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;
56 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
According to Consequentialism in general, in virtue of what is an action good or bad? |
1. an action is good or bad in virtue of the goodness or badness of its consequences 2. ought to act so as to bring about the best possible consequences |
|
According to act utilitarianism, what are we morally obligated to do? |
1. any action that maximizes overall well-being 2. any action that brings about the best possible consequences |
|
What is the principle of utility? How does it provide a decision procedure for moral action? |
1. PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY: an action is morally required iff it will do more to maximize over-all well-being than any other possible action 2. It provides a decision procedure because you make this calculation for every action each time. |
|
Explain the appeal of consequentialism in terms of its impartiality, its consistency with conventional morality, and its flexibility. |
1. Impartiality - everyone matters equally (advantage over ethical egoism) 2. Consistency - well-being is good; misery is bad; it promotes what we already know as good and bad; virtues are generally beneficial and vices are generally bad 3. Flexibility - no moral rules are without exception (except utility) |
|
What are some of the different things that could be meant by "well-being" and how might they lead to different forms of consequentialism? |
1. happiness, pleasure, desire-satisfaction, realization of potential 2. different theories emerge depending on how one defines "well-being" |
|
What does it mean to say that we should maximize overall well-being? |
1. determine how much happiness or misery for how many individuals 2. the best action brings about the greatest average happiness in all those involved |
|
What does it mean to call an action optimific? |
1. an action is optimifc if it yields the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks 2, morally required |
|
According to Utilitarianism, is there any difference between my obligations and to others as opposed to my obligations to myself? |
1. No 2. All matters are taken into account equally |
|
Why do most utilitarians think that an action should be evaluated in their actual results rather than their expected results? |
1. we should blame or praise the action itself, rather than its intentions. |
|
In what sense does utilitarianism entail an enlargement of the moral community? |
1. anything than can experience misery is a part of the moral community 2. Includes animals |
|
What is speciesism and how does it apply to Utilitarianism? |
1. taking one species (typically humans) to be of greater moral significance than others for no good reason 2. If human suffering matters more than animal suffering, we had better be able to give a reason why this is (utilitarians do not think such a reason can be given) |
|
What are the two related problems that make up the measurement problem? |
(Note: this is an objection to utilitarianism) 1. assigning a definite quantity of well-being (e.g. 38.74 utiles) is almost impossible 2. if more than one factor is relevant to well-being (e.g. happiness and autonomy) then there is no clear way how to measure tradeoffs between them |
|
What is going on when the consequentialist replies to the measurement problem by pointing out that it's only an epistemic problem? |
(Note: epistemic means "knowledge") 1. does not make consequentialism false 2. means that we won't always know whether an action is right or wrong 3. inability to know does not mean that there is no correct answer 4. there will still be unambiguous cases |
|
Why do some worry that utilitarianism places excessive demands on us? |
1. SUPEREROGATORY: action is a morally good action that would bring about a benefit to someone, but is not morally required (goes above and beyond; running into burning house to save stranger) 2. Utilitarianism does not believe any actions are supererogatory, because all actions that are the best are morally required 3. Utilitarianism requires excessive and severe sacrafices |
|
What is the utilitarian response to the objection of excessive demands? |
1. Bite the bullet 2. admit that consequentialism makes these strong demands on us 3. it shouldn't be surprising that morality sometimes demands that we do difficult things that are not directly in our best interest |
|
Why are justice, fairness, and rights not relevant in a strict utilitarian theory, and why is this a problem for the theory? |
1. all that matters in moral deliberation and evaluation is overall well-being 2. it doesn't matter whether actions are just or unjust, or whether anyone's rights get violated in the process |
|
If consequentialists say that justice and fairness are also goods that should be maximized (in response to irrelevance of justice and rights objection), then how might worries from the measurement problem reemerge? |
