Notes: Critical Reasoning Obstacles and Chapter 2 – Moral Theories (Ch. 1–2)

Chapter 1: Critical Reasoning Obstacles (New edition additions; page references noted)

  • Opening reminders and logistics (from instructor):

    • Five on the dot: five questions in five minutes; format = two true/false; multiple choice; quick quiz schedule to be reviewed later.
    • Emphasis on being on time for quizzes and discussions.
    • Discussion board as a weekly refresh hub: after each class, the instructor posts pages covered and a short video to help with the day’s theory; videos are short (5–10 minutes) and meant to aid understanding (mostly for entertainment, but with educational content).
    • If you miss class, check the discussion board for what was covered; the posts include pages and a brief video resource.

  • Why a new section in the book (page 29): obstacles to critical reasoning in the smartphone era

    • The book now includes five obstacles to critical thinking; bolded terms are exam definitions.
    • The section emphasizes not just how to reason, but what gets in the way of clear reasoning in a tech-saturated world.

  • Key terms and definitions (page 29, side right; bolded definitions are exam targets):

    • Evidence: a statement is more likely to be true because of the evidence; evidence makes a statement more likely true.
    • In reasoning about moral arguments, you should look for evidence for premises; sometimes evidence is hard to obtain and may be a theory rather than a documented fact.
    • Strong belief, a friend’s belief, a viral post, or a YouTube personality’s claim do not by themselves constitute evidence. Evidence must be substantiated beyond belief or assertion.
    • Denying contrary evidence (psychological impediment): a common mistake is to deny or resist evidence that challenges cherished beliefs.
    • Remedy: consciously seek opposing evidence and consider it seriously.
    • Example scenario: a Bitcoin enthusiast ignores contrary economic analyses and only consumes sources that support Bitcoin; illustrates how confirmation can be reinforced by selective exposure.
    • The influence of phones and online feeds on our reasoning:
    • Phones tend to show more of what we already think, reinforcing our biases and reducing exposure to contrary evidence.
    • Personal example: search for running shoes led to Nike-focused results, with little to no exposure to counterexamples (e.g., running barefoot).
    • The point: technology often mirrors and amplifies internal biases unless we actively seek opposing views.
    • We study modern philosophers and critical thinkers precisely to learn to recognize contrary evidence and to reason through it.

  • Major biases and errors (five bold definitions to study for exams):

    • Confirmation bias: tendency to seek out and accept confirming evidence while discounting contrary evidence.
    • Example: a biologist claimed all swans are white based on limited observations; later black swans in Australia/New Zealand disproved the claim.
    • Motivated reasoning: we reason in order to support a predetermined conclusion; not to discover truth.
    • Example: vaccine discussions where anecdotes about adverse effects are emphasized while broader population data showing safety/effectiveness are downplayed.
    • A fair argument would present both pros and cons; motivated reasoning tends to present only supportive evidence.
    • Preferring available evidence / availability error: basing judgment on striking or memorable evidence rather than trustworthiness.
    • Example from politics: a shocking meme about Hillary Clinton can be used rhetorically to sway opinion regardless of veracity.
    • Availability error often leverages a memorable item to mislead or persuade.
    • Related concept: hasty generalization (see next).
    • Hasty generalization: making broad claims from an inadequate sample size.
    • Common with gender biases or sweeping statements like “all men” or “all women.”
    • Dunning–Kruger effect: the phenomenon of being ignorant of one’s own ignorance; the least informed may confidently claim deep understanding.
    • Describes how some people, despite a lack of knowledge, overestimate their competence and resist correction.
    • The presenter notes personal experiences with philosophy discourse patterns reflecting this bias.

  • Practical guidance about exam preparation from the chapter:

    • Bolded terms are the likely exam definitions; know the distinctions between each to avoid misinterpretation.
    • End-of-chapter summaries (page 34) provide a built-in review sheet: bold key terms and a chapter summary.
    • The chapter explicitly indicates that the summary and key terms constitute the recommended study guide for exams (not the “personal review sheet” exercise on page 35).

  • Quick note on study workflow (page 34–35):

    • Use the end-of-chapter summary and the list of key terms as your primary review tools for exam preparation.

  • Transition to Chapter 2: introduction to moral theory

    • Chapter 2 begins the formal study of moral theory; it builds on previous exposure to divine command theory and ethical relativism.
    • You’ve already learned: Divine command theory (right actions are commanded by God) and ethical relativism (morality relative to a group or person).
    • Chapter 2 will cover influential theories and will be revisited in later chapters, so keep chapter 2 handy for every exam.

Chapter 2: Introduction to Moral Theories (Right Action vs. Virtue Theory; Consequentialism vs. Deontology)

  • What a moral theory is (left page):

    • A moral theory tells us what it is about an action that makes it right or what makes a person good.
    • Example: Divine command theory—right actions are those commanded by God.
    • Example: Traditional utilitarianism—right actions are those that produce the greatest happiness for all concerned.
    • Moral theories provide a prescription: they tell us how to determine the right thing to do in various situations.

