Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 43 page One Day of Notes was uploaded by Irene Hendricks on Monday September 8, 2014. The One Day of Notes belongs to a course at a university taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 59 views.
Reviews for Phil.pdf
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: 09/08/14
Phil 9814 916 PM Mistake people think they ought to do top common three inconsistency problem with your beliefs within your mind1 abortion is morally wrong 2 it is wrong to intentionally take the life of a human organism 3 Capital punishment is morally justified inconsistent btw 2 amp3 begging the question error you make when you make an moral argument Reassurted the claim you are trying to prove 1 state sanctionedkiing of prisoners is morally wrong 2 CP is the satisfaction killing of prisoners 3 CP is morally wrong begging the question is 1amp3 tu quoque mike D dad catches you smoking and he says no way MCA that hypocrite smokes 2 packs a day Conclusion you should not have to refrain from smoking Fallacy Just because one person does it means that it is right You do something else error because moral discussions is people telling people how to actlive tempting accuse other people of hypocrisy Doesn39t mean they are wrong they are just behaving wrongly singer article morally required of us to donate and save what is required of us not to starve first claim Suffering is bad bad instrumentay bad thing produces amp bad in itsefsingers claim Second caim pg 231 In our power to prevent something bad that happens without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance then we ought morally to do it third claim the loss of non essential goods is not comparably morally important to death by starvation lack of medical care etc hence if you can give up non essential goods to prevent suffering death you ought to do so suit dirty ex Fourth caim if you can give non essential goods to prevent suffering of death you ought to fifth claim you can give up non essential goods to prevent suffering of death sixth caim hence you are morally required to give up non essential goods for the sake of the prevention of the suffering of death Phil 9814 916 PM singers argument is valid is the premises are true then the conclusion must be true Impossible for 15 to be true and for the conclusion to be false Invalidvalidor sound have to go through validity Intrinsic value Instrumenta vaue suffering has good means to something else Ex Quarter a criminal others will learn not to be criminals Counter argument fair share view 9 Against premises 2 1 if everyone gave up 20 bucks1950 then as much as could be done to prevent suffering would be done 2 if on singers view I am required to give up more than 20 bucks this is because someone else didn39t give their 20 bucks 3 it is unfair to require people to make up for the moral short comings of others 4 singers premises 2 is unfair if a principle is unfair then its false if 15 is true then 6 is true Ex 1 All bachelors are unmarried males John is a bachelor John is an unmarried male sound Ex 2 Barack Obama is a trombone All trombones are made of peanut butter Barak Obama is made of peanut butter valid Not sound Phil 9814 916 PM You39ve got to do more than your fair share because others wont Fairness can be a factor In trying to figure out if we our morally required to do something or not Not the only factor One among many Survival of peope coud be a factor unfair that you have to save everyone but since some many peoples lives are at stake that factor airness is outweighed Judith Thompson Kantian Principerejected Always threat people as ends in themselves never as mere means using someone Transplant effect first case Trolley Driver 2quotd case how to reconcile the 2 judgments that its perfectly fine to kill 1 person in this case but not perfectly fine to kill 1 person in the Transplant effect case Trolley Bystander turn the switch to the 1 chained up person you ought to turn the trolley if this is true than I is false I killing 1 is worse than letting 5 die II killing 5 is worse than killing 1 if these are true than the problem is solved Phil 9814 916 PM Exam2 weeks from today People have rights rejected Transpant violates rights the Trolley case does not violate rights organ faiure feeing threatened Healthy person homicida doc Makes him feel threatened No pre existing thing that39s making threaten the healthy person creating a new threat Troey threatens the lives of the 5 Troey threatens the lives of the 1 A pre existing threat just gets redirected to the other person Thompson proposal Distributive exemption does not work in Trolley 2quot no pre existing threat for the fat man on the bridge right onein a sense besides the other fat man on the bridge case if you are threatened by something that would have threatened more people it is not wrong to redirect this threat to you Fat man Threat is not the same distributive exemption rejected in this case Threat the trolley to the group Threat you threat the fat man morality is relative harmen meta ethical claim a view about moral claims themselves Claim about status of sentences of you ought to save the kid drowning moral reativeness there is no single true morality There are many different moral frameworks none of which are more true than any others moral absoutism there is one single true morality moral nihiism moraity should be abandoned Phil 9814 916 PM one sheet of notes for exam Week from Wednesday Harmen cont mora relativismno single true morality mora absoutism there is 1 true morality moral nihilismno such thing at morality Moral diversity different people accept different moral codes morally justified or morally not savery abortion vegetarianism fat earth society A 1Mora diversity exists 2 see below for 2 Moral relativism is the best explanation of moral diversity 3 moral relativism is true Moral diversity is almost impossible to get rid of inference the best explanation