Ethics Final Study Questions
Ethics Final Study Questions Phil 160
Popular in Ethics
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 18 page Bundle was uploaded by Ciara Putman on Tuesday January 20, 2015. The Bundle belongs to Phil 160 at Kansas taught by Dale Dorsey in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 436 views. For similar materials see Ethics in PHIL-Philosophy at Kansas.
Reviews for Ethics Final Study Questions
Please tell me you're going to be posting these awesome notes every week..
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: 01/20/15
Ethics Final Study Questions Question 2 Negative responsibility Under CO For CO the only thing that matters is if you did something right or wrong is the result If CO is true then it is just as morally wrong to fail to prevent something bad from happening than to do that bad thing yourself Example You look and see a person getting ready to push someone off the roof You could stop the person but you don39t and watch it happen CQ says that is morally wrong You have done something just as bad than the person actually doing the pushing The CQ 5 are identical You are held accountable for things you didn39t prevent and things you actually did yourself Example Another bizarre example of someone failing to prevent something from happening Critique of Negative Responsibility You are morally responsible for bad things you failed to prevent just as much as you are of causing bad things You cannot be responsible for stopping every bad action Example If a gorilla ls killing a kid You could have stopped it but you didn39t so therefore you just killed a kid George Case example George is against chemical warfare Preform action or not preform action Don39t preform action there will be a ton of chemical warfare weapons Williams would say George is only responsible for his actions Jim Case example jim is a paci st Preform action not to preform action Less people will die if he preforms action lfjim does not kill the one person then he will become responsible for the deaths of the other nineteen UT ignores the fact the Pedro is the one who executes the killings and not jim Williams says jim39s only responsibility is to make sure that he does not partake in the crime It is wrong to hold jim responsible when predro is the culprit UT entails jim and George are both morally responsible for what they fail to prevent and allow other to preform Negative Responsibility cannot exist because of integrity shown in the two cases lfjim and George act against their will because they do not want to be responsible for negative responsibility then THEY VIOLATE THEIR INEGRITY Their meaning of life is gone Who they are is gone there would be no reason to live UT is too demanding Counter negative responsibility and violating integrity George case If George and Reggie obsessed with weapons both need a job and the chemical weapons job is offered to both of them and both of them have to accept in order to get job and george still says no George is considered sel sh for not taking job because then Reggie39s integrity is taken away It is okay to ask a serial killer their meaning of life is to kill to not kill violate his integrity than it is to ask George and jim to violate their commitments Williams hasn39t explained why Williams requires a pre exiting act of morality because it divdes commitment of good and bad Should we accept that negative responsibility plays a role in morality NO Murder case example Explain case Kant says if you lie to killer then you are morally responsible for the anything that happens to your friend If you tell the truth you have nothing to worry about because everything from then on is on the killer If you lie and say your friend took off running down the street and lo and be hold your friend just happened to leave and be running down the street then you are responsible because you lied If you would have told the truth and said your friend was under bed and she actually wasn39t and instead she was running down the street you would be off the hook and you just helped your friend out just because you lied trying to protect your friend does not mean you are responsible You did not preform the action of killing your friend You had a good will in helping your friend You had good motives If you lie to help a friend and they surprisingly turn out to be doing exactly what you said it is just a mere coincidence Okay to protect people you love according to foot Question 5 MY TA said to add which one you prefer and why Views of Williams death bad Williams is a critic of Kant and Ut Williams objection to Kant bring up an important set of issues Why is it to continue to live Why do we value life What makes death a bad thing Williams thinks it is smart not to just kill yourself For Williams death is a bad thing because have a number of things that matter to us Ground Projects A many may have many ground projects or a few that are closely related to his existence and which for a signi cant degree give meaning to his life Ground projects are categorized under personal point of view Under this view we are interested in things that interest us It is the thing that matters to you Desires Aims Goals Williams says death is bad because it interrupts things that give meaning to your life Example If you try to discover a cure for cancer It is a ground project for you It gives your life meaning The reason you want to live is so you can cure cancer Death interrupts our ability to take on and complete these very important ground projects that are important to us Personal Point of view First claim The PPV is partial in nature Partial in the sense that it is not impartial Second claim The ppv is crucially important for justifying our lives It is important to explain why death is a bad thing by referring to the ppv We survive because of the things that matter to us Example a guy loses his job and can39t afford to buy his wife medicine she needs to survive They are going to lose their house and car They hardly have any money to eat The wife kills herself