Philosophy 1020 (Second Sem Final Exam review) Flashcards
Weeks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11
What is “the right” and it’s 3 categories to determine the right?
- What we may do and we may refrain from doing
- What we expect from others to do or what is expected of each other.
=> Within the right there are 3 categories, obligatory actions, permissible actions and actions that are impermissible.
- The obligatory actions: the actions that are obligatory if you are under the duty of or to refrain from doing such action. This is based on the morality theory.
- The permissible actions: the actions that you can do that are permitted to do so however you are not required to do them.
- The impermissible actions: the actions you are to not do or refrain from doing since they are not permitted to do so. you should refrain from doing it since if you are under the duty of morality, you should refrain from performing these actions.
- A complete moral theory will provide the ways to distinguish for all the 3 categories.
What is “the Good”?
- These are actions that bring meaning in determining the value of an action.
- It is the sense which argues the valuable moral actions.
- Questions within the good concerns :
=> What makes life worth living, what is a morally well-led life?
=> What is worth pursuing in life?
=> What a well-lived life looks like is the question of the Good. - Depending on the priority given to both of the approaches to moral theories is the way Moral theories are acted upon and shaped. The approaches are a way to sort through moral theories.
What are the differences in the approaches of “Good to the right” or “the right to the Good”?
- the difference between the good and the right is that:
=> With the good, you pursue good with the aid of the right, so that the right becomes a tool to give meaning to the good and helps its value. (such as Aristotle Pers. on the private property.
- the right support the good in here ^^^.
- defending the concept of the right while being good to begin with.
=> On the other hand the right is the space in which we pursue the concept of the good as we are given that as a form of right. (such as Mill’s freedom of speech)
=> Mill this idea suggests that the good is subjective since everyone can judge the good for themselves, however by granting them the right to make choices themselves we provide a society for people to anticipate that something is Good.
What does Immanuel Kant say about the “duty of” morality?
- Kant suggests that to act from duty to act as you do not because of personal interest or immediate pleasure but for the sole reason that morality requires it.
- True moral actions are those undertaken solely because they are right, rather than its ability to fulfill personal desires.
- He suggests that even if you do something out of your inclinations or self-interest, it is not morally wrong however it is not morally praiseworthy.
- Kant divides these into 2 categories of actions that are performed of duty and “ of duty”:
- The first is that actions are taken for the sole purpose of duty: for example: being honest even though you know it will not benefit you.
- The second example is doing something that is because you fear that you might be found out or because it might benefit you then it is not morally valuable even though what you are doing is not bad.
What is Kant’s take on the motives that led people to do the right thing?
- Kant suggests that people should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do regardless of their inclination or self-interest. According to him, this is the most valuable act of morality.
- For a motive to be considered as moral, it must lead the agent to care about whether their actions are morally right.
- an action has moral worth when an agent does the right thing because of their genuine interest in doing what’s right, not just for the external factors or feelings.
What are some critiques of Kant’s perspectives?
- Hume on natural Virtues: 2 types of virtues, artificial (those that are performed taken to an eye because morality requires them) and Natural virtues ( those that are natural to do like loving your kids, natural inclination, if you didn’t love your child then there would be a problem with you because there needs to be a distinction).
- Williams on the thought too many: faced in a circumstance that you need to save 1 of 2 people, it is okay to save your friend, morality permits that. You will be completed and will have to consult morality before you save your friend.
=> Unreal to think not consistent with our moral lives, the agent should consult morality in this way.
What are the differences between motives, according to Kant?
- Kant says there are 2 types of actions:
- those performed in conformity with duty. (telling the truth because morality requires it.
- those performed (also) “from duty”. (for whatever reason it may be.
(telling the truth because you are afraid to be caught and lose their respect. or might tell the truth to impress somebody, or because I believe morality requires me to do so.
=> 2 ways to think of actions performed “from Duty”
- as those actions performed by the agent because morality required it.
(I have performed this action from duty because I think morality requires it)
- As those actions performed by an agent for whom morality would have been a sufficient motive, whatever their motive their actions have. (telling the truth because it makes you happy but you are doing it because of a broader sense of duty )
- Kant sees morality as an action and results like a machine.
