Final Exam Flashcards
(17 cards)
Why, According to Susan Wolf, is moral saintliness not a desirable moral ideal?
- moral saint: someone who lives a life for the only purpose of trying to better the lives of others and society as a whole
- something undesirable
1. too demanding - idea that one has to sacrifice himself in most of the aspects
- give money to charity instead for oneself
- over time it would turn anyone into an agent = decrease the overall quality of life
2. no well-roundedness of a character - little to no personality due to always having to look for the best in people = no focus on their own development
- no time to develop own person (hobbies, talents etc.)
- if one has all the moral virtues, there is no space and time in life for other virtues that form a complete person
- moral saints are very one-dimensional
Derek Parfit discusses three “theories about self-interest” in the essay titled “What Makes Someone’s Life Go Best?” What are these three theories? Also: What is the difference between the “global” and “summative” versions of these two theories?
- Three theories:
- Desire-Fulfillment: what would be best for someone is what throughout their life would best fulfill their desires
- Objective-List: certain things are good or bad for us, regardless of whether or not we want to have the good things or avoid the bad ones
- Hedonism: what would be best for someone is what would make their life happiest - summative
- take all everyday experiences that you have had throughout your college years and add them up
- then compare which ones have been satisfied and which ones not
- in the end you have thousands and thousands of desires - global
- taking the years of college and saying what desires have been met in that time (broader picture): eg. learn a language - example parfit
- drug addict gets a lifetime supply of drugs and gets high every day over 1200 days
- summative: life was successful because 1200 desires were fulfilled
- global: if the goal was also to stay healthy, life was a failure - global seems more plausible
- focusing on little desires is not as satisfying as fulfilling important goals
State and explain the two major versions, or formulations, of Kant’s Categorical Imperative?
- universalization
- act only on the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become an universal law
- universal law: a law that everyone should follow
- identify you maxim and then moralize it
- maxim: subjective principle of an action
- according to kant, an action is only morally right if the underlying rule of conduct can consistently and universally apply to yourself and others - means end
- respect for persons
- act in such a way that you treat humanity always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means
- morality consists of doing ones duty to treat people as an end and never only as a means to an end
- you can treat a person as a means, just not as mere means
- what does it mean to treat a person as an end
Aristotle maintains that there are two cases in which one should, in striving to be virtuous, tend more toward one extreme of “deficiency” or “excess” than toward the other. What are these two cases, and what is Aristotle’s reasoning?
a. Reasoning: pleasure
i. You have to be able to find the median between overindulgence and starvation when it comes to food. Either of the two extremes can be dangerous, we should try to achieve a medium
b. if you want to achieve virtue, you must achieve the midpoint that is between the two extremes; too much or too little is not good
c. two cases where you shouldn’t aim for the midpoint and actually aim for one of the two extremes.
i. Case one: your personality
- If you’re the person that tends to choose excess or deficiency because of a certain type of behavior, you should aim towards the other, if you aim toward deficiency you should aim towards excess
- Your natural personality is something that is already fixed, this means you’ll choose and do certain things a certain (different than others) way because of who you are
- EX: If you tend to always overeat you should aim to eat a lot less so that way you’ll end up undershooting and land closer to the midpoint
- EX: eye contact: .5 seconds, average 1.5, aim for 2.5
ii. Case two: generosity
- Although most of the time the virtue represents and exact midpoint between two extremes, there are some virtues that are closer to some extremes than others
- EX: courage
- Being brave is much closer to the idea of courage than being a coward; it’s clearly better to be too brave than not brave enough, examples like this don’t land exactly in the middle
- Being kind or too kind: better to be over kind (excess morality) than an asshole (creates deficiency) – better to lean towards one extreme than the other
iii. Both cases are examples of overshooting and undershooting, just in some cases its who you are and other it’s the virtue
Explain the reasoning behind Kant’s distinction between “subjective” and “objective” end and the consequences of this distinction for his moral theory.
