Study Guide: Cultural Relativism, Ethical Egoism, Act Utilitarianism, Kant's CI2 and Required Arguments

STUDY GUIDE: CR, EEh, AU, CI2 AND REQUIRED ARGUMENTS

1. CULTURAL RELATIVISM (CR)

• Society:

  • Definition: A group of people sharing customs and institutions.

• Moral code of a society at a time:

  • Definition: Accepted moral rules of that society.

• Moral reformer:

  • Definition: Someone who challenges society’s moral code.

• Definition of Cultural Relativism (CR):

  • CR asserts that morality is determined by a society’s moral code.

• Motivation behind CR:

  • Promotes tolerance and respect for cultural differences.

2. ETHICAL EGOISM (HEDONIC) — EEh

• Hedonic utility:

  • Definition: Pleasure minus pain.

• Hedonic agent utility:

  • Definition: Pleasure minus pain for the individual.

• Definition of Ethical Egoism (EEh):

  • An action is right if it increases the agent’s personal pleasure.

• Motivation behind EEh:

  • People know what benefits themselves best.

3. ACT UTILITARIANISM (AU)

• Hedonic utility in AU:

  • Definition: Pleasure minus pain for everyone affected.

• Aggregate utility:

  • Definition: Sum total of all pleasure and pain.

• Definition of Act Utilitarianism (AU):

  • An action is right if it creates the most happiness for all.

• Motivation behind AU:

  • Advocates for the consideration of everyone’s well-being equally.

4. KANT’S CI2 — HUMANITY FORMULA

• End:

  • Definition: A goal valued for its own sake.

• Means:

  • Definition: A tool used to achieve a goal.

• Mere means:

  • Definition: Using someone only as a tool.

• Definition of CI2:

  • Treat people as ends and never merely as means.

• Motivation behind CI2:

  • Respects human dignity and autonomy.

5. PEE ARGUMENTS

A. Reformer's Dilemma (Against CR)

• Point:

  • CR makes reformers always wrong.

• Explanation:

  • Reformers oppose the moral code; CR states that the code is always right.

• Evaluate:

  • Strong objection—CR cannot adequately explain moral progress.

B. Invisible Hand Argument for EEh

• Premise 1:

  • Individuals know their own needs best.

• Premise 2:

  • Pursuing self-interest supposedly benefits society.

• Evaluate:

  • Premise 2 fails; self-interest often harms others.

C. Rachels’ Arbitrariness Argument (Against EEh)

• Point:

  • EEh unjustifiably favors oneself.

• Explanation:

  • There is no reason why my interests should matter more than anyone else's.

• Evaluate:

  • Strong objection against EEh.

D. Wicked Actions Objection (Against EEh)

• Point:

  • EEh can justify harmful actions.

• Explanation:

  • If an action benefits the agent, EEh states that it’s right.

• Evaluate:

  • Serious problem for EEh.

E. Lack of Time (Against AU)

• Point:

  • AU requires impossible calculations.

• Evaluate:

  • This is a reasonable objection; some defenders of AU appeal to rules of thumb for practical decision-making.

F. Small Southern Town / Punishment Objection (Against AU)

• Point:

  • AU can justify punishing the innocent.

• Evaluate:

  • This conflicts with notions of justice and fairness.

G. Organ Harvest Objection (Against AU)

• Point:

  • AU could require the sacrifice of one person to save five people.

• Evaluate:

  • This scenario indicates a violation of moral rights.

H. Justice Objection (Against AU)

• Point:

  • AU ignores the concept of fairness when happiness is maximized.

• Evaluate:

  • Major issue that significantly critiques AU's moral framework.

6. OBJECTION TO CI2

Example: Rational Consent Objection

• Point:

  • CI2 can be too rigid in its approach.

• Explanation:

  • Sometimes, respecting an individual’s autonomy may conflict with preventing harm to others.

• Evaluate:

  • This is a strong objection; strict adherence to autonomy can be unrealistic in practical situations.