Ethics Part II

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Ethics Part II by Mind Map: Ethics Part II

1. Realism - there is an objective truth

1.1. Utilitarianism

1.2. Divine Command

1.3. Natural Law

1.4. ethical egoism

1.5. Main Problems

1.5.1. it requires absolutism

1.5.2. all truth is subjective

1.5.3. equal rights imply equal plausibility everyone has a right to their own opinion so then any opinion could be true.

1.5.4. dogmatism to be close minded & arrogant

1.5.5. it allows intolerance

1.5.6. doesn't allow for cultural variation

1.5.7. theres too much moral disagreement

1.5.8. atheism

1.5.9. absence of categorical reasons the is implies ought

1.5.10. the problem of moral motivation beliefs can;t motivate one to follow them therefore morals are desires which arnt objective

1.5.11. values have no place in a physicalist scientific world

2. Divine Command Theory

2.1. an act is morally required if & only if it is commanded by god

2.1.1. Presuppositions assumes god exists assumes we have knowledge of his commands (ought implies can)

2.1.2. Euthyphro's Problem we have a duty because god commands us God could command anything (arbitrary ethics) god commands us because we have a duty Does not explain why we have a duty in the first place. it implies morals have an independent worth above gods commands.

3. Natural Law Theory

3.1. Some believe it's part of Divine Command theory because God created nature

3.2. the "Is - Ought Gap" Hume's Argument, there are only conceptual & empirical claims. Moral claims are neither so we can't have moral knowledge. (see belief & desire theory smith)

3.2.1. conceptual claims we can imagine & derive at their truths independently.

3.2.2. Empirical claims we can use our 5 senses & scientific tests to prove its truth.

3.3. good human beings fulfill their true nature while bad human beings don't.

3.3.1. either what is innate to use or what we all share in common Presuppositions Nature has a clear order Natures laws give us insight into what we should do Everyone can obtain knowledge of natures laws Problems Optimism- Supposes our identity as always good.. what if whats innate to us is what hobbes state of nature is? How can your untrue self discover your true self? Assumes there is a deeper identity within us to be found, or universal human traits Generations of Rights (a right implies an obligation) (see Almond, Kantianism) Civil political rights (Vertical Rights) also known as negative rights because it restricts gov or someone from impeding your will Social, Economic, cultural rights also known as positive rights since they make you entitled to things if you can't get them yourself Group rights & rights of future generations also positive rights explains why morality could be objective & explains that it only applies to humans because we are moral agents with rationality. two models to describe what a human being is for. Fitness model - success at survival & reproduction efficiency model - what ever an individual is best at Argument from Humanity It is always immoral to kill an innocent human life.

4. MetaEthics

4.1. (skepticism) denial of moral truth

4.1.1. Nihilism - there are no moral truths at all - humes law - is ought gap -foundational problem- descriptive/normative problem Belief Desires theory : Beliefs are what we think the world is. Desires are what we want the world to be. Beliefs are Facts which can be proven right or wrong. Desires are values which can't be argued about. Error Theory - there are no objective moral truths & we don't have categorical reasons to follow them. (duty) Expressionism (non-cognitisim) - also thinks there are no objective morals & that no moral judgements are true but it rejects that our judgements always fail to describe the moral features of things, we arnt ascertaining truth but rather expressing our feelings Fact-Value distinction- that there is a difference in objective facts & moral outlooks (same as above) smith- b/c of belief desire theory he believes if there is objective reasons to do something then we can't be motivated if we are motivated its subjective. So either morals are objective or they are practical. The psychological implication of the objectivity is moral cognitivism: our moral judgments are beliefs about moral facts. The metaphysical implication of objectivity is moral realism: there are moral facts. The psychological implication of the practicality of moral judgments is moral non-cognitivism: our moral judgments are expressions of our desires. The metaphysical implication of the practicality of moral judgments is moral irrealism: there are no moral facts. smiths theory - solution to the moral problem

4.1.2. Relativism - some moral rules are really correct (relativity) Individual relativism (Ethical Subjectivism) - the correct standards are decided by the individual deny cultural relativism because some moral norms made by a society may be wrong such as slavery. the iconoclast will always be wrong Problems ideal observer: the ones with final say on morality are those who are not ignorant but equipped with full information. there is a problem of contradiction since it's like ethical subjectivism but expressivitiest say its an emotional disagreement Cultural Relativism- the correct standards are relative to a culture individual relativist make everyones moral compass seem equally right so there are no morals at all. while a society still has morals. Problems