- What is an end: an end is a good, something you value, something for the sake of what we act
- Difference between Subjective and Objective
i. Subjective:
- Relative value to people
- Not inherent, valued as ends only for people that value them as ends
- Anything from a job to a career, to and object
- Only have value to the extent that people value them
- If it’s not important to you, you can use it however you want
- EX: a Porsche is only as valuable as the value that people who see it as an end give it. To people who don’t like cars, it has no value.
ii. Objective:
- Has absolute inherent value in *****, the human being, no matter how people feel towards this thing they must have value, human beings must be treated as ends themselves – Kant
- human beings (rational beings) are the only object ends: absolute worth and value in themselves
iii. Subjective gives rise to the Hypothetical Imperative that only have value to people that have those ends
iv. Objective ends give rise to the categorical imperative that apply to everyone - Subjective: subjective ends are ends given in experience. We feel hunger and desire to eat. We feel a desire to be kind to a particular person, and so we offer to help her carry heavy packages.
- Subjective: differentiates between each subject and event (utilitarian) utilitarianism would be a subjective way of looking at morality because it differentiates between individual subjects and situations
- Objective ends are not given in experience, but are grasped by pure practical reason. Upon such ends rest motives valid for every rational being.
- Reasoning: all moral law needs to be based on an objective view of ends: distinguishing them because they’ll end up in 2 different extremes; morality must be based on objectivity (example: telling the truth, must be an objective law otherwise ppl wouldn’t tell the truth)
Select two of Kant’s examples of maxims which violate the categorical imperative and explain the nature of the contradiction to which they give rise.
- Show why there are maxims that can’t be universalized
- Kant says you must treat yourself as an end
- Why are you smoking so much, drinking so much? Kant would say you shouldn’t let yourself go and treat yourself like badly and allow self implosion and exploitation - 2 examples of maxims:
- contradiction in conception: false promise example
- it’s a logical contradiction, a self contradiction: the agent is wanting two different things that can’t be put together or happen at the same time (right now I want it to be raining but the streets to be dry)
- contradiction in will: when you willing that something happens, but willing conditions that don’t allow it to happen at the same time
- I want to get an a in every class but I also will that every day that its sunny I wont go to class and its spring semester
What is Virtue Ethics? That is, what views or thesis distinguish the ethical systems that fall under this heading?
- Virtue Ethics: Virtuous people are considered virtuous because they do what is socially approved of
- to be virtuous is to do what is socially approved of
- to act in a way that is already socially approved of is to act unvirtuously
- if you want to know what to do, ask yourself what the morally virtuous person would do
- focus on the character and disposition of people. What the are inclined to to. Virtue is the inclination to do the right thing. Aim of virtue ethics: produce morally excellent people
- main difference: VE focuses on character leading to virtue, whereas utilitarianism focuses on consequences and Kantianism on DU
- Intellectual virtues
- Inborn talents, virtues which are moral virtues
- Have to do with intellectual achievement, at most we develop them
- Your genetic makeup
- Ex. intellectual: a person would have been a great artist or musician, but they never developed this intellectual virtue that was never trained - Moral virtues
- Have to do with good action and moral goodness
- Acquired through emulating someone, emulate the virtuous person through habituation which is very different from teaching
- Entirely by practice, acquired by imitating the most virtuous person
- intellectual: attitudes and talents, how your endowed genetically
- moral: what you get from practicing morality, completely from practice and habit
What is the Aristotelian Mean? Why does Aristotle call it “relative”, rather than the “arithmetical” mean? What is the relation to virtue?
- The mean is the midpoint on the continuum of morality
- One end is the excess of morality and the other is the complete lack of morality
- Ex: being super nice or a huge dick
- Arithmetical: exact, objective mean
- relative mean: always depending on who you are, character, capacities. Even if you are very similar to someone else, they could be taller, stronger, or richer. Also relative to the circumstance: virtues for one person in one situation might not be the same virtue for another person in the same situation
- Ex: what’s relative for a rich person is not for a poor person - The mean is the midpoint, but on the midpoint on the continuum of morality, one end is the excess of morality and the other is the complete lack of it : super nice or huge dick
- Virtue is relative because the virtue differs from each situation and each person: in some instances you might not need exact mean and maybe the virtue leans more towards one of the two extremes
- Arithmetical is exact mean but virtue is relative
According to Bernard Williams, utilitarianism violates personal integrity. Explain
- What is integrity?