because she does not want to be a burden anymore The husband is distraught and starts to kill everyone on wall street and people who denied him loans jobs etc His reason for living is gone so he does not care about the C0 of killing From the ppv death is not a good thing Moral Theory Kant Impartial Explanation Overriding Explanation Commands a motive of duty Explanation According to Wiliams Kant requires us to have one thought too many PPV says we can act on the motives we care about and avoid death According to Kant quotquotquot that motive has no moral worth We are commanded to have the motive of duty regardless what other concerns may come up You are not Under moral theory you are not allowed to avoid death just to keep doing something that gives your life meaning Epicurus view on death death is neither bad nor great Death cannot affect us in a way that is bad for us All you have to do is provide a condition for something s being bad and argue that death fails to meet it The condition an event harms us only if it causes in us the presence of some condition we nd unpleasant pain or suffering We are harmed by only what we experience One never experiences one39s own death it would follow that it cannot harm those who die Things only harm us at times when we exist Death in itself is not bad for us Dor death is not necessarily painful We can die unconscious More death views on epicurus Question 3 look at typed out answers Explain what Kantian ethics is Kant believes rational nature our rational capacity the thing that ties us together is to be considered in and of itself Kant has the statement of universal law I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law I should never act except in such a way that everyone can also act too My act could become a universal for everybody If it is the case that I could will for my maxim to become auniversal then I am conforming to my doing because I am doing something that could be a universal law Explain how maxim could be willed Example of breaking promises Formula for humanity Take the notion of an imperative a command to do things you must do this thing moral obligations for kant there are two categories for imperatives Hypothetical and categorical Hypothetical commands that apply to you as a person on the basis of your desires things you want what you enjoy Concert example Attend class example Categorical imperatives Explanation of stuff Kant on Morality Moral rules are absolutely necessary It is impossible to think anything there is anything at all that is good in and of itself except good well If you have a good will then you are golden You do not need limitations Kant says the goodness of virtue depends on you already having a good will Virtue for its value is only good with a good will Courage is great only if you have a good will Another example Kant does not like only producing the greatest amount of happiness like UT Happiness cannot be good without limitations If happiness were the very best good then what would guide our best action toward that good In order to achieve happiness you have to follow your instincts No rational thought Kant says moral rules have to be necessary for all rational beings What makes rational beings happy varies among rational beings Happiness cannot form foundation of moral being it has to be something else Kant says we need a good will to act in accordance to moral law The goodness of a will is not be determined by the C0 of the action BUT a good will must be good in and of itself C0 of goodwill has no relevance of whether your will is good or not CQ does not matter so you have to look at the will itself Good will examples Case 1 Shop keeper Kid with 10 bill wanting a candy bar Shop keeper cons kid and doesn39t give the kid back his change Case 2 Shop keeper Kid with 10 bill wanting a candy bar Shop keeper decides to give kid back his change to avoid problem with the child39s parents Case 3 Shop keeper Kid with 10 bill wanting a candy bar Shop keeper decides to give kid his change because it is morally wrong to keep it because he would be swindling kid Actions can be inconformity with duty or out of conformity with duty In case 1 the shop keeper does the wrong thing and keeps the money In case 2 and case 3 the keeper conforms to duty and does the right thing You can act in conformity from duty 3 and not incomfority to duty 2 In case 2 the shopkeeper is acting in his own selfinterest He does not do the right thing because he has a good will Back to morality When you act inconformity to duty and act in conformity from duty an action has moral value Give many examples lnconformity and not from duty an action is amoral It has no moral value Examples Out of conformity immoral Examples Duty has nothing to do with cw It is completely opposite from utilitarianism If you have moral value and conform to duty it is okay If you give kid back change and kid buys dynamite with change It doesn39t matter You still did the right thing Maxim kant all rational beings have when they come to preform an action Subjective principal of actions another term for maxim Reason why you are acting Subjective poa personal principal you use when acting Whenever you do something you39re going to have a certain end End means what rational people have You want a certain end but to get there you need a means to get there I do not believe that all and only actions Kant identi es as being morally worthy are morally worthy imagine a person who dedicated their lives to charity They always help people It is what their whole being is about Imagine this person helped other because it was what she wanted to do She just loves to do it For kant that reason has no moral value because she didn t say it was done from the motive of duty For foot this person has a good will because they have the right deskes Duty has to be mentioned for Kant Desires matter Question 8 UT vs Kantianism What it utilitarianism UT Basic Ideas You have to look into the future Moral choice is just an extension of prudential choice An action is morally permissible if and only if it produces the highest total well being of all the available total actions for you and everybody Do things with the most amount of happiness Prudence is impartial about time Treat all times of life equally Do best for all times Building blocks of UT Consequentialism CQ An act is morally permissible if and only if it creates the best consequences for the agent acting Two types Act and rule Welfarism Additive sum ranking What is Kantianism Kant believes whether or not your action conforms to your moral obligations depends on your maxim means ends Statement of universal law I should not do anything except in such a way that my maxim could become a universal law for everybody Do something all rational beings can do Explain way of determining how maxims could be a universal law Formula of humanity act in a way that you use humanity rationality always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means Use rational matter always as an end and never merely as a means Promise breaking UT Okay if CQ are good Does not take promises seriously UT requires us to do bad things Disrupts social order creates a distrust Kant Never okay Imagine promise as universal law Bad things will result example Car wash promise examples If you break promise you fail to conform to duty Which view is more plausible Kant UT requires us to bad things if it produces the best CQ UT is only concerned with happiness Violates meaning of life Jim and George examples Requires us to take on Negative responsibility UT does not care about Justice sheriff example UT does not provide us guidance on how to act because we cannot predict the future Have to look to the past BAD slavery feudalism killing Indians Give a bum 100 and he could buy crack UT wants us to maximize happiness but it is not plausible In order to do that you have to know every single fact desires want Give someone BK instead of wendyys will bring their happiness down Better off not doing anything It is hard to know what will make peeps happy Kant is plausible because of the two formulas it has You can only do things that you expect other people to do If the whole world can do it and the action it is not self defeating it is okay The downside of this is things can happen that have no moral value like tying your shoes ltltlt arbitrary things into law Punching people in face example Kantianism requires you never to use people Kant doesn t care about consequences He only cares about if people on action to and from duty Downside to this every action must be made from duty so if you save a loved on then you only save them because they conform to duty too demanding A person must always do the right thing and not think in your own selfinterest You can never lie or break promise but constance would think this problematic Sunday night ax murderer example But if you follow Kant39s two formulas there would technically be no murderers are bad crimes committed There are no exceptions to his rules like UT So UT and Kant are both really demanding ljust think kant is the less demanding one Question 4 Ignore this Look at typed out part Explain what Kantiansim is Use all things from question 3 OR 8 Williams argument against Kantianism What makes an act moral Major dif culty for Kant39s theory is that it seems not every universal maxim is a moral one arbiturary laws tie your shoes This shows not every maxim that passes universability is a duty Kant does not tell us how we can distinguish moral duties from absurd imperatives It is not inconsistent to will everyone to do so Everyone don t step on cracks in the pavement There are aspects of kant s theory that fall clearly outside of our quotmoral intuitionsquot Ax murderer example Clearly we want to lie to the murderer It is more moral to lie than allow someone to be brutally murdered Kant and the categorical imperative syas it is your duty to thell this mad ax man the truth which lead to murder Kant does not acknowledge the role of emotion We have to put aside our feelings and conform to duty Kant says emotions are irrelevant and that the only appropriate motive for moral action is a sense of duty seems to be at odds with out intuition that certain emotions have a moral dimension Only save people if it conforms to duty Kant is too demanding Expects us not to think about our desires wants etc We most always conform to duty even if it comes down to saving the life of a loved one No exceptions to rule lmpartiality or partial LOOK at my typed out answers Question 1 IGNORE THIS ALL WRONG Two reasons to believe that morality must be a priori Good will It is impossible to think ther is anything at all that is good In and of itself except good will If you have a will you are golden For kant the goodness of virtue depends on you already having a good will Virtue for its value is only good with good will Courage is great only if you have a good will Case examples of shopkeeper with good will Act in and from duty Universability Only a priori concepts apply universally to all experiences of rational beings According to kant the ultimate principle of morality must be a moral Iaw conceivd so abstractly that it is capable of guiding us to the right action in application to every possible set of circumstances Universalizability by virtue of which is can be applied at all times to every moral agent Right actions are those that practical reason would will as universal law Maxims How to do decide if they are good With these reasons can actions be dependent on C0 of actions Yes Duty has nothing to do with consequences Completely opposite from UT If you have a moral value and conform to and from duty to give kid back change and kid buys dynamite with change it doesn39t matter You still did the right thing People act on maxims which means they have a certain end Rational beings deliberate an end and act in a sis to achieve an end You have an end and you think about your means to complete end You do not think about the CQ you only think about how you are going to go achieve your ends
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'