Promising
Fulfilling promises is a part of a duty, however, there are times where breaking that promise or duty can yield to a greater duty. The example here is that you promise to meet someone for lunch, but you break that promise in order to save someone from an accident. Ross says that it is not for a greater good that you do this, but for what reason then?
When you have the option to do greater benevolent things in order to break a promise, that is the only time you can do so. Why are promises held in such a high regard?
Prima Facie Duty Explained
Prima Facie duty is "conditional duty" like something such as the relationship between child and parent, husband and wife, or citizen and citizen. Ross is saying that in any given situation you have to decide which relationship is of the most importance at the time.
1. Some duties rest on previous acts of a person. There are "implicit promises" which are things that are implied such as not telling lies. Also may be attributed to previous wrongful acts.
2. Previous acts of other men. Duties of gratitude. I guess this means doing good deeds.
3. Duties that act with the possibility are distribution pleasure or happiness. Ross calls this justice, but I don't see how that fits. Perhaps I am reading that wrong.
4. Duties that we can help others by being kind: duties of beneficence. I like that one, it makes sense to me. I seems to say that you can just be kind.
5. Duties of self-improvement - being that we can benefit ourselves from our actions.
6. We should not harm others. We should resist the inclination (want) to do so. I don't understand how that ties into (4.). Maybe it is suggesting that it is not justifiable to kill someone in order to help another. I think that means that we can't hurt some to help others. That doesn't seem all the just to me. Say someone was trying to kill your family and the only way to stop them would be to kill that perpetrator, this theory would state that you would have to let your family because killing the murderer would not be moral.
Ross's key objection to the utilitarian theory is that it is hard to determine who deserves the "most good" that we are striving for. This kind of relates to our class discussion on slavery. How can we determine who deserves to be slaves and who not.
Prima Facie vs. Actual Duty
There are certain universal goods or laws that we all learn when we reach a certain mental maturity - I'm guessing after childhood or even after infancy.
There is a conflict between Prima Facie and virtue. This being that we are not sure which is the right way to do things. Ross is suggesting that we can never truly know what will become of our actions, we may contribute to good or evil; it is a moral risk.
We don't have any justifiable means to consider something to be good or bad. I think that is his point here, but what about universal laws or goods?
Again, we never know which act will add us in the long-run. However, Ross suggests that if we action the Prima Facie rightness and wrongness, he says that we should be more content overall.
Our Moral Convictions as the Basis of Ethics
We have to test moral theory based on what we know and not what we think. We have to compare ourselves those who we see as the best in a moral sense. I don't really understand this passage.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
Utilitarianism
Chapter 1: General Remarks
Mill is going to describe the Utilitarian/Happiness Theory. It is hard to instill proof...I think that is what he is saying.
Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is
The general conception of happiness is that whatever generates happiness is good and whatever does not is bad. These are merely the only two ends. Promote pleasure and prevent pain.
Some believe that there is no higher end than pleasure.
This does not mean that we are trying to attain the same end as swine, but that there are different pleasures that we are attracted to. We should measure pleasure in both quantity and quality. We determine what is of better quality by comparison.
No human would want to be a bad person in any respect. However, it is easier for a lower person or an unintelligent person to become happy and attain the pleasure they need if that person's threshold is very low. A higher minded individual may feel unsatisfied. However, it is better to be unsatisfied and at a higher level.
Utilitarianism follows closely to the approach of the teaching of Jesus that one should love their neighbor as they would themself. This leads to the thinking that the interest of happiness should be placed nearest in harmony to the interest of the whole. Also, education and opinion (power) should be used for universal happiness regardless of the individual.
Utilitarianism = the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Mill criticizes the "duty" theory here in that people do moral actions not only pout of duty, but out of other moral actions such as self interest. One's self-interests are legitimate as long as they do not hinder the overall purpose of greater happiness to others or themselves.
Human experience has taught us the rules and principles of morality. Happiness is the end and aim or morality. There is no clear answer however.
Chapter 4: Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible (Where was 3?)
The first attempt at proof is that happiness is the only end and everything else is only a means to that end.
