Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/67

Click to flip

67 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Metaethics
concerning whether or not we can know which normative ethical judgments are true / & how can we know

{the nature of ethical properties, attitudes, & judgments...'what is goodness?')

*what kinds of statements are moral claims*

1)moral objectivism
----(one theory must be true and the rest false)
2)moral subjectivism
----(true for some but not for all)
Normative Ethics
*concerned w/classifying things as right or wrong*
what things are good/bad,
right/wrong,
what things should/shouldn't be done

*how can we tell which actions are right / wrong*

1)Deontological Ethics
----[KANT]
2)Consequentionalism
----I}Utilitarianism [Mill]
3)Just Care
-----[Manning]
-----I}Ethical Egoism [Hobbes]
MORAL OBJECTIVISM

[part of Metaethics]
one judgment must be true and the rest false
(like judgments in science)

-such thing as "moral truth"

(it took a long time to recognize that slavery was wrong but we discovered it finally)

1)DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
MORAL SUBJECTIVISM

[part of Metaethics]
where we have one moral judgment v another neither has to be false
(like questions in taste)

-NO such thing as "moral truth"

-express attitudes rather than descriptions

-we create moral truths (according to personal perspectives)
-live & let live

1)EMOTIVISM
2)PRESCRIPTIVISM
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS

(part of Normative Ethics)
*KANT*

-duty based
-emphasis on motives
-would say Elma's moral duty is just to Tell the Truth!

*NOT concerned with consequences*

-the only thing unconditionally good by itself is GOOD WILL (which is properly alligned w/moral duty)
CONSEQUENTIONALISM

(part of Normative Ethics)
-BASED on CONSEQUENCES
(say you like food so don't hurt feelings)


--I--) UTILITARIANISM
*MILL*
-based on happiness
-the more happy people the better it is = right
-more unhappy = wrong
-save scientist w/ cancer cure over a loved one
JUST CARE

(part of Normative Ethics)
*MANNING*
-takes into consideration relationships that exist
(more obligation to loved ones than strangers)

--I--)ETHICAL EGOISM
*HOBBES*
-should always act out of self interest
--self interest leads to moral rules
EMOTIVISM

(type of Moral Subjectivism)
1/2
-moral claims similar to statements of TASTE
(no more meaning than "my fave color is blue")
-NO EVIDENCE available to settle the matter
-all about personal preference
PRESCRIPTIVISM

(type of Moral Subjectivism)
2/2
-beleiving a moral claim is true and trying to prescribe it to others
-distinguishes between:
----1)personal preference
----2)moral preference

-if you don't have a moral preference yet then adopt a moral pt of view (how would we affect others) THEN adopt moral preference
Subjectivism CRITICISM

***BY DAVIS***
"if you don't beleive in slavery don't have one"

Davis' argument sucks:
-we don't have evidence to settle moral issue
-life on mars we KNOW what KIND of evidence would settle debate
--science = objective, morals = subjective
ARGUMENT DOESN'T WORK BC:
-can't say what evidence would prove a difficult scientific question (diff ? makes science subjective)
-if we pick a difficult science ? and simple moral ? we can prove the opposite
(that science is subjective and morals are objective)
*criticizes subjectivism arguments, not subjectivism itself*
Subjectivism CRITICISM

(cont)
2) "the cultural difference argument"
-FAILS: beleifs don't make facts

3)"no evidence"
FAILS: claim goes too far

4)"Self Referentially Inconsistent"
[self contradictory]
FAILS: say no moral truth exists - must be tolerant
--->BUT that in itself is a moral objective truth
Assisted Suicide

by Davis
(active = killing)
(passive = letting die)

VOLUNTARY ACTIVE:
-Dr. Kavorkian

VOLUNTARY PASSIVE:
-"living wills"
-would rather be allowed to die

INVOLUNTARY ACTIVE:
-injecting poison into malformed infant

INVOLUNTARY PASSIVE:
-disconnecting life support from comotose patient w/living will
3 propositions in popular morals
[determining right/wrong]

deontological ethics BY KANT
1)for action to have moral worth must be done from duty not just inclination
-person inclined to do good & person inclined to do bad have no moral difference
--you must do good bc its your DUTY

