CMSI Handout 4 Courtesy of Marcello Antosh
|
|
- Christal Harper
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CMSI Handout 4 Courtesy of Marcello Antosh 1 Clarification about imperatives To understand what imperatives are, first think of commands like these: (i) Shut the door! (ii) Clean your room! (iii) Don t kill your friends! Commands are not capable of being true or false. Rather, they are just things that people might yell at you, or things that people might command you to do. Notice that only (iii) has to do with morality. The other two are just things people yell at you. Imperatives are related to commands. Intuitively, imperatives are capable of being true or false. Kant thinks that all imperatives are expressed by ought s, but in ordinary language we also express them with other words (like should, must, need to, etc.). In this class, we are concerned with imperatives that concern morality (like (iii)), but clearly there are other, nonmoral imperatives (like (i) and (ii)). We can transform any command into an imperative by adding an ought and a reference to an agent. Let s do this for the commands above: (i) Sarah Silverman ought to shut the door. (ii) Perez Hilton ought to clean his room. (iii) David Hasselhoff ought not to kill his friends. 2 Persons as Ends version of the Categorical Imperative: ends, means, & merely as a means The Persons as Ends version of the Categorical Imperative says: each of us ought to treat all rational beings as ends in themselves, and never merely as a means to our own ends. (Treating people merely as a means would be wrong.) In his forthcoming book, Derek Parfit suggests this way of interpreting this version of the CI: The Consent Principle: each of us ought not treat people in ways to which, if these people knew the relevant facts, they could not rationally consent. We can thus make some rough definitions regarding treating people as ends, means, and merely as means: A treats B as an end if A positively respects B as a rational agent. Examples: - Hillary Duff puts herself in grave danger to save some stranger. (Extreme case) - Kanye West buys his girlfriend (who is obviously not Taylor Swift) flowers because he loves and respects her. A treats B as a means (but in a way that is NOT incompatible with treating her as an end) if A treats B in such a way that, if B knew all of the relevant facts, then B could rationally 1
2 consent to being treated in this way. (The rationally consent part is very important because it shows that A respects B as a rational agent - an end - who has the capacity of rationality.) Examples: - Students attend Temkin s lecture in order to learn about stuff and hear him curse. (Students using Temkin as means to knowledge and laughter.) - Stedman helps Oprah move boxes of shoes from one closet to another. (Oprah using Stedman as means to help her move stuff.) - Tougher case: a john pays a prostitute for sex. (Suppose the prostitute rationally consents. But still, is the john respecting the prostitute as a rational agent, or just taking advantage of her situation? Maybe she prostitutes only to support a drugs habit) A treats B merely as a means if A treats B in such a way that, if B knew all of the relevant facts, B could not rationally consent to being treated in this way. When A treats B in this way, A treats B as a mere object, disrespects B s rational agency, and manipulates B in order to accomplish A s own goals or aims. The important distinction is between (1) treating people merely as a means - which is basically always morally impermissible and (2) treating people in the other two ways (as a means, and as an end) - which are basically always morally permissible. Don t worry so much about the difference between treating people as an end and treating people as a means. - A sadistic villain tortures his kidnap victim for hours even while the victim protests. - Teens bully some nerd every day after school, for their own amusement, though he resists. - Tough case: Masochist Mallory wants to be tortured for hours, it s one of her deepest, long held desires. If we tortured her, would we be treating her merely as a means? It seems that she could consent, but would that consent be rational? Or would she be irrational to consent to such treatment? It s unclear. What is rational consent? Roughly: A can rationally consent to be treated in some way if A has sufficient reason to be treated in this way. A has sufficient reason to be treated in some way only if A there is some reason to be treated in that way, and no conclusive reason to be treated in another incompatible way. Note, for Kant, what we have sufficient reason to do from a moral perspective must always be determined by our PURE reason, that is, never by our particular interests, desires, or inclinations. Examples: - We all have sufficient reason and can rationally consent to be saved from drowning. - None of us have sufficient reason nor could we rationally consent to suffer in agony just because our suffering would be funny to someone else. - People who must have their legs amputated to survive some accident have sufficient reason and can rationally consent to having their legs amputated. 3 Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill 3.1 Chapter I: General Remarks (pp. 1-5) 2
3 The Basics: This chapter mainly deals with methodological considerations about how to discover the foundations of morality, that is, the first principles of morality. (By first principles Mill means something like axioms - like the axioms of different branches of logic and mathematics.) Mill s Question: What is the foundation of morality? What are the first principles of morality, from which all other moral principles can be derived? What is the most basic element of the correct theory of morality? (p. 1) The Principle of Utility/The Greatest Happiness Principle: Mill thinks the principle of utility (i.e. the greatest happiness principle) has played and should play a fundamental role in any theory of morality. (p. 3) Mill s attack on Kant: Kant s Categorical Imperative isn t a good foundation of morality. Why? Among other things it permits the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. And when it get things right, that s only because it has shown that the consequences of certain maxims would be very, very bad (p. 4). 3.2 Chapter II: What Utilitarianism Is (pp. 6-26) important Some clarifications: Mill clarifies what he means by utility. It does not mean: the property of being useful, where useful is opposed to pleasurable (p. 6). Utilitarianism (for short, U): The Principle of Utility/ The Greatest Happiness Principle = actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (p. 7). Two important definitions: (1) Happiness =df pleasure and absence of pain. (2) Unhappiness/reverse of happiness =df pain and absence of pleasure. Happiness is the only thing desirable as an end in itself. All desirable things are desirable because they either (i) lead to happiness inherently, or (ii) are a means to something that leads to happiness inherently (p. 7). U is not a self-indulgent form of hedonism. E.g. U does not demand that we should all do ecstasy and have orgies (p. 7). (No, that isn t a good (enough!) reason to reject U.) Mill s distinction between higher and lower pleasures: roughly, a distinction between pleasures of mere sensation (taste, touch, sound, sight, etc.) and pleasures of the intellect (moral sentiment, imagination, creativity, understanding) (p. 8). Importantly, Mill thinks there is a qualitative difference between the higher and lower pleasures, while others have thought the difference is merely quantitative (pp. 8-11). Informed Preference Test; the Doctrine of Competent Judges: To determine which of any number of pleasures is best, or better than the others, we must consult the opinions of those 3
