×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to NCS - phi 205 - Study Guide - Final
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to NCS - phi 205 - Study Guide - Final

Already have an account? Login here
×
Reset your password

NCS / Philosophical / Religious / Ethical Perspectives / PHIL 205 / What are the three objects that relate to utilitarianism?

What are the three objects that relate to utilitarianism?

What are the three objects that relate to utilitarianism?

Description

School: North Carolina State University
Department: Philosophical / Religious / Ethical Perspectives
Course: Intro to Philosophy
Professor: Benjamin bagley
Term: Fall 2016
Tags:
Cost: 50
Name: Phi 205 Study Guide - Final Exam
Description: These notes cover the topics that are going to be on the exam, except the first portion of the class before the midterm
Uploaded: 12/08/2016
4 Pages 64 Views 3 Unlocks
Reviews


PHIL 205 Final Exam Study Guide


What are the three objects for utilitarianism?



Daniel Dennett’s “Where Am I?” focuses on his body verses his brain.  

∙ Know how the parts of the story relate to psychological and bodily views of  personal identity

∙ When his body is being destroyed by radioactive forces, his brain still manages to  exist outside of his body

∙ He can form functional thoughts while in his body, despite his brain being encased  in an incubator

∙ He gets switched into another body and transitions (scarily) well to that change ▪ While he was unconscious, the scientists cloned his brain, so he  technically has two

▪ This is where the questions Where Am I? comes into play

Singer –

∙ If you can prevent something bad from happening, you’re morally obligated to do  it


What is the difference between subjective and sophisticated consequentialism?



∙ We’re also required to give money to third world countries

o The arguments for why is just as important as saving a child from drowning Smart and Carritt

∙ What is utilitarianism –

o Doing good for the most good  

o Overall happiness

∙ Carritt

o Three objects for utilitarianism

▪ 1. Morally bad forms of happiness as morally weighty

▪ 2. Promises

▪ 3. Punishments  

∙ Smart

o 1. Extreme and restricted utilitarianism

o 2. Rules


What are the four kinds of luck?



o 3. Wrongness vs. blameworthiness

Williams  

∙ Utilitarianism not adequate as a moral theory because it alienates us from our  world If you want to learn more check out What are membrane cascades?

∙ 1. George and Jim

o Scientist, chemist, cut down on amounts of weapons being used – George o Jim has to shoot someone to save nine others

∙ 2. Alienation  

o Incoherent argument

o Utilitarianists have to say project and relationship is to think in perspective  of project  

▪ Projects are important but what you think are projects aren’t

▪ His argument - he thinks this concept is absurd

Railton –

∙ 1. Difference between subjective and sophisticated consequentialism ∙ Utilitarianism should be sophisticated, a standard for morally good lives, but nota  decision  

∙ 2. Avoids Williams’ alienation objection

∙ 3. Alienation from moral relations with others

Langton –

∙ Sketches for non-utilitarianism

∙ Derive from idea to interact with rational and responsible agent, only on grounds  they can share  

∙ 1. Respecting others, rational and responsible

o Interact with others only on grounds they can share (precludes lying and  coercion)

Wolf –

∙ Moral sainthood prevents us from appreciating non-moral value for its own sake ∙ “Rational sainthood” and “Loving sainthood” We also discuss several other topics like What are the major parties in the history of the us?

o Each have the consequence from the first bullet point

Nagel –

∙ Paradoxical  

∙ Our natural moral attitudes imply that luck can make a difference for what you’re  judged morally for

o A. our natural moral judgements imply it exists

o B. our reflective moral judgements imply it doesn’t

o C. four kinds of luck

▪ 1. Outcome luck – in the case of a driver hitting a pedestrian

▪ 2. Luck in history – luck to have been born by your parents

▪ 3. Involuntary – out of your control

▪ 4. Luck in circumstances (Germans during WWII)

Chisholm –

∙ Freedom required for moral responsibility have to be undetermined and not  random if we can cause what happens in a special way

∙ 1. Argument that freedom is capable either with a. determinism or b. randomness ∙ But neither requires agent “causation” Don't forget about the age old question of What is urban morphology?

Smart, Strawson Jr., Strawson Sr. –

∙ Smart –

o Justified blame is compatible with determinism because only justigfied  blame consists in correcting bad behavior and behavior is correctable even  if determinism is true

∙ Strawson Jr. –

o Justified blame isn’t compatible with determinism because blame consists  in holding someone ultimately accountable and you can only hold someone  ultimately accountable if they were causally responsible for the causes of  their actions

▪ Which requires being “causa sui” of a self-cause

∙ Strawson Sr. –

o Justified blame is compatible with determinism because blame consists in  the reactive attitudes and it is impossible that anything (including  determinism) could require us to give these up entirely, since they make us  human Don't forget about the age old question of How genes relate to crime?

o Overlaps with Langton – know the stanfces

Williams –

∙ Justification of our actions at fundamental level has to be justification of luck and  judgement has to be wrong

∙ No justification of fundamental level and not subject to luck so moral justification of moral luck has to be wrong

∙ Take responsibility for some causes of our actions

Taylor and Wolf –

∙ Taylor –

o A meaningful life is creative in pursuant of a good and freely close ends  ∙ Wolf –

o A meaningful life in action, successful engagement in worthwhile projects  and relationships

Frankfurt –

∙ Essence of bullshit

∙ Assertions unrelated to truth, distinct from lying

∙ When you lie you have to know the truth or sincerely believe something is the case  o Lying is guided by the truth

∙ Say things for effect you want to produce on listeners If you want to learn more check out What is the difference between private and shared worldviews?
We also discuss several other topics like Are there religious conceptions in old cultures?

∙ You can be truthfully bullshitting on accident

∙ Examples – writing a paper, politics, saying “I’m fine” in casual conversation

Page Expired
5off
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here