- Sticking to and being consistent with your moral values, opposite of being a moral opportunist
2 Problem with utilitarianism
- Your duty is to maximize utility and perform the action that makes the most utility out of all the actions given to you
- Problem is that if that is your duty, you’ll have to ignore other commitments and projects and attachments, forget all personal life and create happiness for others.
- Ex: breaking promises is generally bad, but to produce some happiness and the greatest amount of utility possible, you’ll have to break promises and set your personal virtues aside
Susan Wolf argues that utilitarianism implies moral ideals which “remain too close to the model of the common-sense moral saint”. What is her reasoning?
- If you’re an utilitarian, your constantly trying to maximize utility which means constantly sacrificing yourself and doing things for others. The idea is that you’ll wind up suffering and putting up with the same level of demandingness as a moral saint
- Instead of going out for beers you should be tutoring children - If you’re a perfect utilitarian, you can’t have strong attachments or commitments because you always have to be willing to give up what your doing if your doing something that doesn’t maximize utility
- You won’t have enough time
- Working out: you don’t have time for the gym because there’s something else you can be doing to maximize utility - The ideal utilitarian, like a moral saint, will also be an incomplete person because morality is going to dominate their life
What are the two general types of imperatives that Kant identifies and what distinguishes them from each other?
- Hypothetical Imperative
- it’s a command that prescribes a means to an end: if you want Y you do X : if you want more utility Y, you do X (utilitarianism)
- If you want to be successful, for one person that might entail going to college for another it might be being a hobo in Hawaii (chris pratt)
- Applies to people that have the subjective ends, goals, preferences that it refers to
- Conditional on you having the goal or objective or ends - Categorical Imperative
- Binding, valid for everyone
- objective because it is completely inflexible, there are no exceptions to its maxim
- prescribes the action but pays no attention to end - Basic difference: HI, infinite number; CI, only one (that can be formulated in different ways, but there is only one that is expressed in five different ways)
What “makes someone’s go best”, according to Derek Parfit? That is, what theory or theories about self-interest does he endorse?
- Three types:
- Desire-Fulfillment: what would be best for someone is what throughout their life would best fulfill their desires
- Objective-List: certain things are good or bad for us, regardless of whether or not we want to have the good things or avoid the bad ones
- Hedonism: what would be best for someone is what would make their life happiest - There are some kinds of things that are good for everyone, and those things are in the objective list. But it is not enough to follow these things, you have to also enjoy them. These are outlined under hedonistic theory. There wouldn’t be any point of having knowledge if you don’t enjoy having it. Combination strikes the balance between things you want and things that are good for you
- Answer: Hedonism combined with the objectives list theory
- Hybrid, combine preference hedonism theory with objective list theory
- Satisfy preferences and obtain things good in and of themselves
- What you want = no value? Not a life gone well. (ex. Blades of grass dude)
- Satisfy own desires and goods but no value… worthless
- Things we do must have value in and of themselves - Life which involve things good in and of itself and do what you want
In “Famine Affluence and Morality”, Peter Singer proposes STRONG and MODERATE versions of a basic moral principle that he defends. What are the two versions of this principle? Why does Singer claim that geographical distance is irrelevant to the duties entailed by this principle (in either of its forms)?
- Moderate: if it is in your power to prevent something very bad from happening without sacrificing something morally significant, we ought to do it.