It is a fact that people want to be happy and that happiness is a good thing. Therefore, happiness is at least an end. Virtue is another part of happiness, an ingredient. It is not a means to happiness, but can be a part of one's happiness.
Happiness is the sum of its parts. Wealth and health may be part of the end of happiness. However, what is desired isn't really wealth or health, but happiness and these are merely parts or means to it.
If one agrees that humans desire happiness, then they must realize that is proof in itself to the principle of utilitarianism.
Chapter 5: On the Connexion Between Justice and Utility
We would like to compel people to do moral things, but we cannot punish them for not acting morally unless they break a specific law.
Injustice is defined as a wrong doing in action and someone that the wrong doing is done upon (victim). It implies that a moral right is taken from us from either a right or wrong doing.
A person's right is defined as something that society ought to defend that person in possession of it. This is related to the general utility (greater good).
Mill is going to describe the Utilitarian/Happiness Theory. It is hard to instill proof...I think that is what he is saying.
Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is
The general conception of happiness is that whatever generates happiness is good and whatever does not is bad. These are merely the only two ends. Promote pleasure and prevent pain.
Some believe that there is no higher end than pleasure.
This does not mean that we are trying to attain the same end as swine, but that there are different pleasures that we are attracted to. We should measure pleasure in both quantity and quality. We determine what is of better quality by comparison.
No human would want to be a bad person in any respect. However, it is easier for a lower person or an unintelligent person to become happy and attain the pleasure they need if that person's threshold is very low. A higher minded individual may feel unsatisfied. However, it is better to be unsatisfied and at a higher level.
Utilitarianism follows closely to the approach of the teaching of Jesus that one should love their neighbor as they would themself. This leads to the thinking that the interest of happiness should be placed nearest in harmony to the interest of the whole. Also, education and opinion (power) should be used for universal happiness regardless of the individual.
Utilitarianism = the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Mill criticizes the "duty" theory here in that people do moral actions not only pout of duty, but out of other moral actions such as self interest. One's self-interests are legitimate as long as they do not hinder the overall purpose of greater happiness to others or themselves.
Human experience has taught us the rules and principles of morality. Happiness is the end and aim or morality. There is no clear answer however.
Chapter 4: Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible (Where was 3?)
The first attempt at proof is that happiness is the only end and everything else is only a means to that end.
It is a fact that people want to be happy and that happiness is a good thing. Therefore, happiness is at least an end. Virtue is another part of happiness, an ingredient. It is not a means to happiness, but can be a part of one's happiness.
Happiness is the sum of its parts. Wealth and health may be part of the end of happiness. However, what is desired isn't really wealth or health, but happiness and these are merely parts or means to it.
If one agrees that humans desire happiness, then they must realize that is proof in itself to the principle of utilitarianism.
Chapter 5: On the Connexion Between Justice and Utility
We would like to compel people to do moral things, but we cannot punish them for not acting morally unless they break a specific law.
Injustice is defined as a wrong doing in action and someone that the wrong doing is done upon (victim). It implies that a moral right is taken from us from either a right or wrong doing.
A person's right is defined as something that society ought to defend that person in possession of it. This is related to the general utility (greater good).
Monday, January 14, 2008
Kant - Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative
The Good Will
All good qualities of character could be made bad if not for good character. Good will can judge the extent to which we are influenced by outside forces of good fortune and to the extent to which we are happy.
Moderation and self-control are indeed good, but can result in a more diabolical villain if not coupled with the principles of good will.
"Good will" is virtuous in and of itself and cannot be devalued in worth.
Moral Worth
Maxim - an expression of a general truth or principle, esp. an aphoristic or sententious one (dictionary.com).
We should do things through love and the duty is beholds. We must not act from selfishness. If our actions fulfill that duty, then we are said to be doing something with moral worth.
Inclination vs. duty
Difference in doing something from duty which does not grant it moral worth, or something from inclination.
Your moral worth is based on doing something you should do (duty) and not something you want to do (inclination). I think.
We should not strive for something with a pre-conceived expectation.
