Long question final Flashcards
(22 cards)
What are the features present in feminist etics?
Feminist etics is not a moral theory so much as an alternative way of looking at the concepts and concerns of the moral life. The four key features are :
1. Emphasis on personal relationships
2. A suspicion of moral principles
3. The rejection of impartiality
4. A greater respect for emotions
Explain the three fields of ethics.
Metaethics
This is the most abstract branch of ethics, dealing with the nature, meaning, and foundations of ethical concepts. It explores questions like:
What does it mean for something to be morally right or wrong?
Are moral values objective (universal truths) or subjective (based on personal or cultural beliefs)?
How can we know what is morally right?
What is the meaning of ethical terms like “good,” “bad,” “duty,” or “justice”?
Example: Debating whether morality is rooted in human emotions, divine commands, or rational thought.
Normative Ethics
This field focuses on establishing moral standards and principles that guide how people should act. It attempts to provide a framework for determining what actions are right or wrong. The major ethical theories in this field include:
Utilitarianism: The greatest good for the greatest number.
Deontology: Following moral rules or duties (associated with Kant).
Virtue Ethics: Focusing on the moral character of individuals rather than specific actions (Aristotle).
Example: Arguing whether lying is always wrong or if it can be justified in certain situations.
Applied Ethics
This is the most practical field, where ethical theories are applied to real-world situations and specific issues. It addresses controversial topics like:
Abortion
Climate change
Animal rights
Business ethics
Medical ethics
Example: Discussing whether euthanasia is morally acceptable based on ethical principles.
Explain the moral system.
moral system is a structured approach to ethical decision-making, built on three key components:
- Moral Rules
Moral rules set the baseline obligations that everyone is expected to follow. They specify actions that are either prohibited or required to avoid causing harm. Breaking these rules is generally seen as morally wrong unless there is a strong justification.
Examples:
Do not lie.
Do not harm others.
Keep promises.
Help those in need (if it is a required obligation).
These rules focus on protecting people from harm and promoting fairness.
- Moral Ideals
Moral ideals go beyond what is strictly required by moral rules. They encourage people to perform good actions or prevent harm, even when they are not obligated to do so.
Key difference: Unlike moral rules, failing to follow moral ideals is not considered morally wrong—just less praiseworthy.
Examples:
Donating to charity (when not required).
Volunteering your time to help others.
Forgiving someone who wronged you.
Moral ideals encourage going above and beyond basic obligations to make the world better.
- Decision Procedure
The decision procedure is the method for determining if violating a moral rule is acceptable in certain situations. This procedure helps answer questions like:
Is it ever okay to lie to protect someone’s life?
Can breaking a promise be justified if it prevents greater harm?
A common approach is to weigh the consequences of following the rule against the consequences of breaking it. If breaking the rule would prevent greater harm or promote greater good, the violation might be allowed.
How They Work Together
Moral rules set the minimum ethical standard.
Moral ideals inspire additional good actions.
The decision procedure guides exceptions when rules conflict or cause harm.
This system balances moral obligations with compassionate encouragement while offering flexibility for tough ethical dilemmas.
What are the moral rules?
It is divided into two categpries, do not harm and do not break trust. The do not harm categorie includes things such as do not kill, do not cause pain, do not deprive of freedom and the do not break trust includes things such as do not deceive, keep your promise, obey to the law
What are the characteristic elements of ethics?
1) Preeminence of Reason
2) Universalist Perspective
3) The Principle of Impartiality
4) The Dominance of Moral Norms
reeminence of Reason
This principle emphasizes that reason and logical thinking should be the primary tools for making moral judgments. Ethical decisions should be based on rational arguments rather than emotions, traditions, or blind beliefs.
Why it matters: Reason helps people critically evaluate different options, justify their beliefs, and avoid bias.
Example: Deciding whether euthanasia is ethical by weighing arguments about human suffering, autonomy, and medical responsibilities instead of relying solely on personal feelings.