4.2. Foundational Problem: Hume gap (Is-Ought) the idea that you can test if what is is true or false but you can't test the truth or falsehood of what ought to be. (desires & beliefs smith)

5. Virtue Ethics - there is no right & wrong only what a virtuous person would do or not.

5.1. Aristotle Perspective - the standard account

5.1.1. Focus on an individuals character rather than a set of rules. virtues focus on the good life, human excellence, a virtuoso Proper functioning - everything has a function & anything is good to the ends that promotes that function. nature has built into us a desire to be virtuous because it promotes our function what is it to be virtuous? moral exemplars are notably virtuous people. we are bound to emulate them. why do i wanna be virtuous anyway? there is moral virtue which is acquired through habituation. there is intellectual virtue acquired bt learning.

5.2. Macltyre

5.2.1. virtues change over time as we value different things in different contexts

5.2.2. He saw the key to Aristotle’s theory was that the virtues such as truthfulness, courage and justice were essential virtues to maintain not only a good, moral character but esp the integrity of a community. He developed Aristotle’s virtues through the concepts of internal and external ‘goods’. internal goods - the pleasure the action gives the person performing that action (think of example the girl playing chess because she enjoys it rather than to win) pursuing these goods benefit the whole community & are the most virtuous actions external goods - things like wealth & fame that come as a consequence or reward of performing an action (the candy the girl receives from winning the chess game) you compete for external goods so they aren't necessarily for a society

5.2.3. believed that we develop character traits through practices which need to be complex to extend our personal excellence. different than Aristotle's human excellence. also practices must be communal

5.2.4. "A virtue is an acquired human quality the possession and exercise of which tends to enable us to achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving any such goods"

5.2.5. focuses on community & the concept that practices must be done in a community & when you get internal good it benefits that community whilst aristotle believes any practice even done alone can make you virtuous

5.3. Foot

5.3.1. "Virtue is a feature of the will" - we must intend & desire to be virtuous, it's not enough to just do it out of duty. She believes virtues are corrective features which protect us from our temptations. those who have to work hard to be virtuous are more virtuous than those who don't . if there was a homeless person and a wealthy person, it would be far more virtuous for the homeless person not to steal, than the wealthy person. Resisting temptation says much more about the strength of someone’s virtue. we must separate these temptation into two categories, 'of the character' & 'of circumstances'. If the circumstances pressure you to do the morally wrong thing but they "correct" you to do it right you are virtuous however if your character traits like greed are your temptations for doing the right thing then deciding against them is not virtuous.

6. Kantanism

6.1. In order to know what is right we must be rational & autonomous. which goes against home's law or the is-ought gap because he says we can derive morals from reason alone not from desires or "inclinations". he also stressed integrity, in that we must be consistent with our acts

6.1.1. hypothetical imperatives : commands you should follow if you want something. i.e wants to get good grades you should study

6.1.2. Categorical imperatives : what you must follow regardless of your desires. derived from pure reason. first Categorical imperative : universalizability principle. formulate maxim Second categorical imperative: principle of humanity. always treat someone as an ends not as a mere means. you can still use people you just can't treat them as a "mere" means with no regard to their own interests. it implies we are autonomous. doesn't account for moral luck. & doesn't explain why we can't treat the disabled (not rational or autonomous) with respect. also implies animals are not part of moral community. to kant "acting from duty has moral worth acting in accordance to duty doesn't" recall the honest shop keeper example, & the happy philanthropist who doesn't have moral worth until he's poor & still donates out of duty

6.1.3. only actions from good will can have moral worth. good will is knowing your duty & being consistent with following it for it's own sake.

6.1.4. believes in lex talons - eye for an eye because it treats a criminal as autonomous & an end within himself. the problem is what about criminals who intentionally hurt their victim or those who do it by accident? they would technically get the same punishment. also, how do you apply it to a rapist? rape him?

6.2. problems

6.2.1. your best acts are done as duties not as inclination because then you are acting autonomous but what about the happy philanthropist?

6.2.2. lying is against a categorical imperative but what if a murder is at your door asking for a family member? kant replies that you must give him a white lie or diversion, or not respond. You can tell the murder he's in the country of netherlands etc. Because if you lie & that somehow leads to helping your fam getting killed that blood is also on your hands.

6.2.3. there are things that are universaliable but still are not morally okay. such as robbing a bank to destroy it. everyone could do it & it would be successful & achieve it's goal but it's not morally right.