The Supreme Principle of Morality: The Categorical Imperative
You can will that your maxim be made universal law.
You cannot make promises that you cannot keep, cannot be a universal law. It would destroy itself because there would be no meaning in promises if everyone acted in such a way.
Acting in the pure respect for the common law is duty.
Imperatives: Hypothetical and Categorical
"The Will" is nothing but practical reason. However, "the will" is not necessarily as subjective as reason and therefore, is not completely tied to reason.
The objective will is based on Imperatives, which command two principles:
Hypothetical - the necessity of an action that is willed. Good as a means to something else.
Categorical - an action is necessary to itself without other ends; objective. Good in of itself.
Act by principle as if they were the only reasonable laws of the universe = act as God would.
Four Illustrations
1. You can't kill yourself as an act of self-love by ending your suffering. It would be a contradiction because you would not be improving your life if you are dead.
2. A man needs to borrow money and wants to ask to borrow with a promise that he will repay them, but knows that he cannot. This is also a contradiction because it would universally imply that anyone could make empty promises about anything if they are in the same situation.
3. A man could do great things will his talents if we worked to perfect them, but enjoys hanging out and not doing anything. This could not pass as a universal law of nature because as reasonable human being, we want to develop ourselves.
4. I man is prosperity and is surrounded by wretchedness, he does nothing and lets it continue on. This is not a universal law of nature for someone of good will because human life could not exist with such as maxim.
Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative: Humanity as an End in Itself
Humans are an end in themselves and never as a means.
Worth is only based on conditional aspects.
Humans are an objective principle in that our rational nature exists as an end itself. Follows the idea of "The Golden Rule."
The Kingdom of Ends
Our moral actions are considered within a kingdom of laws: moral laws. Whereas we determine what are deemed as ends and what are means.
All good qualities of character could be made bad if not for good character. Good will can judge the extent to which we are influenced by outside forces of good fortune and to the extent to which we are happy.
Moderation and self-control are indeed good, but can result in a more diabolical villain if not coupled with the principles of good will.
"Good will" is virtuous in and of itself and cannot be devalued in worth.
Moral Worth
Maxim - an expression of a general truth or principle, esp. an aphoristic or sententious one (dictionary.com).
We should do things through love and the duty is beholds. We must not act from selfishness. If our actions fulfill that duty, then we are said to be doing something with moral worth.
Inclination vs. duty
Difference in doing something from duty which does not grant it moral worth, or something from inclination.
Your moral worth is based on doing something you should do (duty) and not something you want to do (inclination). I think.
We should not strive for something with a pre-conceived expectation.
The Supreme Principle of Morality: The Categorical Imperative
You can will that your maxim be made universal law.
You cannot make promises that you cannot keep, cannot be a universal law. It would destroy itself because there would be no meaning in promises if everyone acted in such a way.
Acting in the pure respect for the common law is duty.
Imperatives: Hypothetical and Categorical
"The Will" is nothing but practical reason. However, "the will" is not necessarily as subjective as reason and therefore, is not completely tied to reason.
The objective will is based on Imperatives, which command two principles:
Hypothetical - the necessity of an action that is willed. Good as a means to something else.
Categorical - an action is necessary to itself without other ends; objective. Good in of itself.
Act by principle as if they were the only reasonable laws of the universe = act as God would.
Four Illustrations
1. You can't kill yourself as an act of self-love by ending your suffering. It would be a contradiction because you would not be improving your life if you are dead.
2. A man needs to borrow money and wants to ask to borrow with a promise that he will repay them, but knows that he cannot. This is also a contradiction because it would universally imply that anyone could make empty promises about anything if they are in the same situation.
3. A man could do great things will his talents if we worked to perfect them, but enjoys hanging out and not doing anything. This could not pass as a universal law of nature because as reasonable human being, we want to develop ourselves.
4. I man is prosperity and is surrounded by wretchedness, he does nothing and lets it continue on. This is not a universal law of nature for someone of good will because human life could not exist with such as maxim.
Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative: Humanity as an End in Itself
Humans are an end in themselves and never as a means.
Worth is only based on conditional aspects.
