might lead Robin Hood to a different course of action (eg a campaign for fair taxation, getting elected to public office himself!)

3 marks: What is moral nihilism?

\

Nihilism literally means not anything. It is the rejection of a set of, or all beliefs. At its most extreme a nihilist would say that life/existence is meaningless. A moral nihilist therefore rejects any moral claims, and any attempt to talk. about morality or act morally is meaningles

3 marks: According to Hare’s prescriptivism, what does ‘x is morally right’ mean?

\

It is a recommendation or instruction to do x. Anyone in a similar situation should do x.

3 marks: According to Ayer’s emotivism, what does ‘x is morally right’ mean?

\

I approve of x. “Hurrah” x. – the express of approval or a positive attitude towards x.

3 marks: What is error theory?

Theory that argues that all moral claims are false and every moral claim is an error . Moral properties and facts don’t exist outside of the mind (no such thing as “rightness”, for example.)

3 marks: What is moral anti-realism?

Moral anti realism is the position that mind-independent moral properties or facts do not exist.

5 marks: Explain what Mackie’s error theory claims.

\

Theory that argues that all moral claims are false and every moral claim is an error . Moral properties and facts don’t exist outside of the mind (no such thing as “rightness”, for example). is no such We talk as if there are objective moral truths, but Mackie thinks the conclusions from his arguments from relativity and queerness show that there are no objective moral truths. When talk as if there are it is an error, we are projecting our opinion onto reality, and speaking as if it is an objective truth. Analogy: Loch Ness monster:  We can be error-theorists about the Loch Ness monster. This means we are anti-realists regarding Nessie (we think she doesn't exist), but also cognitivists: if we were to say "Nessie lives in Loch Ness" or "Nessie has a long neck we are saying something false, but we are phrasing it as if it is an objective truth

5 marks: Explain emotivism

Moral statements are not truth apt. Ayer think’s that moral claims express not factual statements, but moral sentiments of approval or disapproval. We could describe saying something is "good" as being a pro-attitude (being in favour of a certain action) and saying something is "bad" is a con-attitude (disapproving of a certain action). For Ayer stealing is wrong" means "I disapprove of stealing". This theory is called emotivism" as it claims that moral statements express emotional sentiments of approval or disapproval. Informally, emotivism is known as the Boo!/hurrah! theory because "lying is wrong" is said to express something like "Boo! Lying! Boo!" and "giving to charity is good" something like "Hurrah! Charity! Hurrah!". They show whether you are in Support of certain actions or not. Arguments from Mackie and Hume questioned how moral claims can motivate us, Ayer's emotivism deals with this by saying that we are clearly motivated by our emotions/sentiments. So under Ayer's view moral judgements are not beliefs, and we don't need to imagine a strange moral property or sense to explain why we are motivated by a moral claim.

Issues with emotivism

\

An important criticism is that emotivism makes moral views entirely subjective. My view of what is right/wrong is totally subjective to me, it seems to reduce moral claims to preferences (on a level with what my favourite food is). In this sense it is impossible to have meaningful disagreements, we can't reason with one another regarding moral views, they are just preferences/opinions. Also, what about "it is right to pay taxes?" our sentiments may be miles away from "hurrah! Taxes!", we might really resent it, but still think it's right. Similarly if we say that "genocide is wrong", saying we disapprove of genocide or "boo! Genocide" hardly seems to capture the seriousness of it.

5 marks: Explain Prescriptivism

\

A doctor’s prescription tells you to take a certain medicine and gives instructions as to how and how much. Hare argues that moral claims are similar, they are prescriptions: a set of instructions and/or recommendations. Hare talks of “universalising” moral standards: If we were shopping and you wanted to steal something, and I said to you "shoplifting is wrong" it means I am recommending that you shouldn't steal. If I then were to steal something when we entered the next shop, this would clearly be inconsistent, so Hare thinks when we say something is wrong we are saying it is universally wrong, and applies not just to the situation at the time but any relevant situation.

