Exam 2

Question 1

What is “utilitarianism”

Answer 1

Utilitarianism: moral theory advocates for actions that promote the greatest happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people. It is a form of consequentialism, meaning that it evaluates the morality of an action based on its outcomes or consequences, rather than any intrinsic qualities of the action itself. The core principle of utilitarianism is often summed up as: “The greatest good for the greatest number.”

Question 2

Act Utilitarianism

Answer 2

says, “Look at each action, and choose the one that will lead to the most happiness right now.”
- judge value on how individuals are affected
- right action makes more people happy
- Impossible to consider everyone
- Specific to situations
can sometimes justify things that feel wrong, like lying or hurting someone, just because it might bring more happiness in that specific situation.

Question 3

Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 3

says, “Follow rules that, in general, bring the most happiness when everyone follows them.”
- judge action in terms of laws
- action is morally right if conforms to laws (because they lead to happiness)
- easier to deal with abstract rules
- can be generalized

Question 4

What is the problem with the former that the latter is designed to overcome? (The problem with act utilitarianism that rule utilitarianism is designed to overcome lies in the potential for morally questionable actions to be justified in individual cases by act utilitarianism.)

Answer 4

The problem with act utilitarianism is that it might let you do bad things, like lying or hurting someone, if it helps a lot of people in that one situation.

Rule utilitarianism solves this by saying we should follow rules that generally lead to the best outcomes for everyone, so we don’t justify bad actions just because they help in one case.

Question 5

Problem with Act:

Answer 5

Act utilitarianism evaluates each individual action based on its consequences. The key issue is that this approach can justify morally questionable actions if they result in the greatest overall happiness. In other words, It looks only at the outcome of each individual action, without considering what would happen if everyone started doing those same actions regularly. This could lead to harmful long-term effects, even if the immediate result seems good.

Question 6

Examples of problems in Act Ult

Answer 6

1. Violation of Individual Rights: Act utilitarianism could allow hurting one person if it makes most people happy. For example, it might say lying is okay if it helps in the moment, even though lying can harm trust in the long run.
2. Unpredictability and Inconsistency: Since act utilitarianism looks at each action on its own, people have to figure out what’s best in every situation. This can be hard to do and might lead to unpredictable or inconsistent decisions.
3. Moral Intuition Conflicts: Sometimes, act utilitarianism goes against our gut feelings about what’s fair or right. For instance, it might say it’s okay to hurt one innocent person if it helps more people, even though most of us would say that’s wrong.

Question 7

Rule Utilitarianism’s Response to act problems

Answer 7

Rule utilitarianism fixes these issues by focusing on following rules that, when everyone sticks to them, lead to the most happiness. Instead of weighing each action individually, it says rules like “don’t lie” or “don’t steal” help society in the long run, even if breaking them might seem helpful in the moment.

Question 8

How Rule Ult solves these problems?

Answer 8

1. Consistency and Simplicity: Rule utilitarianism keeps things steady and predictable because we follow set rules, not constantly rethinking every situation.
2. Stopping Harmful Actions: By sticking to rules that usually create happiness, rule utilitarianism stops bad actions from being justified. For instance, even if lying could help in one case, the rule “always tell the truth” builds trust and stability for everyone in the long run.
3. Protecting Rights and Fairness: Rule utilitarianism balances the greater good and individual rights by making sure we follow rules that respect everyone’s rights, leading to fairer, more balanced outcomes.

Question 9

Do you think rule utilitarianism is a more plausible alternative? Why or why not?

Answer 9

Broadly rule utilitarian in normal circumstances as it would be chaos if everyone ran around doing whatever they though would increase happiness/reduce suffering completely disregarding rules and agreements

But act utilitarian in extreme situations and emergencies. There’s a difference between refraining from stealing $20 to increase happiness on the grounds that I wouldn’t like the consequences of a norm that stealing is generally acceptable and having no problem with a hungry person stealing food.

Question 10

how is rule ult bad

Answer 10

Too strict: Sometimes the rules might not make sense for one special situation. It’s like saying “always play by the rules, no matter what”, even if breaking the rule would help someone in a way that makes them happier.
It doesn’t let you think for yourself: Sometimes, it’s okay to break a rule if it leads to something good, but rule utilitarianism says you should never break the rule—even if it might make more people happy.
- state vice versa for act ult

Question 11

Why is act better?

