Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
ethics kill me
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| what are the three approaches to philosophy? | content based; defined on content matter/object of study wonder; idea that philosophical qs must inspire wonder normative inquiry; asks what the world should be likened what it is |
| what is normative inquiry | asking what the world should be like, not what it is. focus of this class |
| historical contingency | a matter of historical development, the questions that have been asked before. |
| russels definition of hphilisophiocal question | hist0rical questions are ones we still do not know the answer to. once they get an answer they become. apart of a different discipline. |
| science of prepositions | a way of making sense of something. can take anything and study wits taken for granted. eg object truths what we assume. q of the fundamentals. |
| why do we study philosophy according to a normative apporach | action is the goal; to relieve human suffering. nietzche and the idea that words should be a c all to action. |
| russlls/wonder why we study | understanding the role of the philosopher is not to act but to put the thought behind your action |
| question of the course | how should one live; one means every individul. settle the conflict bt morality happiness and devo |
| nietzhe on the one | no generalization in asking. ethics is. challenge to individualism. |
| what is being asked when asked how one should live | morally best, happiness or personal fulfillment. what is intrinsically good for a person. what is good in itself not leading to something else eg pleasure intrinsic, money instrumental |
| conscious state theories | for something to be good for us it has to influence us for good from the inside/from our perspecruce. our wellbeing JUST corresoinds to the mental states we experience. happiness aS UNDERSTOOD IN A PSUCCHPLOGICAL SCIENCE. enjoyment |
| hedonism | view that the only thing intrinsically good is pleasure. absence of pain ---wellbeing balance |
| quantitative hedonism Bentham | pushpin is as good as piers. intensity and duration of pleasure is what matters |
| qualitative hedonism mill | being with friends his better than doomscrolling eg. its better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. |
| mills kinds of pleasure | higher pleasures and pig pleasures . mind pleasures or pleasures of the physical sense. |
| mills test | u have to ask ppl who like baseball and philosophy basically. ask those who know both pleasures which is better. the explanatory and unifying power of hedonism, |
| experience machine | response to conscious state theories; brain hooked up to a thing to live ideal life. u dot know ur in it. would u click the button. everyone basically says hell no, lead s to arguments about agency, personal growth , legacy and against hedonism, |
| status quo bias | if they r told they are already hooked p to the machine most ppl starty in the simulation. people are lazy and biased towards how things already are. |
| other idea of experience machine | the deceased business man who everyone hates |
| foundations of morals mill | actions are right in proportion they promote happiness, wrong when the produce the revers elf happiness empiricist |
| mill hapinnesss | intended pleasure, absence of pain. ultimately pleasures and freedom from pain r only desirable ends. all desirable things are desirable for either inherent pleasure or prevention of pain or means to pleasure |
| respobnse of epiucarians to the idea that human purpose is higher than just pleasure | u have to power scale the pleasures bt swime and human pleasures. u have to ask ppl who like baseball and philosophy. |
| idea behind higher pleasures | pleasure of mind and soul. quality and quantity matter, ppl who have more pleasure in intellect can be subject to more suffering. out of pride ppl don't want to choose swine pleasures. |
| mill on simple pleasures | just bc they can be easily fulfilled doesn't make them better. the only way to have opinion is if u only see one side. |
| complex pleasures | happiness is imperfect and u learn to live w it. human satisfied better than pig satisfied. |
| counter to mills ideas of swine human pleasures | some ppl choose lower pleasures over higher pleasures. like drugs or alcohol. some who devote themselves to higher pleasures are POS. MILLS RESPONSE: it is bc they become incapable of one b4 becoming the other, hostile influences or just need smth. up2u |
| theories of well being | how well u live |
| desire satisfaction | to wellbeing. starts as a diagnosis of the failures of hedonicm. most of ur desires remain unfulfilled. u want to cure cancer not the experience of it . what is GOOD FOR us IS TO GET WHAT WE WANT whether or not u know they were met. |
| issues w desire satisfaction | misguided desires, factual mistake unreflective desires, short sighted, impulsive etc. |
| how to distinguish bt good and bad desires (challenge of idealization) | real u vs perfectly rational u. as what good sam would want for real sam. has the wrong orginization of exlpanation. |
| cries of challenge of idealization | says good bc u desire not desire bc its good. perfect sam diff than real sam. |
| objective list theory | starts with diagnosis of wellbeing central claim is that certain things objectively good for us. question of what goes on the list. also whether or not u desire the,/ |
| issue with objective list | what if u like hate the list like hate art. hedonists say items on lists are instrumental goals that still lead to pleasure. |
| what is consequentialism | morality requires that you will do whatever has best consequences. the only factor to consider are the consequences of actions. theory of right and wrong. morality FUNDAMENTALLY ABTBEST possible outcomes. intentions and nature do not matter actions n ppl |
| formula of consequentialism | morally right ONLUY if produces bpo. REQUIRES the optimal act. pretty good is not good enough. optimal is ONLU morally permissible act. --? |
| question of consequentialism | how do u determine best possible outcomes |
| utilitarians | consequentialist who say bpio are in well being of all. each to count for one, none for more than one, all all. consequentialism and welfarism. act I sonly right if it leads to greatest TOTAk wellbeing, does not count ppl counts wellbeing. started as hers |
| are consequentialists utilitarians | no |