Pro’s of prescriptivism

deal’s with a criticism of emotivism: With emotivism we can't have moral disagreements it is just one person's - emotional response against another's (in the same way I can't tell you that your favourite food shouldn't be curry). With prescriptivism, although we can't say someone's moral view is correct or incorrect (as it is subjective), we can criticise someone for being inconsistent. (eg if they said "shoplifting is wrong in one shop and then stole from a different one)

Criticism of prescriptivism

Under Hare's view it seems someone could hold abhorrent moral views, and be praised as long as they were consistent. For example, a fanatic who thinks bald people are evil and should be killed and is consistent in this, even to the point where they would kill a family member or themselves if they went bald, would be morally praiseworthy under Hare's prescriptivism.

5 marks: Explain the issue that moral anti-realism can’t account for how we use moral language

If moral anti realists are correct, can we disagree about morality? Emotivists: No - moral disagreements would have no substance. It is a matter of your own feelings/sentiment. For an emotivist a disagreement about whether something is wrong is similar to a disagreement between someone who likes coffee and someone who doesn't, neither can be right or wrong, it is just personal taste. Prescriptivists: Partly - as prescriptivists say we should be universally consistent in our views, we can disagree and criticise someone for not being consistent. However two people with opposing views who are both being consistent, a vegan and a meat eater disagreeing on whether eating meat is wrong, cannot really criticise one another. Non-cognitivism struggles with many moral statements. How would the emotivist translate  "I wonder whether Boo! Lying?" or "I wonder whether I disapprove of lying?" - neither make much sense, so we can say that non-cognitivism offers an incomplete view of moral language.

5 marks: non-cognitivism fails because it turns clearly valid arguments into invalid ones.

P1: If tormenting the cat is bad, getting your little brother to do it is bad P2: Tormenting the cat is bad. C1: getting your little brother to torment the cat is bad. For a cognitivist this argument is valid and sound. This is because "Tormenting the cat is bad" has a consistent meaning throughout. If we apply a non-cognitivist translation to the argument then it reads as follows: P1: If tormenting the cat is bad, getting your little brother to do it is bad P2: "Boo! Tormenting the cat!" C1: getting your little brother to torment the cat is bad. The conclusion no longer follows the emotivist translation changes a valid argument to an invalid one, as it is incapable of having a consistent meaning for the phrase "tormenting the cat is bad". The issue is the same for the prescriptivist (P2 would read as "I don't recommend. tormenting the cat"), which also means the argument doesn't work. Non- cognitivism doesn't account for the fact that moral statements are used in arguments.

5 marks: Explain the issue that moral anti-realism has an issue accounting for moral progress

we have made progress in terms of wider acceptance of LGBT+. We might think we haven't made good progress, and there is still work to do. Either way It seems we do talk as if there is such a thing as moral progress. The correspondence theory of truth says something is true if it matches what is the case in the world. Moral progress would mean we are better at understanding what "good" really is, and acting in accordance with it. The anti- realist, in claiming there are no mind-independent moral facts can't say that here is moral progress, as they think there is nothing objective to compare it to.

5 marks: Explain the issue that moral anti-realism becomes moral nihilism (and reply)

Nihilism literally means not anything. It is the rejection of a set of, or all beliefs. At its most extreme a nihilist would say that life/existence is meaningless. A moral nihilist therefore rejects any moral claims, and any attempt to talk. about morality or act morally is meaningless. Moral anti-realists and nihilists share the belief that there are no mind- independent properties. Emotivists and prescriptivists think the moral claims are important expressions of (dis)approval or recommendations, but the nihilist would argue that because there are no mind-independent moral properties then we do not have a duty to behave in any certain way. Moral error theory is a type of moral nihilism. Reply: Emotivism: It is hard for emotivism to avoid nihilism, they could claim that it is incoherent to claim that moral values are meaningless or nothing when we do really care about whether acts/people are good or bad. Prescriptivism: The prescriptivist thinks moral claims are universal. It is impossible to universalise the view there are no moral values, as that is a moral claim in itself, so nihilism is not compatible with prescriptivism.

3 marks: What is cognitivism

Cognitivists believe moral statements can be true or false. Ethical language describes how the world is and to do the right thing one needs to be sure they have the correct idea of what is good/bad.