what harmen wants to argue Ex We accept Einstein and reject the light gods its a bad explanation Moral absolutists objection B 1 moral diversity exists 2 some people are not well placed to discourse the truth about morality lack of education high bound traditionresistant to change dogma statement or belief you accept whether its true or not 3 moral relativism is false C Harmons responsebegging the question nota good argument 1 morality is relative 2motion is relative so to his morality 3moraity is relative 2 ways to argue against the inference of best explanation 1 offer a better explanation Argument from analogy 2 deny the phenomena is a man Raches 1 Can no longer criticize other cutures if we accept relativism 2 can no longer criticize oursevesown society 3 no moral progress 2 the fact that some people are not well placed to discover the truth about morality is the best explanation of moral diversity Morality motion 9 both reativethis response to the 2 begs the question should we reject it Diversity practice is not equal to Diversity moraity Phil 9814 916 PM notes one page front and back get a blue book we don39t know how much moral diversity there is We first have to know of someone s moral claim that they have all the information9That they aren39t making basic mistakes what is good 9 for me itself 1 It39s important 2moraity cares 1 makes me better off 2 increases my we being 3increases my we fare 4gives me a higher quality of life pleasure and only peasure example if food doesn39t give you pleasure then its not good for yourself Hedonism your life gets better if you have more pleasure it gets worse if you don39t have any pleasure how much pleasure we had everything else was irrelevant Epicurus 1 what is good feeing9 pleasure 2 how do I get it Peasure subjective argument depends on our own attitudedesires 1we desire pleasure and only pleasure 2 getting what we desire is good for us 3 the only good thing is pleasure No one persons argument 1imagine a life with the most possible pleasure 2 imagine that same life with the addition of X it can be anything 3 the second life for any X is not better than the first 4 the only thing that is good for us is pleasure Phil 9814 916 PM Exam Wednesday 1 live simply 2 live virtuously wise honorable justly 3 death is nothing to us Epicurus argument about death 1 the only good thing is pleasure the only bad thing is pain 2 only experiences can be pleasant or painful 3 death entails the absence of experience 4concusion death is nothingdeath is not good or bad it39s nothing Experience machine Phil 9814 916 PM Hedonism what is pleasure First theory sensory hedonism one single feeling that we call pleasure that is present whenever we have this pleasurable kind of feeling Mental feeling Shared among all pleasurable feeling rejectable Second theory preference hedonism a pleasurable experience is any experience that we want to havedesire Not one single feeling Differ by the definition of the nature of pleasure The Desire satisfaction second broad category of views 1 getting what we desire is good for usreason to believe this 2 we desire only pleasure false 3 hedonism is truecan t conclude this Desire satisfaction9 which desires Unrestricted view if you want something for its own sake then it makes you better off Not just for something else Argument for unrestricted view we have desire about other people not about yourself Success view ife gets better when only what you want is something about your life not an ex Wanting the mans leg to heal ex Desire to go see an awesome rock concert about meyou 9 which desires about ones own life Version of the success view summative success view rejected whenever you have the desire for your own sake for your own life that counts in favor for your wellbeing problem with this view imagine that I39m a straight up drug dealer smieX im going to get you addicted to smilex incredibly addictive want to harm yourself if you don39t have it everyday Doesn39t give you big hightrip Bonus is favor to you give you unlimited amount Add up all desires Ton of satisfied desireds Version of the success view global success view don39t add up every desire look specifically to the desires they have not individual moments about the whole of there lives grand scale ex Flourishing career Only mental experiences makes you better offdifference between preference hedonism and desire satisfaction not restricted to the expe ence Problems Posthumous desires after death harmbenefit Problem of base desires blade of grass example Phil 9814 916 PM 1Posthumous desires after death accomplishments ex 2 base desires grass counting ex Obiective list 1objective certain things in life will make you better off even if you don39t desirevalue those things 2 it39s a ist tes us what is in our interests Providing us a list of good things What39s on the list no real answer Does is make people better off or not Ex security family achievement pain free pleasure knowledge virtue courage for example etc None of them which requires us to value them But those things will bring you a better life 1 dissatisfied Einstein Parfit s hybrid hybrid of preference hedonism and the objective list Get things on the list and take pleasure in those things feel good about them Aristotle what is happiness Eudemonia essence to live welllive in the highest state Has to have at least 2 characteristics 1 happiness must be complete choice worthy for themselves simply for it39s own sake intrinsic good 2 happiness must be self sufficient life to lack nothing Unconditionally good 8 Phil 9814 916 PM Aristotle cont Happiness eudemonia to live wel Happiness compete intrinsicay good ex Money doesn39t do anything but the things it buys you is good Sef sufficient lacks nothing 9 unconditionally good II Three common beliefs of happiness Only way to live an active life of virtue is to have pleasure essential accompaniment with the good all of them are rejected 1 peasure does not mean to live well neither