- Merely in conformity with duty, Kant distinguishes his examples by this principle:
=> actions performed from interest but no immediate inclination eg. shopkeeper. he doesn’t say it is immoral, it is just not praiseworthy. this motive is not the moral motive.
=> actions performed from immediate inclination. e.g. the soul “ attuned to compassion”. I can’t help but feel the pain of other people and want to help them. lack the moral worth. Enjoying the actions is not worthy of a moral motive. he compares this to the motive with honour, he says this sort of action is praiseworthy but not high esteem.
if you don’t act based on morality you are not quite there yet. Miss leading.
morla motive is the only one that is reliable, we are more likely to act the way morality requires.
not worthy of esteem.
What is Utilitarianism?
is the view that morality directs people to actions that bring the best outcome for the greatest amounts of people.
Jeremy Bentham and the Principles of Morals and Legislation :)
(standard for both morality and the government)
- The principle of utility: the principle that approves or disapproves of every action, according to its tendency to inflict sadness on the party of people whose interests are in question.
- This theory Defines the right in terms of the good. answers the questions of the right.
- Clar: The actions taken might be taken by individuals (their application of morality) or in every measure of government (the actions the government might take).
- Clar 2: The party that is in question, meaning either the community happiness or if the question concerns individuals then it is the happiness of the individuals.
- does not address, what to do when the interest of the individual clashes with the interest of the community.
- This principle, is more based on the interest of the community.
=> being a member of a community, then the interest of the community is the sum of the interests of the several members who compose it. ( when in a community, individual interest is replaced with community interests)
=> An action is within conformation with the principle of utility when the tendency to increase the happiness of the community is greater than the tendency of the community to be sad. - He probably based his view on the community because things that impact the community impact people at large in general.
Contradiction to this principle Eg:
- Assume there is a policy that is being made and there are 2 options. Option A is that there will be a policy that will make some people happy while some people mildly happy but there is overall happiness, this adds up to 10. In Option B, however, some people are extremely happy while some are extremely sad with the option, however, the interest of all adds up to 12. So are we to choose the one with the higher number of interests for it sacrifices some individual’s happiness for some form of overall happiness? thus the principle allow such sacrifice in the face of utility and the community in question?
How many lives or how many persons are interested?
- Bentham suggests that community is fictitious and thus it can be reducible to its members, to the people who make it up. Thus, he suggests that the interests are a sum of those individuals who compose it.
=> total of 10, everyone is happy to a degree and the option to is a total of 12; most are happy but there is one that is unhappy. - utility would want you to choose the second option.
- When it comes to lives they are reduced to being things when it comes to experience.
- it wouldn’t matter if a person suffered once for one person or suffered once for many, if there is no meaning behind the suffering, no value then it does not matter how many people are to suffer if you expect to do something.
- Thus Taurek’s perspective challenges the individual’s autonomy and rights when it comes to sacrificing a few for the majority’s happiness.
- He suggests that when maximizing the happiness of all people it is important to consider other individuals’ perspectives on the matter as well, instead of just sacrificing people.
Sentimentalism v. Consequentialism:
- Sentimentalism: it is a view that argues that everyone has a sense of moral, moral perception, we perceive the goodness and the wrongness of a circumstance. bentham said this is wrong and bad: morally and politically bad, because it is dangerous.
Bentham says: it is a view that we can tell without reflecting on the consequences of the actions.
- Despotical: what you judge as right or wrong is what is to be addressed as right or wrong. a dictator.
- Anarchical: it’s up to everyone to judge whether something is right or wrong then there is no common standard for it.
Defence for utilitarianism:
- Utilitarianism is public, while the others are more like private matters.
- Moral problems can become public and are open to discussion on change.
Consequentialism: moral theory is consequentialist if it measures the permissibility and impermissibility of its goodness or badness with its consequence that will bring upon something good or bad.
(morality of an action should must be judged solely by its consequence)
J.S. Mill on Utilitarianism: 3 clarifications and oppositons:
Elaboration and defence:
1) Requires me to not give special concern to my happiness, disinterested spectator, from a third perspective.
- laws and social arrangements be arranged in a way that does not conflict with my interest and those in the community.
- Education and opinion should be encouraged to identify their happiness with others in harmony.