  • Two broad categories of moral theories:

    • Theories of right action: focus on what to do in a given situation (conduct and behavior).
    • Virtue-based theories: focus on the character traits or virtues (e.g., honesty) that a person should cultivate; virtues are dispositions that improve a person’s character (Aristotle’s framework is referenced here).

  • Two major subfamilies within theories of right action:

    • Consequentialist theories: rightness of an action depends on its consequences.
    • Non-consequentialist (Deontological) theories: rightness depends on the action’s nature or adherence to duties, regardless of consequences.

  • Consequentialist vs. Deontological (non-consequentialist) overview:

    • Consequentialist theories (e.g., utilitarianism): the right action is the one that yields the best overall outcomes; the end justifies the means insofar as it maximizes good consequences.
    • Non-consequentialist (Deontological) theories: emphasize duties or rules; actions are right if they conform to duties regardless of outcomes (e.g., Kantian ethics).

  • The first major consequentialist theory: Utilitarianism

    • Origin: Bentham; later revised by his student (John Stuart Mill) after Bentham’s death; Mill’s version refined by distinguishing types of pleasure.
    • Key ideas:
    • Utilitarianism is a teleological theory: goals and ends justify the action because there is an end to the action—maximizing overall happiness.
    • Core claim: right actions are those that maximize the balance of good (happiness) over bad (unhappiness) for everyone affected.
    • Core definitions (page 40):
    • U(a) = ext{net balance of happiness over unhappiness produced by action } a.
    • An action is right iff U(a) ext{ is maximal among all available actions } a', i.e., U(a) \ge U(a') ext{ for all } a' ext{ in the set of available actions } A.
    • What is happiness in utilitarian terms?
    • Utilitarianism endorses hedonism: happiness equals the experience of pleasure; unhappiness equals the experience of pain; these are intrinsic values.
    • Things that promote happiness or reduce suffering count as morally valuable; otherwise they have instrumental value.
    • The concept of utility:
    • Utility refers to the overall value of the consequences of an action.
    • Variants within utilitarianism: act vs. rule utilitarianism
    • Act Utilitarianism: rightness is determined by the specific act’s own balance of good over bad; evaluate each action in its context.
    • Rule Utilitarianism: rightness is determined by following rules that, if generally followed, maximize happiness; rules guide conduct across similar cases.
    • Mill’s refinement: higher vs. lower pleasures
    • Mill distinguishes between intellectual pleasures (higher) and physical pleasures (lower).
    • Principle: higher pleasures are intrinsically more valuable than lower pleasures; the quality of pleasure matters, not just quantity.
    • Examples and applications:
    • Dinner party example (vegan vs. carnivore): to maximize happiness for all, choose a vegan-friendly venue or adapt the meal so both vegans and meat-eaters can be satisfied; demonstrates balancing interests in practice.
    • Criticisms and problems with utilitarianism:
    • Pleasure is not the only thing that matters for a good life; duties can override pleasure in some cases.
    • It may allow lying or breaking promises if that maximizes overall happiness (practical objection).
    • Deontological response to utilitarianism:
    • Emphasizes duties (e.g., truth-telling) over consequences; thus some actions are wrong even if they could produce better overall outcomes.
    • Summary of utilitarian framework:
    • Pleasure/pain analysis; intrinsic vs instrumental values; maximizing net happiness; act vs rule variants; Mill’s higher vs lower pleasures; critique concerns about truth-telling and fidelity to duty.

  • Quiz preparation and readings for utilitarianism (weekend readings; page 59):

    • A quiz will cover two articles: one on utilitarianism (Mill) and one on Kant’s moral law (Kantian ethics).
    • How to prepare using the quiz prep tool (Canvas files):
    • There are two formats: a document you fill in and a printable PDF.
    • For Quiz 1, you will fill in: philosopher/ethicist name (e.g., utilitarianism → John Stuart Mill).
    • Identify the theme (the chapter’s topic): utilitarianism; moral theory and its justification.
    • The abstract contains key definitions and propositions you should extract (e.g., the principle of utility; “right actions are those that result in greater overall well-being for the people involved; we are duty-bound to maximize the utility of everyone affected”). Bold terms in the abstract are likely to appear on the exam.
    • Note any italics or key terms in the abstract (e.g., principal utility) and any numerical data or dates mentioned.
    • Record any dates or time frames mentioned (e.g., 1861 in Mill’s writing).
    • Note whether the author cites other people, organizations, or diseases; and what significance those references have in the argument.
    • For Mill’s utilitarianism, the text suggests reading pages 40–42 (utilitarianism) to hear Mill’s voice directly; this helps with exam preparation.
    • For Kantian ethics, the text points to pages 42–44 (Kantian ethics) as the main section to study; this section covers duty-based ethics and the categorical imperative.
    • The quizzes are designed to compare the two articles; expect two questions from each article and a comparative question.