Humans are an objective principle in that our rational nature exists as an end itself. Follows the idea of "The Golden Rule."
The Kingdom of Ends
Our moral actions are considered within a kingdom of laws: moral laws. Whereas we determine what are deemed as ends and what are means.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Happiness, Function, and Virtue
Happiness
All Human Activities Aim at Some Good
This "good" is a process of attaining an "end" to every action. These "ends" shift depending on the process such as good health being the "end" of medical practice.
Ethics is not an Exact Science
You can only accurately judge a subject you are familiar with without making general assumptions.
Different Conceptions of Happiness
One's own definition of happiness changes depending on the needs and wants of the moment. A poor person would say that having wealth is significant in attaining happiness and so forth.
There are three types of life: the sensual, the political, and the thought.
Characteristics of the Good
The good that we are searching for is - in essence - the end we are looking for...I think. I'm not understanding what Aristotle is saying here.
The Function of Man
Happiness is the supreme good. The function of man is the balance of virtue with life in being that we function with a soul in accordance with reason. But this assumes that animals, plants, and other living beings do not have souls. Isn't this subjective to say so?
Human Happiness
Some associate happiness with either good fortune or virtue. Aristotle is implying that children cannot be happy because happiness can only be attained from living a full and complete life. A happy person can never be miserable because the way to attain happiness is life in complete virtue. What does this mean, virtue?
Virtue
Virtue and Habit
Virtue is intellectual and moral. Our virtues are created in our actions between other people. We must maintain a certain character in our activities and actions. Some moral virtues include temperance and courage.
Virtues and the Mean
We must shy away from too much or too little of any virtue such as being too cowardly or too courageous. Feeling the right emotion or doing the right action at the right time, for the right objects, for the right people, with the right motives, and in the right manner is said to be the best good and thus, virtue. There are other things that are never right in any amount and are deemed wicked such as hate, malice, and murder.
Practical Advise
Not everyone is good and not everyone can balance toward a mean. We must push ourselves away from the extreme. We also must on on out guard against pleasure because we are not impartial judges of pleasure. I guess this suggests that pleasure is not the answer to happiness and that virtue is the true course to the great good which then leads to happiness.
All Human Activities Aim at Some Good
This "good" is a process of attaining an "end" to every action. These "ends" shift depending on the process such as good health being the "end" of medical practice.
Ethics is not an Exact Science
You can only accurately judge a subject you are familiar with without making general assumptions.
Different Conceptions of Happiness
One's own definition of happiness changes depending on the needs and wants of the moment. A poor person would say that having wealth is significant in attaining happiness and so forth.
There are three types of life: the sensual, the political, and the thought.
Characteristics of the Good
The good that we are searching for is - in essence - the end we are looking for...I think. I'm not understanding what Aristotle is saying here.
The Function of Man
Happiness is the supreme good. The function of man is the balance of virtue with life in being that we function with a soul in accordance with reason. But this assumes that animals, plants, and other living beings do not have souls. Isn't this subjective to say so?
Human Happiness
Some associate happiness with either good fortune or virtue. Aristotle is implying that children cannot be happy because happiness can only be attained from living a full and complete life. A happy person can never be miserable because the way to attain happiness is life in complete virtue. What does this mean, virtue?
Virtue
Virtue and Habit
Virtue is intellectual and moral. Our virtues are created in our actions between other people. We must maintain a certain character in our activities and actions. Some moral virtues include temperance and courage.
Virtues and the Mean
We must shy away from too much or too little of any virtue such as being too cowardly or too courageous. Feeling the right emotion or doing the right action at the right time, for the right objects, for the right people, with the right motives, and in the right manner is said to be the best good and thus, virtue. There are other things that are never right in any amount and are deemed wicked such as hate, malice, and murder.
Practical Advise
Not everyone is good and not everyone can balance toward a mean. We must push ourselves away from the extreme. We also must on on out guard against pleasure because we are not impartial judges of pleasure. I guess this suggests that pleasure is not the answer to happiness and that virtue is the true course to the great good which then leads to happiness.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Ethical Relativism
Ethical Relativism
No cross-cultural moral standards. Unique to each culture.