6.3. Dworkin (first & second order preferences)

6.3.1. defines autonomy as your second order capacity to reflect on you first order desires guides your actions. (like someone addicted to heroin isn't necessarily autonomous..unless their in rehab) liberty is when you have the power to choose autonomy is your belief that your making your own choice if someone deceives you by telling you your locked in a room. they took your autonomy to decide but not you liberty to walk out.

6.3.2. Authenticity - if our first order preferences (inclinations) & second order preferences (well thought out retrospect) are in accordance however it is not necessary for autonomy because of the Odysseus example where his inclinations were against his better judgment.

6.4. Almond

6.4.1. distinction between natural law & conventional law (legal law)

6.4.2. Negative rights protect you from gov. Positive rights ensure you receive something (entitlement)

6.4.3. Hohfeldian Taxonomy you have a liberty to do something if you don't have duty you have a claim to someones things then they have a duty to you if you can alter rights you have a power

6.4.4. Active rights allow you to do something

6.4.5. passive rights allow it to be done to us

7. Feminist Ethics

7.1. 4 central claims : 1)women are moral equals of men. 2)the experiences of woman are vital for moral understanding. 3)feminine traits are as important as masculine traits. 4)feminine ways of moral reasoning based on cooperation & openness are as important as masculine.

7.1.1. Carrol Gilligan : said woman experience things differently then men. they have more care & sympathy

7.1.2. Lawrence Kohlberg said there were 6 stages of moral development. first stage we only do things out of fear of punishment, as we develop we see rules as coming from our society & relationship roles. At stage 6 we are way to moral & equal thus being to impartial even to family.

7.2. Because of tradition woman shape their experiences by their dependence on men & their diminished autonomy in having to forfeit their interest for the family.

7.2.1. Ethics of Care : care - especially a mother's care - is the model of morals relations & the basis of ethics. there is no ultimate rule that can explain or justify all moral duties since they vary from family to family. Feminism rejects the abstractionism of theoretical scenarios to prove universaloable principles, instead they believe in complex moral principles different for each context. cooperation not competition. too much empashis on rights that seperates us instead of unites us unlike having responsibilities to others which unites communities. Problems restricts moral community to only those who are loved for. emotion could be dangerous in figuring right from wrong downplays impartiality how to deal with uncooperative people? especially if they don't like rights & justice?

7.3. gilligans hienz dilemma - girls steal less b/c girls sought out compromise more than boys

8. Social Contract Theory

8.1. Proceduralism: The correct moral views are those that emerge from a correct procedure

8.1.1. Contractarianism: Rules are just if & only if they reflect the terms of a social contract that free, equal, & rational people would accept as the basis of a cooperative life together. (mutal benefit for self-interested agents) This rules are derived in a scenario where we are fully rational so we don't need to agree to them now, & also it stresses that we would agree to them "situated as we are" in other words we have our own self interests & ambitions unlike under the veil of ignorance. Hobbesian Perspective "Leviathan" State of Nature/war: where there are no institutions to enforce it's will on others Pros Hobbes Fool Socrates: we all want power pleasure & glory so rationally we would agree to curb our self-interest & cooperate so no one fears being trampled on. It's conditional on everyone else agreeing as well. Prisoners Dilemma: Competition over scarce resource where everyone would be better off curbing their self-interest Consent You must consent to enter a contract Requires that all people would agree to these laws, so if they don't agree on something they are morally neutral laws. This doesn't happen with Rawls because under the veil of ignorance everyone is exactly the same. the justification of norms are in terms of generalizations which are sort of kantian in that laws are universizable in that society it limits the moral community only to those who are rational & self- interested & can enter a contract.

8.1.2. Main difference between contractarianism & contractualism. Under contractarianism, I seek to maximise my own interests in a bargain with others. Under contractualism, I seek to pursue my interests in a way that I can justify to others who have their own interests to pursue.

8.1.3. Contractualism: Grounded on the ideal that the contract is between equally moral persons. (veil of ignorance) Nozick (Libertarian) He believes the main distributive principle should be based on if you acquired that property fairly. problems Rawls "Theory of Justice" justice as fairness "original Position" hypothetical scenario where you're under the veil of ignorance & you would develop the social contract with "justice as fairness", Veil of Ignorance - hypothetical position where one has no idea what social economic place he will have in the world. Everyone would be exactly the same. In the end every rational person would seek primary goods (rights, liberties, opportunities) problems Roots in Russeau rather than hobbes also kantian in the sense that rules are univeizable in that society, impartial

8.2. Scope of the moral community: Contractors must be both rational & self-interested

8.2.1. they are potential threats & beneficiaries. They can return good deeds & punish bad ones.

