Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

paper 1 moral content > virtue theory > Flashcards

virtue theory Flashcards

1
Q

what 4 moral issues are required to be known about?

A
  • lying
  • stealing
  • stimulated killing
  • eating animals
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what is a moral dilemma

A

a situation where there are at least two options that pertain to moral choices that are unsatisfactory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

how would a moral realist (cognitivist) interpret a moral statement such as lying is bad/good

A
  • statements aim = to describe the world and whether they are true or false depends on if they match up to the moral property in the real world
  • so they are meaningful
    —> if lying contains a moral property of badness then the statement “lying id bad” is true
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

how would a moral anti realist for example one who believes in error theory (cognitivist) interpret a moral statement

A
  • statements aim to describe the world BUT because moral properties DO NOT EXIST, they are always false
  • moral properties not existing = supported by arguments from queerness and relativity
  • meaningful but always false
  • “lying is bad” “lying is good” are equally false
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

how would a moral anti realist theory such as emotivism (NC) interpret a moral statement

A
  • statements DO NOT AIM TO describe the world because moral properties ARENT MID
  • not meaningful
  • express a particular attitude held by speaker
  • boo hurrah
  • “lying is good” means “I have a positive attitude to stealing” and vice versa
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

how would a moral anti realist theory such as prescriptivism (NC) interpret a moral statement

A
  • statements DO NOT AIM TO describe the world because moral properties are not MID
  • so not meaningful
  • express an attempt at persuasion
  • “lying is good” “you should lie”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what is lying?

A

knowingly making a false statement
– often negative intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what is the axe murderer example - link to lying

A
  • a murderer comes to your house holding an axe and asking where your friend is clearly having evil intent
  • your friend is upstairs
  • moral dilemma = lying or saving life of friend
  • example created by KANT —> said lying is NEVER MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE
  • can use this example in deontology
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

U - LYING
how might an AU make moral decisions

A
  • hedonic calculus —> each persons pain and pleasure = worth the same
  • add this up
  • action which minimises pain and maximises pleasure for max. people = MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE
  • doesn’t require reference to past/future decisions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

U - LYING
how might a AU come to the kind of decisions they come to and what justifications do they have

A
  • if telling a LIE = more pain than pleasure then NOT MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE and shouldn’t be done
  • if it minimises the most pain or causes more pleasure overall then it IS MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE AND SHOULD BE DONE
  • JUSTIFIED SOLELY on QUANTITY of pleasure/pain
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

RU - LYING
how would a RU make a moral decision?

A
  • consider STRONG/WEAK RULES
  • rules justified by AMOUNT OF PLEASURE/PAIN CAUSED
  • if not lying is a strong rule it should never be done even if its hedonic + VICE VERSA
  • not context dependant
  • reference to H/L PLEASURES
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

RU - LYING
what kinds of decisions would a RU come to and what are their justifications for these

A
  • if not lying = STRONG RULE then never morally justifiable and can never be done
  • if not lying = WEAK RULE then IF HEDONISTIC then morally justifiable and can be done
  • JUSTIFIED on the bases that RULES MAXIMISE/MINIMISE PAIN/PLEASURE FOR THE MAJORITY
  • aim = consistency between actions so NOT NECESSARILY CONTEXT DEPENDANT
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

PU - LYING
how might a PU make a moral decision

A
  • consider PREFERENCES of each MORALLY RELEVANT being
  • if there is a CLEAR PREFERENCE then this action should be chosen as it is morally justifiable UNLESS the STRENGTH OF MINORITY PREFERENCES IS STRONGER in which case minority = wins
  • requires agreement, time consuming
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

PU - LYING
what kind of decisions would a PU come to and under what justifications

A
  • if telling a lie = majority preference then morally justifiable and vice versa
  • JUSTIFIED ON BASIS OF CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the QUALITY OF PREFERENCES of all morally relevant beings and finding SHARED PREF.
  • COMPROMISES can be reached if necessary otherwise MAJORITY WINS
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

D - LYING
describe how deontology would make a moral decision

A

a = put relevant maxims through 1st formulation of cat. imp. TO DETERMINE WHAT THEIR DUTIES ARE and act OUT OF THESE DUTIES thus achieving good will then
b = consider the issue in relation to 2nd FORMULATION OF CAT. IMP to see whether or not all moral/rational agents are being TREATED AS SUCH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