4 who are competently acquainted with all of these pleasures (pp. 8-11). If there is disagreement, we have to go with the opinions of the majority of the competent judges. Famous quote: It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides (p. 9). This is VERY important for Mill, also dubious. Important features of Utilitarianism: Utility Maximization: not the agent s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether (p. 11). Impartiality: the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent s own happiness but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator (p. 17) Talk about impartiality Rule vs. Act U, p. 19, 23, 24 Admits and EXPLAINS exceptions when duties conflict: E.g. it s permissible to tell lies to save lives (p. 23). Distribution?: Mill says little about the distribution of happiness! Potential problem! Act U vs. Rule U: Acts that would maximize happiness, vs. Rules, which, if generally followed would maximize happiness. Mill doesn t discuss explicitly discuss the difference. (But see: pp. 19, 23, 24) It mainly comes up for Mill in section V, which we don t read. Objection: We can t promote or attain happiness. Hence, doing so can t be what we are morally or rationally obligated to do (p. 12). Reply: Fiddlesticks! Of course we can (pp ). Objection: We can and should do without happiness since doing so is more virtuous and noble. So, promoting happiness can t be what we re morally obligated to do (p. 12). Reply: True, it s possible to do without happiness, but this doesn t imply anything about what we ought to do morally. Also, what s often so good about doing without happiness is that this sacrifice is a means to the happiness of others (hero, martyr). Concession: Given the imperfect state of the world, it is often true that the best way to promote overall happiness is to do without so much of your own and promote that of those who have much less of it (pp ). Objection: U is too idealistic, too demanding (p. 18). Reply: The is/ought distinction (originally from Hume). It may be true that people don t or wouldn t do what U says they ought morally to do, because they think it s too demanding. But it doesn t follow that U isn t the correct moral theory. 4
5 E.g. Suppose U says Lindsay Lohan should drive sober. Although she always has and always will drive drunk, it doesn t follow that she should not drive sober (p. 18). Objection: U requires that we be motivated to do our duty all the time. Even if we take into accounts Hume s is/ought stuff, such a requirement really is too demanding - so demanding that no true moral theory could require it (p. 18). Reply: no [plausible] system of ethics requires that the sole motive of all we do shall be a feeling of duty the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent (p ). So, U. tells us we have to bring about the best outcome, it doesn t tell us what set of motivations and dispositions would do that best. If acting like a Kantian would actually bring about the best outcome, then U. would say we should act like a Kantian! Objection: according to U, only the consequences matter, and each person s moral character, which causes the person to act how he or she does, doesn t matter at all (p. 20). Reply: No plausible moral theory holds that an act is right (or wrong) because it is done by a good (or bad) person. True, good people tend to do the right thing, but that s not always the case. There s a morally relevant difference between right (and wrong) acts and good (and bad) persons (p. 20). Concession: it s true that U basically ignores beauties of character and focuses on consequences of actions. But doing so allow U to be a better theory (p. 21). Objection: U is somehow contrary to religion (p. 22). Reply: Fiddlesticks (p. 22)! Important Objection: Sometimes, what will best promote my happiness is expedient - it s a quick fix that suits my purposes and isn t, intuitively, a morally right act at all. Doesn t U imply that these expedient immoral acts are really morally required and right? If so, U is an implausible moral theory. E.g. Telling lies often gets me out of tough situations, but doing so is, intuitively, wrong (pp ). Important Reply: We can distinguish between acts and rules. That is, we can distinguish between acts that would maximize happiness in some particular circumstance from acts that, if practiced generally as rules, would maximize happiness. Sometimes the morally right act is the one that doesn t maximize happiness in a particular circumstance, but rather is that act that, if practiced generally as a rule, would maximize happiness (pp ). E.g. If Justin Timberlake cheated on Jessica Beal just this once, he might maximize happiness - he d have fun, she d never find out. But, if he cheated on her regularly, that might not maximize happiness - he d eventually catch (another) STI, he d be paranoid about sneaking around all the time, she d find out, they d fight, etc. Also, consider what would happen not just if Justin cheated regularly, but if everyone in relationships did. (Notice the might s in this reply. What if regular cheating didn t have bad effects?) Important Objection: It s much too complicated to determine what would maximize happiness, whether in a particular circumstance, or generally. This is because our acts often have unpredictable consequences. Maybe, if I shoot this gun into a crowd, I d kill the next Adolf Hilter. Maybe not. So what should I do (p. 23)? Important Reply: We can distinguish between acts that would in fact maximize happiness from acts that we can reasonably believe to maximize happiness. We often do not know what would in fact maximize happiness. But, we 5
6 know and can better learn what things tend to maximize happiness, and we therefore can form reasonable beliefs and expectations about what would maximize happiness (pp ). E.g. If Britney Spears neglects her children, that might turn out to maximize happiness. Why? Suppose that if she didn t neglect them, they would in fact become the next Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot. If so, it would be better if she neglected them and they died from starvation. Yet, we know from experience that, when parents neglect their children, that doesn t tend to promote the maximization of happiness. So, it is reasonable for us to believe that neglecting children isn t something that will maximize happiness, even if we don t know exactly what will happen in any given case of child neglect. The Principle of Utility as a common umpire: U allows for there to be exceptions to moral obligations, especially when different obligations conflict (e.g. conflict between telling the truth and protecting friends). When obligations conflict, apply the Principle of Utility to determine what you ought to do (pp ). 3.3 Chapter III: Of the Ultimate Sanction Of The Principle Of Utility (pp ) A sanction is, roughly, something that makes a principle or rule of conduct binding, or something that gives binding force to this principle or rule of conduct. Sanctions include motives and reasons for adhering to these principles and rules. Mill s Ultimate Sanction Question: Consider the Principle of Utility: What is its sanction? What are the motives to obey [it]? Or, more specifically, what is the source of its obligation? Whence does it derive its binding force? (p. 27). Think of Mill s Ultimate Sanction Question this way. Sometimes you feel that there are just some things you morally ought to do (have to do, must do, should do, etc.). E.g. You may feel that you ought to help out your loved ones if they are in grave danger. Your obligation is thus: I ought to help my loved ones if they are in grave danger. But what makes this obligation binding upon you, or what gives it its force? Perhaps nothing other than the fact that it is your feeling - a feeling that you have as an agent who can respond to such a feeling by acting on it. Perhaps something else gives this obligation its force, like your fear of punishment or of guilt if you didn t follow this obligation. But now consider the Principle of Utility. This principle says that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. And, as an obligation this principle says: you ought to promote happiness and minimize unhappiness. In this chapter Mill seems to be wondering what could possibly make this obligation (if indeed it is an obligation) binding upon you, or what could possibly give this obligation its force. Two kinds of sanctions of obligations: External and Internal 6
