Exam 2 Bundle
Exam 2 Bundle PHL 2008
Popular in Social Ethics
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 6 page Bundle was uploaded by Thomas nelson on Friday March 25, 2016. The Bundle belongs to PHL 2008 at High Point University taught by Thaddeus M. Ostrowski in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 23 views. For similar materials see Social Ethics in PHIL-Philosophy at High Point University.
Reviews for Exam 2 Bundle
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 03/25/16
Thomas Nelson https://studysoup.com/highpointuniversity/phl2008/studyguide/exam2studyguide? id=731796 Purple Heart situation → Pentagon considered adding PTSD conditions to criteria for it o “Participation Trophy” Erodes significance o Heap o Telos (purpose) 3 approaches to ethical thinking o Maximizing welfare – utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill Peter Singer o Respecting freedom and rights Immanuel Kant Deontology 2 camps Freedom LaissezFaire: Freedom from interference; Robert Nozick, libertarianism, free market Equality Fairness: Equal dignity of each individual; John Rawls, liberalism, egalitarianism o Cultivating virtue and promoting the good life Aristotle Virtue ethics Reflective Equilibrium – Bringing into alignment our judgments in particular cases with our reflective principles o Socrates’ objection to Cephalus’ definition of justice (telling the truth and repaying debts → giving a weapon back to a mad man) Ancient president: Epicurus (341270 BC) Developed by Jeremy Bentham (17481832) Revised by John Stuart Mill (18061873) Epicureanism o Like Utilitarianism, a form of “philosophical hedonism” “Hedon” is Greek word for pleasure o Not crass/crude about avoiding distress and achieving a stable state of balanced pleasure (avoiding “highs and lows”) Motive → Act → CONSEQUENCES Morality of an act is not determined by intentions/motives, nor can we know from the act itself whether it is morally right/justified; “the ends justify the means” Thomas Nelson Happiness = Pleasure o The only intrinsic good, all other goods are instrumental (they are desirable because they are useful for promoting happiness) Kinds of pleasure o Physical (eating, sex) o Personal (satisfaction of a job well done) o Aesthetic (appreciation off beauty, music) o Intellectual (rush of “getting it” → Eureka!) Not an egoistic theory: Everyone affected by some action is to be counted equally and our own happiness counts no more than others’ “[The] standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether.” We may even have to sacrifice our own happiness, if to do so increases total/overall happiness Calculating the greatest amount of happiness o 5 criteria Net amount of pleasure/happiness Its intensity (circumstances) Its duration Its fruitfulness (can the pleasure grow?) → Learning a language, learning to play an instrument Likelihood of outcome (how likely is act to produce anticipated pleasure?) 2 objections to Utilitarianism o Individual rights Throwing Christians to lions Torture Ursula K. LeGuin’s “city of happiness” o Common currency of value Benefits of lung cancer → More profitable for government to let people smoke and die of lung cancer Exploding gas tanks (the Ford Pinto) → Cheaper to pay out settlements than to pay the $11 per car to fix the problem Discount for seniors on life insurance Gain for pay (put price on: cut off toe, eat worm, live in Kansas, kill cat with bare hands → Does everything have a price?) St. Anne’s girls (boys staying overnight) o Reply to first objection – the case of liberty Are freedoms and rights socially useful? Can only restrict freedom if it impinges on freedom of another Thomas Nelson Character matters o Reply to second objection – “higher” pleasures The Singst Solution to World Poverty o 1 premise – Suffering is bad o 2 premise – If it’s in your power to stop something bad, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it’s wrong not to do so o 3 premise – By donating, you can stop suffering without sacrificing anything important o Conclusion – Therefore, if you don’t donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong o Must give until giving causes you more suffering than it benefits others nd 2 approach to justice: Respecting freedoms and rights o Immanuel Kant o 2 camps Laissez Faire Fairness Robert Nozick o Anarchy, State, Utopia (1974) introduces libertarianism to mainstream culture and gives it intellectual “respectability” o 2 “thought experiments” to refute utilitarianism The experience machine (virtual reality) Utility monster “Liber” means “free” in Latin Emphasizes inviolable freedoms of individual not to be used or coerced John Stuart Mill said that “rights” are socially useful; for Libertarians, they are fundamental and violable