complete or self sufficient9ex The cow has the best life not sef sufficient 2 honor other people to take a certain view of you happiness can not depend on people honoring you happiness it can39t be taken away from you if people choose to stop honoring you happiness is something that is your own and hard to take away from honor those people who have virtues 3 virtue it is not lacking in nothing Not selfsufficient passive virtue actively shape your environment just let things happen and that39s enough what does it mean to have a good life What does good mean 1 if something has a unique function to fulfill this function well is the good for this thing 2 unique function of humans is the activity of the part of the soul life force that has reason Vegetative sou takes in nutrients and grows Ex Plants Next level is the appetitive sou animals must have veg soul to have this soul desires food Third level of soul Intellectual soul for humans ability to reasondecide Condition ourselves change our behaviors animals can not 9 reason is the function of humans 3 reason well is to live virtuously 4 the good life for a human being is the active life of virtue 5 To reason wellactively reason is to live well What is the function of human life Active life of the part of the soul our minds that has reason Mind in parts our wants and activity of that part of the soul is shared every mammal has that Second part of the soul that humans have reason capacity to decide to choose on our wants and reflect on what we are doing and knowing If it is right or wrong good or bad Virtues for Aristotle are Courage right amount of fear charty beneficence benefit others but not too much magnificence beneficent but to the magnum degree magniminty really be deserving of the highest honors be an awesome person in every way and you gotta know it and demand it badass virtue golden mean deficiency coward if you lack courage virtue ex courage excessarrogancerashness deficiency miserystinginess virtue ex charity excess give everything to everybodylook at me I39m such a great person stupidself centered charity virtuous people tend to be happy virtuous people tend to be honored virtuous lives are virtuous Phil 9814 916 PM wellbeing what do I owe to myself Prudence what does prudence tell us to do Morality is not just limited to me Morality what do we owe to each other Impartiaity we should no privilege the present against the future impartial to the regards to time 9Utiitarianism treats choice in almost exact same way as prudential choice scenario stay at home watch a pawn shop marathon go to a party and drink an entire bottle of tequila what39s best for me Most prudent choice Impartial to regard to peopleall the times of everybody s life Treating everybody significant Morally required to perform the action of the highest score of all time and all people Three principles 1 consequentiaism the view according to which you are morally required to perform that action that produces the best consequences of any action that you could perform Only cares about the consequences 2 wefarism only thing that contributes to the betterness or worseness of consequences are facts about we being 3aggrigation and some ranking add up everybody s well being and the better consequences are the ones that have the higher score 9Kantianism Phil 9814 916 PM 1 consequentiaism cares about consequences 2 wefarism 3 ago doctorine of swine if we take pleasure to be the end goal from all our actions then we no different from animals francis Hutchinson 1729 The greatest goof the greatest number Jeremy Bentham 1789 revising the British social system classes the upper classes of nobiity had a greater say in what happened in the gov t than any other personaws that favored themselves Argued9what s morally right we cant just determine what is good for just us and our friends and have to determine what39s best for everybody Lead the group phiosophica radicas dedicated to the cause of utilitarianism Followers John Austin James Mi psychoogist9 first ever book of psychology father of John Stuart Mill central prophet of the movement subjective to the most intense education you can have At 19 he said he was done menta breakdown Good friends with Samuel Taylor Coolridge What do you mean when you say happinesshuman welfareaccepts the form of hedonism Want it to produce the greatest amount of pleasure and least amount possible of pain C uque objection 1 philosophy of swine objection humans have the capacity to reason and do all other sorts of stuff different than grazing animals different then swine lower pleasures Intensity X Duration amount of pleasure not working hard what animals can do Higher pleasures doctrine how do we measure the value of a particular pleasure to another Pleasure is valuable based on its intensity X its durationquantity o maximize the higher pleasures rather than the lower pleasures Intensity X duration X Quaityparticuar pleasure 2 objection of demandingness of motive always create the most possible human happiness have to keep in our heads that we should always be doing this incredibly demanding Keep the motive of greatest human happiness to be in our mindtoo demanding motive doesn39t matter mills response EX of objection 1 Pizza joint 1 10 huge amounts horribe taste Pizza joint 2 10 delicious but its smaller 9 you choose this one quality objection 1 9Competent Judge Test Determine the quality of peasure we figure out the people that have experienced it Figure our one pleasure of higher quality of the otherasked people that have experienced both which do you prefer which do you think is better objection to competent judge test 1 Fault of Character value the lower pleasures rather than the down the road which require more work higher pleasures Infirmity of character 2 external circumstances valued the higher pleasures rather than lower pleasures but then they changed over time to value the lower pleasures and then they are incapable of even enjoy those