a. Core Areas of Ethics:
1. Normative ethics proper the search for a criterion of morally right actions.b. Other Areas of Ethics:2. Axiology the search for a criterion of good and evil.
3. Virtue/vice theory the search for a criterion of excellence and deficiency of character.
1. The semantics of ethics the attempt to discover the meanings of the evaluative terms (right, good, virtue, etc.) used in core areas of ethics.2. The logic of ethics the attempt to discover the logic of the central concepts of ethics.
3. The epistemology of ethics the attempt to discover whether it is possible for people to have knowledge of ethical facts.
4. Moral psychology the attempt to understand how people develop their ethical concepts and views.
5. Applied ethics the attempt to apply general principles from core areas of ethics to specific issues, such as euthanasia or abortion.
6. Moralizing the attempt to get other people to adopt your own views about ethics.
7. History of ethics the attempt to understand what past thinkers in ethics have said.
GR: An act, A, is morally right iff in doing A,
As agent treats others as he or she would like to be treated by them.
10C: An act token, A, is morally right iff A does not
violate any of the Ten Commandments.
An act token, A, is morally right iff _________.
C2 is a sufficient condition for rightness:
A satisfies C2 ? A is morally right
C1 is a necessary condition for rightness:
A is a right act ? A satisfies C1
Act token A is morally obligatory =df it would not be morally right for As agent to fail to perform A.
Act token A is morally wrong =df it would not be morally
right for As agent to perform A.
Act types: murders, donations to charity, lies, promise keepings.
Act tokens: Brutuss murder of Caesar, John Wilkes Booths
murder of Abraham Lincoln, Jack the Rippers murder of his first victim.
Normative ethics proper the search for a criterion
of morally right actions.
FPNEB: The fundamental project of the normative ethics
of behavior is the attempt to discover, properly formulate, and defend
a criterion for the moral rightness of actions.
The Reformers Dilemma
(1) If CR were true, then every moral reformer would
be mistaken.
(2) Not every moral reformer is mistaken.
(3) CR is not true.
An Argument for Cultural Relativism
(1) Different societies have different moral codes.
(2) If (1), then CR is true.
(3) CR is true.
Cultural Relativism (CR): Act A is morally right
iff A is permitted by the moral code of the society of As agent.
The Argument from Your Beliefs
(1) You believe that Hitlers actions were morally wrong.
(2) If (1), then you are committed to the existence of
moral wrongness.
(3) If you are committed to the existence of moral wrongness,
then you are not really a Nihilist.
(4) You are not really a Nihilist.
The Argument from Disagreement
(1) If Nihilism were true, then there would be no genuine
moral disagreements.
(2) There are some genuine moral disagreements.
(3) Nihilism is not true.
The Basic Argument Against Nihilism
(1) If Nihilism were true, then it would not be the case
that Hitlers actions were morally wrong.
(2) Hitlers actions were morally wrong.
(3) Nihilism is not true.
Nihilism: (i) There are no such properties as moral
rightness and moral wrongness. (ii) Nothing is objectively morally right
or morally wrong. (iii) When someone says something like A is morally
right (or A is morally wrong), what he or she really means is something
like I approve of A (or I disapprove of A).
A Variation on Platos Argument Against DCT
(1) Either (a) God approves of morally right actions because
of some intrinsic features possessed by those actions, or else (b) God
approves of morally right actions independently of any intrinsic features
of those actions.
(2) If (a), then DCT is false.
(3) If (b), then DCT is false.
(4) DCT is false.
Dilemma
Either P or Q
If P then R
If Q then R
R
(Q) Why does God approve of morally right actions?
(A1) Because of some intrinsic features of those actions.
(A2) Not because of any intrinsic features of those actions.
Divine Command Theory (DCT): If an act is morally
right, then it is morally right because of Gods approving of it, and if
an act is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong because of Gods disapproving
of it.
Preliminary Formulation of Divine Command Theory (PFDCT):
An act, A, is morally right iff God approves of A.