7 External sanctions give your obligations their force/make them binding upon you because of something that is ultimately external to you (p. 28). E.g. Kant s prudent shopkeeper believes: I should treat my customers fairly. What gives this obligation, this should, its binding force upon him is his awareness of what others might do to him if they discover that he is unfair. Things that others might do to him are external sanctions of his obligation. To get rid of the binding force of this obligation, we only need to remove these external sanctions: If he knew he could treat his customers unfairly and get away with it, he would not feel bound to the obligation I should treat my customers fairly since there would be no external sanctions. Internal sanctions give your obligations their force/make them binding upon you because of something that is ultimately internal to you, like your conscience (pp ). E.g. Jack Bauer believes: I should protect my country. What gives this obligation its binding force is Jack s deep feeling in his own mind that abiding by this obligation is something he must do. To get rid of the binding force of this obligation, we would need to alter Jack s deep feelings somehow. The ultimate sanction of all morality (including the Principle of Utility) = a subjective feeling in our own minds the conscientious feelings (p. 29). Objection: People who think the ultimate sanction of morality isn t subjective/inside our own minds/mind-dependent but rather that it is objective/outside our own minds/mind-independent are more likely to follow their moral obligations. Since moral theories should tell us to obey these obligations, no plausible theory can hold that the ultimate sanction of morality is subjective (pp.29-30). Reply: Obviously the ultimate sanction is in our own minds/minddependent/subjective - without that deep feeling that you morally ought to do something, there s no binding force to do that thing (except for any external sanctions, obviously). It may be true that people who falsely believe that the sanction is not mind-dependent are more likely to do what they think they ought to do morally, but this is no objection to U as a theory of morality. If we want to get people to follow what U says, we should get them to feel the force of the Principle of Utility, through education, etc. (p. 30). Is morality innate or acquired?: We don t need to settle this. If it s innate (think a priori, think Kant), there s no reason to think that morality shouldn t be concerned with promoting the happiness of ourselves and others. If it s implanted (think a posteriori, think Mill), so what? It still matters to us we in fact care about the promotion of our own happiness and that of others. Either way, U as a theory is on the right track (p ). Empirical evidence in support of people feeling bound to the Principle of Utility: Obviously, most of us care about promoting our own happiness. Also, humans are social beings. We want to live in harmony with our fellow humans (if for no other reason than that this will make it more likely that our own happiness will be promoted). We recognize that the only way this is feasible is if we all respect each other, and if we all have a say in how our society works. To do this, we all know we must take into account the considerations of others. We all know that, the more we do this, the better off we all will be cooperation helps each of us, while free-riding and 7
8 inequality ultimately harms us all. As we cooperate more and more, we start to become more impartial we start to regard the interests of our peers as our own interests. Thus, we begin to want not only to maximize our own happiness, but the happiness of our society as a whole. Thus, we all begin to feel the force of or feel bound to abide by the Principle of Utility (pp ). Objection: Look, Mill, I don t feel bound to the Principle of Utility because I don t really feel that compelled to help out others (pp ). Reply: Think about your fellow humans for a moment. Don t you realize they re just like you in many important ways? They are! Don t you feel like you should help them if you can? Of course you do of course you feel some kind of sympathy for them, deep down, some kind of concern for their happiness. Sure, that feeling that you should promote the happiness of all sentient beings may be weak. It may be weaker than your self-interest, for instance. Nevertheless, it is the foundation of all morality. It is the ultimate sanction of the Principle of Utility (p. 34) and it can be strengthened through proper education (social conditioning?). 3.4 Chapter IV: Of What Sort Of Proof The Principle Of Utility Is Susceptible (pp ) Mill s Goal: to offer a proof that the Principle of Utility is the only criterion (i.e. standard) of morality. What he seems to mean by proof is not what logicians and mathematicians mean by proof. Rather he seems to mean: reasons, evidence, or considerations in favor of the idea that the Principle of Utility is the only criterion of morality. Problem: like the first principles of any field (e.g. math, logic), we cannot, by logical reasoning alone, establish that they are true (p. 35). But we can offer reasons, evidence, and considerations sufficient to determine the intellect (pp. 4-5). Proof Sketch: There seem to be three steps in Mill s proof that the Principle of Utility is the only criterion of morality. Step (1) The happiness of each person is a good to that person: since each person desires his/her own happiness, this person s happiness is a good to this person (p. 35). Step (2) The general happiness is a good for the aggregate of all persons: since each person s happiness is a good to that person, the general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons (pp ). Step (3) Nothing other than happiness is good in itself: insofar as things other than happiness are good, this is only because these things are conducive to or parts of happiness (pp ). Comment: Everyone is confused about Mill s proof. At times he seems to say things that are inconsistent with his theory. At other times he seems to make extremely bad non sequiturs - i.e. conclusions that don t follow logically from his prior claims. He even seems to make mistakes that he himself warns against both in this book and in his book on symbolic logic (namely, mistakes related to the is/ought distinction). But, Mill was a genuine genius, so try to get a rough idea of his argument even if (even though?) it totally sucks. 8
9 Impartial reconstruction of Mill s Proof: Step (1) From the impartial perspective, it is a good if each person is happy. (2) So, from the impartial perspective, the happiness of all these people is a good. (3) Same as above. (4) Therefore, what we ought to do morally is promote the happiness of the set of all persons - that is, we ought to maximize happiness from the impartial perspective. 4 Extra: Goodman s new riddle of induction / the grue paradox This is a puzzle about inductive arguments. Inductive arguments try to conclude that some hypothesis is true, or likely to be true given some set of data. Consider a simple example of an inductive argument. Let our hypothesis be: The next raven anyone sees will be black. We might try to conclude that this hypothesis is true or likely to be true by arguing like this: All the ravens I ve ever seen are black. All the ravens you ve ever seen are black. My mom s seen lots of ravens, and they are all black. I have friends in other countries, and all the ravens they ve ever seen are black. Together, we must have seen at least five hundred ravens. So, the fact that all of us have seen so many black ravens in so many different parts of the world gives us good reason to believe that the next raven anyone sees will be black. Now that we have a basic idea of what inductive arguments are, let s consider Goodman s riddle. Goodman s riddle is basically that, for every intuitively plausible inductive argument, there are (infinitely) many other intuitively implausible inductive arguments that use the same set of data to reach different conclusions - conclusions that are inconsistent with the intuitively plausible conclusion. Let s look at Goodman s riddle using the case that Temkin discussed -- the case involving emeralds. Suppose we are geologists studying emeralds. So far, our set of data is this: Emerald Data: We ve observed thousands of emeralds so far, and they have all been completely green. We have not yet observed any emeralds that are not completely green. Now consider the following hypothesis: Green Hypothesis: All emeralds are completely green We might think that this set of data to gives us reason to believe that the Green Hypothesis is true, or likely to be true. One reason for thinking this depends on the following inductive argument which appeals to this set of data to support this hypothesis. Inductive Argument For The Green Hypothesis: (1) We ve observed thousands of emeralds so far, and they have all been completely green. We have not yet observed any emeralds that are not completely green. (2) Green Conclusion: So, the Green Hypothesis is either true, or at least likely to be true that is, either all emeralds are completely green, or it is likely that all emeralds are completely green. 9
