MP : Ethical Theories

Cards (38)

  • Briefly summarise in points Kant's deontological ethics
    • the only thing thats good without qualification is good will
    • Good will means acting for the sake of duty
    • You have a duty to follow the moral law
    • Moral laws are universal
    • You can tell a maxim is universal if it passes the categorical imperative
    The categorical imperative two tests:
    • contradiction in conception
    • contradiction in will

    • Do not treat humans as means to an end ( the humanity formula)
  • Meaning of The Good Will
    Acting for the sake of duty, for example if you save someones life because you recognise you have a duty to do it, then that is of moral worth. Not if you save someones life expecting to be rewarded
  • What is the categorical imperative
    Categorical imperative is the moral law, and gives two ways to test whether a maxim passes the categorical imperative: contradiction in conception and contradiction in will, the third formula for categorical imperative is humanity formula
  • Test 1: Contradiction in conception
    For a law to be universal, it must not result in contradiction in conception (in simple words, it musn't be contradictory). Apply a maxim like "you should steal" to this test, but it would fail because it would lead to everyone just stealing then the point of ownership would be non applicable anymore and stealing wouldn't be possible because property would be for everyone
  • Test 2: Contradiction in Will
    Contradiction in will is asking the question, can we rationally will this to happen. E.g rationally will "not to help others in need". A world where people don't help each other isn't contradictory but we cannot rationally will it because there are times where we will need someone to help us. The reason for this is because sometimes we have goals (ends) which require the help (means). To will the ends, we must will the means. This is an imperfect duty because we don't always need help
  • Test 3 : Humanity Formula
    Kant says that we should never treat people as means to an end. Basically dont use people. e.g dont marry someone just to take their money then divorce them.
    By deceiving them, you undermine the rational agency of the other party and achieving their own ends (i.e finding a loving partner)
  • Problem 1 for Kant's ethics : Not all universal maxims are moral (vice versa)

    If I tweak a non universal maxim to make it universal (e.g change my maxim "to steal" to "steal from people with 8 syllables in their name), i can universalise that because it wouldn't diminish the idea of private property
  • Possible response for Problem 1
    Adding extra conditions would be considered cheating because of the extra conditions as these are moral irrelevant to the situation. Categorical imperative is concerned with the actual maxim being acted on, not an arbitrary one
  • Problem 2 for Kant's ethics : Ignores Consequences
    Kant's ethics completely disregards consequences like utilitarianism. If you were to ask Kant, is stealing okay even in some circumstances like your family is starving to death, Kant would say no and say we have a perfect duty not to steal. Kant's ethics is too rigid to applicable to society
  • Problem 3 for Kants ethics : Ignores other valuable motivations
    Kant says acting out of duty has moral worth, but if we wanted to go visit a friend in the hospital out of love, that does not have moral worth. Rather if i instead went because I know i have to (even if i dont want to) that has more moral worth.
  • Possible response to Ignores other valuable motivation
    Kant states that doing that is acting out of accordance however we shouldn't let this take priority over acting out of duty. If we act out of duty and in accordance then that is a bonus.
  • Problem 4 for Kants ethics : Conflicts between duties
    Kant argues its never okay to violate our duties. But what if a situation comes where we are forced to violate a duty e.g Kant says "to never lie", but what if we lie to protect a promise? Both violate a duty
  • Possible response to : Conflicts between duties
    Kant would say that if there is conflict between two of your duties, you clearly have formulated them wrong as this would cause contradiction in conception, making it non universal
  • Hypothetical imperatives
    e.g. "I should leave now IF I want to catch the train on time"
  • Hypothetical imperatives

    qualified by an if statement
  • Categorical imperatives

    Not qualified by an if statement; they apply universally
  • Foot's argument
    • Morality isn't categorical, it's hypothetical
    • We shouldn't follow Kant because he doesn't give a reason behind these laws e.g "why shouldn't we steal?"
    • There's nothing wrong with not following the categorical imperative as it doesn't provide a rational reason to follow it
    • Instead, it should be "you shouldn't steal if you don't want to upset the person you're stealing from"
  • Summarisation of Kant's Deontological Ethics
    • Kant believes the Good Will is acting for sake of duty
    • You have a duty to follow moral law
    • Categorical Imperatives : three tests
    • Not all universal maxims are moral
    • Ignores consequences
    • Other valuable motivations
    • conflicts between duties
    • Foot: hypothetical imperative
  • Summary of Aristotle Virtue Theory
    Aristotle would define good actions as actions that are done by good people.