Critics to this point:
- Asking people to always act from the inducement of promoting the general interest of society is too demanding of a requirement.
- mill answers this criticism with: he suggests that people mix the standard of morals and the motive behind their actions.
- He then elaborates by saying that by maximizing the overall happiness or pleasure and minimizing pain for the greatest amount of people.
- The motive of an action is the underlying reason for someone to choose to act a certain way.
- mill argues that Utilitarianism is not concerned with what may be behind a motive of action but is rather providing the standard against which actions can be evaluated morally.
- Utilitarianism according to Mill is evaluating actions based on their outcomes, not about dictating the personal motives or intentions of individuals.
- Utilitarianism tells you to be expedient and serves interest rather than what morality requires.
=> Mill says that if the expedient in question is opposed to the right means that it is the expedient that is the particular interest of the agent himself.
- Mill’s account of utilitarianism directs us to consider the happiness of all concerned
- Mill’s account utilitarianism directs us to consider which rules promote the happiness of all concerned.
Kant’s Ethics:
- A person’s motive in doing what they do affects the moral quality of their action. (motive and morality)
- Kant does not agree with what Mill has to say about morality as morality to Mill does not require a motive, while to Knat that is untrue.
- The categorical imperative: the moral law,
=> Only actions that are performed” from duty” have moral worth.
=> The moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect that is expected of it.
=> Nothing other than the representation of the law in itself, can therefore constitute the pre-eminent good that we call moral. - acting in conformity with the law and acting lawfully provides us with a guide to our actions. lawfulness carries with itself the universality, which it applies to everybody.
- this is called the categorical imperative.
- Kant with the categorical imperative aims to form a groundwork for moral reasoning and decision making.
- When considering if an action is morally right or wrong, we should ask ourselves if the action is what we would want others to follow as well. if we think that the action is a will that everyone should act according to then Kant says that it is morally permissible.
- Rational principles behind their actions rather than their desires or interests.
- By applying the categorical imperative, Kant aims to provide a rational basis for determining moral duties and obligations that apply universally to all rational beings.
- The categorical imperative is an unconditional moral obligation that is being everything in all circumstances and is not derived by a person’s inclinations or purpose.
Kant’s ethics: Two formulations of the categorical imperative:
- Categorical imperative and the 2 formulations:
- His analysis of imperatives rather than morality.
- There are 2 types of imperatives: Hypothetical V categorical Imperative
- conditional V unconditional imperatives.
- When you think about the Hypothetical imperative you do not know what it contains until you are given a condition to do so. in contrast to;
- in a categorical imperative you know at once what it contains.
-Kant form derives the formula of the universal law, he suggests acting only according to the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. (FUL) - (what is meant is you may only act on the rule you give yourself on a principle on which you act or that is revealed as something you adopt through your actions. you can only act on that maxim which you can at the same time that is adopted by everybody.
- False promise: someone makes a false or lying promise in the circumstance that envisions acts on maxim. (“When I believe to need money I shall borrow money and promise to repay it even though I know it will never happen”)
- from the idea that rational beings are means to their ends and that they are valued, Kant comes up with another formula which is the formula of Humanity as an end-in-itself) (FHE)
- the humanity of persons, it is the quality that is within the person.
- Having humanity means acting for reasons, with goals and decision-making about what you want to do.
- you need to respect the fact that this being which is possessed with humanity is an end in itself and has value independently, as well as the value given upon them by others.
- there are moral duties not to only you but to yourself as well.
- the false promise again: the person you want to deceive is not consenting to the way of this sort of action thus making them. mere instrument to your purpose, they would not agree to be treated that way.
- You use their humanity to compel them to give you a gift or a loan, thus by doing so you prevent them from choosing themselves, maybe if you gave them the choice they would be willing to give you a loan without any expectations back. (manipulation)
- Kant bases his arguments in protecting the human beings while hume and mill bases his arguments on maximizing utility.
What are the differences between the categorical imperative and the hypothetical imperative?
- A hypothetical imperative is a moral principle that applies only if certain conditions or goals are present.
- a categorical imperative, as formulated by Kant, is a moral principle that applies universally, regardless of personal desires or circumstances. It would involve actions being done solely because they are morally right, regardless of any personal goals or desires.