10 Now, notice the following. We can appeal to the very same set of data the Emerald Data and offer an inductive argument that is analogous to the one above, but which supports a hypothesis that is both implausible and which makes claims that can be logically inconsistent with the claims made by the Green Hypothesis. In other words, we can offer an argument just like the one above but that reaches a different conclusion. And this different conclusion can conflict with the conclusion above in a very direct way. To offer such an argument, let us first stipulate the following definition. Definition of grue : Something, x, is grue if and only if: either (i) x is first observed before 2050 and x is completely green, or (ii) x is first observed during or after 2050 and x is completely blue. Another way of stating the definition of grue is this: A grue thing is something that either (i) is first observed before 2050 and is completely green, or (ii) is first observed during or after 2050 and is completely blue. Notice that, given the definition of grue, the Emerald Data are consistent not only with the Green Hypothesis, but also with the following hypothesis: Grue Hypothesis: All emeralds are grue The Emerald Data are consistent with the Green Hypothesis because all observed emeralds have been completely green. And if all observed emeralds have been completely green, then it is at least possible that all emeralds are completely green. That is, given the Emerald Data, it is at least possible that the Green Hypothesis is true (and this is why these data are consistent with the Green Hypothesis). The Emerald Data are ALSO consistent with the Grue Hypothesis in the EXACT SAME WAY! For all observed emeralds have also been grue. Why is this? Look at the definition of grue : to be grue it is enough to be observed before 2050 and be completely green. But this is true of all the emeralds we ve observed so far. So, all the observed emeralds have been grue. Since all the observed emeralds have been grue, it is at least possible that all emeralds are grue. That is, given the Emerald Data, it is at least possible that the Grue Hypothesis is true (and this is why these data are consistent with the Grue Hypothesis). Since the Emerald Data are consistent with the Grue Hypothesis in this way, notice that we can offer an inductive argument in favor of the Grue Hypothesis that seems to be analogous to the argument we offered in favor of the Green Hypothesis. Inductive Argument For The Grue Hypothesis: (1) We ve observed thousands of emeralds so far, and they have all been grue. We have not yet observed any emeralds that are not grue. 10
11 (2) Grue Conclusion: So, the Grue Hypothesis is either true, or at least likely to be true that is, either all emeralds are grue, or it is likely that all emeralds are grue. Notice, however, that these two hypotheses make claims which can be logically inconsistent. This is because they draw different conclusions about the properties that any emerald discovered during or after 2050 would have. To see this, suppose some emerald is first observed during or after Now consider what properties this emerald would have to have if both hypotheses were true. If the Grue Hypothesis were true, then this emerald would be grue. But, more specifically, this emerald would be completely blue, since it was discovered during 2050 (recall the definition of grue ). Now, if the Green Hypothesis were also true, then this emerald would also be completely green. But that is impossible: this emerald cannot be both completely green and completely blue. So, since this is impossible, at least one of our hypotheses must be false if some emerald is discovered during or after In this way, these two hypotheses can make claims that are logically inconsistent. (We could also offer a similar argument for the conclusion that, if one of these hypotheses is likely to be true, then the other cannot also be likely to be true. It would be similar to the one just presented.) In fact, things get worse. For it seems that, by appealing to the Emerald Data, we can offer inductive arguments not just in favor of the Green Hypothesis and the Grue Hypothesis, but for any number of hypotheses. For instance, suppose we define the word gron as follows: A gron thing is something that either (i) is first observed before 2050 and is completely green, or (ii) is first observed during or after 2050, weighs at least one ton, and is not completely green. And suppose we define the word gradioactive as follows: A gradioactive thing is something that either (i) is first observed before 2050 and is green, or (ii) is first observed during or after 2050, is radioactive, and is not completely green. So, the Emerald Data are consistent with the following hypotheses and, because of this, it seems we can appeal to this set of data to offer inductive arguments in favor of these hypotheses as well: Gron Hypothesis: All emeralds are gron. Gradioactive Hypothesis: All emeralds are gradioactive. So, there seems to be a problem. Because the same set of data allows for the possibility that conflicting hypotheses are true, we can offer analogous inductive arguments in favor of these hypotheses. But, intuitively, it seems that the data do not really support all of these hypotheses. Instead, intuitively, it seems that the data only support the Green Hypothesis. The general problem, then, is this: The General Problem Presented By The New Riddle Of Induction: The problem is to explain why only some inductive argument(s), which appeal to a given set of data, is (or are) any good. In other words, the problem is to explain why a given set of data actually only supports some hypotheses or conclusions and not others, even though all these hypotheses and conclusions seem to appeal to the same set of data in the same way. 11
12 A general point of relevance to this class (according to Temkin): when confronted with powerful skeptical arguments like Hume s Riddle of Induction or the New Riddle of Induction, we may find them intellectually interesting and challenging, but we don t really BELIEVE them. As Temkin says, we don t start drinking gasoline rather than milk, or taking the shortcut out the seventh story window rather than the elevator, just because it seems that there are powerful ARGUMENTS in support of the conclusion that we have no more REASON to do the one rather than the other. That is, even if we believe we don t, or even CAN T have an answer to the deepest skeptical worries that are raised in the domain of science or the ordinary domain of everyday life, we don t all become skeptics in those domains. Nor SHOULD we, most of us think. But, for many, as soon as they confront skeptical arguments in the MORAL domain, they become skeptics about morality. They are now suddenly prepared to assert that there is no REASON to believe that there is REALLY anything WRONG, say, with tearing the skin off of little children just because one like s to hear high pitch squeals. But can this be right? Is it more plausible to think that such a moral claim might be false, than that most of the basic claims of science might be false? Why do we seemingly hold ethics to a HIGHER standard than science when it comes to skeptical arguments? 12
CMSI Handout 3 Courtesy of Marcello Antosh
CMSI Handout 3 Courtesy of Marcello Antosh 1 Terminology Maxims (again) General form: Agent will do action A in order to achieve purpose P (optional: because of reason R). Examples: Britney Spears will
More informationMILL. The principle of utility determines the rightness of acts (or rules of action?) by their effect on the total happiness.
