Intro to Ethics, Week 4 Notes
Intro to Ethics, Week 4 Notes 21001
Popular in Intro to Ethics
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Hannah Kennedy on Wednesday February 10, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to 21001 at Kent State University taught by Devon M. Hawkins in Summer 2015. Since its upload, it has received 18 views. For similar materials see Intro to Ethics in PHIL-Philosophy at Kent State University.
Reviews for Intro to Ethics, Week 4 Notes
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: 02/10/16
Copyright ©: Hannah Kennedy, Kent State University 1 Essay quiz on Wednesday over anything since last quiz Jean Kazez: Necessities (Monday 2/8/16 Lecture Notes) 1. Theory of Welfare = what makes life better, how do we fare (do) well a. Subjective perspective = I only benefit from things I want or have a positive attitude towards i. Heathwood’s subjective theory 1. Desires/wants are genuine attractions a. Ex = Ted Bundy objection—he made a bad choice but his desires that he had a genuine attraction to was fulfilled and therefore he was satisfied (biting the bullet with subjectivist thinking) 2. No guaranteed net benefit a. Ex = cherry pie objection—benefitted from eating the pie because he really wanted it but in the end he’s gonna die because he’s super allergic 3. I have to know that my desire was satisfied a. Ex = uncle pie objection—I have to actually know he’s okay so that my desire to know he’s doing well is satisfied 4. My desires can’t be idealized; I can only want things capable of having 5. Basic harm = not getting basic desires ii. Hedonism is a subjective theory b. Objective perspective = There are things I benefit from whether I like them or not (universal things that are of valuable to everyone) i. Kazez (value theorist): necessary goods (required) vs. sufficient goods (just enough but not required) 1. Necessary goods—5 universally valuable things a. Happiness— best when it comes from a good source (aka other necessities) b. Autonomy—the ability to determine your own actions, state of being, your own self i. Self = the idea that I have a purpose c. Selfexpression—requires unity; having enough autonomy to have opinions and preferences distinct to you i. Exercise our autonomy to the fullest extent d. Morality—a commitment to morality; we live among others so we have some sort of a commitment to their wellbeing because their wellbeing affects my well being i. Because it affects my wellbeing I need it Copyright ©: Hannah Kennedy, Kent State University 2 ii. Dependent upon what kind of morality we are speaking about e. Progress over time—things will/should gradually get better over time; no stagnation ETHICS Value Theory Normative Theory Metaethics Moral Problems 2. Normative theory = ethical theory = theories of right action; dealing with the content of morality a. Euthyphro (a dialogue)—Plato (“broad” because he had really broad shoulders); student of Socrates i. Plato’s real name is Aristocles ii. Divide these dialogues into 3 periods 1. The Socratic (Early) Period—Euthyphro 2. The (Middle) Transitional Period 3. The Mature Period (Late) b. Piety = holiness c. The Socratic Method = way of determining definitions; extrapolate other things from this method i. Propose a definition ii. Test the definition iii. Revise, reject, or accept the definition and return to step one if revised or rejected d. Essence, nature, form = all and the only things with a specific quality or characteristic e. The Divine Command Theory = God determines our actions i. Plato refutes this claim without bringing religion in; does it through logic and definitions Copyright ©: Hannah Kennedy, Kent State University 1 21016 Lecture Notes: Euthyphro 1. Plato (428347 BCE) a. Socrates’ most famous student 2. Euthyphro a. a Socratic Period dialogue i. Socratic dialectic aka “The Socratic Method” 1. way to go about arguments, find definitions, scientific method 2. 3 steps to the method a. Propose a definition (Trying to define Piety (holiness) in the dialogue) i. Definition = essence, form, nature; should pick out all and only things b. Test the proposed definition c. Accept (rare) or revise/reject the definition and start over again 3. Often a “questionanswer” form a. Ex = inclassroom discussion b. Backstory i. Euthyphro is a holy man and is prosecuting his father for killing a slave who also killed a slave ii. 399 BCE—Socrates is on trial for impiety and corrupting the youth 1. Gets convicted and is executed via poison 2. Interested in finding out what piety is because he’s been charged with impiety c. The Homeric Conception of Virtue = state that good actions help my friends and family and hurt my enemies; bad actions hurt my friends and family and help my enemies i. a hero conception of virtue (stems from Homer in the Odyssey) ii. Socrates is intrigued by Euthyphro because Euthyphro seems to have gone against this conception of virtue by putting his father through trial even though it’ll hurt his father d. Possible definitions of “piety” i. Definition of Piety Page # Socrates’ response prosecute the 58 Socrates doesn’t like wrongdoers is pious this definition because and not prosecuting it’s just an example of wrongdoers is impiety impious What the Gods love is 59 “Which gods? They pious and what they disagree”; polytheistic: hate is impious there is more than 1 Copyright ©: Hannah Kennedy, Kent State University 2 God and they may disagree; rejected What all the Gods 62 “Are things pious love is pious and because they are loved what all the Gods by the Gods (option a) hate is impious or do the Gods love things because they are pious? (option b— Euthyphro agrees with this option)” therefore the god loved things are not the same as the pious; Socrates doesn’t like this because Euthyphro has just given him a characteristic of pious things e. The Divine Command Theory = things are moral because God (or insert any supernatural being you like here) says so i. Therefore moral things only depend on God’s preference ii. Problem: 1. morality has no other foundation other than the being that we don’t completely know and therefore this idea is arbitrary
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'