2. Universalist Perspective
The universalist perspective holds that moral principles should apply to everyone equally in similar situations, regardless of their background, culture, or personal interests.
Why it matters: This prevents favoritism and encourages fairness.
Example: If lying is considered wrong in one situation, it should also be wrong in a similar situation for anyone else.
3. The Principle of Impartiality
Impartiality means that everyone’s interests should be given equal consideration when making ethical decisions. It rejects discrimination or favoritism based on race, gender, social status, or personal relationships.
Why it matters: Ethical decisions should not prioritize one person’s needs over another’s without good reason.
Example: When distributing medical supplies during a crisis, doctors should treat patients based on medical need, not personal connections.
4. The Dominance of Moral Norms
This principle suggests that moral norms should take priority over other kinds of norms (such as legal, social, or religious norms) when there is a conflict.
Why it matters: Just because something is legal or socially acceptable doesn’t mean it’s morally right.
Example: Slavery was once legal in many countries, but it violated moral norms of human dignity and equality.
How They Work Together
These elements create a framework that helps applied ethics:
Stay objective and rational.
Promote fairness and equality.
Prioritize what is morally right over what is popular or convenient.
Apply ethical principles consistently across different situations.
By following these principles, applied ethics aims to address real-world problems in a way that is both just and thoughtful.
What Do Cultural Differences Imply for Morality?
Cultural differences raise important questions about morality and whether moral values are subjective (relative to each culture) or objective (universal truths). However, the key idea based on the points you provided is that cultural differences in moral beliefs do not automatically mean that there is no universal moral truth. Here’s how this works:
- Lack of Consensus Doesn’t Mean Equal Validity
Just because cultures disagree on certain moral issues doesn’t mean that all opinions are equally correct. Disagreement alone doesn’t prove that there is no objective moral truth—just like people can disagree about scientific facts without those facts becoming relative.
Example: Some cultures may approve of practices like bribery, while others condemn them. However, the disagreement doesn’t automatically make bribery morally acceptable everywhere.
2. Cultural Differences and Universal Truths Can Coexist
It’s possible for two cultures to hold different views on a moral issue without implying that both views are equally correct. One culture might be mistaken, or both might be partly wrong. This means that cultural diversity doesn’t rule out the existence of objective moral truths.
Example: If one culture accepts slavery and another rejects it, that doesn’t mean slavery is morally neutral. An objective moral truth (like human dignity) might still make slavery universally wrong.
3. Objective Moral Values Remain Constant
Even if different cultures interpret or apply moral values differently, some moral principles may still be objectively true. Universal values like fairness, honesty, and respect for human life often appear across many cultures, even if they are practiced in different ways.
Example: Every culture may have different customs for showing hospitality, but the underlying value of kindness to others remains constant.
Explain vulgar relativism.
1) ‘Right’ means … ‘right for a given society.’
2) ‘Right for a given society’ is to be understood in a functionalist sense.
3) …(therefore) it is wrong for people in one society to condemn, interfere with, etc., the values of another society.
(Williams 20)
Vulgar relativism takes moral relativism to an extreme and inconsistent position. It argues:
Moral rules depend entirely on cultural beliefs or personal opinions.
Therefore, no one can criticize the moral practices of other cultures—because every culture’s morality is equally valid.
What are the two main criticism William makes on vulgar relativism?
1st Criticism: Inconsistency of Vulgar Relativism
2nd Criticism: Assumption of Implausible Theory of Functionalism
1) ‘Right’ means one thing early in the argument and another later.
Proposition 1: relative right
‘right’ means right for society X
Proposition 3: nonrelative (or universal) right
‘right’ means right for everyone
e.g. it is right for everyone to accept the values of society X
Vulgar relativism argument is one expression of a more general confusion:
“The central confusion of relativism is to try to conjure out of the fact that societies have different attitudes and values an a priori nonrelative principle to determine the attitude of one society to another; this is impossible” (24).