2)the consequences do NOT matter
-they're often outside your control

3)for action to have moral worth it must be done out of respect for moral law
-*we can't have respect for a law we helped create*
-we can only have respect for laws that we DISCOVER
-the law we must respect we must act on the principle that you would want it to become a universal law
(davis calls "universibility maxim)
"universability maxim"

by davis
(maxim = principle / general rule)

personal motive of action

*if you can imagine everyone acting the same way and its the right thnig to do then its universal and morally acceptable*
Contrary to Kant?
Consequentialism

(right/wrong determined by consequences)

[MILL]
UTILITARIANISM
-MILL-
(type of Consequentialism)
*MILL*

-utility principle:
(we should act so as to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest #
{includes all sentient (conscious) beings}

-happiness NOT pleasure
--distinguish high qual pleasures from low qual pleasures [ask someone who's experienced both pleasures]

-mill doesn't talk about act v rule utilitarianism

-individual's happiness COULD be sacrificed for the majority good
ACT UTILITARIANISM

from lecture (not mill)
-can tell a lie (situational)

-apply utility calculus to every act we perform
(then we're assured in promoting the greatest happiness)
RULE UTILITARIANISM

from lecture (not mill)
-apply utility calculus to general types of actions
(most of the time the greater happiness is if you never tell a lie)

-criticizes act utilitarianism bc if we all do calculus individually it could lead to too much variance --> Unreliable

--tries to build exceptions into rules (do not tell a lie unless it will save someone's life)
UTILITY CALCULUS
when you apply it differs between act utilitarianism & rule utilitariansim

-what will promote greatest happiness for greatest #
slippery - slope fallacy
assuming (w/o specific evidence) that any move in a certain direction will lead to a terrible extreme
Kant?
Deontological Ethics

[part of normative ethics]
Mill?
Utilitarianism

(sector of consequentialism)
[part of normative ethics]
Manning?
Just Care

[part of normative ethics]
Hobbes?
Ethical Egoism

[part of...?]
"moral worth is determined by MOTIVES, not consequences"

WHO?
KANT

(deontological ethics)
"the proper motive is to do one's duty"

WHO?
KANT

(deontological ethics)
what is one's duty according to kant?
act out of respect of the law,

follow the "categorical imperative"
what is kant's "categorical imperitive"
our action should be universifiable

-we must act in which it would be acceptable for everyone to act

-if action isn't universifiable its immoral
what ultimately determines the morality of an action

ACCORDING TO KANT
the "categorical imperative"
"utility"

definition
the greatest good for the greatest number
"good"

according to MILL
means happiness

Happiness means Pleasure with the absence of pain
the greatest number

according to MILL
all sentient beings

(all beings capable of feeling pleasure and pain)
"the moral thing to do is the action that causes the greatest sum of total pleasure for all sentient beings involved"

Who?
MILL

(utilitarianism)

---[part of consequentialism]
Manning's two components of
"ETHIC OF CARING"
1)disposition to care
(willingless to care)

2)obligation to care for
(put caring into ACTION)


**1, a caring disposition, arises when
-some have needs they can't meet themselves
-relationships & applying relationships to strangers
who should you care for according to manning
all entities that can't meet a need w/o help

(humans, animals, values, institutions)
what is "just caring" according to manning?
since range of caring is limited we must expand our caring by considering justice, rules, & rights
"caring burnout"

according to manning
decreases ability to care in the future

prevented by limitations on the obligation to care
WHEN to care

according to manning
-calculus is unreasonable

-natural caring (caring one's inclined to do--tied to affection for others)
-ethical caring (absence of natural caring
-apply experiences with intimate others for general rules (only way to guide actions toward strangers)
Obligatinos to respond as a "carer"

according to manning
1)THE NEED
(we have power to prevent bad from happening might as well do it)

2)RECOGNIZE RELATIONSHIPS REQUIRE CARING
(unless we want to do away w/relationships we must care)

3)WE CAN'T DEVELOPE & SUSTAIN ABILITY TO CARE W/O ACTIVE CARING
which we should strive for bc lives devoid of caring would be terrible
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

(part of moral objectivism
which is sub of metaethics)
we can know which actions are right/wrong because GOD has told us
[ten commandments & such]

-challenged by Euthyphra's Dillemma
"Euthyphra's Dillemma"
-challenges Divine Command Theory

-Euthyphro= priest talking to Socrates
-Euthyphro--bringing murder charges against father

1)is something good because god commands it?
2)OR does god command something because it is good?

