Phil 150 Final Study Guide PDF

Preview

Summary

PHIL 150 with Tracy Lupher final exam study guide. ...

Description

Philosophy 150 Final Exam Study Guide Chapters 9, 10, 11, & 12 Chapter 9: Consequentialism: It’s Nature & Attractions Consequentialism: an action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results (is optimific) ● Actions are morally justified if they cause good ● Actions are criticized if they caused harm ● Example: death penalty- consequentialist outlook ○ To justify the action, it must improve our lives: in the future- (lessen crime, increase security, etc) ■ What are the benefits? What are the drawbacks? & Which policy would yield the best cost-benefit ratio? ■ Optimific: action that has more benefits than drawbacks is the morally right act ● Consequentialists: direct focus on future, not past ○ Focus on the consequences of our actions, results= most important The Nature of Consequentialism ● Figuring out if an action is optimific- 5 steps ○ 1. Identify what is intrinsically good ○ 2. Identify what is intrinsically bad (opposite of what is intrinsically good) ○ 3. Determine all available options ○ 4. For each action, determine the value of its results (how much good vs how much bad- this determines morality) ○ 5. Pick the action that yields the greatest net balance of intrinsically good over intrinsically bad→ optimific choice ● Ethical Egoism: a form of consequentialism that states that one's own self interest is intrinsically good & moral actions maximize this value ● Most prominent version of consequentialism is utilitarianism ○ Utilitarianism: Well-being is the only thing that is intrinsically good & poor well-being is the only thing that is intrinsically bad ○ The Principle of Utility: an action is morally required bc it does more to improve your well-being than any other action Maximizing Goodness ● John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianist ○ Requires us to create greatest good for the greatest number- utilitarianism ○ Produce great overall balance of happiness over misery- Mills ○ He declared that more people benefiting doesn’t always equal more good created ○ He emphasized the importance of a net balance of happiness & misery, not just overall total happiness ● Jeremy Bentham: Utilitarianist ● Both Bentham & Mills ○ Challenged conventional moral wisdom ○ Believed that social institutions privileged the rich/ powerful ○ Believed that each individual is capable of happiness & pain ○ Believed that institutions should advance the interests of many, not few

Moral Knowledge ● Rightness of an action depends on its results regardless of how long they occur & when they occur Actual vs. Expected Results ● Actual results: the outcome of action ○ results are in the future→ moral ignorance ○ Reliance on past experiences ○ Most utilitarians: believe in actual results ● Expected Results: acts being morally required bc they are reasonably expected to be optimific ○ Easier to gain moral knowledge ○ Problems: ■ Sometimes requires actions that end with bad results ■ Some actions that are expected to have bad results, end with good results Assessing Actions & Intentions ● Consequentialists: fundamental moral duty is to make the world the best place possible ● Utilitarians: fundamental moral duty is to contribute as much to the improvement of well being as possible ● Optimific action depends on the actual results, not expected ● Failure to maximize good results → wrong act (even w good intentions) ○ Good intentions → praised (irrelevant to actions morality) ○ Not choosing action w best results: wrong The Attractions of Utilitarianism 1. Impartiality- not biased, fair a. The welfare of each person is equally morally valuable b. Jeremy Bentham- abolitionist (for racial equality) c. John Stuart Mills- for female equality d. Peter Singer- for animal welfare 2. The ability to justify conventional moral wisdom a. Basic immoral actions: slavery, rape, killing innocent people- all immoral bc they do more harm than good b. Commends virtues (compassion, kindness)- results in more good than harm & condemns vices (greed, malice, ingratitude)- results in more harm than good c. Utilitarianism justifies our core moral beliefs!! 3. Conflict Resolution: a. A single simple method making difficult decisions: maximize well being b. Apply principle of utility to determine choice 4. Moral Flexibility a. No moral rule is absolute b. Explains why moral prohibitions (lying, stealing, etc) may sometimes by broken i. Should steal bread so your family can eat c. Any rule is morally okay to violate if it will improve overall well-being: act morally- maximizing utility (pleasure) through action & minimizing disutility (pain) The Scope of the Moral Community ● To be a member: to be important in your own right, to be owed a certain amount of