Act
Hedons
Dolorons
Hedonic utility
Save kid
100
18
+ 82
Eat ice cream
2
123
- 121
Calculate utils 1
123
- 122
The No Time to Calculate Objection to HU
(1) HU entails that we should always calculate hedonic
utilities before acting.
(2) Its not the case that we should always calculate
hedonic utilities before acting.
(3) HU is not true.
The Too High for Humanity Objection to HU
(1) HU entails that we should should always act selflessly
and out of a desire to improve the world.
(2) Its not the case that we should should always act
selflessly and out of a desire to improve the world.
(3) HU is not true.
The Doctrine of Swine Objection to HU
(1) HU entails that we should always indulge ourselves
in animalistic pleasures.
(2) Its not the case that we should always indulge ourselves
in animalistic pleasures.
(3) HU is not true.
The hedonic utility of an act, A, =df the total
number of hedons that would result from As being performed minus the total
number of dolorons that would result from As being performed.
Act A maximizes hedonic utility =df no alternative
to A has a higher hedonic utility than A.
Hedonistic Utilitarianism (HU): An act, A, is
morally right iff A maximizes hedonic utility.
Act Hedons Dolorons Hedonic utility
Save kid
100
18
+ 82
Eat ice cream
2
123
- 121
Generic Utilities in the Organ Shortage Case
Act Good Bad Generic utility
Harvest organs 1,500 9,000 - 7,500
Business as
400
1,500
- 1,100
usual
The generic utility of an act, A, =df the total
amount of good that would result from As being performed minus the total
amount of bad that would result from As being performed.
Act A maximizes generic utility =df no alternative
to A has a higher generic utility than A.
Generic Utilitarianism (GU): An act, A, is morally
right iff A maximizes generic utility.
The Argument from Justice Against HU
(1) HU entails that it would be morally right to harvest
the organs in the organ shortage case.
(2) It would not be morally right to harvest the organs
in the organ shortage case.
(3) HU is not true.
Hedonic Utilities in the Organ Shortage Case
Act Hedons Dolorons Hedonic utility
Harvest organs 1,000 200 + 800
Business as
200 1,000 - 800
usual
The hedonic utility of an act, A, =df the total
number of hedons that would result from As being performed minus the total
number of dolorons that would result from As being performed.
Act A maximizes hedonic utility =df no alternative to
A has a higher hedonic utility than A.
Hedonistic Utilitarianism (HU): An act, A, is morally
right iff A maximizes hedonic utility.
GR: An act, A, is morally right iff in doing A,
As agent treats others as he or she would like to be treated by them.
M6: Whenever I can maximize hedonic utility by sacrificing
some innocent person, then I will do so.
The Categorical Imperative (CI): An act, A, is morally
right iff it would be rational to want the maxim of A to be a universal
law.
M5: Whenever I need money, I will go jump in a lake.
M3: Whenever I can enhance my business by giving correct
change, I will do so.
M4: Whenever I owe someone a certain amount of money
in change, I will give him or her that amount.
M2: Whenever I need a phone number from the phone book,
I will rip out the page with the relevant listing.
M1: Whenever I need a loan that I would be unable to repay,
I will borrow some money.
Kants Axiological Theory (KAT): The only thing that is
intrinsically good is a good will.
The Practical Imperative (PI): Any act that involves treating
a rational being as a means only is morally wrong.
Rosss Theory (RT): An act, A, is morally right
iff (i) As agent has some prima facie duty (or duties) to perform A, and
(ii) that prima facie duty is not (or those prima facie duties are not)
overriden by some other prima facie duty or duties.
Rosss Seven Types of Prima Facie Duty
1. Duties of fidelity
2. Duties of reparation
3. Duties of gratitude
4. Duties of justice
5. Duties of beneficence
6. Duties of self-improvement
7. Duties of non-maleficence
M9: When I receive a direct command from God, I will obey
Gods orders.
M7: When the market gets to 12,000, I will sell all my stocks.
M8: When choosing a career, I will choose not to become
a doctor.
