Moral Philosophy

• What is Utilitarianism?

  Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism

  
  

  Who?- Jeremy Bentham

  
  

  - Utilitarianism is a normative and consequentialist ethical theory that follows the belief that we should strive for actions that promote the greatest amount of happiness and oppose actions that cause pain and suffering. It is relativist and quantitative, meaning that it is dependent on circumstances and measures the quantity of the pleasure as good, rather than the quality.

  
  

  - Utilitarianism follows the Principle of Utility, which is the underlying basis of all moral decision making.

  
  

  Principle of Utility- 'The good is that which will bring about the greatest sum of pleasure, or the least sum of pain, for the greatest number'

  
  

  1- What is right? Actions are morally right or wrong depending on their consequences and nothing else. An act is right if it maximises pleasure. (Consequentialism)

  
  

  2- What is good? The only thing that is good is happiness, understood as pleasure and the absence of pain. (Hedonism)

  
  

  3- Who counts? No ones happiness counts more than anyone else. This is a commitment to equality.

  
  

  'Everyone is to count for one, nobody to count for more than one'

  
  

  - Act Utilitarianism uses the Hedonic or Felicific Calculus in order to decide how to act in a certain situation, rather than following a strict set of absolutist rules.
• Explain the Hedonic Calculus

  D- Duration- How long does the pleasure last?

  R- Remoteness (propinquity)- How near or far is the pleasure?

  P- Purity- How free from pain is the pleasure?

  R- Richness (fecundity)- How likely is it going to lead to other pleasures?

  I- Intensity- How strong or intense is the pleasure?

  C- Certainty- How probable or certain is the pleasure?

  E- Extent- How many people will be effected?
• What are the differences between Psychological Hedonism, Moral Hedonism, and Hedonistic Utilitarianism?

  Hedonism- The only thing that is intrinsically good is pleasure, and the only thing that is intrinsically bad is pain. Any other 'good' is only instrumentally good (descriptive)

  
  

  Psychological Hedonism- The view that all human action is ultimately governed by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain (descriptive)

  
  

  Moral Hedonism- The right action is that which maximises pleasure and minimises pain. This goes beyond saying that humans seek pleasure, instead it says they ought to seek pleasure (normative)

  
  

  Hedonistic Utilitarianism- otherwise known as 'Act Utilitarianism' and argues that what is right and what we ought to do is that which maximises pleasure for the greatest number of people (normative)
• What are the three denominations of Utilitarianism?

  - Act Utilitarianism

  - Rule Utilitarianism

  - Preference Utilitarianism
• Explain Rule Utilitarianism


  Rule Utilitarianism

  
  

  Who?- John Stuart Mill

  
  

  - Rule Utilitarianism takes a different approach from Act in saying that people should follow and be guided by moral rules that in the past have been shown to promote the greatest number of pleasure. It is a qualitative theory as it asses the type of pleasure rather than the amount.

  
  

  - It also takes both a deontological and teleological approach as the outcome should promote the Utility Principle, however the actions of the individual are still judged.

  
  

  Mill divided Rule Utilitarianism into two forms, strong and weak rule:

  
  

  Strong Rule- Some rules should never be broken even if they don't maximise utility in a particular case (Absolutist Deontological)

  
  

  Weak Rule- Some rules can be broken if necessary in order to maximise the utility (Relativist Teleological)
• Explain Mills 'proof' of Utilitarianism

  1- Happiness is good

  
  

  - The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is that people actually see it, thus the sole evidence that something is desirable is if people actually desire it

  
  

  - No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable except that each person desires his own happiness

  
  

  - Each person takes their own happiness to be good, and so, adding each persons happiness to that of others, the general happiness is good for people in general

  
  

  2- Only happiness is good

  
  

  - Mill argues it is physically and metaphysically impossible to desire something that you don't think is a pleasure. As pleasure is happiness, we only desire happiness, and happiness is the only good.

  
  

  - Everything of value (truth, beauty, freedom etc) are all a means to happiness and they are all desirable in themselves, but make up ingredients of happiness.
• What are the criticisms to Mills proof of Utilitarianism?