3 marks: What is non-cognitivism

Non cognitivists think moral statements do not make claims about reality and so are not beliefs that are true or false, but express a different mental state such as a desire, emotion or prescription. Ethical language describes how one would like the world to be.

3 marks: What is moral realism?

The view that ethical language makes claims about mind-independent reality that are true.

3 marks: What do ethical non-naturalists claim?

Ethical non-naturalists, like G.E. Moore think that moral properties are not Reducible to natural properties. A term like “goodness” cannot refer to or be reducible to a natural property like pleasure.

3 marks:What is moral naturalism

Moral naturalists make 2 claims: Moral properties (eg. Goodness) are, or are resucable to, physical/natural properties (eg. Happiness) Moral properties can be discovered empirically. Basically, the moral naturalist looks at the way the world is and draws conclusions about how humans ought to act. (This is cognitivist because if moral properties can be discovered then to make a claim about morality is to say something that is either true or false about the world)

3 marks: Outline Ayer’s verification principle

Statements are only meaningful if they can be verified. There are two ways in which Ayer thinks statements can be verified: Analytically (ie they are true by definition) - these statements are known as tautologies.Empirically (ie through sensory evidence or can be tested scientifically)

3 marks: What is a tautology?

Statements that are true by definition

5 marks: Explain why utilitarianism is a moral naturalist theory

The main claim of Bentham’s utilitarianism is that a good act brings about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number. Under this view god/bad is reducible to pleasure/pain which are psychological (natural) properties.  Moral naturalist views derive the “ought” from an “is”. Mill does this in his proof of the greatest happiness principle, eg. He says that humans desire happiness, so happiness is a good thing.

5 marks: Explain why virtue ethics is a moral naturalist theory

Aristotle uses naturalist claims in his virtue ethics, as he also makes claims about what the world is like and derives how people should act from it. Eg. In the function argument, he observes that being alive/perception is shared with other animals, so being alive/perception cannot be the function of humans.

5 marks: Outline Moore's ‘open question’ argument

Ethical non-naturalists, like G.E. Moore think that moral properties are not Reducible to natural properties. A term like “goodness” cannot refer to or be reducible to a natural property like pleasure. To help demonstrate why moral properties could not be reduced to natural properties he distinguished between open and closed questions: A closed question has only one possible answer. Eg: “is an unmarried man a bachelor” – bc the question confirms that "bachelor" and "unmarried man" are synonymous. One term is reducible to the other. An open question does not have a definite answer. Eg. For “is maximising pleasure good” -  it is possible to think of times when "maximising pleasure" is not good (eg the tyranny of the majority scenarios). This suggests that "goodness" is not synonymous with, or reducible to, maximising pleasure, as then utilitarian claims.

5 marks: Explain the Naturalistic Fallacy

Moore argued, with help from the open question argument, that goodness was indefinable. Moore says ‘good’ is a simple concept, that we are able to recognise, and, like yellow, can’t be explained in simpler terms. If asked to describe“yellow” or “good” we would be unable to do so. This can be contrasted with “horse”, which we could describe using more simple concepts. Moore thinks that some philosopher make a mistake when defining good: People think when explaining properties of good (eg pleasure is good) they are defining it. Pleasure is an example of something good, but it is not the definition of good. The naturalistic fallacy is the mistake of claiming that "good" is reducible to another property such as "pleasure" or "happiness". Moore believes the open question argument demonstrates that good is not reducible to any other property

5 marks: Explain what moral intuitionism is.

Moore argued, following on from the naturalistic fallacy and open question argument, that one simply could not prove or disprove what is good, but that we simply had an ‘intuition’ about goodness. Moore says we cannot prove or demonstrate that something is good. We just know goodness when we see it – we intuit it with a moral sense.

5 marks: Outline Hume’s fork and what it claims about moral knowledge.