1. Write an essay in which you (i) compare and contrast
Rachelss version of Cultural Relativism (CR) with the version presented
in class, and (ii) present, explain, and evaluate The Reformers Dilemma
(as an argument against the version of CR presented in class, that is).
2. Write an essay in which you (i) formulate and explain
Nihilism, (ii) present, explain and evaluate what you take to be the best
argument against Nihilism, (iii) formulate and explain Divine Command Theory
(DCT), and (iv) present, explain, and evaluate A Variation on Platos Argument
Against DCT.
3. Write an essay in which you (i) formulate and explain
Hedonistic Utilitarianism (HU), (ii) present, explain, and evaluate The
Argument from Justice Against HU, (iii) formulate and explain Generic Utilitarianism
(GU), and (iv) present, explain, and evaluate what you take to be the best
argument against GU.
4. Write an essay in which you (i) formulate and explain
what you take to be Kants theory concerning the normative ethics of behavior,
and (ii) present, explain, and evaluate what you take to be the best argument
against that theory.
5. Write an essay in which you (i) formulate and explain
what you take to be Rosss theory concerning the normative ethics of behavior,
and (ii) present, explain, and evaluate what you take to be the best argument
against that theory.
Consumerism: (i) The possession of consumer goods is
intrinsically good, and nothing else is in the same way intrinsically good.
(ii) One life, L1, is intrinsically better than another life, L2, iff L1
contains a greater possession of consumer goods than L2. (iii) Similarly
with possible worlds.
A Principle About Intrinsic Value (PAIV): The intrinsic
value of a thing, x, is the result of subtracting the total amount of intrinsic
badness x contains from the total amount of intrinsic goodness it contains.
x is intrinsically bad =df x is bad in itself; x has a kind of badness that it would continue to have even if it did not lead to any other bad things.
x is extrinsically bad =df x is bad because it
leads to other bad things; x has a kind of badness that it would not continue
to have if it did not lead to any other bad things.
x is intrinsically good =df x is good in itself; x has a kind of goodness that it would continue to have even if it did not lead to any other good things.
x is extrinsically good =df x is good because it
leads to other good things; x has a kind of goodness that it would not
continue to have if it did not lead to any other good things.
The Argument from Evil
(1) If there were a God, then this would be the best possible
world.
(2) This is not the best possible world.
(3) There is no God.
FPA: The fundamental project of axiology is the
attempt to discover, properly formulate, and defend principles determining
the intrinsic values of various things including lives, outcomes, and possible
worlds.
FPNEB: The fundamental project of the normative
ethics of behavior is the attempt to discover, properly formulate, and
defend a criterion for the moral rightness of actions.
(1) If SSH is true, then a person who lives like a contented
oyster has a fabulously good life.
(2) A person who lives like a contented oyster does not
have a fabulously good life.
(3) SSH is not true.
E1 = Jack the Ripper enjoying 100 hedons of pleasure
as a result of killing one of his victims.
E2 = Mother Theresas enjoying 100 hedons of pleasure
as a result of helping a deserving person in need.
The Argument from Jack the Ripper Against SSH
(1) If SSH is true, then E1 is just as intrinsically
valuable as E2.
(2) E1 is not just as intrinsically valuable as E2.
(3) SSH is not true.
I(e) = the intensity of episode of pleasure e
D(e) = the duration of episode of pleasure e
Q(e) = the quality of episode of pleasure e
The number of qualified hedons in an episode,
e, of pleasure =df I(e) X D(e) X Q(e).
Mills Qualified Hedonism (MQH): (i) Every episode
of pleasure is intrinsically good; every episode of pain is intrinsically
bad. (ii) The intrinsic value of an episode of pleasure, e = the number
of qualified hedons contained in e. The intrinsic value of an episode
of pain, e = - (the number of dolorons contained in e). (iii) The intrinsic
value of a complex thing = the sum of the intrinsic values of all the episodes
of pleasure and pain contained in that thing.