8.2.2. They also are fundamentally our equals.

8.2.3. We can not gain anything from them without their consent.

8.2.4. disagrees with things like taxation because the positive right of universal healthcare induces an obligation on the better off to pay taxes. which is forced on us. he strongly supports the fundamental inaniable rights.

8.2.5. Problem: Animals, ecosystems, infants, autistics aren't part of moral community

8.2.6. disagreed with rawls about justice is fairness, he believes if you are naturally more talented in something you deserve more wealth for it. (Wilt chamberlin example where a better basketball player deserves more money)

8.3. Main problems

8.3.1. Doesn't account for disable infants animals etc

8.3.2. Problem of consent

8.3.3. immoral actions could still be rational. (pursue self interest) hobbes argues in the long run they don't.

8.3.4. Anti rawls maximin principle is pessimistic & could restrict us from our best Ambition Insensitivity - if wilt chamberlain doesn't get payed more for playing basketball better then why should he even practice & try to play better? Can you really go under a full Veil of Ignorance & still make decisions?

9. Ethical Theories structure

9.1. Dilemma Ethics

9.1.1. The concept of using complex hypothetical situations to refute theories. Problems (mainly that they are extremely rare because..) usually they the are in an urgency options are usually well defined there is usually much at stake & you're the only one in control

9.2. Pluralism

9.2.1. Absolutism it is always wrong to violate fundamental rules (moral realism) Rebuttals Argument from disaster prevention. sometimes it's permissible to break absolute rule to prevent a bigger disaster. act consequentialist problem. killing someone to make 5 others live longer Argument from contradiction. If there are more than one absolute rules they are bound to contradict. Argument from irrationality: if perfect obedience to a rule can frustrate the underlying principle then it is irrational. (Rabbi killing baby while hiding from nazis example.) Doctrine of doing & allowing: It is morally worse to do harm than to allow that same harm to occur. example. eating expensive dinner while children die of hunger is better than killing them yourself. rebuttal: the distinction between doing & allowing is very hard to draw. like a doctor doing surgery is better than allowing patient to die.

9.2.2. Pluralists (Ross) believe the existence of at least two fundamental rules that are non absolute the principles are called Prima Facie Duty they are non-absolute so you can sometimes break them. Seven Prima Facie Duties: Fidelity- keeping promise / Reparations: repreparing harm / Gratitude / Justice / beneficence- enhancing others lives /Self improvement / Nonmaleficence- preventing harm to others Moral regret: when moral claims conflict we can't honor them all so we feel regret. Replies to antiabsolutist problems Ross refutes the argument form preventing disasters & the irrationality argument because he agree with them but not on consequentialist terms. He doesn't agree because those arguments lead to better results he agrees because he doesn't always believe the Best best result is actually morally the best. (for example utilitarianism with killing someone to save 5 lives, its still morally wrong) Problems distinguishing what rules can be broken when? there are no fixed rankings of prima facie duties. Ross believes it depends on the specifics of a situation. whats the reply to testing prima facie duties since they are technically fundamental & can't be tried? denies proceders in deciding moral debates.

9.3. Theory Monism: one supreme use that serves as basis of all morality.

9.3.1. supreme rule: is both absolute & fundamental. (nothing further justifies it) Utilitarianism is monist (only maximize happiness) kantianism hedonism, divine commands theory

9.4. Ethical Particularism: reject monism & absolutism

9.4.1. No fundamental or absolute or prima facie laws somethings moral importance depends entirely on context.

9.4.2. Problems it's too broad in that it makes room for no moral theories rebuttal is that in fact they just state the moral realm is super complex & must be judged case by case but still exists Some argue that there are things always morally important (see moral regret test by ross)

9.4.3. Particularist argument: That nothing posses permanent moral importance.

9.5. moral luck

9.5.1. Bernard williams, thomas angel example of a drunk driver killing a child & another not killing one but still driving drunk (see Doctrine of double effect where it separates intent and foresight). they believe in moral responsibility where we can only be blame worthy for what we can control, so both drivers are equally bad

10. Reflective Equilibrium Practice (Rawls) - a toolbox to reach at moral truths by separating particular cases, judgments & their respective theories or rules

10.1. observation/ particular cases

10.1.1. Tom hits bob Mat hits Tom because Tom hit Bob you continue this process to reach at more & more precise moral rules

10.2. General Rules

10.2.1. It is not okay to hurt people It's okay to hurt people if they hurt someone else continue process to get more accuracy

10.3. Judgments

10.3.1. this is good because it ensures people do not get hurt this is good because it creates justice & prevents crime continue process...