1. How Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes
Different cultures have different beliefs. What might be normal to some are horrifying to others.
2. Cultural Relativism
No universal ethics. What is right in every society is right in every society. Outside cannot interfere.
3. The Cultural Differences Argument
Right and wrong are only matters of opinion.
Cultural Differences Argument = not sound.
There is no objective truth because some beliefs may simply be wrong.
(How do we determine what is right and wrong morally?)
4. The Consequences of Taking Cultural Relativism Seriously
We could not condemn other cultures' practices because they are simply "different." Can't stop other nations from taking slaves.
Can't condemn within our own culture. Cultures will never change because the standards will always be reinforced.
Cannot change for progress and reform. Past thinking is never wrong, because it was right for a period of time.
5. Why There is Less Disagreement than it Seems
The difference is in out belief system and not our values. Customs may simply be different and not values.
6. How All Cultures Have Some Values in Common
There are some moral rules that all societies must have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist (like protecting the young, not lying, and no murder).
7. judging a Cultural Practice to be Undesirable
Is the a culture-neutral standard of right and wrong? You must ask, whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of the people whose lives are affected by it.
Why, despite all this, thoughtful people may nevertheless be reluctant to criticize other cultures? Previous attempts to shift outside cultures in the past were disaster, but there is a right and wrong way of doing it by either understanding the world or forcing beliefs.
People try to be tolerant of others, but not all beliefs and cultures are equally right.
Don't want to show contempt for another society, but it does not mean that everything is bad if you criticize a culture, just some things.
8. What Can Be Learned From Cultural Relativism
It reminds us that not all of our norms are universal and that our ways are not the only ways.
We want to avoid being arrogant and have an open mind.
No cross-cultural moral standards. Unique to each culture.
1. How Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes
Different cultures have different beliefs. What might be normal to some are horrifying to others.
2. Cultural Relativism
No universal ethics. What is right in every society is right in every society. Outside cannot interfere.
3. The Cultural Differences Argument
Right and wrong are only matters of opinion.
Cultural Differences Argument = not sound.
There is no objective truth because some beliefs may simply be wrong.
(How do we determine what is right and wrong morally?)
4. The Consequences of Taking Cultural Relativism Seriously
We could not condemn other cultures' practices because they are simply "different." Can't stop other nations from taking slaves.
Can't condemn within our own culture. Cultures will never change because the standards will always be reinforced.
Cannot change for progress and reform. Past thinking is never wrong, because it was right for a period of time.
5. Why There is Less Disagreement than it Seems
The difference is in out belief system and not our values. Customs may simply be different and not values.
6. How All Cultures Have Some Values in Common
There are some moral rules that all societies must have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist (like protecting the young, not lying, and no murder).
7. judging a Cultural Practice to be Undesirable
Is the a culture-neutral standard of right and wrong? You must ask, whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of the people whose lives are affected by it.
Why, despite all this, thoughtful people may nevertheless be reluctant to criticize other cultures? Previous attempts to shift outside cultures in the past were disaster, but there is a right and wrong way of doing it by either understanding the world or forcing beliefs.
People try to be tolerant of others, but not all beliefs and cultures are equally right.
Don't want to show contempt for another society, but it does not mean that everything is bad if you criticize a culture, just some things.
8. What Can Be Learned From Cultural Relativism
It reminds us that not all of our norms are universal and that our ways are not the only ways.
We want to avoid being arrogant and have an open mind.
Monday, January 7, 2008
An Introduction to Ethics
Ethics - Asks the question, how should I live? "Ethics deals with individual character and the moral rules that govern and limit our conduct". Good vs. Bad. Can be confused or interchanged with morals. (not sure if they are supposed to be different or not).
Moral vs. Nonmoral standards
Moral Standards - Concern behavior that affects human welfare, such as benefit or injury to people. Takes priority over others, including self-interest. Only as good as the reasons and support that back them.
Morality and Etiquette
Etiquette - Norms and conduct in polite society, or social code or courtesy. Please and thank you.
Following etiquette doesn't make someone moral.
