Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
49 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Definition of Utilitarianism
|
A consequentialist theory where rightness and wrongness depends solely on the consequences. Act as to maximize utility.
|
|
|
What makes (U) a consequentialist theory?
|
The only thing relevant is the effects of the action.
|
|
|
The 5 features of Utilitarianism?
|
1. Consequentialist theory
2. Maximizing theory 3. Impartial theory 4. aggregative theory 4. hedonistic theory |
|
|
How does it being a consequentialist theory affect the theory?
|
Rightness and wrongness of actions depends solely on consequences.
|
|
|
How does it being a maximizing theory affect the theory?
|
It requires that we produce the maximum utility or the minimum dis-utility.
|
|
|
How does it being an impartial theory affect the theory?
|
No ones pleasure or pain counts more than any others. We must maximize utility for all affected, not just ourselves.
|
|
|
Dow does it being an aggregative theory affect the theory?
|
By adding up our pleasures and pains, we can see which side is being more affected. Choose the most positive side.
|
|
|
How does it being a hedonistic theory affect the theory?
|
Counts only pleasures in its calculation of utility,
|
|
|
What matters when we are working out how we should understand utility?
|
Utility is something that is thought to be good. What matters is having the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
|
|
|
The greatest happiness principle:
|
Bentham and Mills both see it this way, it is to act so as to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utility is defined as happiness or pleasure.
|
|
|
Main Challenges to Utilitarianism? Under which feature do they fall?
|
Consequentialist aspect:
Calculation Problems Purely forward looking Justice Problems Maximizing Aspect: The saints and heroes problem Impartiality Aspect: The problem of special responsibilities |
|
|
Challenges under the consequentialist aspect: Specifically, Calculation problems
|
Maximizing expected utility.
|
|
|
Challenges under the consequentialist aspect: Specifically, Purely forward looking, Justice Problems
|
Can't take into account commitments directly
Benefits>Harms |
|
|
Saints and Heroes problem
|
No Distinction between Obligatory actions (Don't kill anyone) and Supererogatory actions (Running into burning building)
|
|
|
The Problem of special responsibilities
|
Parents will treat own children differently
|
|
|
What counts as a moral action in (U), how does one work out which action is moral?
|
What counts as moral is that action which maximizes utility for all affected. We examine the consequences and figure out which action produces maximum utility.
|
|
|
Definition of Virtue Ethics?
|
What is moral is to act as the virtuous person would act. The aim of living well is to flourish.
|
|
|
What are the virtues?
|
3 classes of virtues:
Virtues of mind: Intelligence, practical wisdom Virtues of body: Health, beauty Virtues of character: courage, temperance, justice, liberality, patience, truthfulness, modesty, friendliness, proper ambition, and wittiness. *Anything valuable in itself, or conducive to flourishing* |
|
|
How do we identify the virtues?
|
Aristotle, thru the "Doctrine of the mean"--midpoint between two extremes. Courage is a midpoint between foolhardiness and cowardice
Practical wisdom is the ability to assess a situation and work out what virtue demands of one in that situation They can be anything valuable in themselves or something that is conducive to flourishing. |
|
|
How do we acquire the virtues?
|
The fortunate are brought up to be virtuous by their parents.
Others must habituate themselves to virtue by acting as a virtuous person would over a period of time, they slowly acquire the right desires. Only activity can inoculate habits and he recommends counterfeiting the virtues |
|
|
Doctrine of the mean:
|
midpoint between two extremes. Courage is a midpoint between foolhardiness and cowardice. Friendliness is a midpoint between aloofness and ubiquiousness
|
|
|
What is the relationship between virtues and flourishing?
|
Virtues on their own are not enough to guarantee flourishing. Some luck is still needed. Aristotle would not allow flourishing of the wicked as virtues are partly constitutive of flourishing.
|
|
|
The stoics view on the relationship between virtues and flourishing?
|
virtue was all that was needed to flourish, and that a virtuous person could live well even on the torture rack.
|
|
|
Why we would/ought be motivated to be virtuous?
|
Double layer account of moral motivation.:
Having the virtues will most likely lead to flourishing. Motivation 1: We have a self interested egoistic reason for acquiring the virtues. Once the virtue is acquired, we are motivated by the virtues themselves. Motivation level 2: We are motivated to act courageously bc it is the virtuous thing to do. |
|
|
Why we would/ought be motivated to be virtuous....Explaining moral motivation:
|
Humans are social animals, thus flourishing for individual humans usually means flourishing as a group., so we cannot act selfishly and flourish.