Hume's fork is a way of categorising knowledge.  Relations of ideas are a priori, necessary and analytic; matters of fact are a posteriori, synthetic and contingent.  Statements that did not fit into either category cannot count as knowledge. moral judgements are not relations of ideas, as a statement like  "giving to charity is good" can be denied without contradiction. moral judgements are not matters of facts, as  we can't confirm "killing is wrong" via experience. We could observe the act and the pain it causes, but cannot identify the property of "wrongness".  So, Moral claims do not have a place on Hume's fork, so do not count as knowledge. So, according to Hume, moral properties cannot be real (knowable independently of the mind) and moral facts cannot be true or false (so he is a non-cognitivist)

5 marks: Outline AJ Ayer’s verification principle and what it claims about moral statements.

Statements are only meaningful if they can be verified. There are two ways in which Ayer thinks statements can be verified: Analytically (ie they are true by definition) - these statements are known as tautologies.Empirically (ie through sensory evidence or can be tested scientifically) However Ayer, recognised that the second type of statement was one that couldn't be proven with certainty by a finite series of observations, so introduced the following distinction: For strong verification you must have empirical evidence to conclusively prove something is true. For weak verification it is enough to have evidence that something is probably true, or that could be in principle verified, even if not possible to do so practically. According to Ayer a moral statement cannot describe the world, they express something more like a view on whether we approve or disapprove of an action. They cannot be statements with a true or false meaning.

issue with Ayers verification principle that it is self-defeating

The verification principle may be self-defeating if the only meaningful statements are those that are verifiable 1) analytically or 2) empirically. The verification principle itself is not verifiable analytically or empirically, so by its own definition cannot be factual. However could we employ "weak" verificationism here and say that as it seems to work well in identifying meaningful statements it is "probably true?

5 marks: Explain why Hume thinks that moral judgements are not beliefs.

Hume argues that moral judgements cannot be beliefs: Pl: Moral judgements motivate us to act P2: Beliefs and reasoning do not motivate us to act C: Moral judgements are not reasoned beliefs Hume argues that we are never motivated by reasoning alone, there is always an emotional component to our motivation. We can't use reason alone to convince anyone that things are beautiful, lovable, good, evil etc. Reasons on their own are inert (they don't cause anything to happen). It is our passions emotional responses) that cause us to make these judgements. Eg: Knowing all the facts about the Grand Canyon won't help us to feel the associated emotions that will enable us to judge it is beautiful/breath-taking etc. Simply knowing that some clothes are produced by slave labour won't make us stop buying those clothes we also have to have a separate judgement (an emotional response) that it is wrong to buy products of slave labour. -

5 marks: Explain Hume’s is-ought gap.

Hume provides a further problem for cognitivists by pointing out the difference between statements of fact and moral judgements: Judgements of reason describe what is the case and judgements of value describe what ought to be the case. There is no justification whatsoever to say because something is the case that it ought to be that way. eg. observation: “Humans desire happiness” Conclusion: "Happiness ought to be maximised” Possible exceptions (searle): P: You promised to pay me back (an "is" statement) C: You must pay me back (an "ought" statement). Searle argued that in undertaking a promise you are now obligated to fulfil it, and so one can derive an "ought" from an "is". However, some have argued there is still a hidden "ought" statement – namely that one ought to keep their promises, so the is-ought gap is still there.

5 marks: explain Mackie’s argument from relativity

Mackie's argument from relativity, against moral realism, is a type of inductive argument known as an abductive argument, meaning: It is an argument to the best explanation. Like a doctor diagnosing the most likely illness based on symptoms and other observations. Mackie observes that different cultures have very different moral views. Mackie thinks there are variations in morality between cultures. He uses the example of monogamy - saying it is far more likely that cultures which morally prize monogamy do so because it developed in their society and then became morally significant. The alternative is to suggest monogamy is objectively good and some cultures are better at working out what is good and what isn't.

5 marks: formal Mackie’s argument from relativity

Pl: It is a fact there is moral disagreement/variation between cultures P2: There are two possible explanations for this variation: (A) moral virtues reflect the values of a culture, and therefore depend on the specific context of that culture or (B) There are mind independent moral facts, but some cultures are simply better at perceiving them. P3: Option A is simpler and therefore more likely C: It is unlikely there are mind-independent moral facts, moral realism is false.