D - LYING
How would we approach the issue of lying if we used the 1st FotCI —> universal law
maxim = “make a promise you don’t intend to keep”

A
  • “ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO MAXIMS YOU CAN WILL TO BE UNIVERSAL LAW”
  • work out if there are contradictions —> in conception or will
  • if we WILL LYING = UNIVERSAL LAW then anyone could lie whenever they want however IF PEOPLE LIED ALL THE TIME then lying = impossible because LYING ONLY SUCCESSFUL IF BELIEVED
  • act of universalising lying CONTRADICTS ITSELF = CONT IN CONCEPTION
  • so reverse becomes a perfect duty —> “you must never tell a lie”
  • THEREFORE, lying is always wrong no matter circumstances
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

D - LYING
How would we approach the 2 FotCI
- means, ends

A
  • “TREAY OTHERS AS AN END, EVER MERELY AS A MEANS TO AN END”
  • work out if doing the act would involve using the other person for personal gain
  • if it does then REFRAIN FROM ACTION
    —> lying takes away a persons ability to make a rational and free decision
  • lying = constrains others options
  • so we take RESPONSIBILITY for their subsequent actions
  • so wrong to lie under 2nd formulation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

VE - LYING
how would a virtue ethicist make a moral decision

A
  • consider what the mean of a RELEVENT VIRTUE would be in RELATION TO THE ACTION
  • then aim to express that virtue in their actions
  • draws on practical wisdom —> through HABITUATION + making mistakes
  • should be GUIDED BY REASON, EUDAIMONIA
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

VE - LYING
how would a VE approach the issue of lying

A
  • consider their HABITUATION —> what would a virtuous person do?
  • generally = not lie
  • consider consequences of actions
  • need strong JUSTIFICATIONS
20
Q

VE - LYING
What did Aristotle think about the moral dilemma of lying

A
  • claimed FALSEHOOD in itself = bad SO VIRTUOUS PERSON = AVOID IT
  • lying = bad as it shows you are not a good person as you have bad habits
  • some instances of lying = MORE MORALLY BAD THAN OTHERS
  • lying got safety in AXE MURDERER is not as bad as lying for MONEY
  • so some situations ARE MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE
21
Q

what is stealing? how does Robin Hood link?

A
  • taking others property without their permission
  • Robin Hood = outlaw who stole from the rich and redistributed to the poor at a time when the rich were unnecessarily taxing high —> he thought he was doing the right thing
22
Q

AU - STEALING
how would an AU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?

A
  • HEDONIC CALCULUS, levels of pain/pleasure, add it up, context dependant
  • if stealing = MORE PAIN THAN PLEASURE then NOT morally justifiable and shouldn’t be done and VICE VERSA
  • justified on quantity of pleasure/pain
23
Q

RU - STEALING
how would an RU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?

A
  • CONSIDER STRONG/WEAK RULES, justified based on amount/quality of pain/pleasure for majority/minority, LYING = NOT A STRONG RULE then should NEVER BE DONE even if doing so would max pleasure/min pain VICE VERSA
  • not context dependant
  • HIGHER/LOWER
  • justified on basis that rules = hedonistic, aim for consistency
24
Q

PU - STEALING
how would an PU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?

A
  • CONSIDER PREF. OF EACH MORALLY RELEVANT BEIN, clear majority for one pref. = that action is MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE, unless minority pref. outweighs majority, requires MOSTLY AGREEMENT, context dependant
  • IF STEALING = MAJ. PREF THEN MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE AND VICE VERSA
  • justified on basis of CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF QUALITY OF PREF.
  • COMPRIMISE CAN BE REACHED
25
Q

D - LYING
How would a D approach the issue of stealing under 1st catimp
maxim = steal a thing that you want

A
  • ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO MAXIMS YOU CAN WILL TO BE UNIVERSAL LAW
  • work out if there are contradictions of conception in maxim
  • if we were to will stealing as a UNIVERSAL LAW then everyone would steal all the time
  • no concept of personal property
  • stealing can only occur if personal property exists
  • so stealing = universalisability = impossible
  • CONTRADICTION INCONCEPTION
  • PERFECT DUTY NOT TO STEAL
    STEALING ALWAYS WRONG NO MATTER CIRCUMSTANCES
26
Q