MILL The principle of utility determines the rightness of acts (or rules of action?) by their effect on the total happiness. Mill s principle of utility [A]ctions are right in proportion as they tend to
More informationMoral Theory. What makes things right or wrong?
Moral Theory What makes things right or wrong? Consider: Moral Disagreement We have disagreements about right and wrong, about how people ought or ought not act. When we do, we (sometimes!) reason with
More informationSUMMARIES AND TEST QUESTIONS UNIT 6
SUMMARIES AND TEST QUESTIONS UNIT 6 Textbook: Louis P. Pojman, Editor. Philosophy: The quest for truth. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. ISBN-10: 0199697310; ISBN-13: 9780199697311 (6th Edition)
More information24.01: Classics of Western Philosophy
Mill s Utilitarianism I. Introduction Recall that there are four questions one might ask an ethical theory to answer: a) Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform (understanding
More informationPhilosophy 110W: Introduction to Philosophy Spring 2011 Class 26 - April 29 Kantian Ethics. Hamilton College Russell Marcus
Philosophy 110W: Introduction to Philosophy Spring 2011 Class 26 - April 29 Kantian Ethics Hamilton College Russell Marcus I. Good Will, Duty, and Inclination The core claim of utilitarianism is that the
More informationSuppose... Kant. The Good Will. Kant Three Propositions
Suppose.... Kant You are a good swimmer and one day at the beach you notice someone who is drowning offshore. Consider the following three scenarios. Which one would Kant says exhibits a good will? Even
More informationBenjamin Visscher Hole IV Phil 100, Intro to Philosophy
Benjamin Visscher Hole IV Phil 100, Intro to Philosophy Kantian Ethics I. Context II. The Good Will III. The Categorical Imperative: Formulation of Universal Law IV. The Categorical Imperative: Formulation
More informationMoral Philosophy : Utilitarianism
Moral Philosophy : Utilitarianism Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a moral theory that was developed by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). It is a teleological or consequentialist
More information24.02 Moral Problems and the Good Life
MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 24.02 Moral Problems and the Good Life Fall 2008 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. Three Moral Theories
More informationMill s Utilitarian Theory
Normative Ethics Mill s Utilitarian Theory John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they
More informationEthical non-naturalism
Michael Lacewing Ethical non-naturalism Ethical non-naturalism is usually understood as a form of cognitivist moral realism. So we first need to understand what cognitivism and moral realism is before
More informationLecture 6 Workable Ethical Theories I. Based on slides 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley
Lecture 6 Workable Ethical Theories I Participation Quiz Pick an answer between A E at random. What answer (A E) do you think will have been selected most frequently in the previous poll? Recap: Unworkable
More informationChapter 2: Reasoning about ethics
Chapter 2: Reasoning about ethics 2012 Cengage Learning All Rights reserved Learning Outcomes LO 1 Explain how important moral reasoning is and how to apply it. LO 2 Explain the difference between facts
More informationUtilitarianism pp
Utilitarianism pp. 430-445. Assuming that moral realism is true and that there are objectively true moral principles, what are they? What, for example, is the correct principle concerning lying? Three
More informationKantian Deontology. A2 Ethics Revision Notes Page 1 of 7. Paul Nicholls 13P Religious Studies
A2 Ethics Revision Notes Page 1 of 7 Kantian Deontology Deontological (based on duty) ethical theory established by Emmanuel Kant in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Part of the enlightenment
More informationHow should I live? I should do whatever brings about the most pleasure (or, at least, the most good)
How should I live? I should do whatever brings about the most pleasure (or, at least, the most good) Suppose that some actions are right, and some are wrong. What s the difference between them? What makes
More informationLecture 12 Deontology. Onora O Neill A Simplified Account of Kant s Ethics
Lecture 12 Deontology Onora O Neill A Simplified Account of Kant s Ethics 1 Agenda 1. Immanuel Kant 2. Deontology 3. Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives 4. Formula of the End in Itself 5. Maxims and
More informationTake Home Exam #2. PHI 1700: Global Ethics Prof. Lauren R. Alpert
PHI 1700: Global Ethics Prof. Lauren R. Alpert Name: Date: Take Home Exam #2 Instructions (Read Before Proceeding!) Material for this exam is from class sessions 8-15. Matching and fill-in-the-blank questions
More informationKant's Moral Philosophy
Kant's Moral Philosophy I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (178.5)- Immanuel Kant A. Aims I. '7o seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality." a. To provide a rational basis for morality.
More informationKANTIAN ETHICS (Dan Gaskill)
KANTIAN ETHICS (Dan Gaskill) German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was an opponent of utilitarianism. Basic Summary: Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain types of actions (including murder,
More informationDo you have a self? Who (what) are you? PHL 221, York College Revised, Spring 2014
Do you have a self? Who (what) are you? PHL 221, York College Revised, Spring 2014 Origins of the concept of self What makes it move? Pneuma ( wind ) and Psyche ( breath ) life-force What is beyond-the-physical?
More informationTeleological: telos ( end, goal ) What is the telos of human action? What s wrong with living for pleasure? For power and public reputation?
1. Do you have a self? Who (what) are you? PHL 221, York College Revised, Spring 2014 2. Origins of the concept of self What makes it move? Pneuma ( wind ) and Psyche ( breath ) life-force What is beyond-the-physical?
More informationChapter 2 Reasoning about Ethics
Chapter 2 Reasoning about Ethics TRUE/FALSE 1. The statement "nearly all Americans believe that individual liberty should be respected" is a normative claim. F This is a statement about people's beliefs;
More informationKant The Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals (excerpts) 1 PHIL101 Prof. Oakes. Section IV: What is it worth? Reading IV.2.
Kant The Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals (excerpts) 1 PHIL101 Prof. Oakes Section IV: What is it worth? Reading IV.2 Kant s analysis of the good differs in scope from Aristotle s in two ways. In
More informationIntroduction to Philosophy Philosophy 110W Spring 2011 Russell Marcus
Introduction to Philosophy Philosophy 110W Spring 2011 Russell Marcus Class 26 - April 27 Kantian Ethics Marcus, Introduction to Philosophy, Slide 1 Mill s Defense of Utilitarianism P People desire happiness.
More informationUtilitarianism. But what is meant by intrinsically good and instrumentally good?
Utilitarianism 1. What is Utilitarianism?: This is the theory of morality which says that the right action is always the one that best promotes the total amount of happiness in the world. Utilitarianism
More informationEthics is subjective.