Issue with Mackie’s argument from Relativity

Moral realist could say: Maybe there is more agreement than disagreement between cultures (eg murder/stealing is wrong is fairly universal. You could use the analogy that there is an objectively correct method for looking after crops, but some crops grow better in some climates than others. Maybe it is similar with morality - there are objective truths about goodness, but some societies have different ways one can be good or bad (eg blasphemy is viewed differently in a society where belief in God is the norm, compared to a majority atheist society)

5 marks: explain Mackie’s arguments from queerness

Like Hume, Mackie argues that moral values motivate us to act. If they are mind-independent then there would have to be some kind of strange property "out there" in the world that motivates us to act. He argues it is internal hopes/desires that motivate us to act and it is implausible to think there is something external that can do that. He uses Plato's realm of forms as an example of a strange belief one might have to hold to accept moral realism. Mackie says that the method by which we came to know about objective moral facts would have to be completely different to anything we are accustomed to using. He uses the example of G.E. Moor's idea of a moral intuition, and says it is "lame": simply saying we have a mysterious inbuilt ability to recognise goodness is insufficient for Mackie. A far simpler explanation is that there are no mind independent moral properties, and these not need to appeal to a strange moral sense.

5 marks: formal Mackie’s arguments from queerness

Pl: Moral realism claims that moral facts exist independently of the mind P2: Moral facts would motivate us to act. P3: A mind-independent fact that could motivate us to act would be of a strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe". P4: We could only come to know about mind-independent facts which are able to motivate us by some special faculty of moral perception or intuition, utterly different from our ordinary ways of knowing everything else. Cl: It is reasonable to conclude there are no mind-independent moral facts. C2: Moral realism is false.

Response to argument from queerness

Is it only moral facts that face this problem of being "strange"? We could argue that other types of knowledge are "queen" or strange" too, how do we come to know about causation, other minds, mathematical truths or necessary truths? These are all things that seem to go beyond our experience. Mackie would respond by appealing to the "motivational problem none of those other facts have anything to do with how we act, or what should be done.

3 marks: What does it mean to say an ethical theory is deontological?

Not consequence based - often involve following rules.

3 marks: What does Kant mean by ‘good will’?

The good will is good in and of itself, it is the only thing which is good without qualification.  It can be understood as acting for the right reasons

3 marks: What does it mean to act in accordance with duty?

Where one might do something that appears to be a good deed, but the motivation is not the good dees, eg. Helping someone bc it will make you feel better

3 marks: What does it mean to act out of duty?

For an action to have moral worth, you must act out of duty – acting because of the good will. Someone who blatantly states they don’t want to help but are because it is their duty is acting out of duty.

3 marks: What is a categorical imperative?

a categorical imperative is a command you should follow at all times, regardless of your own desires or aims

3 marks: What is a hypothetical imperative?

A hypothetical imperative is a command you should follow assuming that it will help you achieve your desired aim

3 marks: What is the distinction between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative?

A hypothetical imperative is a command you should follow assuming that it will help you achieve your desired aim (or fulfil your will), whereas a categorical imperative is a command you should follow at all times, regardless of your own desires or aims.

3 marks: What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative?

The first formulation of the categorical imperative asks you to consider whether your maxim, i.e. personal principle, can be applied everywhere, by everyone in any situation without contradiction.

3 marks: What is a contradiction in conception?

For a law to be universal, it must not result in a contradiction in conception. A contradiction in conception is something that is self contradictory. If a maxim leads to a contradiction in conception, you have a perfect duty not to follow that maxim. It is always wrong.

3 marks: What is a contradiction in will?

Assuming the maxim does not result in a contradiction in conception, we must then ask whether the maxim results in a contradiction in will – i.e. whether we can rationally will a maxim or not.

3 marks: What is the second formulation of the categorical imperative?

The second formulation asks us then to consider whether this maxim, 'never steal' for example, uses others as a means to an end. If it does not, then it is an example of a categorical imperative. Always steal', on the other hand, uses others to steal from without considering their need

3 marks: What is the distinction Kant makes between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty

A perfect duty is an action which we must always do (for example we have a perfect duty not to steal), and in imperfect duty is an action which is morally right to do, but does not have to be done in all circumstances (for example we have an imperfect duty to give to those in need).