Relativists advocate a nonrelative principle of respect or tolerance …
But where does this principle come from? And why should any given culture be bound by it?
2) First: what is functionalist social theory?
Interprets society as a system whose parts function together to promote stability, success
A practice is ‘right’ in the functionalist sense if it serves its purpose in an organized whole that benefits the society
Functionalism requires us to identify what counts as a society
This is harder than it looks
Two approaches (extremes):
1) Society is defined by a cultural unit: the “group-with-certain-values”
2) Society is defined by its members and their descendants
EX: Bruce is a functionalist who identifies Jim by his values.
Jim = ‘Jim-who-loves-K-Pop’
On this definition, Jim’s survival depends upon continuing to love K-Pop.
This is true – but ‘trivially true’ and uninformative.
It doesn’t tell us whether the physical person Jim will survive
It doesn’t tell us whether the physical person Jim should continue loving K-Pop
What are the merits of cultural relativism?
1) Stresses role of convention and particular conditions
2) Favours open-minded starting point about other cultures
3) Sees people as rooted in specific cultural horizons of meaning
cultural reform can have unpredictable and destructive consequences
4) May have some unintended beneficial consequences
Discourages chauvinism
Perspective to illuminate ourselves
What is the good life according to Aristotle?
Aims at happiness (eudaimonia)
= blessed life
= action in accordance with the highest virtue, i.e. reason
NOT happiness purely as a conscious state of mind
Hedonistic theories make pleasure the aim
Aristotle rejects this
Pleasure is instead a sign of what kind of character you have:
Pleasure in the wrong things? Bad character
What are the conditions for virtuous actions?
1) Agent has knowledge
2) Agent chooses the action for its own sake
3) Agent has a stable character
For skills, only the first is necessary – because it will produce the right outcome
Ethical action not just about outcomes for Aristotle
1. Agent Has Knowledge
The person performing the action must know what they are doing and understand why it is morally good.
Why it matters: If someone accidentally does the right thing without realizing it, the action isn’t truly virtuous.
Example: Donating money to charity without knowing the cause wouldn’t count as a virtuous action.
2. Agent Chooses the Action for Its Own Sake
The person must choose the action because it is the right thing to do, not for external rewards or personal gain.
Why it matters: If someone helps others only to gain praise or benefits, the action isn’t fully virtuous.
Example: Helping a friend out of genuine kindness vs. helping to look good in front of others.
3. Agent Has a Stable Character
The action must come from a consistent and stable moral character, not from a one-time impulse or temporary motivation.
Why it matters: Virtue is about who you are over time, not just what you do occasionally.
Example: A person who regularly acts with honesty in different situations shows true virtue, while someone who tells the truth only once does not.
Skills vs. Virtuous Actions
For skills (like playing an instrument or building furniture), only the first condition (knowledge) is necessary because what matters is simply getting the right result.
However, in ethics, producing the right outcome isn’t enough—what matters is also the intention and the character behind the action.
How can someone become virtuous?
Become brave by doing brave actions
How can we act bravely if we’re not already brave?
By imitating virtuous people, you acquire a stable disposition to behave that way
Emphasis on habituation and moral education
What are the critiques of virtue ethics?
1) Usefulness?
Deciding when virtues apply
Instances of conflicting virtues?
2) Circularity?
3) Secretly dependent on another ethical framework?
e.g. Why does generosity matter…?
Say something about the conception in Jaggar.
Westerm ethics is alleged to prefer masculine or male-associated values of independance, autonomy, intellect, … over the supposedly feminine or female-associated values of sharing, community, emotion,
What is the Heinz dilemma and how does Kohlberg use it in his six stages of moral development
The dilemma is that Heinz needs 2000$ for a drug to save his wife’s life but he only has 200$ and the pharmacist won’t budge, should he steal the drig to save his wife or remain moral and not steal it risking the death of his wife.