  • Kantian ethics and the non-consequentialist (deontological) perspective (page 62 and surrounding sections):

    • Kant’s article: The moral law; it presents an antithesis to utilitarianism (opposes utilitarian conclusions with a duty-based framework).
    • Core idea: The categorical imperative; morally permissible actions are those performed out of duty and are conformable to universalizable maxims.
    • Abstract (in Kant’s article): Kant argues that his moral theory is the antithesis of utilitarianism; universal rules govern moral life; the duty-based approach.
    • The categorical imperative (CI):
    • Do and act solely on that maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law.
    • An action is morally praiseworthy only if it is performed for the sake of duty (not for consequences).
    • Practical notes for the quiz: anticipate comparing Mill’s utilitarian framework with Kant’s deontological framework; Kant’s language and German-to-English translation can add complexity; extra reading aids (American readers/translated editions) may help comprehension.

  • How to analyze the two articles for the quiz (summary guidance):

    • Mill’s utilitarianism (as presented in the “Moral Theory” unit): identify the central thesis, the use of the principle of utility, and how happiness/pain is defined and aggregated.
    • Kant’s moral law (the deontological counterpart): identify the categorical imperative and the emphasis on duty and universalizability.
    • Look for the explicit abstract and the explicit statements of their theses; the abstract often contains the core definitions needed for quiz answers.
    • Be prepared to note dates, organizations, and key terms that appear in the articles; these are common quiz prompts.
    • Reading strategy tips:
    • Mill’s portion (utilitarianism) is often more accessible in English, but some phrasing may be archaic (1861). Reading pages 40–42 in the course text can help capture Mill’s ideas clearly.
    • Kant’s portion (moral law) is more challenging due to translation and Kant’s German terminology; expect to encounter phrases like “categorical imperative” and “universal law.” The course recommends reading a standard Kant chapter (42–44) and possibly a reader translation for clarity.

  • Practical takeaways for exam readiness (book structure and study habits):

    • The upcoming quizzes emphasize the core concepts from utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, plus the ability to compare the two positions.
    • Take advantage of the instructor’s recommended study route: read the abstract to capture the essential thesis, identify key terms (bold in the text), note any numbers/dates, and be ready to discuss how each theory treats duties vs. consequences.
    • Use the companion resources on Canvas (quiz prep tool) to organize your notes and anticipate quiz questions.

  • Quick notes on terminology and structure to aid recall:

    • Utilitarianism (Bentham → Mill): right actions maximize happiness for all affected; happiness is intrinsic; consequences determine rightness; act vs. rule utilitarianism; higher vs. lower pleasures (Mill’s refinement).
    • Deontology (Kant): right actions are those done from duty and in accordance with universalizable maxims; the categorical imperative provides the test for moral permissibility regardless of outcomes.
    • Major conceptual clash for exams: duty and universal law (Kant) vs. overall happiness for all (Mill).

Quick reference: Key formulas and definitions (in LaTeX)

  • Utilitarian rightness (act utilitarianism):
    • Let A be the set of available actions. The right action is:
    • a^* = ext{argmax}{a \, \in \, A} \ U(a), \quad U(a) = \sum{i \in S(a)} u_i(a)
    • where $u_i(a)$ is the utility (happiness minus pain) for person $i$ affected by action $a$, and $S(a)$ is the set of affected individuals.
  • Mill’s qualitative distinction (high vs low pleasures): not a numeric formula, but a priority rule:
    • Higher pleasures (e.g., intellectual activities) are intrinsically more valuable than lower pleasures (e.g., physical pleasures).
  • Rule utilitarianism (summary):
    • The right action is the one that follows a rule whose general adoption would maximize happiness; i.e., act in accordance with rules that maximize overall utility when universally followed.
  • Kantian ethics: the categorical imperative (CI) principle:
    • \text{CI}(M): \quad \text{Do what is permissible according to maxims that you can will to become universal laws.}
    • An action is morally praiseworthy only if performed out of duty, not merely because of its consequences.

Final reminders for exam prep

  • Focus on bold terms and their definitions as highlighted in the text (evidence, denial of contrary evidence, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, availability error, hasty generalization, Dunning–Kruger effect).
  • Review the end-of-chapter summaries and key terms for each chapter as your primary study tool.
  • Prepare to compare Mill’s utilitarianism and Kant’s moral law; be ready to discuss strengths, weaknesses, and practical implications in moral decision-making.
  • For the quizzes, don’t forget to skim abstracts, look for key terms, dates, numerical data, organizations, and diseases; prepare a quick note on how each author argues for or against a given position and how they define central concepts.