5 marks: Explain Kant’s account of what is meant by a ‘good will’

The only thing that is good without qualification is that good will. Any other apparent goods (eg. Pleasure) could be good or bad. The good will is good in and of itself – it is not good for what it achieves, but simply trying to do the right thing for the right reasons is acting on the good will for Kant. The good will is also good regardless of concequences.

5 marks: Explain Kant’s distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty

In a case where one person acts in accordance with duty and one acts out of duty, both may be performing the same action, however the person acting out of duty carrying out that action purely because it is their duty, whereas the person acting in accordance with duty is motivated by some other reason (eg self interest, friendship etc).  The person acting out of duty is using good will, and is therefore morally right according to Kant, the person acting in accordance with duty does not have good will and their action therefore has no moral worth.

5 marks: Explain Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative

The categorical imperative forms the essential part of Kant's normative ethical theory, which is deontological, i.e. it is based on following your duty rather than looking at the consequences of your actions. The categorical imperative essentially consists of two formulations to test whether something is right or wrong. The first formulation asks us to consider a maxim and to see whether this can be applied as a universal law without any contradiction. An example could be 'never steal', which can be applied universally without contradiction and is so far a good example of a categorical imperative. If the maxim 'always steal' was universalised, nobody would have any possessions, which presents a contradiction.

5 marks: Explain the distinction between a contradiction in conception and a contradiction in will

Both types of contradiction can arise from imagining an action as a universal law. a contradiction in conception leads to perfect duties. Eg. If one wanted to steal an object, one would imagine that "one should steal" was a universal law.  This would lead to a contradiction in conception, as by definition stealing is taking something that one doesn't have a right to take.  If it was the law that one could steal though, then there would be a right to take whatever one wanted.  This would make it impossible to steal, thus leading to a contradiction in the concept of stealing. A contradiction in will leads to imperfect duties. Eg. If one decided not to help someone in need, one would need to imagine that "don't help those in need" was a universal law.  Kant thinks this leads to  a contradiction in will, as we would be willing a world in which no one helps us when we are in need.

5 marks: Explain Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative?

The second formulation asks us then to consider whether this maxim, 'never steal' for example, uses others as a means to an end. If it does not, then it is an example of a categorical imperative. Always steal', on the other hand, uses others to steal from without considering their needs.

5 marks: Explain Kant’s distinction between treating humans as and end and as a mere means

To treat someone merely as a means is to use them to help you achieve some goal without their consent. For example a doctor taking organs from someone who hasn't consented. humanity as an end: Kant believes humans have inherent value. Part of being human is being rational, so we should respect that others act with reasons in mind, and so we must allow them to rationally consent to any act which involves them.

5 marks:Explain the issue of clashing/competing duties facing Kantian deontological ethics.

Stare argues Kant's Deontology does not help us know which action is the right one, due to competing duties. Eg The family hiding Anne Frank has made her a promise to keep her safe (perfect duty to keep promises) but will need to lie to the Nazi's about her whereabouts (and there is a perfect duty not to lie). So which should they follow if the Nazi's knock and ask if they are hiding someone? Responses: a. Kant would likely say we shouldn't make promises which would lead to us breaking a perfect duty. This seems problematic though as it suggests the family were wrong to offer Anne Frank safety! b. Maybe we could tweak the maxim eg "Never lie, except when someone's life is at stake, but this contradicts Kant's objective, non-hypothetical system. scenario in which two imperfect duties seem to conflict: Say you were about to spend £10 on a textbook to help with your studies (following the imperfect duty to cultivate your talents), but there was a charity box at the till you could also put £10 in (following the imperfect duty to give to those in need) By their definition imperfect duties are not prescriptive, so we do seem to have some leeway in terms of what we choose to do, but we could criticise Kantian deontology as being too vague to help us when there are clashes of imperfect duties.