The six stages are:
1) obeying authority and avoiding punishment
2) satisfying one’s own desires and letting others do the same, through fair exchanges;
3) cultivating one’s relationships and performing the duties of one’s social roles
4) obeying the law and maintaining the welfare of the group
5) upholding the basic rights and values of one’s society
6) abiding by abstract, universal moral principles
The girl thinks there must be other ways then stealing, like borrowing money or making a loan. They should talk it out and find some other to make the money
The boy thinks that human life is worth more than money and if the druggist only makes 1000$ he is still going to live but if he does not steal it then his wife will die. He can’t get his wife again.
Kohlberg puts abstract principles first, cultivating relationships viewed as immature moral stage
How is the Heiz dilemma criticized?
Kohlberg is biased in favour of the male way of thinking.
Jake is clear, abstract principles, rigourous deduction while Amy’s feel for particular details, sensitivity to needs. No approach is superior it just depends on one’s view or priority
What are the challenges to the care etics approach?
The care ethics approach faces several challenges. First, it centers on intimate relationships and emphasizes the importance of caring for those we are personally connected with. However, this raises the issue of where to draw the boundaries: how do we differentiate between family members, strangers, or even pets and livestock? The theory struggles to establish clear guidelines on who deserves care, which can lead to confusion in applying it to broader, more complex social contexts.
Another challenge is the potential for favoritism. Care ethics can justify moral partiality, such as prioritizing family members over strangers, which may be ethically problematic in situations requiring impartiality, like in hiring or distributing resources. This leads to the question of whether we have moral obligations to people with whom we have no personal relationship—something care ethics tends to downplay. While some ethicists attempt to extend care obligations beyond intimate relationships, the theory still faces criticism for being limited in its application to global issues or anonymous individuals.
How do kantians view autonomy?
Kantians view autonomy as the capacity for self-rule. They believe we are free and rational agents who are the source of our own moral authority. This means that, rather than following rules imposed by external sources like nature, society, or divine will, we give ourselves moral laws through reason. Autonomy, for Kantians, is the ability to act according to principles we choose for ourselves—principles that we could will as universal laws. This self-legislation is what gives our actions moral worth.
How is a good will produced based on the Kantian view?
According to the Kantian view, people produce a good will by acting out of duty, guided by reason. A good will is the intention to do what is morally right simply because it is right—not because of personal gain, emotions, or consequences. For Kant, this is the foundation of all moral value.
To have a good will, two things must be true:
Your action must conform to moral law (it must be the right thing to do).
Your motive must be duty (you must do it because it is the right thing to do, not for any other reason).
So, producing a good will means choosing actions based on moral principles that you recognize through reason and commit to out of a sense of duty. Even if the outcome is bad, the action is still morally worthy if it was done from a good will.
Without a good will, Everything else that we call good, including
character, can be evil in the absence of a good will
e.g. the coolness or strategic planning of a villain
What makes a will good: Not the consequences that it causes
Instead: how it wills
Intent rather than outcomes
What are the three propositions of morality?
1) ‘For an action to have moral worth it must be done from duty.’
2) ‘An action that is done from duty doesn’t get its moral value from the purpose that’s to be achieved through it but from the maxim that it involves, ·giving the reason why the person acts thus·.’
3) ‘To have a duty is to be required to act in a certain way out of respect for law.’
What is the will and moral experience according to the kantian view?
In a perfectly rational agent, the will immediately follows reason
The mind feels no constraint or internal division
We are not like this
Our minds are affected by desires and preferences
We choose under constraint – and experience an imperative from reason. There are two kind of imperative: hypothetical or categorical
1) Hypothetical Imperative: means-to-end reasoning
Rules of skill
Any possible aim, regardless of its value
Endless possible imperatives, depending on our aims
Doctor choosing medicine…. Poisoner choosing a poison… (p. 19)
Advice of prudence
Concern our necessary purpose – the pursuit of our own happiness
Categorical Imperative (absolute duties)
Commands of morality
Obligations regardless of consequences (p. 20). Categorical imperitaves can be applied to suicide, false promises