1. brings problems regarding how to make tradeoffs between well-being and justice |
|
What is rule utilitarianism? |
1. one should act according to rules which, if everyone in society followed them, overall well-being would be maximized |
|
What is deontology? |
1. Kant's theory 2. "deon" = duty (Greek) 3. an action is morally correct when its intention is based on moral duties/obligations |
|
What are the fundamental disagreements between consequentialists and Kantians regarding how to evaluate the moral worth of an action? |
Consequentialists - consequences of an action (overall well-being importance) Kantians - intentions behind an action (justice and fairness importance) |
|
Would Kantians agree that the main thing we should prioritize (morally) is overall human well-being? |
1. No, justice and fairness |
|
Does Kant think an action can be morally good even if it leads to no good results? |
1. Yes, because an action is morally good based on the intentions 2. Moral goodness comes from a good moral will |
|
What is a maxim? |
1. the reason behind an action 2. the rule you follow when you act 3. you give it to yourself 4. how to act in general to acting in particular instance 5. different maxims can lead to the same action (have different moral values) |
|
What is the principle of universalizability and how is it supposed to be applied? |
1. test to determine whether an action is moral or immoral 2. act only according to universalizable maxims 3. APPLIED IN 3 STEPS: a. determine what maxim you're considering acting on (an be honest, because we are good at self-deception) b. imagine what the world would be like if everyone acted on the same maxim c. ask whether you could reach your goal in such a world (if yes, then action is permissible; if no, then action is impermissible) |
|
What does Kant mean when he says that immorality consists in making an exception for one's self? |
1. Principle of Universalizability applied 2. Plagiarism only works when the norm is not to do it 3. False promises only work when most promises are true |
|
How is the principle of universalizability different from the golden view? |
1. GOLDEN RULE: "treat others the way you want to be treated" 2. We have different desires regarding what we want done to us 3. the golden rule doesn't say anything about your obligations to yourself (Kant believes you need to notice and cultivate your talents) |
|
In what sense in immorality a form of irrationality according to Kant? |
1. Immorality is making an exception for oneself 2. such behavior makes one's own values more important than others 3. reason says we are morally equivalent 4. inconsistency with reason = irrational |
|
What are the two primary objections to the principle of universalizability? |
1. Some very immoral maxims could pass the test (religious zealot would be happy if the world forced his religion) 2. Kant is too strict; he thought moral laws are absolutely inviolable (cannot lie to the murderer at the door) |
|
What is the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative? |
1. HYPOTHETICAL: "if you want X, then do X." Only command conditionally 2. CATEGORICAL: "do X." Commands unconditionally. (Only one to Kant) |
|
What are the two formulations of the categorical imperative? |
1. Principle of Universalizability - an action is moral iff its maxim is universalizable 2. Principle of Humanity - always treat humans as ends in themselves, never as mere means |
|
What is the Principle of Humanity? |
1. treat people with dignity 2. always treat people as ends in themselves, never as mere means 3. ADVANTAGES a. doesn't depend on what can or cannot be universalized b. gives content to morality; explains the whole purpose of morality |
|
Who/what is a member of the moral community according to Kant? Who/what is left out? |
1. only things that are rational and autonomous are in the moral community 2. leaves out animals, babies, and the environment |
|
What does it mean to treat someone as a mere means? an end in itself? |
1. MERE MEANS - to treat them as a thing with mere instrumental value 2. ENDS IN THEMSELVES - to respect them as something with value in its own right (non-instrumental value); possess dignity |
|
Why do rationality and autonomy give humans dignity? |
1. elevates us above animals 2. we are responsible because of we had an option to do the good option 3. Principle of Humanity |
|
Why does autonomy make us deserving of praise, blame, happiness, or misery? |
1. we autonomously act according to universalizable actions or make exceptions for ourselves |
|
In what sense is Hume an empiricist regarding ethics? How is Kant a rationalist? |