Answer 11

Maximize happiness - My
Situational flexibility - Sister
Moral Responsibility - Makes
Avoids Rule Worship - Annoying
Moral Progress - Meows

Question 12

what is “actual consequence act utilitarianism”

Answer 12

focuses on the actual consequences of a particular action, rather than the predicted or expected consequences.

Question 13

Problems w “actual consequence act utilitarianism”

Answer 13

Uncertainty
Moral Luck
Time and Effort

Question 14

What alternatives are there to this variety of utilitarianism and how do they deal with these problems?

Answer 14

Kantianism/Deontological views: Views on which the right making feature of an act is conformation to duty or reason. So, you determine which rights people have and right action means respecting those rights independent of the outcomes.

Contractualism: Views on which the right making feature of an act is that it is consistent with what a certain kind of contractor would agree to (though many forms of contractualism share Kantian commitments). So, you specify what ideal agents would agree to or, more often, what agents could reasonably reject with respect to their treatment or consideration and an act is right if it is in accordance with those judgments.

Question 15

Kant says that the only thing in the world that is good without qualification is a good will.

Answer 15

highlights his belief that moral goodness is not determined by the consequences of actions or the external results of our behavior, but by the intention or motive behind them.

Question 16

What is a goodwill

Answer 16

a good will is inherently good no matter what the outcome of the action is. Kant believes that the moral worth of an action comes from the will behind it, will to act in accordance with moral duty—to do the right thing for the right reason. A good will is motivated by a sense of duty, not by personal desires, inclinations, or the pursuit of happiness.

Question 17

/Characteristics of a Good Will:

Answer 17

Did U Munch?
Duty: A good will is motivated by moral duty, not by consequences or personal desires. Kant suggests that you act out of respect for moral law, not because of the outcomes of your actions.
Universalizable actions: A good will acts according to principles that could be universally applied, meaning that the person would be willing for everyone to follow the same moral rule. This is part of Kant’s concept of the Categorical Imperative, which says that you should act only according to principles that you could will to be universal laws for everyone.
Moral Integrity: The good will is committed to doing what is right, regardless of the consequences. It’s not

Question 18

Explain the difference between a hypothetical imperative
and a categorical imperative

Answer 18

Hypothetical: “If, Then”
- interest or goal related
- avoidable
- individulized, not universal
Categorical Imperative: “MUST”
- commands independent of individuals persons interest or goals
- not interest or goal related
- unavoidable
- universal

Question 19

relevance of imperatives to his concept of a good will.

Answer 19

Kant’s notion of a good will is directly connected to the idea of the categorical imperative. For Kant, the good will is the only thing that is inherently good without qualification. A good will is one that acts according to moral duty, guided by the categorical imperative, rather than by personal desires or consequences.
In contrast, a will that follows hypothetical imperatives only pursues personal goals and desires, which Kant doesn’t see as truly good in the moral sense. A good will is not motivated by personal gain or desires, but by the duty to do what is morally right, according to universal principles.

Question 20

two versions of Kant’s categorical imperative we discussed in class.

Answer 20

1. The Formula of Universal Law (First Formulation):
2. The Formula of Humanity as an End (Second Formulation):

Question 21

1. The Formula of Universal Law (First Formulation):

Answer 21

This formulation asks you to consider the maxim (or principle) behind your action and to ask whether it could be universalized—meaning, could this action be applied universally to everyone in a similar situation, without contradiction?
In simpler terms, before performing an action, you should ask yourself:
“Can I consistently will that everyone act according to the same principle?”
If the answer is yes, then the action is morally permissible. If the answer is no, then the action is morally wrong because it cannot be universalized.
Example:
Imagine you’re considering lying to get out of a difficult situation. If everyone lied whenever it benefited them, trust would break down, and communication would lose its value. If lying were universalized, it would lead to a contradiction (a world where lying no longer serves its purpose because everyone lies). Therefore, according to the first formulation, lying would be morally wrong because it cannot be universalized.