higher pleasures due to lack of resources If they had to choose though they would pick the higher pleasures objection 1 Which pleasures are higher simpy those that employ the faculties that those imply The ones that are engaging capacity of reason response to the philosophy of swine objection it is better to be a dissatisfied human being rather than a pig satisfied if they differ opinion its because they only know there exclusive lives objection 2 8 Phil 9814 916 PM cont from 1016 objection 2 Demanding of Motive how is it that I can best promote human happiness Doesn39t apply to utilitarianism The motive of the action does not make a difference 9 extremely radical asking too much Motive doesn39t matter further objection super villain objection he was morally obligated to set off the bomb because super man made the world a little bit better by saving people and some kittens Not a solid utilitarianism point objection 3 no absolute prohibition no absolute prohibition on actiondoesn t matter what kind of an action it is if and only if it brings the greater good some things should be absolute mills response Permissible to lie you feel like lyingkilling is a bad thing and that39s a god thing you feel like that it almost never produces good it harms the trustworthiness of me and everyone else No more trust between people major issue Utilitarianism break the sacred moral rules sometimes generally leads to greater good overall objection 4 no guidance what do we want a moral theory to do Why do we need a moral theory To tell us how to be acting deciding what to do in a complicated case Guide our decisionsactions Consequences happen in the future decisions happen now Consequences of actions seem to happen in the future doesn39t effect the past Not possible to know the moral quality is going to be Response Say you have no idea what is going to happen in the future is absurd Future wont be exactly like the past make some moral errors that is not within our power Not perfect guidance but good guidance probabilistic knowledge for and against smart for Wiiams against Master Argument for Utilitarianism World A 2 groups of people happy and the miserable 10000 happy people amp 0 miserable people World B 9999 happy and 1 miserable World C 9998 happy amp 1 miserabeetc till ZZZ 0 happy and 10000 miserable people Every new action you perform creates a new world Consequences of the world I created from that action More happiness is more desirable than less Produce more rather than less if that39s true than we are all committed to utilitarianism Phil 9814 916 PM exam 3 weeks from today 1113 study questions up on blackboard in 1 week utilitarianism cont Smart takes position no cognitivism when making moral claims killing is wrong not checking the facts But more cheering for the beliefs boooo killing yay not killing ethical arguments precedes to the right way to get you to feel the right emotion you ought to choose the happiness world rather than the miserable world prefer more happiness than less Ought to feel best about utilitarianism 1 Consequentialism Act believe the moral quality of your performing action is determined souly by the consequences by that particular action v Rule Moral quality of an act is determined by its conformity to the rules the rules are specified by constituted by the set of rules such that if everybody followed the rules the best consequences will result Smart rejects Rule and accept Act costs are extreme rule worshipfixate on the rules instead of what the rules is supposed to give me why not create better consequences to follow these rules Rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism come apart too many exceptions more of a restatement of utilitarianism Driving example only one rule one rule will be guaranteed that happiness will result maximize the most happiness 2 Welfarism what theory of well being do you accept Distinction bw hedonistic v non hedonistic Most people accept the non hedonistic view mill not particular worthwhile soft rejection 3 Aggregation and Sum Ranking9 most possible the greatest total happiness or the greatest average happiness When the population is the same increasing the total also increases the average reject the Total view Repugnant conclusion who would want to live in a world with so many people living terrible lives total utilitarianism Dastardly conclusion 100 people all have 100 units of happiness 10000 happiness Another 100 people with 50 happiness total happiness is 5000 Total happiness 15000200 which makes the average happiness of person is 75 you end up a average utilitarianism But then you kill 50 people 12500150 83 total happiness The average view isn39t the right view Phil 9814 916 PM certain circumstances for a decent human being to choose not the world with the most happy people A well being level of 100 Well being level of 1 B well being level of 50 Well being level of 50 Utilitarianism says the best world is world A due to sum ranking But one thing people might care about is how that happiness gets divided Not jus the amount but the distribution equality Problems with utilitarianism 1 Equality 9 see above 2 fairness smith toothache degree 10 and jones 1 doesn39t have a toothache go to dentist Smith 50 unless jones goes and which case 0 don39t go to the dentist net zero 0 sent jones to the dentist then that would cure smith Send both 11 Send neither 50 Send just smith 10 6 should go anyways because it is his own problem notJones Send just jones 1 6 best choice of utilitarianism 6 unfair 3JusUce fave Doctor murdered Town is pissed off Have somebody in custody in jail called Bob he is a drunk public indecency He did not murder the doc But the town thinks Bob did it Coming to the police station and demanding that they hang Bob If you don39t hang bob then there will be a riot And people will die We choose not to hang the innocent people for crimes they didn39t commit Less happiness is produced by these quaity s but sometimes decent