Introduction Scientific Method and Research Ethics Ethical Theory Greg Bognar Stockholm University September 22, 2017 Ethics is subjective. If ethics is subjective, then moral claims are subjective in
More informationThe Kripkenstein Paradox and the Private World. In his paper, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Languages, Kripke expands upon a conclusion
24.251: Philosophy of Language Paper 2: S.A. Kripke, On Rules and Private Language 21 December 2011 The Kripkenstein Paradox and the Private World In his paper, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Languages,
More informationUTILITARIANISM. John Stuart Mill
UTILITARIANISM John Stuart Mill Questions of ultimate ends are not amenable to direct proof. Whatever can be proved to be good, must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good
More informationHello again. Today we re gonna continue our discussions of Kant s ethics.
PHI 110 Lecture 29 1 Hello again. Today we re gonna continue our discussions of Kant s ethics. Last time we talked about the good will and Kant defined the good will as the free rational will which acts
More informationMILL ON JUSTICE: CHAPTER 5 of UTILITARIANISM Lecture Notes Dick Arneson Philosophy 13 Fall, 2005
1 MILL ON JUSTICE: CHAPTER 5 of UTILITARIANISM Lecture Notes Dick Arneson Philosophy 13 Fall, 2005 Some people hold that utilitarianism is incompatible with justice and objectionable for that reason. Utilitarianism
More informationMaking Decisions on Behalf of Others: Who or What Do I Select as a Guide? A Dilemma: - My boss. - The shareholders. - Other stakeholders
Making Decisions on Behalf of Others: Who or What Do I Select as a Guide? - My boss - The shareholders - Other stakeholders - Basic principles about conduct and its impacts - What is good for me - What
More informationGREAT PHILOSOPHERS: Thomas Reid ( ) Peter West 25/09/18
GREAT PHILOSOPHERS: Thomas Reid (1710-1796) Peter West 25/09/18 Some context Aristotle (384-322 BCE) Lucretius (c. 99-55 BCE) Thomas Reid (1710-1796 AD) 400 BCE 0 Much of (Western) scholastic philosophy
More informationChoosing Rationally and Choosing Correctly *
Choosing Rationally and Choosing Correctly * Ralph Wedgwood 1 Two views of practical reason Suppose that you are faced with several different options (that is, several ways in which you might act in a
More informationClass #14: October 13 Gödel s Platonism
Philosophy 405: Knowledge, Truth and Mathematics Fall 2010 Hamilton College Russell Marcus Class #14: October 13 Gödel s Platonism I. The Continuum Hypothesis and Its Independence The continuum problem
More information-- did you get a message welcoming you to the cours reflector? If not, please correct what s needed.
1 -- did you get a message welcoming you to the coursemail reflector? If not, please correct what s needed. 2 -- don t use secondary material from the web, as its quality is variable; cf. Wikipedia. Check
More informationNotes on Moore and Parker, Chapter 12: Moral, Legal and Aesthetic Reasoning
Notes on Moore and Parker, Chapter 12: Moral, Legal and Aesthetic Reasoning The final chapter of Moore and Parker s text is devoted to how we might apply critical reasoning in certain philosophical contexts.
More informationHumanities 4: Lectures Kant s Ethics
Humanities 4: Lectures 17-19 Kant s Ethics 1 Method & Questions Purpose and Method: Transition from Common Sense to Philosophical Understanding of Morality Analysis of everyday moral concepts Main Questions:
More informationGS SCORE ETHICS - A - Z. Notes
ETHICS - A - Z Absolutism Act-utilitarianism Agent-centred consideration Agent-neutral considerations : This is the view, with regard to a moral principle or claim, that it holds everywhere and is never
More informationFUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS. by Immanuel Kant
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS SECOND SECTION by Immanuel Kant TRANSITION FROM POPULAR MORAL PHILOSOPHY TO THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS... This principle, that humanity and generally every
More informationCan Christianity be Reduced to Morality? Ted Di Maria, Philosophy, Gonzaga University Gonzaga Socratic Club, April 18, 2008
Can Christianity be Reduced to Morality? Ted Di Maria, Philosophy, Gonzaga University Gonzaga Socratic Club, April 18, 2008 As one of the world s great religions, Christianity has been one of the supreme
More informationIntroduction to Philosophy Philosophy 110W Fall 2013 Russell Marcus
Introduction to Philosophy Philosophy 110W Fall 2013 Russell Marcus Class 28 -Kantian Ethics Marcus, Introduction to Philosophy, Slide 1 The Good Will P It is impossible to conceive anything at all in
More information38 Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. [Ak 4:422] [Ak4:421]
38 Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals [Ak 4:422] [Ak4:421] what one calls duty is an empty concept, we can at least indicate what we are thinking in the concept of duty and what this concept means.
More informationA Review on What Is This Thing Called Ethics? by Christopher Bennett * ** 1
310 Book Review Book Review ISSN (Print) 1225-4924, ISSN (Online) 2508-3104 Catholic Theology and Thought, Vol. 79, July 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.21731/ctat.2017.79.310 A Review on What Is This Thing
More informationImportant dates. PSY 3360 / CGS 3325 Historical Perspectives on Psychology Minds and Machines since David Hume ( )
PSY 3360 / CGS 3325 Historical Perspectives on Psychology Minds and Machines since 1600 Dr. Peter Assmann Spring 2018 Important dates Feb 14 Term paper draft due Upload paper to E-Learning https://elearning.utdallas.edu
More informationFrom the Categorical Imperative to the Moral Law
From the Categorical Imperative to the Moral Law Marianne Vahl Master Thesis in Philosophy Supervisor Olav Gjelsvik Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Arts and Ideas UNIVERSITY OF OSLO May
More informationUtilitarianism JS Mill: Greatest Happiness Principle
Manjari Chatterjee Utilitarianism The fundamental idea of utilitarianism is that the morally correct action in any situation is that which brings about the highest possible total sum of utility. Utility
More informationDeontology: Duty-Based Ethics IMMANUEL KANT
Deontology: Duty-Based Ethics IMMANUEL KANT KANT S OBJECTIONS TO UTILITARIANISM: 1. Utilitarianism takes no account of integrity - the accidental act or one done with evil intent if promoting good ends
More informationTHE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP by Lars Bergström
From: Who Owns Our Genes?, Proceedings of an international conference, October 1999, Tallin, Estonia, The Nordic Committee on Bioethics, 2000. THE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP by Lars Bergström I shall be mainly
More informationSome Ethical Theories
Some Ethical Theories Some Distinctions Ethical principles can be categorized according to whether they take judgments of value or judgments of obligation to be primary 1 I. Species of Moral Judgment I.