Platos Oyster Argument Against MQH
(1) If MQH is true, then a person who lives like a contented
oyster has a fabulously good life.
(2) A person who lives like a contented oyster does not
have a fabulously good life.
(3) MQH is not true.
The Argument from Jack the Ripper Against MQH
(1) If MQH were true, then E1 is just as intrinsically
valuable as E2.
(2) E1 is not just as intrinsically valuable as E2.
(3) MQH is not true.
A New Oyster Argument Against MQH
(1) If MQH is true, then a person who lived like a contented
oyster for a sufficiently long time would have a better life than Mill.
(2) Its not the case that a person who lived like a
contented oyster for a sufficiently long time would have a better life
than Mill.
(3) MQH is not true.
| Belief | Degree of justification | Intrinsic value |
| True | .9 | .9 |
| False | .9 | - (1 - .9) = - .1 |
| False | .1 | - (1 - .1) = - .9 |
Four kinds of thing are intrinsically bad:
- virtuous dispositions and actions,
- episodes of pleasure,
- just apportionments of pleasure and pain, and
- true beliefs.
(ii) Intrinsic values are determined as follows.vicious dispositions and actions, episodes of pain, unjust apportionments of pleasure and pain, and false beliefs.
(iii) The intrinsic value of a complex thing is equal to the sum of the intrinsic values of all the intrinsically valuable things that occur in that complex thing.The intrinsic value of a disposition or action is equal to degree of commendability of the relevant motive. The intrinsic value of an episode of pleasure or pain is equal to the hedonic or doloric value of that episode. The intrinsic value of an apportionment of pleasure and pain is equal to the degree of justice of that apportionment. The intrinsic value of a true belief is equal to the degree of justification of that belief, and the intrinsic value of a false belief is equal to - (1- the degree of justification of that belief).
1. Normative ethics proper the search for a criterion of morally right actions.b. Other Areas of Ethics:2. Axiology the search for a criterion of good and evil.
3. Virtue/vice theory the search for a criterion of excellence and deficiency of character.
1. The semantics of ethics the attempt to discover the meanings of the evaluative terms (right, good, virtue, etc.) used in core areas of ethics.What are the virtues? I.e., what traits makes someone a good person?2. The logic of ethics the attempt to discover the logic of the central concepts of ethics.
3. The epistemology of ethics the attempt to discover whether it is possible for people to have knowledge of ethical facts.
4. Moral psychology the attempt to understand how people develop their ethical concepts and views.
5. Applied ethics the attempt to apply general principles from core areas of ethics to specific issues, such as euthanasia or abortion.
6. Moralizing the attempt to get other people to adopt your own views about ethics.
7. History of ethics the attempt to understand what past thinkers in ethics have said.
V2: Characteristic C is a vice iff _____________.
VV: An act, A, is morally right iff A is precisely
what a fully virtuous person would have done in the same circumstances.
| Act/Emotion Family | Vice of Deficiency | Virtue | Vice of Excess |
| Feelings Inspired by Danger | Cowardliness | Courage | Rashness |
| Opinions of Oneself | Humility | Pride | Vanity |
| Enjoying Pleasure | Insensibility | Temperance | Intemperance |
| Taking Pleasure in Amusements | Boorishness | Wittiness | Buffoonery |
| Giving to the Needy | Cheapness | Charity | Prodigality |
| Distributing Goods & Evils | Giving People Less Than They Deserve | Justice | Giving People More Than They Deserve |
(1) A moral saint would have to be a very annoying
person.
(2) If (1), then a moral saint could not be the
best kind of person possible.
(3) A moral saint could not be the best kind of
person possible.
Core Areas of Ethics
The logic of ethics the attempt to discover the logic of the central concepts of ethics.
The epistemology of ethics the attempt to discover whether it is possible for people to have knowledge of ethical facts.
Moral psychology the attempt to understand how people develop their ethical concepts and views.
Applied ethics the attempt to apply general principles from core areas of ethics to specific issues, such as euthanasia or abortion.
Moralizing the attempt to get other people to adopt your own views about ethics.