people care about these things Doctor paintent comes in with a particular disease and if you don39t treat it then he will die 2 drugs for treatment Drug A when given 99 people who take it are totally cured 1 will die this particular patient that came in just died If he took drug B then he would be alive right now Drug B when given 99 people who take it will die 1 will be cured Smarts response Right v Wrong if the action produces the total amount of happiness then its right if not then its wrong giving drug a was the wrong thing Rational V Irrationa rational if and only if and only if it produced the most likely happiness Praiseworthy V Bameworthy whether a particular action is appropriate to praise or not or to blame or not Praiseworthy is it produced the mot happiness to praise and contrary wise to blame Can39t blame the doctor for giving drug A because if we praise the doctor than more people will give drug A rather than B so more people are less to die Wrong but rational and praiseworthy Phil 9814 916 PM 2 weeks form today if we reject any of the 3 main points of utilitarianism then you are a utilitarianism Focusing on rejecting consequentialism Three features of consequentialism that Williams wants to bring out 1 consequentialism evaluates all actions anything you ever do is perfectly valuable everything you do has consequences 2 only one case to reject consequentialism does not depend on its consequences alone Only thing that makes a moral difference is its consequences 3 negative responsibility this fails Could have prevented something happens Failure to prevent the pusher is just as bad as you were the pusher yourself Because the consequences is the same Williams examples 1 The chemist assume it would be better if there were no such nuclear weapon Refusing to advance those kinds of weapons Fails to prevent if George didn39t take the job fails to prevent reggie taking the job Jim39s case he is a pacifist sanctity of all life He kills the protestors or some other bad guy is going to kill them all Utilitarianism tells him that he has to kill him so he save 19 protestors Williams thinks Utilitarianism is false What gives life meaning Williams response Commitments projects that you are engaged in things that define who you are as a person Ex if you don39t want to be a baseball player then you don39t know who you are at all Meaning of your life is given by the contents of your commitments Utiitarianisms required to give up any commitments whenever doing so creates the best consequences Utilitarianism is too demanding says Williams Gives up the basic level of what gives there life meaning Phil 9814 916 PM 8 Utilitarianism threatens integrity George is committed to the rejection to these weapons Not too demanding to the motive of action Requires to people to give up stuff that makes up who they are utilitarianism Just really important capture something that we all seem to agree that is important for morality morality is interested in making peoples lives better Interested in making everybody s lives better Human well being seriously at its most simplistic level s Emanuel Kant Kantianism to act morally requires us to act rationally German Applies to bits of knowledge A priori possible to know prior to experience Ex know that these chairs are black actually have to go out and experience the world look a the chairsnot a priori Bits of knowledge are A priori but some are For example 224 Don39t have to go out in the world and look you can just know it Accessible prior to experience A posteriori couldn39t figure it our without experience Not actual know that the chairs are black unless you go and look at the chairs Applies to bits of language Analytic sentence if that sentence is truth depends only on the meaning of the words in the sentence Ex bachelors are unmarried men it39s true because of the subject is contained in the subject 6 true by definition Synthetic truth of which is not just dependent on the meaning of words Ex The chair is black saying something more than just the words a priori goes with analytic most of the time synthetic goes with posteriori most of the time there is a priori synthetic claim ex a A2 b 2c 2 is a true claim geometry Doesn39t have to go through very single right triangle an measure it But nothing is analytic Nothing entails that it will be c 2 Relationship is between 3 different things This is fundamentally the most significant problem in philosophy Principles of morality are A priori and Synthetic Come to know the supreme principles of morality The way we think Come from our own nature Don39t tell us things in themselves tells us how our brains work when processing information The way we think Derive from our rational nature statements about what it means to be rational Phil 9814 916 PM exam week from today kantcon nued moral principles are a priori don39t have to go and research Think and know Kant believes must be founded in rationality itself 2 reasons why claim 1 entails that this is a priori 1 moral philosophy what people should think What the right thing really is 2 moral anthology study of various moral codes that people tend to have Ways people actthinklive there lives caim2 moral principles are necessary for all rational beings Entails that this is a prior morality is centered in the will According to kant Do something as a result of your reasoning capacities Balancing which thing you want to do movies vs bowling The good will nothing considered good without limitation except for a good will Courage good without limitation No Lex Luther extremely courageous but this is a terrible thing attempts much more grand schemes of evil We want him to be cowardly Lex Luther doesn39t have a good will Different rational beings take happiness in many different things We can39t say that The good will will just produce happiness It can not be happiness without limitation because the good will Can39t be happiness or a virtue It has to be a good will Good will