  1- Happiness is good criticisms

  
  

  - G.E. Moore argued that Mill commits the fallacy of equivocation, meaning he confuses the meaning of two words. Desirable can mean either 'worthy of being desired' or 'capable of being desired'. Mill just assumed that what people desire is good and hasnt spotted the other meaning, nor that people desire all sorts of things and some aren't 'good'.

  
  

  However, Moores objection misinterprets Mills argument. Mill is looking for the EVIDENCE that something for worthy of being desired. Mill argues that unless people in general desire what is not worth desiring, then there is good evidence to claim that happiness is desirable.

  
  

  - Other philosophers argue that Mill commits the fallacy of composition as he infers that just because each person desires their own happiness, that we also desire the happiness of everybody.

  
  

  However, this is also a misinterpretation as Mill is saying that ethics is concerned with what is good in general, not that we ought to be concerned for the happiness of others. The assumption that ethics is impartial simply follows his argument that happiness is good.

  
  

  2- Only happiness is good criticisms

  
  

  - What we desire is part of our happiness because happiness is the satisfaction of desires, not because happiness is pleasure caused by the satisfaction of desires.

  
  

  - For example with truth, we are made happy by knowing the truth because we approve of knowing the truth, and not simply because is brings us pleasure.

  
  

  - Nozicks experience machine shows that many different things, not only happiness, are good and that not everything that we desire is a means to happiness.
• Explain Mills higher and lower pleasure distinction


  'It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied'

  
  

  Lower pleasures- inferior pleasures of the body (bestial)

  
  

  - Lower pleasures are still considered good to Mill, however they are less important than higher pleasures.

  - They are sensual or physical pleasures that a person may have in common with an animal.

  - They are more easily obtained than higher pleasures and known as bodily pleasures we can experience.

  Examples- sex, eating a meal, being warm

  
  

  Higher pleasures- superior pleasures of the mind

  
  

  - Humans have the capacity to enjoy intellectual pleasures where as animals do not. Mill felt that it was these pleasures that distinguish us from animals.

  - It is often hard to achieve them, however those who have experienced higher pleasures will always choose them over lower pleasures because they recognise their significant value and gain more happiness as a result.

  Examples- education, rational thinking, appreciation of the arts

  
  

  - By introducing this distinction between higher and lower pleasures, Mill rejects the Hedonic Calculus and adds quality instead of the quantity of pleasure that Bentham approached.
• Explain Mills harm principle


  - A principle created by Mill that argues the only reason power can be rightfully exercised over another person against their will is to prevent any harm to others.

  
  

  - The principle states that an individual must be allowed the freedom to pursue pleasure as they wish, unless they cause harm to others by doing so.

  
  

  - Even actions that are harmful to the individual themselves are not worthy of interference as they are making that decision themselves and not harming the wider community.

  
  

  - The only exception to the harm principle is children under the care of others, as they do need to be protected and cannot have complete freedom yet.
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of Preference Utilitarianism?

  Strengths-

  
  

  - A more personal approach as everyones own preferences are considered, not just one scale of pleasure.

  - Can be considered easier to calculate than the hedonic calculus as we can ask people about their preferences

  - Is still egalitarian, meaning that everyones preferences are considered.

  
  

  Weaknesses-

  
  

  - How do we deal with conflicting preferences?

  - Tyranny of the majority

  - Partiality

  - Preferences can be unreliable basis for morality

  - Integrity and intentions of the moral agent

  
  

  *other problems explained in more detail later
• What are the brief objections to Utilitarianism?

  1- Utilitarianism values only pleasure. It does not recognise the 'higher' things in life or the dignity of human beings.

  
  

  2- Happiness is unattainable

  
  

  3- Utilitarianism is too idealistic, expecting people to be motivated by everyones happiness in general

  
  

  4- Utilitarianism makes people cold and unsympathetic to others, considering only their actions and not their personal qualities

  
  

  5- It is not possible to work out the consequences of an action for human happiness

  
  

  6- Utilitarians will be tempted to make exceptions to the rules
• Explain the issue that Utilitarianism has a problem with calculation

  How can we work out the consequences of an action and whether it maximises pleasure or not?