Question 22

2. The Formula of Humanity as an End (Second Formulation):

Answer 22

This formulation emphasizes respect for the inherent dignity and value of all human beings. It means that in your actions, you should never treat other people solely as tools or means to achieve your own ends, but always as individuals with their own inherent worth. People should be treated as ends in themselves, not as means to an end.
Example:
Suppose you’re using someone for your personal gain, such as exploiting them for money or using them as a stepping stone in your career. According to the second formulation, this would be morally wrong because you are treating that person merely as a means to an end and not respecting their inherent dignity and value as a person. Instead, you should treat others with the respect and consideration they deserve as rational beings.

Question 23

Moral permissibility of lying

Answer 23

Duty over consequences of actions (deontological)
Lying and Universalization: Only permissable if can be universilized. According to Kant’s Formula of Universal Law, lying is morally impermissible because if everyone lied whenever it was convenient for them, communication would break down entirely. The act of lying relies on the assumption that people can trust each other’s statements, and if lying were universalized, that assumption would be undermined. The very concept of lying would become contradictory because if everyone lied, no one would believe anything anyone said, and the act of communication would become meaningless
Lying and Humanity as an End:Kant’s Formula of Humanity also condemns lying. Lying involves using another person as a means to an end (for example, to escape a difficult situation or to manipulate someone into doing something). Lying disrespects the autonomy and rationality of the other person because it involves presenting false information to manipulate their actions, rather than treating them as an independent, rational being deserving of truth
Example:
If you lie to someone, you are treating them as if their ability to make decisions is unimportant, relying on deceit to get them to act in a certain way. This violates the principle that we should treat others as ends in themselves, not merely as means to our own desires or goals.

Question 24

Moral permissibility of Suicide

Answer 24

Kant’s philosophy also emphasizes the good will: acting from duty and respecting the autonomy of others. He believed that actions are only morally right if they are done with the intention of fulfilling one’s duty, not driven by personal inclinations or desires.
According to Kant, suicide is morally impermissible because it violates the principle of respecting human dignity and the good will.

1. Formula of Universal Law (First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative):
   Kant says that for an action to be morally right, it must be something everyone could do without causing a contradiction. If everyone committed suicide when facing hardship, humanity would cease to exist, and life would lose its value. Since suicide could not be universalized without contradiction, it is morally wrong.
2. Formula of Humanity (Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative):
   Kant argues that we should treat ourselves and others as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. Suicide treats one’s life as a tool to escape suffering, instead of respecting it as valuable and rational. It is an act of self-devaluation, motivated by personal distress, rather than fulfilling a moral duty.

Question 25

What does Michael Stocker mean by “the schizophrenia of modern moral theory?”

Answer 25

describe how modern moral theories (like utilitarianism and deontology) focus too much on duty and rules, but ignore our feelings, desires, and personal connections. refers to the disconnection or contradiction between the moral theories that emphasize duty, obligation, and rightness (like utilitarianism and deontology) and the personal, emotional, and relational aspects of human life that people actually care about. In simpler terms, Stocker argues that modern moral theories focus too much on impersonal rules and abstract duties and not enough on the real, emotional connections that people have with each other, like love, care, and personal relationships. Consider the issue of lying. Traditional moral theories, like Kantian ethics, might forbid lying entirely because it is seen as violating duty. But in real life, people often lie to protect others or avoid hurting someone they care about. Stocker would argue that a moral theory should not demand strict adherence to rules that ignore these personal, emotional considerations—instead, it should provide a framework that respects both duty and human connection. Stocker’s “schizophrenia of modern moral theory” highlights a disconnect between what moral theories prescribe and how people actually experience moral life in their personal, emotional, and relational contexts. His critique encourages the development of moral theories that embrace both reason and emotion, recognizing that human morality is not just about impersonal rules but also about valuing relationships, personal care, and emotional connections.