More informationLecture 6 Workable Ethical Theories I. Based on slides 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley
Lecture 6 Workable Ethical Theories I Participation Quiz Pick an answer between A E at random. (thanks to Rodrigo for suggesting this quiz) Ethical Egoism Achievement of your happiness is the only moral
More informationSidgwick on Practical Reason
Sidgwick on Practical Reason ONORA O NEILL 1. How many methods? IN THE METHODS OF ETHICS Henry Sidgwick distinguishes three methods of ethics but (he claims) only two conceptions of practical reason. This
More informationChapter 3 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS AND BUSINESS CHAPTER OBJECTIVES. After exploring this chapter, you will be able to:
Chapter 3 PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS AND BUSINESS MGT604 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES After exploring this chapter, you will be able to: 1. Explain the ethical framework of utilitarianism. 2. Describe how utilitarian
More informationKANT, MORAL DUTY AND THE DEMANDS OF PURE PRACTICAL REASON. The law is reason unaffected by desire.
KANT, MORAL DUTY AND THE DEMANDS OF PURE PRACTICAL REASON The law is reason unaffected by desire. Aristotle, Politics Book III (1287a32) THE BIG IDEAS TO MASTER Kantian formalism Kantian constructivism
More informationHume is a strict empiricist, i.e. he holds that knowledge of the world and ourselves ultimately comes from (inner and outer) experience.
HUME To influence the will, morality must be based on the passions extended by sympathy, corrected for bias, and applied to traits that promote utility. Hume s empiricism Hume is a strict empiricist, i.e.
More informationPhilosophy Conference University of Patras, Philosophy Department 4-5 June, 2015
Philosophy Conference University of Patras, Philosophy Department 4-5 June, 2015 Ethical and Political Intentionality; The Individual and the Collective from Plato to Hobbes and onwards Abstracts Hans
More informationSolving the Puzzle of Affirmative Action Jene Mappelerien
Solving the Puzzle of Affirmative Action Jene Mappelerien Imagine that you are working on a puzzle, and another person is working on their own duplicate puzzle. Whoever finishes first stands to gain a
More informationTuesday, September 2, Idealism
Idealism Enlightenment Puzzle How do these fit into a scientific picture of the world? Norms Necessity Universality Mind Idealism The dominant 19th-century response: often today called anti-realism Everything
More informationCausing People to Exist and Saving People s Lives Jeff McMahan
Causing People to Exist and Saving People s Lives Jeff McMahan 1 Possible People Suppose that whatever one does a new person will come into existence. But one can determine who this person will be by either
More informationThe Aristotelian Principle in Mill and Kant
Athens Journal of Humanities and Arts January 2015 The Aristotelian Principle in Mill and Kant By William O Meara John Rawls has identified a principle which he calls The Aristotelian Principle (Rawls,
More informationKantian Deontology - Part Two
Kantian Deontology - Part Two Immanuel Kant s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals Nathan Kellen University of Connecticut October 1st, 2015 Table of Contents Hypothetical Categorical The Universal
More informationDuty and Categorical Rules. Immanuel Kant Introduction to Ethics, PHIL 118 Professor Douglas Olena
Duty and Categorical Rules Immanuel Kant Introduction to Ethics, PHIL 118 Professor Douglas Olena Preview This selection from Kant includes: The description of the Good Will The concept of Duty An introduction
More informationKANT S EXPLANATION OF THE NECESSITY OF GEOMETRICAL TRUTHS. John Watling
KANT S EXPLANATION OF THE NECESSITY OF GEOMETRICAL TRUTHS John Watling Kant was an idealist. His idealism was in some ways, it is true, less extreme than that of Berkeley. He distinguished his own by calling
More informationDEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS In ethical theories, if we mainly focus on the action itself, then we use deontological ethics (also known as deontology or duty ethics). In duty ethics, an action is morally right
More information24.03: Good Food 2/15/17
Consequentialism and Famine I. Moral Theory: Introduction Here are five questions we might want an ethical theory to answer for us: i) Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform
More informationSufficient Reason and Infinite Regress: Causal Consistency in Descartes and Spinoza. Ryan Steed
Sufficient Reason and Infinite Regress: Causal Consistency in Descartes and Spinoza Ryan Steed PHIL 2112 Professor Rebecca Car October 15, 2018 Steed 2 While both Baruch Spinoza and René Descartes espouse
More informationReading the Nichomachean Ethics
1 Reading the Nichomachean Ethics Book I: Chapter 1: Good as the aim of action Every art, applied science, systematic investigation, action and choice aims at some good: either an activity, or a product
More informationAyer s linguistic theory of the a priori
Ayer s linguistic theory of the a priori phil 43904 Jeff Speaks December 4, 2007 1 The problem of a priori knowledge....................... 1 2 Necessity and the a priori............................ 2
More informationCLIMBING THE MOUNTAIN SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 REASONS. 1 Practical Reasons
CLIMBING THE MOUNTAIN SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 REASONS 1 Practical Reasons We are the animals that can understand and respond to reasons. Facts give us reasons when they count in favour of our having some belief
More informationBeing Realistic about Reasons
Being Realistic about Reasons T. M. Scanlon Lecture 5: Normative Structure In my first lecture I listed seven questions about reasons that seemed to require answers. These were: Relational Character: Reasons
More informationNotes on Bertrand Russell s The Problems of Philosophy (Hackett 1990 reprint of the 1912 Oxford edition, Chapters XII, XIII, XIV, )
Notes on Bertrand Russell s The Problems of Philosophy (Hackett 1990 reprint of the 1912 Oxford edition, Chapters XII, XIII, XIV, 119-152) Chapter XII Truth and Falsehood [pp. 119-130] Russell begins here
More informationA primer of major ethical theories
Chapter 1 A primer of major ethical theories Our topic in this course is privacy. Hence we want to understand (i) what privacy is and also (ii) why we value it and how this value is reflected in our norms
More informationPHL340 Handout 8: Evaluating Dogmatism
PHL340 Handout 8: Evaluating Dogmatism 1 Dogmatism Last class we looked at Jim Pryor s paper on dogmatism about perceptual justification (for background on the notion of justification, see the handout
More informationQuiz 1. Criticisms of consequentialism and Kant. Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism. Consequentialism in practice. Must Choose Best Possible Act
Quiz 1 (Out of 4 points; 5 points possible) Ethical Theory (continued) In one clear sentence, state one of the criticisms of consequentialism discussed in the course pack. (up to 2 bonus points): In one
More informationEvaluating actions The principle of utility Strengths Criticisms Act vs. rule
UTILITARIAN ETHICS Evaluating actions The principle of utility Strengths Criticisms Act vs. rule A dilemma You are a lawyer. You have a client who is an old lady who owns a big house. She tells you that
More informationEthics Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur
Ethics Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur Module No. #01 Lecture No. #08 Deontological Theories Immanuel Kant Now, continuing to talk about,
More informationNOTES ON WILLIAMSON: CHAPTER 11 ASSERTION Constitutive Rules
NOTES ON WILLIAMSON: CHAPTER 11 ASSERTION 11.1 Constitutive Rules Chapter 11 is not a general scrutiny of all of the norms governing assertion. Assertions may be subject to many different norms. Some norms
More informationBasics of Ethics CS 215 Denbigh Starkey
Basics of Ethics CS 215 Denbigh Starkey 1. Introduction 1 2. Morality vs. ethics 1 3. Some ethical theories 3 a. Subjective relativism 3 b. Cultural relativism 3 c. Divine command theory 3 d. The golden
More informationPhilosophical Ethics. The nature of ethical analysis. Discussion based on Johnson, Computer Ethics, Chapter 2.