    • Eudaimonia = the good life for human beings
    • The good life for a human being must consist of something unique to human beings
    • reason is their unique characteristic activity (ergon)
    • The good life (eudaimonia) is one full of actions chosen according to reason
    • Virtues are character traits that enable us to act according to reason
    • The virtue is the middle point between a vice of deficiency and a vice of excess
    • Virtues are developed through habit and training
  • What does Eudaimonia translate to
    "human flourishing"
  • Points of eudaimonia
    • its not a means to an end, it is an end, a goal
    • You can't have it one day and not the next
    • Its not about one thing specifically, its about multiple things and more
  • What is Ergon
    function/characteristic activity of a thing (knifes ergon is to cut things)
  • What is Arete
    Property/ virtue that enables a thing to achieve its ergon (sharpness of a knife)
  • What does eudaimonia need and what is it
    Eudaimonia must consist of something unique to humans, humans ergon is to use reason. This makes us unique from all other things in the world. Aristotle claims that all humans choose their actions according to reason (good/bad). So eudaimonia is the good life full of actions based off good reason
  • What are virtues
    Virtues are character traits that enable us to choose our actions according to good reasoning. So same as a knife has the arete of sharpness, a human has the arete of virtues to be able to achieve the ergon of eudaimonia
  • What is The Doctrine of The Mean
    Doctrine of the mean tells us more about what virtuous character traits are. Doctrine of the mean explains that virtues are inbetween the two vices (vices of excess and vice of deficiency)
  • Example of Vice
    If you never stand up for yourself, you are cowardly which is vice of deficiency and is unvirtuous. If your always getting angry and trying to fight someone, your vice of excess and unvirtuous
  • What makes a person virtuous
    Someone who's character is able to dispose of extreme emotions when it is appropriate to do so
  • The Skill Analogy
    Acquiring virtues is the same to acquiring skills, you don't know how to play the piano, you learn. similar with virtues
  • Phronesis
    Practical Wisdom; is knowing what virtue is required for each situation. It's being able to correctly apply virtues in the right scenario. e.g you can tell a joke whilst out with friends but not at a funeral
  • Moral responsibility (voluntary or involuntary)
    Aristotle says we should only praise actions that are done voluntarily. Or you can't criticise actions that were done involuntarily. Aristotle says a person is only responsible for their voluntary actions
  • Problem 1 for Aristotle: No Clear Guidance.
    Theres no clear guidance for The Doctrine of the Mean. e.g Aristotle would say its okay to be angry sometimes but when? When is it virtuous to do this? How angry can you get before it crosses over to vice of excess. Kant has the categorical imperative, utilitarianism has felific calculus but Aristotle has nothing
  • Possible response to problem 1 : No Clear Guidance
    Aristotle could reply that virtue theory was never intended to provide a set of rules, rather a rough guidance. Life is complicated and its difficult to create a set of rules for it.
  • Problem 2 for Aristotle : Circularity
    Aristotle can be interpreted as defining virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other. Basically saying, a virtuous act is something done by a virtuous person, and a virtuous person is someone who does virtuous acts
  • Problem 3 for Aristotle : Competing Virtues
    Virtues may conflict for example showing mercy and justice as a judge. As a judge you would have to choose between the virtue of mercy or of justice. If you choose between one, you will somehow end up being unvirtuous
  • Response to problem 3 : competing virtues
    There wouldn't be an issue with competing virtues if you have properly acquired practical wisdom. Aristotle also says virtues are not rigid like Kant and can be used in certain amounts.
  • Problem 4 for Aristotle : Difference between Eudaimonia and Moral good
    Aristotle says the good life for humans is eudaimonia. However there is a difference between a good life for me (eudaimonia) and a moral good life. For example a nurse who has spent all her years on minimum wage helping other people, and even dies due to her patients contagious conditions has lived a "morally good life" but has not achieved eudaimonia because this didn't give her happiness. This difference clearly suggests Aristotle has not successfully defined Eudaimoia
  • Possible response to final problem : Eudaimonia and Morally good life

    Aristotle would again say that he was not concerned with rigidly defining morality. Rather he is concerned with the good life instead. The nurse definitely lived a part of eudaimonia by helping others but did not achieve it fully. Therefore the nurses life was a necessary but not sufficient for eudaimonia