Morality and Laws
1. An action can be illegal but morally right. Nonconformity is not always immoral.
2. AN action that is legal can be morally wrong. The reverse.
Professional Codes
Professional Codes of Ethics - Between etiquette and law. Within a given profession and can be vague or detailed.
Where does morality come from? Religion? Ethical Relativism - right and wrong based on society?
Religion is a large factor in morals. It seems like the "golden rule" exists in every religion in some form.
Divine Command Theory - it is wrong because God said so. Critics say that just because God said it is wrong, doesn't make it immoral. Atheists can believe in these same morals without following a standardized religion.
You must appeal to human reason - religion is not a solid defense.
Ethical Relativism
Morality is relative to society. Abortion is banned in Ireland, but lawful in Japan.
Disagreement in morality between cultures does not make them all equally correct.
If so, we would allow mass genocide in Africa if it is believed to be okay there.
Unpleasant Implications:
1. Can't allow everything under the idea if it is okay where they live.
2. They may change but can't get better or worse. (I think that is in a relative sense and not in comparison)
3. The minority can never be right because changing within has to take a majority opinion.
Conscience
Developed by internalized morals taught be parents and acts as an agent of self-motivation.
You're conscience can be wrong. Sometimes what your conscience tells you can lead to "older" thinking that is immoral, but was previously believed to be right. Example: Huck Finn p. 10.
Moral Principles and Self-Interest
You are able to do immoral things for personal gain and get away with it. Not everything that goes around, comes around - and that sucks.
Doing the right thing for personal gain is not morality. You should so the moral thing to do, just because it is the right things to do.
Selfish people lead less happy lives.
Morality and Personal Values
"The life that each of us forges and the way we understand that life are part of our morality in the broad sense of the term."
Human excellence - according to Aristotle - is not simply based on excellence within a given profession, but based on our morality as a human being: words to live by.
Moral vs. Nonmoral standards
Moral Standards - Concern behavior that affects human welfare, such as benefit or injury to people. Takes priority over others, including self-interest. Only as good as the reasons and support that back them.
Morality and Etiquette
Etiquette - Norms and conduct in polite society, or social code or courtesy. Please and thank you.
Following etiquette doesn't make someone moral.
Morality and Laws
1. An action can be illegal but morally right. Nonconformity is not always immoral.
2. AN action that is legal can be morally wrong. The reverse.
Professional Codes
Professional Codes of Ethics - Between etiquette and law. Within a given profession and can be vague or detailed.
Where does morality come from? Religion? Ethical Relativism - right and wrong based on society?
Religion is a large factor in morals. It seems like the "golden rule" exists in every religion in some form.
Divine Command Theory - it is wrong because God said so. Critics say that just because God said it is wrong, doesn't make it immoral. Atheists can believe in these same morals without following a standardized religion.
You must appeal to human reason - religion is not a solid defense.
Ethical Relativism
Morality is relative to society. Abortion is banned in Ireland, but lawful in Japan.
Disagreement in morality between cultures does not make them all equally correct.
If so, we would allow mass genocide in Africa if it is believed to be okay there.
Unpleasant Implications:
1. Can't allow everything under the idea if it is okay where they live.
2. They may change but can't get better or worse. (I think that is in a relative sense and not in comparison)
3. The minority can never be right because changing within has to take a majority opinion.
Conscience
Developed by internalized morals taught be parents and acts as an agent of self-motivation.
You're conscience can be wrong. Sometimes what your conscience tells you can lead to "older" thinking that is immoral, but was previously believed to be right. Example: Huck Finn p. 10.
Moral Principles and Self-Interest
You are able to do immoral things for personal gain and get away with it. Not everything that goes around, comes around - and that sucks.
Doing the right thing for personal gain is not morality. You should so the moral thing to do, just because it is the right things to do.
Selfish people lead less happy lives.
Morality and Personal Values
"The life that each of us forges and the way we understand that life are part of our morality in the broad sense of the term."
Human excellence - according to Aristotle - is not simply based on excellence within a given profession, but based on our morality as a human being: words to live by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)