Philosophical Ethics The nature of ethical analysis Discussion based on Johnson, Computer Ethics, Chapter 2. How to resolve ethical issues? censorship abortion affirmative action How do we defend our moral
More informationDeontological Ethics
Deontological Ethics From Jane Eyre, the end of Chapter XXVII: (Mr. Rochester is the first speaker) And what a distortion in your judgment, what a perversity in your ideas, is proved by your conduct! Is
More informationPrevious Final Examinations Philosophy 1
Previous Final Examinations Philosophy 1 For each question, please write a short answer of about one paragraph in length. The answer should be written out in full sentences, not simple phrases. No books,
More informationAttraction, Description, and the Desire-Satisfaction Theory of Welfare
Attraction, Description, and the Desire-Satisfaction Theory of Welfare The desire-satisfaction theory of welfare says that what is basically good for a subject what benefits him in the most fundamental,
More informationReview Tutorial (A Whirlwind Tour of Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion)
Review Tutorial (A Whirlwind Tour of Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion) Arguably, the main task of philosophy is to seek the truth. We seek genuine knowledge. This is why epistemology
More informationBOOK REVIEW: CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS
BOOK REVIEW: CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS Book Contemporary Moral Problems Chapter 1: James Rachels: Egoism and Moral skepticism 1. To know what Egoism and Moral Skepticism is 2. To understand and differentiate
More informationOn Law. (1) Eternal Law: God s providence over and plan for all of Creation. He writes,
On Law As we have seen, Aquinas believes that happiness is the ultimate end of human beings. It is our telos; i.e., our purpose; i.e., our final cause; i.e., the end goal, toward which all human actions
More informationDeontology: Duty-Based Ethics IMMANUEL KANT
Deontology: Duty-Based Ethics IMMANUEL KANT A NOTE ON READING KANT Lord Macaulay once recorded in his diary a memorable attempt his first and apparently his last to read Kant s Critique: I received today
More informationEthical Theory. Ethical Theory. Consequentialism in practice. How do we get the numbers? Must Choose Best Possible Act
Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism Ethical Theory Utilitarianism (Consequentialism) in Practice Criticisms of Consequentialism Kant Consequentialism The only thing that determines the morality of
More informationNOTE ON KANT'S GROUNDWORK, PP PHILOSOPHY 13 FALL, 2004 Dick Arneson
1 NOTE ON KANT'S GROUNDWORK, PP. 1-40 PHILOSOPHY 13 FALL, 2004 Dick Arneson SECTION I. Kant argues in this section to the conclusion that we believe that we are bound by the categorical imperative. That
More informationFrom: Michael Huemer, Ethical Intuitionism (2005)
From: Michael Huemer, Ethical Intuitionism (2005) 214 L rsmkv!rs ks syxssm! finds Sally funny, but later decides he was mistaken about her funniness when the audience merely groans.) It seems, then, that
More informationChallenges to Traditional Morality
Challenges to Traditional Morality Altruism Behavior that benefits others at some cost to oneself and that is motivated by the desire to benefit others Some Ordinary Assumptions About Morality (1) People
More informationMoral Argumentation from a Rhetorical Point of View
Chapter 98 Moral Argumentation from a Rhetorical Point of View Lars Leeten Universität Hildesheim Practical thinking is a tricky business. Its aim will never be fulfilled unless influence on practical
More informationPHI 1700: Global Ethics
PHI 1700: Global Ethics Session 13 March 22 nd, 2016 O Neill, A Simplified Account of Kant s Ethics So far in this unit, we ve seen many different ways of judging right/wrong actions: Aristotle s virtue
More informationFINAL EXAM SHORT-ANSWER QUESTIONS PHILOSOPHY 13 FALL, 2004
1 FINAL EXAM SHORT-ANSWER QUESTIONS PHILOSOPHY 13 FALL, 2004 Your name Your TA s name Time allowed: one and one-half hours. This section of the exam counts for one-half of your exam grade. No use of books
More informationETHICAL THEORIES. Review week 6 session 11. Ethics Ethical Theories Review. Socrates. Socrate s theory of virtue. Socrate s chain of injustices
Socrates ETHICAL THEORIES Review week 6 session 11 Greece (470 to 400 bc) Was Plato s teacher Didn t write anything Died accused of corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods of the city Creator
More informationBELIEF POLICIES, by Paul Helm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Pp. xiii and 226. $54.95 (Cloth).
BELIEF POLICIES, by Paul Helm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Pp. xiii and 226. $54.95 (Cloth). TRENTON MERRICKS, Virginia Commonwealth University Faith and Philosophy 13 (1996): 449-454
More informationRashdall, Hastings. Anthony Skelton
1 Rashdall, Hastings Anthony Skelton Hastings Rashdall (1858 1924) was educated at Oxford University. He taught at St. David s University College and at Oxford, among other places. He produced seminal
More informationReid Against Skepticism
Thus we see, that Descartes and Locke take the road that leads to skepticism without knowing the end of it, but they stop short for want of light to carry them farther. Berkeley, frightened at the appearance
More informationEthical Theories. A (Very) Brief Introduction
Ethical Theories A (Very) Brief Introduction Last time, a definition Ethics: The discipline that deals with right and wrong, good and bad, especially with respect to human conduct. Well, for one thing,
More information[Forthcoming in The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. Hugh LaFollette. (Oxford: Blackwell), 2012] Imperatives, Categorical and Hypothetical
[Forthcoming in The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. Hugh LaFollette. (Oxford: Blackwell), 2012] Imperatives, Categorical and Hypothetical Samuel J. Kerstein Ethicists distinguish between categorical
More information