- Strong: if it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something equally morally important to you, you should suffer as most as the suffering you are removing. Keep going until you begin to suffer more. The harm you suffer is up until the point of the harm you are eliminating. Giving until it hurts
- Distance is irrelevant: Technological progress, communication, transportation. No longer an obstacle. Does not affect capacity to help. Advanced technology = no excuses. Also when you think about any of the basic moral principles or concepts, we did not make any reference to distance or proximity. Say nothing about distance. No mention of distance, the children suffering in your town are just as important as those suffering in Chile.
Explain Richard W. Miller’s “Principle of Sympathy” and how it differs from the “moderate” version of the principle that Peter Singer proposes in “Famine, Affluence, and Mortality”.
- Principle of sacrifice, if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening without sacrificing anything else morally significant, we should (singer weak v)
- give up everything you can
- never justifies luxury - Principle of sympathy says the same as the weaker version of Singer; the difference is that it is not as demanding. Miller looks at life as a whole. You ought to buy the cheap jacket to give the rest of your money to charity but in some situations you can buy the expensive jacket.
- sometimes justifies luxury
According to Richard W. Miller, we are justified in “adopting a policy of special responsiveness to those in urgent peril who are near”. What arguments does he offer in support of this position?
- any person that feels equal respect for all, will feel responsible for people around that need help. Equal respect for all requires responsiveness to neediness that does not impose a serious risk of worsening one’s life. It is very hard to get to the point of worsening the own life.
- if people take the responsibility to help people around them, the probability of disastrous delay in meeting the urgent need is less.
- people who don’t help, take advantage of people who do and lack an adequate reason not to help
- knowing that others around us would help us if we really needed it, promotes fellowship and makes us less alone, even if we know that we will never need the help
- a self-respecting person would have the deep social interest to help other around
- neediness would be relieved more effectively if there was a stronger inclination to help on any occasion when there is the opportunity to relieve distress: even greater human fellowship
In “Fifty years after Hiroshima”, John Rawls states six principles
- aim of war waged by decent democratic society = lasting peace
- democratic states do not fight wars against each other
- distinction between 3 groups: state leaders, soldiers, and civilians
- principle of responsibility
- since the states fought against cannot be democratic, the civilians are not responsible for the war
- leaders and officials are responsible
- soldiers are also not responsible, they were forced
- those groups are not attacked because they are responsible, but because the democratic country cannot defend itself in any other way - democratic society must respect human rights
- they simply have these rights by law
- teach enemy soldiers and civilians the content of those rights by following them
- soldiers and civilians can never be attacked, except for extreme crisis - duty of statemanship
- promote peace during war and show what kind of relationship is aimed for
- people will remember they way a war was fought and that may have an impact on future wars - practical means-end reasoning
- judging if the war causes more harm than good
- must be based on a principle: utilitarian, cost-benefit, national interest
- battles must lie within their limits
- only exception in extreme crisis
In “Fifty years after Hiroshima”, John Rawls states six principles (or assumptions) in support of the essay’s main argument. Explain how two of these principles are relevant to his condemnation of the bombing of Hiroshima.
- failure of statemanship
- failure of duty of a democratic country to respect human right
- US did not show respect or the aim to promote peace
- bombings of hiroshima did not demostrate striving for peace and a lasting relationship with the enemy. instead the us tried to impress other enemies (russia) with their power. the us didn’t even try to negotiate, which would have been a peaceful step
- a stateman would also conduct war in a way that the enemy’s people are trated as they want to be treated by the enemy. It is highly questionable that the us president wanted his civilians and soldiers to be treated the same way, melting them with fire and referring to them as beasts. - a statement would look ahead to future generations. us president did not do that. it is obvious that such evil would forever impact on the relationship between japan and the us. the us would always be condemned for their actions back then and people will always remember what happened. us did not set a good example for future wars.
- duty of statemanship is to avoid great evils in the absence of extreme crisis. the bombings in japan were not necessary since there was no extreme crisis in the sense that avoiding the bombings would have been fatal for the us. and even if it was an extreme crisis, the methods used for the attack were purposely horrible.
- no respect of human rights: civilians and soldiers were purposely attacked without an extreme crisis
