Phil Exam 3

Front 1

Second-Order Desires

Back 1

As opposed to a first-order desire which is to desire something, a second-order desire is to desire a desire about something (like desiring to want to stop drinking.)

Front 2

Weather Vane Theory

Back 2

Analogy to construct a compatibilist theory of what it is for the will to be free
-Free weather vane responds to certain causal influences (if the wind is blowing north, the vane will point north); a stuck weather vane doesn't respond to the wind's direction because it is fixed in a certain direction (which is its causal explanation) = the difference isn't in whether the behavior is caused, but in what causes it

Front 3

Normative Ethics

Back 3

Assumption that there is a difference between right and wrong, and we ask which actions fall into one category and which into the other; the quest to find what the principles people should use to guide their actions are
-consequentialism, ethical egoism, utilitarianism

Front 4

Metaethics

Back 4

Idea of "aboutness"; considers general questions about the nature of morality and the meaning of moral concepts.
-Don't ask whether or not murder is wrong rather than right; ask instead if there is really a difference between right and wrong, or clarify what it means to classify an action as "wrong" or "right"
-ethical subjectivism, conventionalism, realism

Front 5

Ethical Subjectivism

Back 5

holds that ethical facts don't exist, only ethical opinions; ethical statements are neither true nor false

Front 6

Nihilism

Back 6

the belief that there is no universal truth or underlying reality that undergirds moral values; that ultimately existence is meaningless; religious and moral truths are entirely irrational

Front 7

Emotivism

Back 7

Theory about how ethical statements are used. Such statements are never true or false; rather they merely allow the speaker to express feelings and attitudes. Emotivism accepts ethical subjectivism

Front 8

Is/Ought Gap

Back 8

Hume:
-Can't deduce an ought-conclusion from exclusively is-premisses
e.g. Torturing babies for fun causes great suffering = therefore, torturing babies for fun is wrong
- if a deductively valid argument has an ethical conclusion, at least one of the premisses must be ethical in character as well
e.g. torturing babies for fun causes great suffering; causing great suffering is wrong = therefore, torturing babies for fun is wrong

Front 9

Ethical Conventionalism

Back 9

Thesis that ethical statements are made true by someone's say so. The divine command theory, ethical relativism, and a version of existentialism are conventionalist theories

Front 10

Divine Command Theory

Back 10

Theory that ethical statements are made true or false by God's decreeing how we should act

Front 11

Ethical Realism

Back 11

The thesis that some ethical statements are true, and are true independently of anyone's thinking or saying that they are

Front 12

Consequentialism

Back 12

A kind of ethical theory that holds that the ethical properties of an action (its rightness or wrongness, its justness or unjustness, etc.) can be determined by seeing what consequences the action would have if it were performed (utilitarianism is a consequentialist doctrine; kant's theory isn't)

Front 13

Utilitarianism

Back 13

Ethical theory that the action you should perform in a given situation is the one that would promote the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals

Front 14

Hedonistic Utilitarianism
vs.
Preference Utilitarianism

Back 14

-Equates goodness with the feeling of pleasure and the absence of the feeling of pain
-The good to be maximized is the satisfaction of preferences

Front 15

Dirty Hands Objection

Back 15

An individual contemplating a choice between an action that is clearly right and one that is clearly wrong: If the individual doesn't perform this bad action himself, someone else will
= Utilitarianism holds that if the consequences are the same regardless of whether or not you perform the action that it makes no difference morally speaking whether you do it or not

Front 16

Lonesome Stranger Objection

Back 16

-Sheriff should either frame an innocent stranger or let a riot and panic arise among the townspeople and let many people get injured; frame the stranger or not?
-utilitarianism considerations seem to conflict with considerations of justice
-hedonistic: way to maximize happiness of all is to frame the stranger
-preference: if people don't like innocent people being punished, then no; if they only care about their own safety then yes

Front 17

Fanatical Majority Objection

Back 17

With preference util. can't ignore people's preferences, whether we morally disapprove of them or not
-If any sort of behavior (homosexuality, atheists) antagonizes the fanatical majority, utilitarianist must dispose of that minority in keeping with the majority wishes

Front 18

Hypothetical Imperatives
vs.
Categorical Imperatives

Back 18

-Hyp = Hume: reason can show us which means to use, given the ends we have (I should stop smoking if I want to protect my health; reason can do more than this)
-Cat = Kant: Moral rules are categorical and not hypothetical in form: an act that is wrong, is wrong ("Don't do X", NOT "Don't do X if your goal is G"); these categorical imperatives are derived from reason just as surely as hypothetical imperatives are

Front 19

Maxim

Back 19

a subjective principle or rule that the will of an individual uses in making a decision