respect.- to have independent moral importance ○ Test on who can get in: Can they suffer? ■ Animals included ● Harming humans is not any worse than causing the same harm to a non-human animal ● Argument from Marginal Cases ○ 1. If it’s immoral to kill & eat “marginal” humans & painfully experiment on them, then it is immoral to treat non-human animals in the way ○ 2. It is (almost) always immoral to do this to marginal human beings ○ 3. Therefore, it is (almost) always immoral to do this to animals ○ Marginal: human beings who are not mentally developed Slippery Slope Arguments ● If you allow this one action, then you will also have to allow all these other unwanted things resulting in disaster ● Allows morally conservative- offers moral reasoning to preserve status quo ● 2 essential elements: ○ 1. Predicting that serious, avoidable harm will result in one action occurs ○ 2. Utilitarian requirement: choose action that minimizes harm & maximizes good Chapter 10: Consequentialism & It’s Difficulties 1. Measuring Well Being ● Utilitarianism’s Decision Procedure: how to determine if an action is moral or not ○ 1. Add up all the benefits it produces ○ 2. Add up all the harms it causes ○ 3. Determine the balance ○ 4. Determine if balance is greater than other options ● Moral Ignorance: cases where it’s impossible to follow all steps (not enough information, time, etc) ● Step 1: Adding up all benefits- well being must be quantitative ○ Possible response: depending on how you define well-being- could be % of desire fulfilled ■ Problem: how do you measure personal welfare: friendship or love or virtue? ○ Response: ■ Mill believed intellectual pleasure is better (quality over quantity) ● Lower pleasure: eating, drinking, sex ● Higher pleasure: pursuing knowledge, appreciating beauty, creating art ■ Bentham believed in maximizing pleasure regardless of it’s quality (quantity matters most) ● Problems of Value Measurement ○ Argument from Value Measurement ■ 1. Utilitarianism is true only if there is a unit of measurement ■ 2. There isn’t a unit of measurement- true premise ■ 3. Therefore, utilitarianism is false ○ Premise 1 argument ■ There are clear cases where some actions create more overall benefits than

others, even if you can’t measure them (adopting a child vs. playing cards) ■ There are clear cases where some actions create more overall harm than other (a couple fighting vs cholera outbreak) ■ When we cannot determine the most optimific act- it is bc it’s unclear how to find the balance b/w benefits & harms Preference Utilitarianism ● Preference Utilitarianism: The right action is the one that maximizes the degree to which people get their preferences satisfied ○ Preference Utilitarianism Decision Procedure for Moral Actions: ■ 1. Measure how intensely each person prefers one action over another action ■ 2. Add up everyone’s preferences for each action ■ 3. Action w the highest total is the moral action (bc it maximizes the satisfaction of preferences collectively) ● How can preferences be compared or quantified ○ 1. Use money to compare preferences ○ 2. Individuals vote ● The Fanatical Majority: if you have a moral objection to people’s preferences, your moral obligation does not allow you to ignore those preferences ● The Fanatical Majority Objection: a nonconformist minority may have to tolerate morally objectionable actions/ laws in a society where fanatics are the majority 2. Utilitarianism is Very Demanding Deliberation: ● Too much information & calculating skills that no one posses ● Mill’s Rejection ○ Rely on common wisdom based on known past actions to know what is going to be harmful/ beneficial ○ More effective to make decisions spontaneously & make time for more calculation in specific cases Motivation: ● Only a saint can meet the standards of utilitarianism ● Utilitarians say that constantly striving for one goal makes it elusive & having a single motive will backfire ● Distinguish between: ○ Decision Procedure: a method for reliably guiding our decisions ○ A standard of rightness: the conditions that make acts morally right ● Utilitarianism is a standard of rightness ○ Action is right bc it is optimific (principle of utility) Action: ● Utilitarianism forbids actions such as going on vacation bc the money could be used to do more good ● Requires more self-sacrifice w/ the more opportunity you have to offer it ● Supererogatory Action: actions that are morally praiseworthy for you to do, but not wrong for you not to do ○ Utilitarianism has to deny that these actions exist ● Utilitarianism says that morality can be very demanding