examples of 1 Take the 10 put it in the change drawer give the bar to the kid and he leaves 2 really wants to take the 10 bucks probably has parents at home and they know goes home without change gets in big trouble gives normal change so he doesn39t deal with the consequences 3 opportunity to steal 9 bucks but it isn39t the right thing to do you give the kid the 9 bucks back Example 3 agrees that this is displaying good will Example 2 wasn39t because the reason was not good enough to have a good will You must do the right thing and also do the right thing for the right reason Tempted to do 1 act contrary to duty requires 2 inconformity with duty but no from duty worry about picketers 3 inconformity with duty but also from duty because it39s the right thing 12 are not a good will 3 is a good will First option is worst Immoral the wrong thing second option not immoral but lacks moral worth isn39t wrong but not right either option 3 has moral worth What you did and why you did it Action 2 is from your own inclinations to act Just because you want to do it That can39t have moral worth What is Duty Duty has nothing to do with consequences Moral laws must be necessary for all rational beings Different actions depending in the world that you live in can have very different consequences Two identical wills could have very different consequences Consequences are independent of the will Not internal to the will itself Duty has to do with the content of the will An action is your duty or isn39t has got to depend on the principle of the will The will is composed of maxim s of ac on Can not depend on consequences Review 9814 916 PM 4 example of the 2 different drugs that were given Drug A 99 cured and 1 o death Drug B 1 o cured and 99 o death 9 gives the wrong drug Gives drug A but the patient is apart of the 1 o This action is wrong because it got the worst consequences We don39t know the future so can only base our action on what seems likely to happen We need to use other criteria to help us figure out what the right thing we need to do for the future Three evaluations of actions right vs Wrong best consequence rationa vs irrational best likely consequence praiseworthy vs blameworthy depending on consequences for whatever we do for that action For this action wrong rational praiseworthy Explain distinctions and then apply all of these to the case For JJC SMART this guides us how to act 6 Williams argument against utilitarianism explain he counter examples And also respond to his rejection Consequentialism facts about 1 consequentialism evaluates all actions 2 only need one case in which evaluations of action does not depend on consequences alone 3 Accept negative responsibility failure to prevent bad action from happening is just a morally bad as causing bad thing to happen this is the one Williams attacks Sees the guy push this guy off the ledge you could ve stopped the guy pushing the other guy but you chose to do something You39re choice of not doing anything in the that case is just as bad as pushing the guy off the ledge yourself Because the consequences are the same Chemist problem job opening and George and Reggie In order to prevent the negative consequences then that requires George to take the job and not let Reggie produce large amounts of weapons It would be morally wrong if he didn39t take the job Williams says it violates George39s integrity wholeness or unity meanings of our lives are determined by these different commitments Causes the individual to be alienated from himself Erases the wholeness from his life The conclusion is this is too demanding to have them violate there integrity Response to the objection Iex Iuther has certain commitments also to get rich Plans to blow up half of Cali Util has to violate that commitment to get the best consequences why is it okay to violate uther39s but not Georges can39t say they are morally wrong because that just begs the question 5 Aristotle39s eudiamonia to live well flourishing Pleasure honor virtuecontemplation Argument what makes something good 1 if something is a unique function to fulfill this function well is the good for this thing ex a good axe 2 function of a human being is living according to the rational principles 3 to reason well is to live virtuously Conclusion active life of virtue is the good life for a human being Phil 9814 916 PM Kant cont Maxim of action subjective principle of volition volition action Subjective principle of action Rule of action that comes from yourself Want a coke go to the store and buy it because coke is delicious Includes the motive and the action Every rational being has a motive of action The content of your will Subjective principle to determine your action An action has to include 2 different things has to specify both the end you want to accomplish and also the means by which you are going to accomplish it The moral law should be necessary for all rational beings Al rational beings must be able to conform to the moral law All maxims conform to duty must be accessible to all agents Maxims can conform to duty If and only if all rational beings can act on it Maxim could or couldn39t be conformed to a universal law Necessary for all rational beings Go bowling and breaking promise by going bowling means breaking promise to go bowling end fun Logically impossible for everyone to act in this way Promising would mean nothing if everyone broke that promise to have some fun The practice of promising would simple not exist There would become no promises to break Sef defeating law break something that simply can39t exist Categorical imperatives command 5 different ways you could frame categorical imperatives universa law formula act only so that you could will your action to be a universal law formula of humanity 2 kinds of imperatives 1 hypothetical commands apply to you given whatever it is you want want Indian food Go to the Indian place based on desires 2 categorical commands apply to you