  
  

  1- How do we quantify each of the seven variables in the hedonic calculus? We cannot know how to measure the extent of the pleasure as we can't know the consequences of an action before they happen.

  
  

  2- Is it possible to compare the variables against each other? For example how do we decide over a longer lasting pleasure with less extent, or a shorter lived pleasure with more extent?

  
  

  3- Which beings are to be used within the calculus? Do we take into account the feelings of children and of animals when they have less reason than us? This problem can lead to speciesism and hold a problem for questions regarding eating animals and destroying farmland to uphold human housing.
• How can Utilitarianism respond to the problem of calculation?

  - Utilitarians can argue that the criticism misinterprets what utilitarians are trying to say. Instead, Bentham argues that what makes an action right the tendency that an action has to maximise pleasure. This means that we don't always need to be able to work out the consequences as we can look at if an action can be seen to have a reasonable expectation to amount to pleasure.

  
  

  Counter- However, this still means we have to roughly work out things and this can be too demanding. Mill has a solution to which he argues 'secondary principles' which are moral rules that have been cultivated through trial and error through humanity. He says that it is only when in conflict with these principles that we need to apply the greatest happiness principle and that this lessens the need for calculation in moral decisions.

  
  

  - Peter Singer would argue that we do not treat women worse than men because they are women, nor treat one race different from another. Thus, we should not treat animals different to humans because that is speciesism.

  
  

  Counter- we can argue that men, women, and races have no difference in capacities and mentality, however there is a significant difference between humans and animals because animals cannot reason.

  
  

  - However, Singer responds by arguing that the capacity for reason or other forms is not relevant. Instead it is the ability to suffer, which both humans and animals do equally have. This intensifies the problem because it is difficult enough to work out the pleasure of human beings and even more so for animals.

  
  

  - Furthermore, Mills argument doesn't suffice as our inherited morality is no use. Many cultures do not take much moral notice of animals and our current existing rules do not take into account anyone other than humans. This means that we cannot calculate the effect our actions have on ani
• How does the issue of problems in calculation affect the branches of Utilitarianism?

  Act-

  
  

  Rule-

  
  

  Preference-

  - Can survive this criticism as it is much easier to find out peoples preferences through non-hedonism than how much pleasure someone experiences.

  
  

  
  

  Cruciality?-
• Explain the issue in Utilitarianism whether pleasure is the only good (Nozick's Experience Machine)


  There are experiences where we would prefer something, even if it makes us less happy, and where might prefer something not to happen even if it made us more happy. Thus, pleasure/happiness cannot surely be the only good.

  
  

  Nozicks experience machine-

  
  

  Philosopher Robert Nozick came up with the idea of the experience machine, where you could be plugged into a virtual reality machine in which you could experience that of a perfect life. When you're plugged in, you don't know that it is a simulation, and you are living in a world where pleasure is maximised and pleasure is minimised.

  
  

  However, despite maximising happiness, many people would choose not to enter the machine as they would prefer to live in reality, even if it causes less pleasure.

  
  

  Specific actions, objects themselves-

  
  

  An argument is that we may strongly want something in itself, and not the pleasure it will give. For example, if you are a collector of something and you need one more piece to complete your collection, and someone gave you the quantity of pleasure you would receive from getting the piece but from a different source, you would argue that it is the collective piece that you want, rather than a certain quantity of pleasure. If we all just wanted pleasure, then we would settle for anything that gave us the quantity of pleasure we need rather than what we desire in an act.

  
  

  States of affairs in the world-

  
  

  People often want specific states of affairs in the world, rather than just seeking things inside our heads. If it were just sensations, then people would have stepped into the machine. However, the majority of people would not do this so this shows that people seek things in the real world over sensations and descriptions of pleasure.
• How does the issue of pleasure as the only good affect the branches of Utilitarianism?


  Act-

  
  

  Rule

  
  

  Preference-

  It doesn't effect preference utilitarianism
• Explain the issue in Utilitarianism and its issues around partiality

  Is it right to treat everyone equally? When considering acting morally, should I really treat people I have never met equally with that of my family and friends?