1. EMPIRICISM - knowledge is derived from sensory experience 2. RATIONALISM - knowledge is derived from reason 3. Hume was an empiricist because he thought that reason can never tell us what we ought to do, there is nothing irrational about moral behavior, judgements of right and wrong depend on emotional responses, and we only behave morally if we desire it 4. Kant was a rationalist because he thought that to behave rationally was moral, immorality is a form of irrationality, the categorical imperative is derived as a truth of reason, and ethical behavior requires not being guided by our desires, inclinations, and emotions |
|
What is the role of reason with respect to human motivation? What about passions? |
1. Reason - cannot generate desire/motivation. discovers logical truths and matters of fact. Figures out how we can get what we desire 2. Passions - all motivation arises from feelings. |
|
What does Hume mean when he says that "Reason is and ought to be slave to the passions"? |
1. Passions should be in charge 2. Motivation comes from passions 3. Reason is to help out passion |
|
Would Hume agree with Kant that immorality is a form of irrationality? Why or why not? |
1. No 2. Passions are not rational or irrational 3. Not a failure of rationality |
|
Does Hume think that the moral assertions are truth-apt? |
1. No 2. Hume thinks that truth-apt sentences are actually expressing praise and blame (stealing purses = BOO!) |
|
What roles do passions play in our ascriptions of moral praise or blame? |
1. Moral judgements have to do with what we want 2. Moral praise or blame is derived from our passions |
|
What is the difference between Objectivism and Nihilism? In what sense is relativism distinct from both? |
1. OBJECTIVISM - There are absolute moral standards that hold whether or not anyone acknowledge them 2. NIHILISM - there are no moral standards. Morality is just an illusion. No one is ever obligated to do anything 3. Relativism is a middle ground - moral standards are real, but subjective |
|
What is the difference between cultural relativism and individual relativism? |
1. CULTURAL RELATIVISM - moral standards are real and derived from culture 2. INDIVIDUAL RELATIVISM - moral standards are real and derived from an individual's core ideals |
|
Why does cultural relativism entail that iconoclasts are always morally wrong? |
1. no culture can ever be morally wrong (core ideals) 2. Iconoclasts go against cultural ideals 3. therefore iconoclasts are immoral |
|
Why does individual relativism entail that no one is ever morally wrong? |
1. Subjectivism 2. everyone's core ideals are correct |
|
Why does relativism face a serious problem when it comes to moral progress? |
1. everyone or every culture is always correct 2. therefore moral progress does not exist |
|
What is the problem of contradiction? How is the contradiction resolved? Why does the resolution to this problem lead to equally problematic consequences? |
1. any claim that entails a contradiction must be false 2. Culture A and B are both right, so they contradict each other (abortion is right and wrong) 3. resolved by saying the moral claims must be understood in culture-relative terms (according to culture a. . . culture b . . .) 4. New consequences: there is no moral disagreement (moral claims are about beliefs, not the issue in question) |
|
What is nihilism? Moral nihilism? |
1. NIHILISM - refuse to acknowledge something's existence 2. MORAL NIHILISM - claims that there is no such thing as normative morality |
|
What are the 2 main claims that all moral nihilists agree on? |
1. moral features are not real, objective part of the world (ontological/metaphysical claim) 2. no moral judgements are ever true |
|
What is the core disagreement between error theory and expressivism? |
1. ERROR THEORIST - the person is trying to say something true about morality (committing error with moral judgements) 2. EXPRESSIVISM - we are not trying to say anything true (we are conveying emotions, commands, hopes, desires) |
|
What is expressivism? |
1. deny moral judgements are trying to make true moral claims 2. moral judgements are not assertions, just expressions |
|
How does expressivism get around relativist's dilemma regarding contradictions are the impossibility of disagreement? |
1. expressivists have no truth-apt sentences (no contradictions) 2. disagreements are emotional clashes ("moral" disagreements possible) |
|
Why do expressivists face the problem that no moral position is better than any other? |
1. every morality is equally good 2. cannot justify attitudes (pro-murder) 3. sometimes moral perspectives actually are better or worse |
|
What are some objections raised against expressivism? |
1. it seems implausible that we never try to express objective truths with moral assertions 2. lots of moral claims are not easily translatable into mere expressions of emotion |
|
What is the spinach test, the phenomenology of disagreement test, and the fact vs fashion test supposed to show? |
1. we are all objectivists |
|
What is Enoch's account of objectivity? |
1. subject matter is objective as long as it is true on it's own without or with our opinions. 2. true on its own 3. facts are waiting to be found, not thought of |