● This threatens the status quo & challenges comforts of the well-off: this marks the truth of utilitarianism, not falsity!!!! 3. Impartiality- Worries ● 1. Morality seems to recommend partiality (bias) ○ Caring about your kids more than some strangers (Utilitarians would reject this) ○ Utilitarians argue that there are some cases when to give preference ■ Not bc of partiality but bc it is the most beneficial thing to do in the situation ○ Broad View: being partial w family/ friends is usually optimific in the long run ● 2. Everyone’s well-being is equal, even if they are mean/ ignorant ○ Case of prejudice society when the optimific action is slavery → slavery is morally required according to Utilitarianism 4. No Intrinsic Wrongness (Or Rightness) ● Morality of an action depends on its results (not wrongness of action) ○ Supports Moral Flexibility ● Utilitarians reject any absolute ban on killing innocents, torture, stealing, etc ○ Implication: any action, no matter how bad, is permitted, as long as it is necessary to prevent an even worse outcome ● Choosing b/w collaborating w evil & refusing to do so- should chose to collaborate bc it minimizes harm ● Merit of action is entirely based off of its results (any act of kindness that fails to be optimific is immoral) 5. The Problem of Injustice ● PROBLEM: sometimes maximizing well-being can only be done by committing injustice ○ Injustice: to violate rights ● Vicarious Punishments: target innocent people to deter guilty (in the future) ○ Ex: stopping terrorists by abducting their relatives ○ Unjust acts (killing/ torturing innocents) is sometimes required by the Utilitarians bc it minimizes harm ● Exemplary Punishments: punishment that “makes an example” of someone to reform character of others ○ Saving more lives than it costs= right thing to do at the expense of the person's moral rights ● Both punishments: people do not deserve to be harmed ○ When someone deserves a punishment, but it isn’t optimific to give them what they deserve (raising a grade so a student can keep a scholarship) ■ Utilitarian response: we must minimize harm even if it means letting the guilty escape justice Potential Solutions to the Problem of Injustice ● Argument from Injustice: ○ 1. The correct moral theory will never require us to commit serious injustices ○ 2. Utilitarianism sometimes requires use to commit serious injustices ○ 3. Therefore, utilitarianism is not the correct moral theory ● Utilitarian Responses: ○ 1. Justice is also intrinsically valuable ○ 2. Injustice is never optimific

○ 3. Justice must sometimes be sacrifices ○ 4. Rule consequentialism 1. Justice is also intrinsically valuable ● Accepts the argument from injustice & makes a small change to the moral theory ● Amendment: Justice is also intrinsically valuable → moral duty is to maximize wellbeing & justice in the world ● Problem: creating one value could come at the expense of the other - no progress 2. Injustice is never optimific ● Denys premise 2: Utilitarianism sometimes requires us to commit serious injustices ○ If we consider all results of unfair actions, we will see those actions aren’t actually optimific ● Problem: response is too optimistic that things will always turn out fortunately ○ Some cases of injustice have substantial benefit & prevent great harm 3. Justice must sometimes be sacrificed ● When justice & wellbeing conflict: well-being should come first ● Denies premise 1: the correct moral theory will never require us to commit serious injustices- false ● This strategy conflicts with conventional wisdom- not necessarily a flaw ● Justice can be outweighed by other moral concerns & can be sacrificed only if doing so was optimific 4. Rule Consequentialism ● Rule Consequentialism: an action is morally right just bc it is required by an optimific social rule (a rule that meets the condition: if everyone in a society were to accept it, then the results would be optimific) ● Not determining an actions morality based on its results, but rather if it conforms to a moral rule ● Optimific Social Rule: steps ○ 1. Carefully describe the rule ○ 2. Imagine what a society would be like if everyone endorsed this rule ○ 3. Will society be better off w this rule than any other completing rule? ● Most popular version of rule consequentialism: optimific social rule will increase both happiness & justice (respect rights) ● Benefits of Optimific Social Rule/ Rule Consequentialism theory: ○ 1. Focus on what is optimific as general policy (long term) → advice that agrees w/ notions of justice ○ 2. Supports the belief that morality permits a certain degree of partiality ○ 3. Easier to know what to do: follow simple rules, not a calculation ○ 4. Says certain actions are simply forbidden, regardless of results ● Act Utilitarianism: do whatever if optimific ○ Rule consequentialists give different advice: required to act in a way that doesn’t yield best results ○ General rules will sometimes fail to achieve ultimate goal & it ignores exceptional cases ● FEW PHILOSOPHER ACCEPT THIS THEORY bc consequentialists know in advance their ultimate goal will not be fulfilled→ irrational