  
  

  Certain relationships have a unique moral status and act utilitarianism forces us to ignore these moral obligations. This makes Utilitarianism seem to idealistic as it supposes that people will choose to give strangers priority over their other relationships.
• How does the issue of partiality affect the branches of Utilitarianism?

  Act-

  
  

  Rule-

  
  

  Preference-
• Explain the issue in Utilitarianism of whether it ignores moral integrity and the intentions of an individual

  - Having moral integrity means acting in accordance with your own values. For example, it may be your value to never kill anyone. However, Utilitarianism can always seem to hold a dilemma to which we would have to abandon our moral integrity in order to maximise happiness.

  
  

  - Utilitarianism does not look at the intentions behind an action either as all it focuses on are the consequences.

  
  

  
  

  Response-
• How does the issue of moral integrity and intentions affect the branches of Utilitarianism?

  Act-

  
  

  Rule-

  
  

  Preference-
• Explain the issue in Utilitarianism of fairness and individual liberty

  Tyranny of the majority-

  
  

  - A tyranny of the majority situation occurs when a majority exercises its power over a minority. Mill noted that there are two ways this could happen:

  
  

  1- A democratic government coup overrule the interests of a minority due to a majority vote. For example, if the majority of people wanted a law that discriminated against people of a certain religion, this could be passed as it is for the greatest number.

  
  

  2- Social opinion and influence can also impose a tyranny of the majority situation. Everyone thinks that their standards should be the standard for everyone else. With a high social disapproval or approval of something, it can affect how people think and want to do, even if there is no law imposing this on them.

  
  

  - Utilitarianism is also a problem because it doesn't rule out any type of act as immoral, as it is all relativist. Therefore, we do not have any individual rights.
• How does the issue of fairness and individual liberty affect the branches of Utilitarianism?

  Act-

  
  

  Rule-

  
  

  Rule Utilitarianism is not affected greatly by this issue, as they can respond using both general rules and Mill's harm principle.

  
  

  Preference-

  
  

  Preference Utilitarians would still face the issue surrounding tyranny of the majority, as if the preferences of individuals outweighed that of another, then it would be deemed moral to act in this way.
• Explain Aristotelian Virtue Ethics

  Who?- Aristotle

  
  

  - Virtue Ethics is the normative, agent centred ethical theory that focuses on defining a morally good person rather than a morally good action. For Virtue Ethics, it argues that a morally good action is one that is done by a morally good person.

  
  

  - Aristotle argued that everything in the world has a function, and for humans it is our ability to use reason. We can use this reason and apply it to the golden mean in order to work out what the most virtuous action is.

  
  

  - An action is virtuous if it leads us closer to the end goal or 'telos' which is eudaimonia. This is human flourishing and becoming the best version of ourselves.
• Outline eudaimonia as the final end of virtue ethics

  Eudaimonia- human flourishing, Aristotle refers to it as 'living well and faring well' in society.

  
  

  - Eudaimonia is a final end, so it cannot be instrumentally good like wealth or honour. This is why it is a 'final' end, as it is an end we desire for its own sake.

  
  

  However, if pleasure, honour, and knowledge are also final ends, doesn't this mean that eudaimonia is not the only good?

  
  

  - To clarify, some final ends we may seek both for their own sake and for the sake of something else. So pleasure, knowledge, and honour are also pursued for the sake of eudaimonia. Final ends like these are just constitutive parts of eudaimonia, as we can pursue them for their own sake and for the sake of living well if we believe that it is part of a good life.

  
  

  - Eudaimonia is also self sufficient because it makes life desirable of its own. It is the most desirable thing and we can't make it more desirable by adding something else to it. So by adding something like knowledge is just making that part of your Eudaimonia.
• What are the differences between happiness and eudaimonia?

  Happiness-

  - Relates to a psychological state

  - Is subjective as only the person who is happy knows whether they are truly happy

  - Comes and goes easily

  
  

  Eudaimonia-

  - Relates to an activity (living) and realising the full potential for human life

  - Is objective as a judgement can me made about someone's life and how truly good it is

  - It is stable and not easily changed, it is the evaluation of a person or a life as a whole
• What is Aristotle's function (ergon) argument?