D - STEALING
how would we approach the issue of stealing under the 2nd formulation

A
  • TREAT OTHERS AS AN END NEVER MERELY AS A MEANS TO AN END
  • work out if act = own gain
  • if it is = refrain from doing so, can’t take away others rational will + autonomy
  • stealing takes away from another’s rational and free decision
  • we CONSTRAIN THEIR OPTIONS so manufacture their POSSIBILITIES so should take responsibility for their subsequent actions
  • so stealing = wrong under 2nd formulation
27
Q

VE - STEALING
how would a VE approach the issue of stealing

A
  • consider habituation —> what would a virtuous person do?
  • consider consequences
  • consider if the action is generally a bad thing? stealing almost always bad so NEED STRONG JUSTIFICATION
  • small number of situations where it is morally justifiable
  • HABIT OF STEALING = doesn’t have practical wisdom so is not virtuous
28
Q

VE - STEALING
what did Aristotle think about the moral dilemma of stealing

A
  • NEVER morally justifiable
  • always injustice
  • DEPRIVES a person of acquiring something they have earned and have right over
  • distinguishes between UNJUST ACTIONS and UNFAIR STATES OF AFFAIRS
  • starving child = unjust state of affairs but the world is like that sometimes - womp womp?
29
Q

what is stimulated killing?

A
  • act of representing the killing of a morally significant being
  • not real, no suffering, no real death
  • in plays, films, video games
30
Q

what evidence is there for the links between violent media in stimulated killings and acts of violence?

A
  • generally no consensus
  • possibly heightened aggression but this doesn’t always if ever translate to violent acts
31
Q

AU - STIMULATED KILLING
how would an AU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?

A
  • use hedonic calculus, levels of pleasure/pain that each person involved would receive. each person = worth the sane, ADD THIS UP, best choice = hedonic = morally justifiable, CONTEXT DEPENDANT
  • IF RESULT = MORE PAIN THAN PLEASURE THEN NOT MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE AND SHOULDNT BE DONE VICE VERSA
  • justified on quantity of pleasure/pain
32
Q

RU - STIMULATED KILLING
how would an RU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?

A
  • strong/weak rules considered, rules justified on amount of pleasure/pain for maj/min, if killing = NOT A STRONG RULE then should NEVER be done EVEN IF doing so would max/min pleasure/pain and vice versa with WEAK RULES
  • not context dependant, should be consistent
  • higher/lower
  • if NOT SK = STRONG RULE then NEVER morally justifiable and NEVER DONE
  • if WEAK RULE then providing it foist maximise pleasure or minimise pain then it can be MJ and DONE
  • justified on hedonism and consistency
33
Q

PU - STIMULATED KILLING
how would an PU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?

A
  • CONSIDER PREFERNECES OF MORALLY RELEVANT BEINGS, determine overall preferences, clear majority - chosen act UNLESS strength of minority preferences outweigh the majority ones
  • requires agreement, context development, non-hedonistic
  • IF SK = majority pref. or STRONGLY HELD BELIEF then may be MJ and VICE VERSA
  • justified by careful consideration of all morally relevant beings, compromises can be made
34
Q

D - SK
how would a D approach the issue of stealing using 1st formulation
maxim = stimulate killing when you want to be entertained

A
  • ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO MAXIMS YOU CAN WILL TO BE UNIVERSAL LAW
  • must work out contradictions in conception or will relating to maxim
  • maxim doesn’t result in either so IS morally permissible
  • HOWEVER KANT = WE HAVE AN IMPERFECT DUTY to develop morally, compassion to others = weakened by SK, resulting in ur not sticking to our PD so we should stay away from it
35
Q

D - SK
How would a D approach the issue of SK using the 2nd formulation

A
  • TREAT OTHERS AS AN END, NEVER MERELY AS A MEANS TO AN END
  • first work out if doing the act = personal gain, if it does then this takes away from OTHERS RATIONAL WILL AND AUTONOMY so we should REFRAIN from it
  • IF character = based on a real person without their consent and is treated awfully then this may go against this formulation
36
Q