5 marks: Explain the issue for Kantian deontology that not all non-unversalisable maxims are immoral

“Always give money that you can afford to part with to the poor”. If this were a universal law that everyone followed then wealth would be shared and there would be no poor people. So it is a contradiction in conception as if universally followed, t would be impossible to follow. This suggests we have a perfect duty never to give to the poor, which doesn’t fit with our moral intuitions. So perhaps generating duties based on logical contradictions doesn’t actually work. Response: Kant has already identified helping those in need as an imperfect duty, and therefore we do not need to do it all the time but that leads to the issue - should we ignore? of what to do when duties clash - which ones should we follow and which to ignore?

5 marks: Explain the issue for Kantian deontology that not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral

We can ask whether there are exceptions to this link Kant makes between universalisable maxims and morality, for example A maxim like “always eat chocolate on a Monday” can be universalised without a contradiction in conception or will, but it is not a moral command. The categorical imperatives are supposed to tell us what we should do, but it seems that there is no moral imperative to do all things that can be universalised. We can universalise all sorts of things that have nothing o do with morality. This is an issue for kant as maybe it isn't the case that there is any kind of link at all between things that can be universalised and what is moral. Response: Maybe Kant would say what is more relevant is things we can't universalise (in the examples above our perfect and imperfect duties were always this seems to be quite a negative theory though, only saying what not to do. generated by attempting to universalise actions which lead to contradictions)

5 marks: Explain why Kantian deontology is susceptible to the issue that consequences of actions determine their moral value

Situation where a murder asks where your friend is so that they can kill them. The universal law formulation states that if universalised “you should lie” leads to a contradiction in conception. The humanity formulation would say that by lying directly I am treating the murderer as a mere means. Both lead to the conclusion that I have a perfect duty not to lie. However, this response seems to e unsatisfactory as It leads to a bad concequence, and it seems more important to avoid the concequence.

5 marks: Explain the issue that Kant ignores that value of certain motives (eg love, friendship, kindness)

According to Kantian deontology morally right actions must be motivated by the good will Any action which is not motivated by good will is called "acting in accordance with duty", and Kant says such actions have no moral worth. However we can come up with examples where someone motivated by something other than the good will does seem to have moral worth: Someone giving up time to work in a soup kitchen, who enjoys being kind and who feels good when they do so would be seen as without moral worth by Kant. This shows that we do value other motivations (such as love, friendship and kindness) and it seems to be a flaw in Kantian deontology to ascribe no moral worth to actions motivated by anything other than the good will.

5 marks: Explain Philippa Foot’s claim that morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives.

Kant claims that morality is always categorical, and that one is acting irrationally if the categorical imperative is not followed. Foot makes the following points: Foot says we only feel that moral commands are categorical because we are taught that they do.  In reality there is no special reason to obey moral imperatives at all cost, and so morality is not categorical. She also argues it is perfectly moral to act for reasons other than duty/good will.  Someone acting with a goal (ie hypothetically) can be perfectly moral.  For example someone who is just "because he loved truth and liberty" or someone who works for a charity with the goal of alleviating poverty seem to be moral acts, and are not less moral because they are hypothetical (ie have a goal attached). Foot also says that there are many categorical commands that are nothing to do with morality (for example club/school rules and etiquette).  This means that categorical imperatives are not uniquely moral, and so Kant is wrong to say that all categorical imperatives are moral commands.

Strengths of deontology

Objective and Universal: Kant's theory does not take into account opinion, self interest etc. It helps us understand what right and wrong is without any bias, and doesn't rely on feelings which can be changeable and fickle. In theory everyone should agree what is right and wrong, if they are motivated by good will. Reasoned and rational: It doesn't require experience we can in theory figure out what to do just be using our reasoning. It doesn't involve any kind of guesswork or predictions about the future. We simply rely on our ability to act according to rational principles

