Philosophy, Explaining Some Moral Theories

Front 1

Ethical Relativism

Back 1

claims that morality varies from culture to culture and that the morality of one culture cannot be better than the morality of another-- meaning , that even when the morality of two cultures are in direct conflict, (one saying that doing such and such act is good, the other saying doing the very same act is bad), both moral positions are equally right. They are equally right because there is no way of justifying any morality outside of the culture where it arises and is practiced(ethical relativism is often referred to as Cultural Relativism, which, strictly speaking, claims that morality varies from culture to culture, as a sociological observation, and that different cultures, therefore, have different criteria for evaluating what is morally right or wrong.)

Hint 1

and that different cultures, therefore, have different criteria for evaluating what is morally right or wrong.)

Front 2

Ethical Universalism/Ethical Absolutism

Back 2

claims that there is one morality for everyone; that is, that morality does not vary from culture to culture. Therefore, all moralities are not equal--some are better than others, as there is one universal standard for evaluating what is morally right or wrong for any given situation.

Hint 2

one universal standard

Front 3

divine command theory

Back 3

claims an action is right if and only if god commands/approves of it. (if we're not sure, we wait for god to tell us.)
Question's
a) Whose God are we to listen to in a multireligious community?
b) How can we be sure those who claim to be speaking for God are actually speaking for God?

Hint 3

claims an action is right if and only if

Front 4

Natural Law Theory

Back 4

disagrees with Divine Command Theory. it maintains that God commands an action because the action is moral in the first place, meaning that the action is moral independent of whether God commands it or not. NATURAL LAW THEORY CLAIMS THAT AN ACTION DERIVES ITS MORALITY FROM REASON (To find the right thing to do, use reason)

Hint 4

NATURAL LAW THEORY CLAIMS THAT AN ACTION DERIVES ITS MORALITY FROM REASON

Front 5

Utilitarianism founder jeremy bentham

Back 5

claims "an action is right in proportion as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it tends to promote pain, that is, the reverse of happiness." Therefore, in any given situation, the right action to puruse is the action that provides the most happiness to the greatest number of people - in short, the moral action is always the option that provides "THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER"

Hint 5

"THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER"

Front 6

Principle of utility.

Back 6

The principle of utility approves or disapproves of a thing according to the thing's tendency to increase or decrease the happiness of hte party whose interest is being considered. if the thing increases happiness or diminishes pain. it is approved of; if it diminishes happiness or increases pain, it is disapproved of.

Hint 6

The principle of utility approves or disapproves of a thing according to

Front 7

Psychological Egoism

Back 7

claims that WE ACT FOR OUR OWN SELF ADVANTAGE. in other words, no matter how selfless an action may seem - no matter how altruistic - in the end there is always some selfish motivation that caused us to take the action. Therefore, the psychological egoist believes we CANNOT be selfless

Hint 7

WE ACT FOR OUR OWN SELF ADVANTAGE.

Front 8

Ethical Egoism

Back 8

claims that the moral action in any given situation is that which is in our own self-interest. Unlike the psychological egoist, the ethical egoist does not deny that we are capable of actin in the interest of others out of concern for them. However, the ethical egoist is claiming that PUTTING OUR SELF-INTEREST FIRST IS ALWAYS THE RIGHT MORAL ACTION IN ANY SITUATION.

Hint 8

Putting our self-interest first is always the right moral action in any situation.

Front 9

Deontology

Back 9

claims that what makes action right or wrong is whether that action is done out of duty or not. For any situation, the action that duty commands is the right action. In short, Deontology IS THE ETHICS OF DUTY.

Hint 9

The ethics of duty

Front 10

According to Immanuel Kant

Back 10

this means that the test of whether an action is morally right or wrong does not involve our feelings of desires - it is not relevant that the action is one we would like to take or not.It is okay, however, to like what is right, only that, that feeling must not be the motivation for the action. No matter how praiseworthy an action might be, if its motivation is soley that we enjoy/desire it, it is not a moral action. However, that same action would be moral if the agent would have carried it out anyways had the action been stripped of all possibilities of providing the agetn with any benefits - psychological or otherwise. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ULTIMATE MOTIVATION FOR A MORAL ACTION MUST BE RESPECT FOR DUTY. If respect for duty alone has not been enough to motivate the action, then it may be a great action, a most laudable action, BUT not a moral action

Hint 10

a moral action must be respect for duty

Front 11

Immanuel Kant (A)

Back 11

Reason is required because it alone can tell us what our duty is in any given situation - that reason alone can tell us what act we OUGHT to choose

Hint 11

Reason is required....

Front 12

Immanuel Kant (B) Autonomy,

Back 12

Autonomy, freedom to think and choose for ourselves, is required because acting morally requires choosing a course of action out of duty. if that choice is made for a person, then that person is not acting morally, even when the action is the right one - to act morally always requires that the act be motivated by duty, and for the act to be motivated by duty requires that the agent choose the act, and choosing requires autonomy.

Hint 12

Autonomy, freedom to think and choose for ourselves, is required because acting morally requires choosing a course of action out of duty.

Front 13

Categorical Imperative (deals with morality)

Back 13

According to Kant, morality does not vary from place to place, culture to culture - reason is the same everywhere. All a person or any rational being has to do is ask: If the act I have decided on were to become a universal law, would the application of the law work out in a consistent manner of would it cause chaos? If the act would work out as a universal law - one that everyone in a similar situation must carry out - then the act is a moral act.every moral action you take implies, in effect, that you are legislating that the action be one that anyone else in a similar situation must take, wherever they may be.

