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;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Kant claims that a good will is the only thing that has “unconditional worth” or is “good without qualification”. What reasons does he give for thinking this is true?
|
Summary of Kant’s thought process for thissection:
-What is good without qualification? Having aGood Will -What is it to have a Good Will? Having theproper motivation for your action -What should motivate a person? 3 options: dutyought to motivate -What is it to be motivated by duty? Acting from respect for law -What kind of law commands this respect? Lawformulated in universal terms |
|
|
What’s the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives? According to Kant, why must moral imperatives be categorical rather than hypothetical?
|
-Kant claims that laws of practical reason tell us what we ought to do in the form of imperatives. We can distinguish between two types of Imperatives (or commands)
-Hypothetical versus Categorical: -Hypothetical - “If you want X, then you ought to do Y.” -Conditional -Categorical-“You ought to do Y.”-Unconditional -Categorical is better because it is unconditional |
|
|
The second formulation of the categorical imperative is “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never as a means.” What does it mean to treat someone as a means? What does it mean to treat someone as an end?
|
-Treating someone as a means is treating them as an object or a tool instead of as a person
-Manipulation, taking advantage, etc. |
|
|
Kagan suggests that the constraint against doing harm might be understood in terms of avoiding interference with the well-being of another. What problems does he raise in trying to come up with a counterfactual test for when someone counts as interfering?
|
-Pretending the person doing the harming never existed and deciding if the person being harmed has a better life
-Even if you imagine the person just wasn’t present for the harm, it still doesn’t solve the problem of harm |
|
|
What problems does Kagan raise for justifying the idea that there is a morally important difference between doing harm and allowing harm?
|
-Kagan points out that focusing on doing harm is a red herring in that there are cases when one must do some harm to prevent more harm |
|
|
What rationale does Quinn give for viewing harmful direct agency as worse than harmful indirect agency?
|
-Direct Agency=where harm comes to victimsbecause of the agent’s deliberately involving the victims in order to furthersome purpose of the agent -Indirect Agency=where harm comes to victimsbut the agent doesn’t intend anything for the victims or where what is intendedisn’t something that harms them -Second, doing harm uses people as a means to an end |
|
|
According to Scheffler, in defending agent-centered restrictions, why can’t we make an appeal to the disvalue of violating the restriction? Why won’t a similar appeal help agent-centered prerogatives?
|
-Restriction=it is not always permissible to produce the best possible state of affairs -Prerogative=one is not always required to produce the best possible state of affairs -Agent-centered restrictions focus on not violating rights, but violating the rights of many over one is just as bad in fact worse -In relation to the 1 vs. 5 people on the train track scenario, if it’s bad for the 1 person, then it’s five times as bad for the 5 people-It’s an argument for consistency |
|
|
What does Scheffler think can motivate agent-centered prerogatives? Why won’t the motivation for agent-centered prerogatives also serve as a motivation for agent-centered restrictions?
|
-Desire for “me time”
-No one is an energizer bunny -Wanting prerogatives doesn’t give you reason to want restrictions -Prerogatives give more “freedom”” while restrictions limit it |
|
|
Darwall calls consequentialism an “agent-neutral theory of right”. What does this mean? Why isn’t deontology agent-neutral?
|
-Consequentialism is agent-neutral because it doesn’t concern individual actions, it is only concerned with the state of affairs
-Deontology cares about individual actions and is therefore agent-centered rather than agent-neutral |
|
|
According to Darwall, how does the Butler/Kant view of morality differ from the consequentialist view? Why are agent-centered restrictions justified on the Butler/Kant approach?
|
-Exercise of awareness, reflection, judgement, and action should be foundational
-In consequentialism these capacities are not foundational, it doesn’t care much about autonomy |