12 marks: Outline a Kantian deontologist view on stealing

Stealing Would be wrong according to the first formulation of the categorical imperative, as If we were to will a universal law that "one ought to steal" then property ownership wouldn't exist (as everyone would by law be able to take what they want) and therefore stealing would be impossible. This is a contradiction in conception. Therefore we have a perfect duty not to steal. It would also be wrong according to the second formulation of the categorical imperative? Stealing from someone would mean we were treating their humanity as a mere means and not as an end. A distinctive feature of humanity is the ability to be rational, and the victim of stealing has not consented to being stolen from. Therefore we should never steal. Does this apply to all stealing? Eg. Robin Hood: Kant does say we have an imperfect duty to help the poor but, as we have shown above, not stealing is a perfect duty. Kant does not think we should break perfect duties in order to pursue an imperfect duty. Robin Hood should stop stealing from the rich, and find a way to redistribute wealth that does not break his perfect duty not to steal.

12 marks: Outline a Kantian deontologist view on eating meat.

Kant was an exceptionalist with regards to humans. He thought that our ability to be rational made us morally significant in a way animals aren't. The second formulation of the C.. says we cannot treat humanity as a mere means, but animals do not have humanity so they can be treated as a mere means, we have no special duty towards them. Kant believes that in being cruel to animals we would be damaging our own humanity - we would be stifling human qualities such as kindness and compassion. In this sense we would not be treating our humanity as an end and would therefore be contravening the second formulation. So in harming an animal we would be failing in our duty to ourselves, but not the animal. This may call some cruel farming methods into question but the moral one is only on the farmer. IF we are picking food from a menu we are far enough removed - we are not responsible for any one else's action, the moral responsibility is solely on the person involved in killing the animal. We can criticise Kant's moral approach here, as It seems counter-intuitive to say we shouldn't mistreat animals because of harm to ourselves. Many people would say animal lives have value and it is wrong to harm them regardless. Many would also argue we have a special duty to those less capable, but Kant in ascribing moral significance to being rational suggests people who lack the capacity to be rational could be treated as a mere means.

12 marks: Outline a Kantian deontologist view on simulated killing

First form of CE. To universalise the maxim engage in simulated killing for entertainment seems to bring about no contradiction in conception or will. Kant says we have an imperfect duty to develop our talents, so maybe the talented artists, actors etc are doing good by producing these forms of entertainment? second formulation of the categorical imperative: In watching a performance or killing a friend's avatar in a video game we are treating the participants as a means to our entertainment. But as they willingly participate we are not treating them as mere means. As long as their humanity (ie rationality is respected it seems fine to engage here. Kant thinks we have a duty to ourselves to cultivate our own humanity, and if we were to be influenced by simulated killing to the point we become more violent, less compassionate, or addicted to the game/binge watching then he may say we are failing in our duty to treat our own humanity as an end.

12 marks: Outline the Kantian deontologist’s position when it comes to telling lies.

first formulation of the categorical imperative: "Tell lies" cannot be willed as a universal law. Lies only work when the person being lied to does not know it is a lie, but if lying was universal then no one would believe any lie. This is a contradiction in conception, and so not lying is a perfect duty. second formulation of the categorical imperative: to lie to someone is to prevent them from being able to make fully informed, rational decisions and so is treating their humanity as a mere means, so it is wrong. Benjamin Constant challenged Kant on lying, he said: if there was an example of a murderer asking where your friend was, To tell the truth then is a duty, but only towards him who has a right to the truth. But no man has a right to a truth that injures others. Kant responded to him directly: He says if we tell the truth then no matter what happens next we cannot, be blamed as we have followed our perfect duty. But if you lie and as a result something bad happens, then you are at fault as you made the decision to mislead.

3 marks: What is the principle of utility?

The best course of action is the one which maximises pleasure and minimises pain for the greatest number of people.

3 marks: Briefly outline Bentham’s utilitarianism

Bentham's utilitarianism is a consequentialist, quantitive, hedonistic moral theory which states that the right action is the one which creates the largest amount of happiness for the largest amount of people.

3 marks: What is meant by ‘utility’?

Utility is the extent to which something produces benefit (pleasure).

3 marks: What is meant by ‘maximising utility’

Maximising pleasure that can be produced in a situation

3 marks: Briefly outline Mill’s utilitarianism

An action is right when is complies with rule which if everybody followed them would lead to the greatest happiness.