|
|
|
What counts as a moral action on this view, and how we work out which actions are moral?
|
A moral action is anything that the virtuous person would do. We use our practical wisdom to decide how to act in each situation.
|
|
|
Definition of Kantianism?
|
The moral thing to do is act out of your duty. It is a deontological ethics theory bc what makes something moral or immoral on this view is a fact about the action itself.
|
|
|
The role of the Supreme Moral law?
|
it determines our moral duty, and duty constitutes the good will.
|
|
|
Why must the supreme moral law be a categorical imperative?
|
The moral law is an unchanging, necessary, universal body of moral rules. The Categorical Imperative is the source of all moral rules.
|
|
|
How to determine whether or not a given action is moral?
|
We should always act in accordance with our duty. Use the universal law test to see if the maxim can be universalized, 2 conditions must be met: (1) Its maxim can be universalized (2) you would be willing to let this happen.
|
|
|
What is a maxim?
|
A rule for conduct. Ex. If you steal a car, then your action implies the maxim "in circumstances like this, if you want a car, steal it.
|
|
|
How do you universalize a maxim?
|
Can the intention be acted on by everyone, universally. ex. Wanting a turkey sandwich during class, everyone should be able to get up and get it.
|
|
|
the 2 forms of the categorical imperative
|
The formula of universal law: you ought act on maxims through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.
The formula of the end in itself (formula of humanity)- always treat people as an end in themselves and never as a means to an end. |
|
|
The 2 ways in which a maxim can fail the Universal Law test of the Categorical Imperative?
|
The logical contradiction: It is not possible for a world in which everyone acts according to the maxim to exist. I.e. case of promise keeping
The Psychological contradiction: You do not want to live in the world where everyone acts in accordance to that maxim. |
|
|
Difference between perfect and imperfect duties?
|
Perfect duties are from universal prohibitions (create logical contradictions) ...never lie, never break promises
Imperfect duties are those acts which are not always required or always prohibited (psychological contradictions)...you ought cultivate your talents |
|
|
Challenges to Kantianism:
|
The motive of duty: - the good will...the case of the cold hearted man.
The problem of special personal characteristics: What about the maxims that the masochist could consistently will? |
|
|
What counts as a moral action on this view, and how we work out which actions are moral?
|
The action itself, not the character of the agent or the consequences, is what counts. We should act in accordance with out duty. We work out what is moral through the Universal Law test. What is morally permissible is a maxim that can be universalized and what we could live in.
|
|
|
Definition of Pluralism?
|
There is more that one moral value, all of which must be taken into account. Actual duties trump prima facie duties
|
|
|
Difference between Prima Facia and actual duties
|
Prima facie duties are based on moral principles. On the face of it, what do we do? Actual duties are those duties that we have all things considered. All things considered, what do we do?
|
|
|
Arguments for pluralist rather than monist moral theories?
|
It can explain where regret comes from as there was something correct about the choice not taken.
|
|
|
The analogy between physical forces and determining your actual duty?
|
The Hydraulic View: Competing principles are like physical forces---gravity, inertia, and magnetism.
Weigh an action and find the act that is the most right. |
|
|
What counts as a moral action on this view, and how do we work out which actions are moral?
|
Moral actions are the ones in which we weight all the prima facie duties and all things considered choose the one most right. The actual duty.
|
|
|
Ross' Prima Facie Duties:
|
Beneficence, Non-malificence, fidelity, justice, reparation, gratitude, self-improvement
|
|
|
Definition of Cultural relatavism:
|
moral claims and beliefs are never absolutely true or false, they are only relatively true or false - and they are true or false relative to the cultural context.
|
|
|
Definition of Moral absolutism
|
Moral claims and beliefs are true or false.
|
|
|
Cultural Relatavism about the nature of moral truth?
|
Moral truth is dependent upon the cultural context
|
|
|
Cultural Absolutism about the nature of moral truth?
|
Moral truth is objective, it is the same for everyone
|
|
|
The argument for tolerance for cultural relativism, and how well it works?
|
Cultural Relativism is the only meta-ethical position whose adoption justifies tolerance of cultural differences in moral beliefs.
It's an argument for the adoption of CR, but not the truth of it. |
|
|
The cultural differences argument for Cultural relativism, and how well it works?
|
There are fundamental differences in moral beliefs between cultures. Seems all well and good on the surface, but fails to acknowledge that there are some things that seem to be constant across cultures. i.e. truth telling, prohibition on murder, caring for the young
|