  P1- Everything has a function (ergon)

  P2- Therefore humans must have a function (IC)

  P3- Our function is our characteristic activity, determined by our soul or (psyche)

  P4- We share nutrition/growth with plants, we share desires/perception with animals, but only humans have a rational soul

  P5- Our characteristic activity (function) lies within the rational aspects of our soul and the function of humans must be to exercise this aspect

  P6- To be a good X requires X fulfilling its function well through the exercise of appropriate virtue

  P7- Therefore, to be a good human requires exercising those virtues through rationality

  C- Therefore, the good life for a human is determined through exercising virtues through rational aspects of the soul.
• Explain virtues and vices

  Virtues- a trait of mind or character that helps us achieve a good life. They are in accordance with reason and enable a person to achieve a good purpose. They can be split into the denominations of intellectual and moral virtues.

  
  

  - Moral Virtues- virtues that are cultivated by habit and practice.

  
  

  - Intellectual Virtues- Virtues that are qualities of mind that are taught or developed through instruction

  
  

  Vices- a trait that is morally bad and are dispositions to choose something that is not in the mean. They are either vices of excess or deficiency.

  
  

  
  

  Virtues as character traits-

  
  

  - Aristotle argued that anything that is part of the soul/mind is either a passion, a faculty, or a state of character.

  
  

  Passions are our bodily appetites, emotions, and feelings of either pleasure or pain. Virtues cannot be passions because we don't choose our passions, and feeling sad or hungry doesn't make you a good or bad person.

  
  

  Faculties are things like our sight and the ability to feel fear. Virtues cannot be faculties because we have things like sight naturally, but we have to acquire virtues.

  
  

  - Character involves a persons dispositions to relate to what they feel, how they think etc. A virtue is therefore a character trait to feel, desire, and choose something well that is necessary in order to achieve eudaimonia.
• Explain the golden mean and its application to virtues


  - The mean is relative to each individual and is what is neither too much nor too little. Being virtuous is being aware that we must feel something in an intermediate way rather than in excess or deficiency.

  
  

  - The intellectual aspect of a virtuous action involves understanding why and if this action is the right thing to do. We do this by using our phronesis or practical wisdom.

  
  

  - The doctrine of the golden mean states that we can place a virtue between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency.

  
  

  
  

  Passion/concern ---> Deficient Vice---> Virtue ---> Excess Vice

  
  

  Fear---> Cowardly ---> Courageous ---> Rashness

  
  

  Humour---> Boorish ---> Witty ---> Buffoonish

  
  

  Truthfulness---> False modesty---> Truthful---> Boastful
• Explain the role of education and the skill analogy

  Role of education-

  
  

  - Aristotle claims that we acquire virtues of character through habits from our upbringing. We must have virtuous role models in order to become aware of what makes a virtuous person. We are not naturally virtuous, but we are all capable of being virtuous. We must practice acting in a virtuous way before we become virtuous, we are in a state of potentiality before actuality of being virtuous.

  
  

  Skill Analogy-

  
  

  - We can understand the process of becoming virtuous by an analogy of acquiring practical skills such as playing the piano or cooking.

  
  

  1-
• What is practical wisdom?

  Practical Wisdom (phronesis)- an intellectual virtue of practical reasoning. It is the ability to deliberate on how to live a good life, and also act on this deliberation.

  
  

  1- It is a general conception of good and bad in relation to human flourishing

  2- It is the ability to perceive the specific details of a situation and what is required

  3- It is the ability to deliberate well

  4- It is then, the ability to act well on this deliberation

  
  

  - To be a virtuous action, it means that it is being done for its own sake, and this depends on having practical wisdom. We can use our general knowledge of what is good and bad, our ability to asses the aspects of the situation, as well as our deliberation, and then as a whole act upon this deliberation to make an informed choice.

  
  

  - You cannot have a virtuous action without practical wisdom. It cannot be taught and is instead cultivated through experience. Thus, children cannot have phronesis as they have not had enough experience of virtuous role models to make an informed decision.
• Explain voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary actions

  Voluntary- we act voluntarily when we act as we choose. We know what we are doing and we bring it about ourselves.

  
  

  Involuntary- it is either forced or done from ignorance that is not culpable (especially if it is regretted once the ignorance is removed.