Question 26

How, according to Stocker, that both utilitarianism and deontology have “by far over concentrated on duty, rightness and obligation”

Answer 26

because they place excessive emphasis on impersonal moral principles and abstract duties, often at the expense of personal values, emotions, and relationships. Stocker argues that moral theories should not focus exclusively on impersonal duty and rightness but should incorporate the personal, emotional, and relational aspects of human life. He believes that a more holistic approach to morality should balance moral rules with a consideration of relationships, emotions, and personal values. Instead of treating duty as something cold and detached, moral theories should recognize that emotional connections and personal care play a central role in moral action. In summary, Stocker criticizes both utilitarianism and deontology for emphasizing duty, rightness, and obligation at the expense of personal relationships, emotional connections, and the deeper motivations behind moral action. These theories, in his view, have become too impersonal, focusing only on rules and consequences, while neglecting the personal and emotional dimensions that make life meaningful and morally rich.

Question 27

What, again according to Stocker, do these moral theories neglect

Answer 27

- Emotions and Personal Attachments: Both utilitarianism and deontology place significant emphasis on abstract, impersonal concepts of morality—such as maximizing happiness or following moral rules—while ignoring the emotional and relational aspects of human life. Stocker argues that morality is not just about rules or outcomes; it's deeply connected to who we care about, our relationships with others, and how our actions affect those we love. For example, utilitarianism may demand actions that maximize overall happiness but could disregard personal attachments or the emotional impact of those actions on individuals. Similarly, deontology might require adherence to strict moral duties (like telling the truth) even if it harms someone you care about emotionally. - Moral Motivation and Personal Values: Stocker criticizes the lack of attention to why people act morally in the first place. Utilitarianism and deontology fail to consider the personal values and motivations that shape our moral decisions. People often act based on care for others, affection, or emotional attachment, but these theories ignore how such motivations influence moral choices. Instead, they focus on what should be done according to rules or calculations, without understanding the deeper, personal reasons behind those actions. - Human Experience and Complexity: Stocker believes that modern moral theories are too simplistic and abstract. By emphasizing only duty (in deontology) or consequences (in utilitarianism), these theories fail to capture the complexity of human experience, which is often guided by feelings of affection, loyalty, friendship, and personal connections. He argues that moral theories should account for how people experience relationships, care about others, and are motivated by their bonds with those around them.

Question 28

how does this weaken their plausibility as moral theory?

Answer 28

Feels Impersonal: These theories ignore emotions, making them feel cold and out of touch with how we live. For example, utilitarianism may make decisions that hurt a few people to benefit the majority, and deontology may force you to do things, like lying, that don't feel right in real life. Makes People Less Motivated: When moral theories ignore feelings, it makes it harder for people to care about following them. People are motivated to act morally by their emotions and connections with others, but these theories don’t take that into account. Limits Choices: These theories reduce moral decisions to just following rules or doing calculations. Real moral decisions involve emotions and relationships, but these theories ignore that, limiting people's ability to make thoughtful choices in real-life situations.

Question 29

Stocker’s argument against modern moral theory.

Answer 29

Stocker’s critique of modern moral theory is a compelling call for a more holistic approach to ethics, one that integrates emotions, personal attachments, and human motivations with moral principles. His argument challenges the impersonal nature of utilitarianism and deontology, which he sees as detached from the emotional and relational aspects of human life. While his critique highlights the limitations of these theories, it also raises questions about the subjectivity and practicality of a more emotionally-driven approach to morality. Nevertheless, Stocker’s call for a more human-centered moral theory remains an important contribution to ethical philosophy, urging us to reconsider how we approach moral decisions in light of our emotional and relational needs.

Question 30

will:

Answer 30

a faculty or capaqcity to perfom actions. volittional elemnt of rqational being.

Question 31

action:

Answer 31

deliberate, intentional, chosen

Question 32

2 categories of will:

Answer 32

reason- goodwill inclination- passion, desire, wants however kant says we can have unselfish desires.

Question 33

a goodwill is one that responds to ______ and not ________ whether selfish or unselfish

Answer 33

reason, inclination

Question 34

"the notion of duty... includes that of a goodwill"

Answer 34

duty: something one is required to do whether inclined or not.

Question 35

hypothetical imperative is

Answer 35

Conditonal Contingemt - depends on certain circumstances Particular

Question 36

Categorical Imperative

Answer 36

Universal Uncondition necessary