regardless of what you want holds regardless od desires don39t murder don39t steal what objects ground hypothetical imperatives Kant grounded by relative ends Something some people that will desire and others won39t grounds categorical imperative Grounded by Ends in themselves Every rational being has a reason to seek it Phil 9814 916 PM Imperatives hypothetical categorical A relative ends ends in themselves rationality itself Committed to valuing your own rationality The best ways to act is Every being has to value rationality categorical imperatives 1 formula of universal law strip away all context Asking the question in the most basic form 2 formula of humanity so act that you use humanity always as an end never merely as a mean Supreme law of morality 1 treat rationality humanity as an end 2 never treat rationality humanity merely as a means don39t use people for your own purposes Not bad to treat people as means but not people merely as means Man in a lot of pain nearing death has rational capacity s wonder if it would be morally acceptable to be commit suicide He asks Kant this Preserve it is to seek the rationality as an end Kant believes that suicide is immoral You are using your own rationality nearly as a means for a mere ceasing as pain Not using that as an end I really want you to wash my car and I promise to give you 10 bucks but he really won39t give you 10 bucks The guy comes to the door and he refuses to give the 10 bucks to him Making a false promise Basically hijacked him Used him to get his car washed for free To not use his rationality then you have to tell him the truth Merely as a means Promise breakinglying is ruled out by this clause Really good at math have to practice and read up on math but ratherjust stay home and watch reality TV Choice of develop talent or sit at home Would it be okay to stay home and just watch TV For Kant to develop your talents is treat yourself as an end Have this talent and simply let this fester then that is to ignore it Not using that as an end Failing to develop talents is morally wrong Walking down the street see starving person you have 5 bucks that you found Could give it to the guy on the street or keep the 5 bucks and go play bad dudes at the arcade Which one would Kant recommend Kant would want us to give that guy the money to preserve that Treat it is to help people out if there rationality is threatened Don39t use them as mere means In the transplant case Kant there is distinction between perfect and imperfect duties Refusal to treat people as mere means generates perfect duties generates that you should never ever ever violate no exceptions On the other end then it generates the imperfect duty This case has an imperfect duty So long as not to treat this person by merely as a means We should not kill the guy because it violates treating people merely as means The second part of Kant s theory I the most important See above Phil 9814 916 PM Kants response to a rejection Benjamin constant Kant always impermissible to tell a lie To lie to someone is to treat someone as a mere means to your own end Lying is absolutely wrong surey there is some cases where it I permissible to lie in a house watching TV And hear a knock on the door important knock Friend is at the door breathing heavily hey you gotta hide me because there is a murderer trying to find me person says you can hide underneath my bed and you return back to tv and then later there is a less nervous knock And murderer at the door im sorry to interrupt the show however I would like t ask you a question if you don39t say anything then ill assume it is yes Is your friend hiding in your house underneath your bedquot typicay you would want to lie to the murderers To Constant that is not so bad It is not morally wrong This what you should do Kant and the ax murder lying is bad categorical imperative should we lie Universal law 9 you can universalize lying always treat people as an end never treat rationalitypeople as mere means Formulaty of humanity only treating him as a means Kant disagrees argues in favor of his conclusion not permissible to lie even if there is a murderer at the door he lacks good will Consequences don39t mean anything to Kant9Kant s moral theory is the polar opposite of Utilitarianism Scenario changes gets up from underneath the bed and goes outside the window you tell him he is not inside murderer leaves and sees the friend outside and kills him kant thinks this is your fault because you lied When you tell a lie to the murderer you are hi jacking the murderers own thought process and you are using it as your own ends And once you assumed responsibility whatever happens as a result is partially your responsibility And partially the murderer s fault Constant it is there responsibility because you did nothing to generate the outcome that your friend was killed If you tell the truth to the murderer kills the friend that is on the murderer All promises are considered conditional ill promise to pay you 5 bucks assuming that I don39t have to steal it from somebody You are responsible for what you do In ult Responsible for what you do and what fail to prevent negative responsibility You are just as responsible for having your friend being killed For kant there is no negative reasonability at all You are only responsible for your own actions The murderers actions has nothing to do with your acUons Can not save your friend but violating a perfect duty Kant If we kill the murderer then you are using him as a mere means Morality is an individual affair Relies on what is going on in your own head Morality is in the will morality is either good or bad Negative responsibility Will no action no good or bad to attach to Kant says you cant be responsible for things you didn39t do Wiiams why is death bad ground project organizing activity throughout the course of our lives part of a political cause your death could interrupt unable to seeing through completion of that goal