Individual has the right to do whatever he/she wants with the things he/she owns, as long as you respect other people’s rights to do the same Emphasizes our rights: Freedom/liberty It places less emphasis on our responsibilities (other than to leave others alone or not infringe on their rights/freedoms) Nonmaleficence rather than beneficence 3 criteria of justice → John Locke o Justice in acquisition o Justice in transfer o Justice in rectification Nozick says o “A distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution” Thomas Nelson o “A distribution is just if it arises from another just distribution by legitimate means” 2 arguments in favor of free market 1) Utilitarianism – Maximizing happiness (consequentialist argument) 2) Libertarian – Respect rights and selfownership of people involved (non consequentialist argument) 2 arguments against free market 1) Free market isn’t free or fair You have to be informed beforehand 2) Degradation of “higher goods” Certain things shouldn’t be for sale Children, self/body/labor of body 2 ways Locke “disappoints” Libertarians 1) Rights are inalienable (we don’t own ourselves absolutely) 2) Social contracts What is Enlightenment? o Emerging from immaturity o Thinking for yourself o Having the courage to use your own reason o “Dare to know!” 3 major works (critiques) o Critiques of Pure Reason (metaphysics, the true) o Critique of Practical Reason (ethics, the good) o Critique of Judgments (aesthetic, the beautiful) Also wrote “The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals” (excerpt) What gives an act moral worth? o We are responsible for our motive, not consequences – they are beyond our control (we can only control what we do and why we do it) o The belief that people are autonomous, rational beings with intrinsic value → So people shouldn’t be used To be “autonomous” is to be “a law unto oneself” o “Auto” means “self” and “nomos” means “law” o Free or “selflegislating” (acting on laws one gives oneself) “Heteronomous” is opposite – controlled by something outside o Slave to desire/inclination, follow the crowd, or blindly obey rules/law To be autonomous is not to do whatever you want, it is to be able to step back from desires or inclinations and choose how to act (or on which to get) Bentham was wrong that pleasure and pain are our “sovereign masters” What is the right motive? o It is acting out of duty, a concern or respect for the objective moral law o It is doing something because it is the right thing to do Thomas Nelson He does not trust people’s feelings because they come and go (aren’t constant) Shopkeeper and child shopper example → Did duty for the wrong reason (to protect his reputation, not because it is the right thing to do) Contrasts with Utilitarianism both in what it names as an intrinsic good o Happiness (Pleasure) vs. Human person Nonconsequentialist or Deontological theory MOTIVE ACT CONSEQUENCES JOHN STUART Greater good MILL IMMANUEL Act out of duty Act according to duty (in KANT conformity with duty) The Categorical Imperative o Necessary or required in moral sense → command Hypothetical vs. Categorical o Hypothetical is conditional takes form of an “if… then” statement (instrumental, extrinsic) o Categorical is absolute (intrinsic) 2 forms of the Categorical Imperative 1) “Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law” Not about consequences, but Avoiding making oneself and exception Avoiding contradicting oneself or acting in a selfdefeating way Not the “golden rule” (that is a hypothetical imperative) Ex: Lying to spare someone’s feelings (maxim) → People would lie all the time, so people couldn’t trust anything people said, therefore, people’s feelings would not be spared 2) “Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end” Always respect people as beings of intrinsic worth (don’t treat oneself or anything else as things) No prostitution PERFECT DUTIES: IMPERFECT DUTIES: Thomas Nelson PROSCRIBED () PRESCRIBED (+) IT IS OUR DUTY NOT TO DO THEMIT IS OUR DUTY TO DO THEM (TO (TO PERFORM IS CULPABLE OR PERFORM IS MERITORIOUS OR BLAMEWORTHY) PRAISEWORTHY) TO SELF Not to commit suicide Develop talents Not to lie or murder Beneficence – To do good TO OTHERS to/for others SELL KIDNEYS? UTILITARIANISM WinWin for person who gets kidney and whoever got to use the money (Ex: Father selling kidneys to pay for children’s college tuitions) LIBERTARIANISM Yes because of selfownership (as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else) LOCKE No because we do not own ourselves absolutely (God does) Maybe selling one is okay because God could have intended it that way KANT No because one be using oneself as a mere means (treating oneself as a thing for a profit)
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'