VE - SK
How would a VE approach the issue of SK

A
  • important SK NOT REAL KILLING
  • key = emotional attunement - does someone spend lots of time playing? do they take delight in the SK?
  • this is NOT VIRTUOUS OR WISE
  • context = crucial in determining if it is morally permissible
37
Q

VE - SK
what did Aristotle think about the moral dilemma of SK

A
  • value lies in a persons ability to allow someone to experience CATHARSIS —> process of HIGH EMOTIONS - anger, fear, pity - in a CONTROLLED environment so they can practice their emotional attunement
  • useful to help develop practical wisdom
  • SO may be looked as morally permissible even if perhaps a KEY PART OF HABITUATION
38
Q

why might eating animals be a moral dilemma

A
  • all animals feel pleasure/pain and many are CAPABLE OF REASON
  • process of producing meat = suffering and BROADER MORAL ISSUES - climate crisis
39
Q

AU - EA
how would an AU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?

A
  • use hedonic calculus to determine LEVELS OF pain/pleasure. each person pain/pleasure = worth the same, add this uo, find morally justifiable act, CONTEXT DEPENDANT
  • if eating animals will result in more pleasure than pain then it is morally justifiable and should be done
  • justified based on QUANTITY OF PLEASURE maximised or PAIN minimised
40
Q

RU - EATING ANIMALS
how would an RU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?

A
  • consider STRONG/WEAK RULES, justified on amount/quality of pain reduced for the majority
  • if not EA is a strong rule then it should NEVER BE DONE
  • if not EA is a weak rule then it CAN BE DONE under specific CIRCUMSTANCES
  • consistent but not context dependant
  • if not EA is a strong rule then can NEVER BE MJ and never done
  • if WEAK RULE then if it maximises pleasure or minimises pain the is MJ and CAN BE DONE
    JUSTIFIABLE on basis of rules than are hedonistic
41
Q

PU - EATING ANIMALS
how would an PU make a moral decision?
what kind of decisions would they come to?
justifications?

A
  • CONSIDER PREFERENCES OF MORALLY RELEVANT BEINGS
  • if clear MAJORITY then this action will be chosen and IS MJ unless the STRENGTH of MINORITY PREFERENCES outweighs STRENGTH OF MINORITY PREFERENCES
  • involves agreement, context dependant
  • if EA is a majority preference OR strongly held one then it may be MJ and VICE VERSA
  • justified based on careful consideration of QUALITY of preferences
  • compromises can be reached
42
Q

D - EA
how would a D approach the issue of EA if using the 1st formulation
maxim = eat animals when you want to

A
  • ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO MAXIMS THAT YOU CAN WILL TO BE UNIVERSAL LAW
  • first workout if there are any contradictions in will or conception
  • this maxim doesn’t result in either contradiction so IT IS MJ TO EA
  • however KANT = PERFECT DUTY TO DEVELOP MORALLY which involves developing compassion. if EA contributes negatively then we wouldn’t be sticking to our perfect duty
43
Q

D - EA
how would a D approach issue of eating animals under 2nd formulation

A
  • TREAT OTHERS AS AN END NEVER MERELY AS A MEANS TO AN END
  • D = work out if act would result in using someone for personal gain
  • if it is then this takes away their rational will and autonomy so we should refrain from the action
  • ANIMALS = NOT RATIONAL so not morally significant
  • CAN BE TREATED AS A MEANS TO OUR ENDS
  • it IS MJ TO EA
44
Q

VE - EA
how would a VE approach the issue of EA

A
  • NOT MORALLY PROBLEMATIC
  • non humans so not morally significant
    -may not be indicative of practical wisdom IF someone has the wrong attatchemtn —> finding pleasure in the pain and suffering of animals or eating so much they become unhealthy
    —> this would NOT BE VIRTUOUS OR WISE
45
Q

VE - EA
what would Aristotle think of the moral dilemma of EA

A
  • eudaemonia is concerned with humans not animals because they cannot reason so are not MS
  • A = no moral issue

paper 1 moral content (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions