Exam 3 Study Guide
Exam 3 Study Guide PHL 2008
Popular in Social Ethics
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
verified elite notetaker
This 5 page Study Guide was uploaded by Thomas nelson on Monday April 25, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to PHL 2008 at High Point University taught by Thaddeus M. Ostrowski in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 39 views. For similar materials see Social Ethics in PHIL-Philosophy at High Point University.
Reviews for Exam 3 Study Guide
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: 04/25/16
Thomas Nelson John Rawls (19212002) published “A Theory of Justice” in 1971 o Made ethics and the meaning of justice the primary focus of philosophical discussion o He rejected Utilitarian and Libertarian accounts of justice, and his ideas have been prominent in all decisions of justice since His theory emphasizes “justice as fairness” Criticism of Utilitarianism o Permits gross inequalities o Individual rights can’t be treated for overall welfare of society (Libertarianism agrees) Criticism of Libertarianism o Are initial acquisitions accidents of birth? Results of “natural lottery” (unmerited or earned)? o Did you get to choose who you are? Do you deserve the circumstances of your birth or the talents and abilities with which you were endowed? Did you “earn” them in any way? Malcolm Gladwell’s notion of “Outliers” o Hockey example: 2/3 of Canada’s pro hockey players were born in January and February Cutoff date in their hockey leagues → They are older and bigger in each league, generally Sometimes consent is not sufficient to make a contract fair (old lady’s expensive toilet) Sometimes consent is not necessary (Hume’s house, squeegee and car, roadside car repair, lifesaving surgery while unconscious) Contracts derive from their moral force from o Autonomy (consent) o Reciprocity (mutual benefit) Rawls’ solution is the “original position” behind the “veil of ignorance” o This allows us to think about the sort of contract we would and should agree to Behind the “veil of ignorance” no one knows o Gender o Race o Socioeconomic status o Natural assets Ablebodies or you could be handicapped Intelligence Talents/Abilities Jif peanut butter commercial Thomas Nelson 2 principles of justice for agreeing to social contract o The Equal Liberty Principle o The Difference Principle Rawls argues we would all want our basic rights respected and as much freedom as possible o So we would reject Utilitarianism because we would not take the chance of being sacrificed for “greater good” The Equal Liberty Principle o “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all” → There is a limit to freedom, so everyone can have same freedom Distribution in society should not be based on arbitrariness of natural lottery o Ex: Feudal aristocracy is unfair because accidents of birth determine your life prospects We will not insist on strict equality; we will believe we can do even better: inequalities can be beneficial and, therefore, it is in our best interest to allow them, but only under certain conditions 3 arguments for affirmative action 1) Correcting for testing gap → Bias, preparation 2) Compensating for past wrongs and their persisting effects 3) Promoting diversity (Teological) Educational mission of the school Social mission of the school Cultivating Virtue and the Good Life o Aristotle (virtue ethics) → Teological but nonconsequentialist The first 2 theories try to remain neutral of the good o The “welfare” approach (utilitarianism) wants to maximize pleasure, but refrains from judging pleasures or what gives us pleasure o Rights and Freedom approach says the right is prior to the good, maximizing freedom so that people can choose to pursue their own private/personal vision of the good 384322 BC → Mentored by Plato and tutored Alexander the Great After death of Alexander the Great, a charge of impiety (not believing in the gods of the city) was brought against Aristotle Left Athens “in order not to give Athens the opportunity to commit another sin against philosophy” “School of Athens” by Rafael Thomas Nelson o Plato (Doctrine of the “forms”) → The essence of things will last forever, even if it doesn’t actually last forever itself o Aristotle (Empirical method) Virtue is necessary but not sufficient for happiness (Eudaimonia; flourishing) There is a sort of “completeness” to happiness: possess all virtues, throughout one’s life, but also have all other things necessary Ex: noble birth, good looks, sufficient wealth (money can’t make you happy, but you can’t be happy if you live in deprivation) Glaucon’s case against justice Aristotle: “No one would call the life of such a man happy, except for the sake of maintaining an argument.” REALITY REPUTATION Person 1 Perfectly unjust Just Person 2 (Jesus or Socrates) Perfectly just Unjust Aristotle does say that the virtuous person bears misfortune as well as possible So happiness or Eudaimonia is human flourishing, a life of exercising the virtues with all the externals and material conditions necessary to sustain that flourishing Preliminary definition of virtue o “Every virtue or excellence Renders good the thing itself of which it is the excellence Make us good human beings Causes it to perform its function well” Live well The things we have to learn to do, we learn by doing them (habituation) Virtues are characteristics that perfect our nature, acquired by habituation, to the point where they become like 2 nature o “Habit brings nature to completion” A very important point: virtue as the mean o “By the mean relative to us I understand an amount neither too large nor too small, and this is neither the one nor the same for everybody” Differs from person to person because people are not the same Generosity is a virtue in everyone, but it looks different for each of us o Bill Gates has more money than most, so he can donate more money Virtue is a mean relative to each person and vice is an extreme Justice is giving each their due (Have to find the fit between the 2 dimensions) 2 dimensions (according to Sandel) Thomas Nelson 1) Teological – What is the purpose? 2) Honorific – What virtues/excellences are necessary to achieve the purpose? o Ex: Best flutes deserve to go to the best flute players because the best flutes deserve to be played the best Moral Individualism We are responsible only for what we ourselves do To be free is to be subject only to obligations I voluntarily incur Little room for collective responsibility/duty to bear moral burdens of ancestors o Reparations for slavery Ex: Locke, Kant, Rawls If we think of ourselves this way, “as individual selves, unbound by moral ties we haven’t chosen, we can’t make sense of a range of moral and political obligations that we commonly recognize, even prize” (Sandel, p. 220) o Ex: parents, the way we talk about actions of the U.S. as what “we” did (“we” won WWII) o Counter Ex: we disown “them,” those who enslaved people o No one wants to be involved with the bad stuff, by want to take credit for the good stuff Narrative Self o Sandel says sometimes we experience ourselves as “encumbered” with certain responsibilities we didn’t choose because of the way we are historically situated (accidents of birth) Alasdair Macintyre: Our identities are wrapped up in stories – our own and the larger ones of which we are a part – and at least some of them we don’t choose, but inherit: o “Of what story do I find myself a part? What is good for me is what is good for someone who inhabits these roles” o Ex: Inigo Montoya is Princess Bride 3 types of moral obligation 1) Natural Duties – Universal to persons as persons; don’t require consent 2) Voluntary Obligations – Particular; Arise from consent (deals, contracts) 3) Obligations of Solidarity – Particular, involuntary, not chosen; flow from membership in community 3 objections 1) If obligations are born from membership, then it creates conflicting duties/responsibilities (lots of them) Thomas Nelson 2) Idea of “obligations of solidarity” are inherently problematic: they are emotional on affective prejudices, not truly moral duties/responsibilities/obligations 3) These counterexamples are actually based on liberal ideas of autonomy (voluntary) or reciprocity (mutual benefit) (2 foundations for valid contracts), which can account sufficiently for the apparent examples of a 3 kind of obligation
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'