Conclusion: Consequentialism ● Strengths ○ Equality & impartiality ○ Moral flexibility ○ Inclusion of animals & less than fully autonomous humans within moral community ○ Orientation to the future ○ Emphasis on results ● Drawbacks ○ Sometimes partiality is needed ○ Promise of being able to offer concrete advice to solve moral conflicts may not be fulfilled ○ The degree of self-sacrifice is extreme ○ Occasional demand to perform awful acts to prevent worse ones ○ Sometimes demands us to commit injustices - no solutions offered are satisfying Chapter 11: The Kantian Perspective: Fairness & Justice ● Actions that have good results, but are wrong actions because they are unfair & unjust ● Immanuel Kant: opposition to Utilitarianism, derived morality from reason, deontological moral theory (duty based) ● Advantages of Kantian Ethics over Utilitarianism ○ Emphasis on intentions, not results ○ Bad actions that end with good results are immoral ○ Good actions that end with bad results are moral ○ Morality depends on what is in our control Consistency and Fairness ● Inconsistency: playing by one set of rules while insisting others obey a different set (the success of these actions depend on making an exception of yourself while everyone else follows the rules) ● Opposition to unfairness & inconsistency ○ Test of morality: (designed to point out inconsistency (immorality)) ■ 1. What if everyone did that? ■ 2. How would you like it if I did that to you? ○ Premise 1: problem- makes the morality of the action depend on how it is described ○ Premise 2: Golden rule: treat others how you would like to be treated. ProblemThe golden rule makes morality depend on a person’s desires which is an unreliable test of morality (example of the fanatic) ○ The golden rule fails to give us guidance on self-regarding actions: actions that only concern oneself (suicide) The Principle of Universalizability ● The Principle of Universalizability: an act is morally acceptable if, and only if, it’s maxim is universalizable ● Maxim: the principle of an action you give yourself when you’re about to do something ○ WHAT you’re about to do ○ WHY you’re about to do it

● Every action has a maxim (record of intention & underlying reason) ● Morality based on intentions & reasons for action rather than results- what is within our control ● Sorting good/ bad maxims- Universalizability Test ○ 1. Formulate maxim clearly- state what you intend to do & why ○ 2. Imagine a world where everyone supports & acts on your maxim ○ 3. Then ask: Can the GOAL of my action be achieved in such a world? ● If question 3’s answer is yes: action is morally acceptable (if everyone’s goal could be achieved in a world where everyone acted on the maxim) ● Ex: lying promise: promising something to benefit yourself w no intention of fulfilling your promise ○ Maxim is not universalizable→ immoral Morality and Rationality ● Acting on an action that can’t be universalizable= contradicting ourselves- irrational & inconsistent ● Amoralist: someone who believes in right & wrong but doesn’t care about morality (obedience to rules is optional) ● The Amoralists Challenge: ○ People have reasons to do something only if it will get them what they care about, and doing your moral duty sometimes doesn’t get people what they care about, and therefore it can be rational for people to violate their moral duty ● Kant believed that you act irrationally when you act contrary to your strongest reasons (moral reasons) ● Reason alone can inform us of moral law, the source of our moral duties & right actions have moral value if they are done w a “good will” (doing your duty for duty's sake) Moral Law & Imperatives ● Moral Law: a set of principles or rules stated in the form of imperatives (commands) ● Hypothetical Imperatives: tells us what to do in order to get what you want ○ Rational commands that apply to you bc of what you care about (when your desires change, rational requirements change) ● Categorical Imperatives: requirements of reason that apply to everyone regardless of their desires ○ Kant believed all moral duties are categorical imperatives ○ All categorical imperatives can be derived from the primary categorical imperative: act only on that maxim through which can at the same time will that it should become universal law ○ It is rational for everyone to act morally (even if moral conduct undermines personal goals) Assessing the Principle of Universalizability ● The principle fails the test for morality ○ It is possible to act on universalizable maxims & stil do wrong ○ Principle doesn't work in cases of extreme individuals (fanatics can be “consistent” ● False negatives: classifying an action as immoral that seems moral ● False positives: classifying an action as moral that seems immoral Integrity

● Utilitarians believe central moral virtue is benevolence (doing good for others) ● Kant believes that integrity is central moral value (living in harmony w the principles you believe in) ○ Demands you to follow your principles even when it costs ○ Requires you to resist making an exception of yourself (consistency) ● Integrity cannot be the only moral virtue & not the most important ○ Ex: the fanatic: if our principles are deeply flawed, we would rather these people have less integrity (Nazis) ○ Integrity is worthy of admiration when paired w morality (legitimate principles) ○ People of integrity can do wrong w morally wrong principles → integrity fails as a general test for the morality of our principles Kant on Absolute Moral Duties ● Kant never explicitly argued that some moral rules (lying, stealing) are absolute (never permissibly broken) ● Problem: moral duties cannot be absolute if they conflict w other moral duties ● Kant’s argument: a moral duty could only be absolute if it followed the principle of universalizability (every maxim would have to be tested)--> n...