Hint 13

All a person or any rational being has to do is ask: If the act I have decided on were to become a universal law, would the application of the law work out in a consistent manner of would it cause chaos?

Front 14

Hypothetical Imperative (does not deal with morality)

Back 14

A Hypothetical Imperative is the exact opposite of the Categorical Imperative - it requires matching means with ends. For this command, it matters how a person feels about the contemplated action. Hence the command is hypothetical, meaning that what it commands varies with the consequences desired. THE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE GOVERNS JUST PRACTICAL ACTIONS OF DAY-TO-DAY LIFE.

Hint 14

THE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE GOVERNS JUST PRACTICAL ACTIONS OF DAY-TO-DAY LIFE.

Front 15

Hume and Kant

Back 15

a) Hume believed MORALITY IS BASED ON SENTIMENT; Kant believed MORALITY IS BASED ON REASON.
b)Therefore, hume believed morality is relative(varies from place to place, even from person to person); Kant believed morality is absolute(universal), that is cannot be relative because morality is a rational choice and what is rational in a given situation would be rational in that same situation in any other culture of rational beings.
c)Hume believed consequences should influence your moral choices/decisios; kant believed consequences should not be considered when making moral chioces/decisions

Hint 15

a) Hume believed MORALITY IS BASED ON SENTIMENT; Kant believed MORALITY IS BASED ON REASON.

Front 16

According to Hume (and kant) (D) Pain argument

Back 16

According to Hume, reason can only present you with the facts of moral dilemma of either having one of your fingers pricked with a needle or having half of Austin nuked. Hume believed reason cannot help you make that decision only your sentiment can (feeling that have been developed in you for your fellow humans, for ecertain preferences in tase, etc.) Hume's argument is that if you do not like pain, there is nothing irrational about choosing not to have your finger pricked and letting half of the city perish. Clearly, kant's moral philosophy does not accept this argument, a person with the same dilemma can only ask what choice would be a universal law, choosing not to have one's finger pricked cannot work out as a universal law, as there would be no societies left for hte law to apply. the moral choice, therefore, would be to have one's finger pricked - and this choice would not have been based on sentiment or consideration of consequences

Hint 16

Hume's argument is that if you do not like pain, there is nothing irrational about choosing not to have your finger pricked

Front 17

W. D. Ross

Back 17

is one of the philosophers who argued that CONSEQUENCES MATTER WHEN APPLYING DUTIES and that duties may therefore, on occasoin be ranked.
a)beneficence: the duty to do good acts and to promote happiness
b)Nonmaleficence
c)fidelity- duties arising form past commitments and promises
d) Reparation - duties that stem from past harms to other
e) Gratitude: duties based on past favors and unearned services

Front 18

W.D. Ross on going duties

Back 18

f) self-improvement - the duty to improve our knowledge and virtue
g) justice - the duty to give each person equal consideration. [there are 2 kinds of justices:
Retributive justice - requires that wrongdoing be punished according to the gravity of the crime
Distributive justice - requires that the benefits and burdens of society be fairly distrubuted. for this distrubtion to be fair, equals would have to be treated equally, and where differences in ability and contribution must influence distribution, the differences in distribution must be proportional.

Front 19

John Rawls

Back 19

BELIEVED THAT JUSTICE, HOWEVER, REQUIRES MORE THAN IMPARTIALITY. People have different needs and endowments. Everyone is not born into comparable circumstances; neither is everyone equally endowed naturally. Therefore, people's needs and merits have to be considered in a just society.Therefore, Rawls proposed basing justice upon a social contract that is unbiased because the root causes of justice has been removed. Rawls device for achieving this is a VEIL OF IGNORANCE

Hint 19

BELIEVED THAT JUSTICE, HOWEVER, REQUIRES MORE THAN IMPARTIALITY

VEIL OF IGNORANCE

Front 20

Veil of ignorance

Back 20

a veil of ignorance. in this ignorance, where no one knows what advantages or disadvantages he or she will receive in this life (unknown before they are born what sex race etc) we set out rationally to create a just society following 2 principles of justice:
1) "Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others"
2)"Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that both are
a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage
b) attached to positions and offices open to all

Hint 20

where no one knows what advantages or disadvantages

Front 21

Moral rights

Back 21

Moral rights are not the same as legal rights. Legal rights are entitlements due to binding enactment/declaration by a government.
moral rights on the other hand are either 1) natural and existing independently or 2) derived from duties

Front 22

Moral rights are usually divided into Liberty rights and welfare rights

Back 22

WELFARE RIGHTS FOCUS ON PROVIDING US WITH THE CONDITIONS ESSENTIAL FOR A DECENT STANDARD OF LIVING. (police protection, medical care, educatoin etc)
LIBERTY RIGHTS PLACE LESS EMPHASIS ON THE WELFARE RIGHTS OF THE GROUP AS A WHOLE instead, they emphasize the right of the individual to be left alone to pursue their legitimate aspirations without interference from the gov or other people (freedom of speech, privacy etc)

Front 23

Rationality

Back 23

1) Rational beings alone subject their will to the conception of the law
2)Goodwill (the only thing that is good in itself not in its usefulness)
a) what makes the good in goodwill good? the intent of an action
b)we see ourselves not as a means but ends = subjective