Paper 1: Moral Philosophy Flashcards
(48 cards)
What does utility refer to?
Utility was devised by Bentham and refers to an action’s usefulness in achieving the greatest pleasure over pain.
What is the principle of utility?
The principle of utility was devised by Bentham and is the foundational idea of utilitarianism. It claims that an action is good if it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
What are Bentham’s three claims?
An action is right / good or wrong / bad depending on its consequences, the only thing that is good is happiness and no individual’s happiness is more important than anyone else’s.
What is the utility calculus?
The utility calculus is used to calculate an action’s net utility. It has seven criteria, which are duration, intensity, extent, fecundity, remoteness, purity and certainty.
What are the two types of hedonistic utilitarianism?
Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. An act utilitarianist calculates the net utility based on the outcomes of a specific situation while a rule utilitarianist adheres to rules which generally promotes the greatest net utility.
What are Mill’s higher and lower pleasures?
Mill believed that we have higher and lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are exclusively human and are intellectual / mental while lower pleasures can be accessed by animals and are physical / bodily. Mill believes that we strive for the higher pleasures as they benefit humans more than lower pleasures do.
What is the problem of the tyranny of the majority?
Bentham’s utilitarianism is quantitative and hedonistic, meaning the morality of actions are calculated in terms of numerical values. This results in situations such as an angry crowd punishing an innocent man who has been framed for crimes he didn’t commit. This is counter-intuitive as utilitarianism claims these types of situations are moral.
What is the problem of whether pleasure is the only good?
The problem of whether pleasure is the only good is a thought experiment made by Nozick called Nozick’s experiment machine. This thought experiment depicts a machine which people can hook up to and experience unlimited pleasure. Nozick argued that most of people wouldn’t choose to hook up to the machine as they would prefer to experience free will and other emotions.
What is meant by a ‘good will’?
‘Good will’ according to Kant means having the right intention to act which is to act out of duty.
What is the distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty?
Acting in accordance means being motivated by something other than a good will, which is self interest and therefore never moral. Acting out duty means being motivated by a good will, meaning it is moral.
What is the distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives?
Hypothetical imperatives have two elements that are commands and desires, such as “tell the truth if you want to be trusted”, and are never moral. Categorical imperatives only have one element that is commands, such as “tell the truth”, and are universally moral.
What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative?
The first formulation of the categorical imperative is the universality formulation. It is a system to test maxims to see if they are duties, both perfect and imperfect.
What is the first question in the first formulation of the categorical imperative?
The first question in the first formulation of the categorical imperative is can this maxim be made a universal law without contradiction? For example, if everyone followed the maxim “to break a promise” and broke promises then the promise would not mean promise. The term’s meaning is contradicted and becomes a contradiction of the law of nature and is a perfect duty not to break promises.
What is the second question in the first formulation of the categorical imperative?
The second question in the first formulation of the categorical imperative is would, as rational beings, we will that this maxim become a universal law? For example, the maxim “waste my skills / talents + potential” would be universalisable but would not be willed as it would lead to a world without progress. This becomes a contradiction in will and is an imperfect duty.
What is the second formulation of the categorical imperative?
The second formulation of the categorical imperative is the humanity formulation. We are instructed not to use people as a means to an end.
What is the issue of clashing and competing duties?
There are situations where two duties can clash, such as “keep your promise” and “do not tell lies”. This leads to moral stalemates, meaning no progress. Normative theories should be practical, however this has broken down.
What is Kant’s response to the issue of clashing and competing duties?
Kant responds by saying this would never happen. We could see this as two different duties, one perfect and one imperfect. This means they do not clash as perfect have priority.
What is Ross’ response to the issue of clashing and competing duties?
Ross, a deontologist and intuitionist, responds with his prima facie duties, which are seven ranked duties. Helping others is above being truthful, and as the situation dictates order through intuition, keeping your promise is above telling the truth.
How does Rachels respond to Kant and Ross’ responses to the issue of clashing and competing duties?
Rachels demonstrates that you can have situations where this could happen using the example of the Dutch Fisherman. The Dutch Fisherman have to choose between hiding Jewish people or giving them up to the Nazis. Kant’s ethics fail on a practical level.
What is the issue of not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral; not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral?
Some maxims can be applied universally but this doesn’t make them moral commands, such as picking your nose. Universalising is a poor test. Another example is “help the poor”, which is a contradiction in conception meaning it is a perfect duty not to help the poor. However, this issue is trivial and pointless as it is more of an attempt to discredit Kant’s system instead of showing how the system doesn’t work.
What is Kant’s response to the view that consequences of actions determine their moral value?
Kant says no as consequences are out of the control of a moral agent. You can control your intention. Kant uses the example of the inquiring axe-murderer, saying that it shows that we cannot predict the consequences and these might be that your friend tries to escape and the murderer finds him. However, we can be quite confident about the consequences. Rachels claims Kant is “overly pessimistic” about the ability to predict consequences. Kant is hypocritical as his ethics focus on consequences. Hare refers to Kant as a “rule utilitarian in disguise”.
What is the issue that Kant ignores the value of certain motives, eg. Love, friendship, kindness?
Kant says that motive must be good will, meaning your motive is to do your duty and isn’t out of self-interest. The Jack and Jill example shows how Jack donates to charity out of duty while Jill donates because she feels like it, which has no value according to Kant. This is counter-intuitive and is an impersonal approach.
What is the issue that morality is a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical, imperatives? (Philippa Foot).
Kant says that all moral commands are categorical because hypothetical imperatives have a desire element (Self-interests) that don’t apply to all. Foot states that morality is a system of selfless hypothetical imperatives. Categories give us NO MOTIVATIONAL ELEMENT. Foot describes people who follow categorical imperatives as “forced conscripts to a moral army.” An example of Foot’s ideas is how visiting someone in the hospital out of love and kindness is more moral than visiting them out of duty, which isn’t good as you don’t want to visit them.
What is the possible response to the issue that morality is a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical, imperatives?
It could be argued that Kant’s theory requires a lack of desire, feelings and relationships in order to be fair and that we must accept these aspects as not as important as equality and fairness. However, Kant would only achieve equality and fairness if people chose to follow his system, which is highly unlikely.