prevents from fulfilling that project It takes away what gives life meaning They are often partial being opposed to impartial Concerned with ourselves than they are with people that we don39t relate to in any way what gives life meaning Treating these ideas but personal point of view What matters to us as persons What we care about Phil 9814 916 PM Williams cont Ground projects be politician musician identify what makes life meaningful to you They are important for a persons identity Ground partial vary from person to person Partial to yourself I am the star of my ground project you personally want to cure cancer Also have to do with the people you are very close to Don39t care if the other kid gets a good start on life but cares if your kid has a good start on life because it makes you feel good about yourself and how you were a good parent These are part of the personal point of views ground projects and ground partial Person to you Beginning the critique of Kant Kant the moral point of view 1 impartial everybody counts the same from the particular point of view Morally obligated to treat everybody as an end at the same amount Everybody counts the same everybody is equal 2 overriding morality must always win Rational being always acts in accordance to moral principles 3 motive of duty motivated by the fact that it was the right thing to do To accept this for Williams makes death a bad thing and goes against your fundamental principles for people a reason to live You are in the hospital because you are hurt Your friend comes and visits you thanks so much for coming you really didn39t need to do that yes I did it was my moral obligation you should do this because you want to not because its your Duty Reject any one of these three and comes up with a view that isn39t so bad But Kant accepts all three so for Williams he thinks this is ridiculous Phil 9814 916 PM Personal point of view stuff that gives your life meaning Moral point of view impartiality and overindulges motive of duty Footshe Virtues and vices Virtues character trait about ourselves Developing these features of ourselves 1 intellectual virtues how you come to knowledge open minded curiosity skepticism 2 practical virtues See below Non moral practical virtues prudence tells you what to do when considering what is the best life for you Moral practical virtues courage Temperance sef contro in that seeking Charity justice golden rule Foot focus only on the character What determines if you have a virtue or not the will Virtues evaluate the will 1 rational factors To choose base don reasons 2 your desires the most important virtue wisdom Can39t be courageous temperance justice if you are not wise Wisdom intellectual virtue and a practical virtue Intellectual have to know the best means to your ends have the best end Practical once you have wisdom all the rest of the virtues fall in line fundamentally most important Lex luther is clever but not wise What is a good end 9 the good is partial Moral person will favor thmeslevesfriendsfamily more than others This is a part of wisdom To hae the best end is to know the best to benefit To be wise take effective steps to your ends and have good ends Wolf more to life than just morality Foot rejects Impartiality Add 15 to quiz Bring in a study sheet For final Phil 9814 916 PM quiz on Monday 15 questions from material form the course Friday at 1030 for final in the normal room Sarah and Julia Sarah always does the virtuous thing but she is tempted Julia always does the virtuous thing but she is NEVER tempted Who is more virtuous Julia is the most virtuous Because foot virtues are composed by the will The will includes rational faculties but crucially your desires Person that is the most virtuous doesn39t even have to think about being virtuous Never tempted toward vice Foot doesn39t just reject impartiality but also rejects Motive of Duty More virtuous to not controlling yourself by the motive of duty Purely virtuous if it just comes naturally Moral duty is look after our personal concerns Moral goods are partial towards us Morally better if you pursue that good because you want to do it not just because it39s the right thing to do The virtuous person will look at there one personal point of view Moral Saint they love it Is that the kind of life you want to lead need to think about yourself for once need to improve yourself Wolf says being a moral saint is not an attractive life We wouldn39t want ourselves or our friends to be this kind of person Barren of the life activities that make life rich and wonderful What39s valuable in life goes beyond how we consideract Include development of something with a truly worthwhile life Phil 9814 916 PM Example what a moral saint could not do Fred Astaire wolf thinks this is important because it makes the world a rich place Spent an incredible amount of time on this dance sequence this itself is not what a moral saint would care about If talented people acted as moral saints a world that would be strangely bound 9 objectionable Wolf comes up with 2 versions of moral saint 1 rational saint always thinking about what there duty is Accordance with moral requirements 2 loving saint doesn39t work at being a moral saint but they love it Ex Julia from previous example They have the same problems Still not going to be spending there time developing there talentscreating great art Not going to make theirour lives more interesting and rich The moral saint should not be thought of as an ideal to be thought of in our lives Be the people we want to befor us to be and moral saint should not be included on our list The wise person will treat themselves and those around with a certain kind of morality Wolf we should reject any partial morality 1 impartial 2 overriding 3 motive of duty wolf says you can not object to 1 Can object to 2 morality is not overriding We need to think about things other than morality
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'