FAILS FOR DIVINE COMMAND THEORY:
1)FAILS: then morality is subjective
2)FAILS: allows for goodness to exist independently of god
(most theists wouldn't accept bc good things should flow directly from god)
"WILL IS SUSPENDED"

by KANT
our will is suspended between our inclinations & our moral duties

-we must place a command upon our will to follow our inclination or our moral duty

2 commands:
1)CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
[moral weight]
2)HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE
[no moral consequences]
Categorical Imperative

(according to Kant)
the command placed upon will to follow MORAL DUTY


************************
-A PRIORI-
-BASED ON REASON-
-OBJECTIVE-
-MORAL DUTIES-
Hypothetical Imperative
command that occurs in
1) non-moral situations or
2) in situations in which we're trying to bring about a consequence

*lucky charms or fruit loops?*



***************************
-A POSTERIORI-
-BASED ON EXPERIENCE
-SUBJECTIVE-
-INCLINATIONS-
Categorical Imperative

2 VERSIONS
1) universability principle

2)Practical Imperative
(ends/means principle)
-ends held valuable in themselves
-means = steps to promote that end
"Practical Imperative"

(2nd Version of Categorical Imperative)
all moral reasoning is practical reasoning

-we should view everyone always as an END, not as a means
-->Everyone is valuable in themselves
--->not dependent on usefullness of someone else

(end: goal/purpose/thing held VALUABLE
means: steps taken/ tools used to acheive or promote the END goal.)
Manning's 3 limits on caring
1)need may only be helped by certain individual (eg baby & mother)

2)need professional help

3)we are also legitimate objects of care... can't only care about others
"no evidence to settle moral disagreements"
"slavery is wrong for our culture but was morally correct prior to civil war"

WHAT?
moral subjectivism
"live and let live"

WHAT?
moral subjectivism
Omegans are?
PRESCRIPTIVISTS


moral subjectivists

[form moral pt of view but only include other omegans]
"many actions are morally neutral"

WHO?
KANT
"through reason alone we can come to understand what our moral duties are"

WHO?
KANT
"moral obligations can't depend on our environment"

WHO?
KANT
when applying the categorical imperative...

(according to KANT)
GOOD WILL --leads to--> MORALS
"the only thing valuable in and of itself is pleasure and no pain"

WHO?
MILL
the only thing measurable in and of it self is ____

KANT v MILL
MILL:
pleasure & no pain is the only thing valuable in itself

KANT:
good will is the only thing valuable in itself
assisted suicide is

____ issue
a NORMATIVE issue
Prescriptivism
adopt a moral point of view when downplay personal interests
-when it affects others positively then its morally permissable

2nd Subjectivist View
[we might adopt moral points of view differently]

*OMEGANS*
challenging divine command theorists

IS SOMETHING GOOD BECAUSE GOD COMMANDS IT

in euthyphro's dilemma
then morals are subjective of god
challenging divine command theorists

DOES GOD COMMAND SOMETHING BECAUSE ITS GOOD

in euthyphro's dilemma
allows for goodness itself to be objective

fails because standards of goodness are independent of god
"we create morality for ourselves... its situational"

WHAT?
moral subjectivism
HOBBES compared to MANNING
respective / mutual of eachother (reciprocal)

HOBBES:
pursuit of self interest

MANNING:
concern for others
(essentially comes down to self interest)
Criticisms of Rule Utilitarianism?
when you build in too many exceptions to the rule you might as well be an act utilitarian in the first place
ETHICAL EGOISM
*HOBBES*

what is in one's self interest is incidentally beneficial to others (or sometimes neutral)

-humans don't do anything thats not out of self interest

-state of nature (war): humans have right and privilage to do anything in their self interest

-SOCIAL CONTRACTS- "i wont steal from you if you don't steal from me"
----still out of self interest
"happiness is the desirable end"

WHO?
MILL

UTILITARIANISM

(and thus happiness is a criteria of morality)
"The greatest happiness is existence exempt as far as possible from pain and as rich as possible in pleasure"

WHO?
MILL
Typically says

"utility is determined wholly on basis of the individual action"

WHO?
MILL

and thus is an ACT utilitarian... individual- not general rule