  
  

  Non-voluntary- it is done from ignorance and if the ignorance is lifted, the agent does not regret the action.

  
  

  - People are either praised or blamed for voluntary (intended) acts, but not for acts that are done contrary to intention. Thus, only intended/voluntary acts hold virtues and vices as our intentions behind an action show our moral character and our desires.
• Explain the issue of whether Virtue Ethics gives clear enough guidance


  - Many can argue that Aristotle's doctrine of the mean is too vague and is not a clear enough form of guidance to make moral decisions from.

  
  

  - For example, the virtuous mean is relative to the individual and the circumstance, so their is no universal moral standard to follow.

  
  

  - The ideas of either an excess or deficiency are too vague as it doesn't tell how much or little of something is needed to become a vice. With this lack of clarity, we could make anything fit into the mean if the circumstances worked.
• Can Virtue Ethics respond to the issue of unclear guidance?


  Response 1- Practical Wisdom

  
  

  - Aristotle can argue that the doctrine of the mean is not intended for use on its own, it has to be accompanied with practical wisdom. Practical wisdom also requires a lot of experience and knowledge of good from bad, which takes time.

  
  

  Counter- The argument for practical wisdom does not make things any clearer. It seems that if we have practical wisdom we automatically know what to do, and if we don't have practical wisdom we cannot be virtuous.

  
  

  - However, this counter can be responded to as most people have lived and had experience when they start trying to become virtuous. We can have some basis practical wisdom from guidance in our childhood and culture, and we also are at different stages of life and therefore ethical development. Thus, there cannot be a universal standard of 'right action' because this would not work.

  
  

  Response 2- V-rules

  
  

  - Rosalind Hursthouse argues that virtue ethics does give clear guidance. Virtues carry the prescription of 'do X', and vices carry prescription carry 'don't do Y'. We can establish these through our phronesis and the given examples of virtues and vices from the golden mean.

  
  

  Counter- There is an issue with cultural relativism and the existence of virtues and vices that are culturally specific. This being said, there can therefore be no universal v-rules. What was once virtuous in the past can be considered different now and it is in a constant state of change. However, there can possibly be argued that some virtues are universally applied within cultures.
• Explain the issue of clashing and competing virtues in Virtue Ethics

  - There is always an example to look at where someone may be faced with the dilemma of conflicting virtues. For instance, euthanasia can see a doctor being torn between a virtue of benevolence to do the most loving thing, but then the virtue of hope to wait for a cure.

  
  

  - Virtue Ethics gives no guidance and we cannot use our practical wisdom as this would result in some inconsistencies in moral behaviour.
• Can Virtue Ethics respond to the issue of competing virtues?
• Explain the issue of circularity in Virtue Ethics

  An act is virtuous if it is an act that is done by a virtuous person, and a virtuous person is one who does virtuous acts

  
  

  - These definitions lack clarity and do not explain what it means to have a virtuous act nor be a virtuous individual. Instead, both definitions are circular and therefore are not sufficient to give us guidance on how to act.
• Can Virtue Ethics respond to the issue of circularity?
• Explain the issue of virtue and eudaimonia in Virtue Ethics
• Explain the issue of good for the individual and moral good in Virtue Ethics
• Explain Kantian Deontological Ethics

  Who?- Emmanuel Kant

  
  

  - Kantian Ethics is the normative and deontological ethical theory that argues that to be moral we must follow the categorical imperative and act out of good will. Moral action depends on doing the right action with the right intention, regardless of personal feelings, the situation or the consequences.

  
  

  - Maxims are Kants version of intentions and are the personal principles that guide our decisions.

  
  

  - To Kant, good will is the only thing that is good without qualification. Good will is the intention to do the right action for its own sake, without any other motivation.

  
  

  - Deontology claims that actions are right or wrong in themselves, not depending on their consequences. We have moral duties (deon) to do things which it is right to do and moral duties not to do things which it is wrong to do.

  
  

  - Kant emphasises that we must not be motivated out of self-interest, or even out of love or sympathy for others, because emotions and inclinations can be variable, love can be selfish and sympathy is narrowly focused or depends on circumstances.