| common sense morality | utilitarian basis, like do not harm, keep promises etc. why follow? bc greatest total wellbeing, gives us a standard against which they can be evaluated and modified. eg do not kill---self defense. tells us when evaluate and when to make a new rule |
| objections to utilitarianism | permits too much and demands too much. |
| permits to much | organ transplant case,or angry mob case; killing sam is bad but utilitarians say its good cause u save 5 not sams, and they say u HAVE to do it, |
| utilitarian response to it permits to much | deny deny deny, high risk of worse out come, long term and indirect and direct effects, say its not a realistic setting and can yield no iuniintuitiuve resist. |
| what was the transition from total utilitarianism | rule irestricted utilitarianism, what riles if followed will lead to best consequences., worshipping rule instead of wellbeing response is why not break reules to maximize wellbeing; deathbed sam wants jockey club eg. |
| issues w rule res utilitarianism | bite the bullet accept extreme consequences of desiciions. want to challenge morality not system. |
| demands got much | too much impartianality. trolly problem, loved one is the same as. stranger. distance doesn't matter, in modern times implications are huge. POND HOPPING. 1)suffering and death is bad 2) if in ur power to stop w out suffering anything as imp, its bad 2 no |
| sacrifice; negative responsibility | I am responsible not only for what I do but also for what I allow. George responsible for chem warfare if doesn't take job. util dgaf abt personal commitment. NO DESTINCTION BT WHAT YOU WANT AND WHAT IS BEST. alienation from personhood |
| deontology | denial of consequentialism. right and wrong is not JUST outcomes. study of duty, do not kill sam eg. |
| is kantism deontology or consequent or utilitarian | deontology |
| kantiism | freedom and personal freedom at the foundation. from rationality to freedom. I |
| what is scale | utilitarian-----moderate deontologist----absolutist |
| theoretical resorbing | reasoning abt what to believe- I percieve00form belief00step back-- ask urself abt validity. beliefs and perceptions change. rational means no one forces u to believe or not evaluate or evaluate standards of evaluation |
| practical reasoning | I desire---I form intention to do it--step back from intention---does it make sense to want or hope for this. u can stop from doing arm nit a dog. |
| the autonomy of reason | something self regulated, we are free if we are rational; addiction is not freedom |
| universal law formation | does ut make sense in the circumstances, uu have reason behind it, prince of reason behind action, I should ONLY act on Principe endorsed by reason, only that I can endorse as reasonable, only act on things endorse as universal law. iF ITDOESMTFOR2ONDIFcs |
| universal law doesn't kmake sense for botht | then u are under different circumstances. |
| Categorical imperative | reasons are universal, I they are not, you are under different relevant circumstances. you are the author of your own moral law |
| maxim | set of actions; act only according to that maxim where you can at the same time will that it should be universal law, |
| contradiction in conception, steps | 1) universalize maxim, 2) contradicting myself 3) will goal of my actions be undermined |
| explain step 1 contradiction in conception | can I conceive a universe in which everyone lives according to this maxim? would this action be possible. |
| ex step 2 contradiction in conception | if it is universalized, does it stilll have a point or does it break down; am I contradicting myself |
| ex step three categorical imperative | will my actions foal be undermined, like will It screw me over later to be like oh don't help others. |
| contradiction in will narrow | universalize--would u contradict--y--would it be undermined---y---fail |
| contradiction of will broad | universalize maxim----would I be contradicting myself---would I undermine a goal/desire. |
| what is in common with all failures of maxims | they make an exception of yourself. acting for the wrong reasons. can only say an action is wrong if every maxim is wrong. |
| when can u say an action is wrong | only when every maxim is wrong. |
| how to generalize maxims | with the reason at the core of the maxim. |
| what makes an action right | if one maxim is right than the action can be right |
| how to determine if an action is obligatory to a kantist | you have to prove that every other maxim fails the test. |
| objections to kantisme | all same conclusion? X claim is that If u r rational u willrugged individual no want help but they still want cooperation to lifestyle fanatic, if u were a __ I would want to be killed -1) don't exist 2)should not chgabge moral definition to fit them. |
| formula of universal law | act only underr maxim that u can say should become universal law. |
| formula of humanity | act in such a way that you treat humanity of both your own person and other as both a mean and an end. act in ways that make sense to others, and can rationally endorse. in ways that reflect AUTONOMOUS nature of ppl |
| why give different formulations>? | bc it appeals to diff ppl and helps visualize in diff ways and helps sitiationalize it. |
| kants test | can others rationally share the goal of your action c |
| onealls test | can others rationally consent to your action |
| for specification | never simply as means, ppl use ppl all the time, but u still have to treat them as ends ALSO |
| virtue ethics | basically says why tf r u making a list of rules. just act virtuously, be courages don't be cruel, a sense that a point was missed in answering lines question, wha makes a flourishing life? being x kind of person. ARISTOTLe |
| shifts with virtue ethics | rejection of modern obsession with rules based system and principles, return to the conception of greek flourishing life. believes moral theories disconnected from how people actually behave |
| guesthouse on virtue | character trait; consistent pattern of behaviors and feeling consistent in way of being. to notice expect value feel desire choose act and react. CARE ABOUT ACYIONsS |
| how do u define a character yer trait as virtuous? | leads to a flourishing life. the good life is not defined independently from virtuous activity MORALITY DEFINED IN TERMS OF GOODNESS. |
| Aristotle approach to virtue ethics | golden mean is indexed to context of personal circumstances. u r not Lebron bro. no formula for calculatingthatmean 4 each individual. courage bt cowardice and recklessness. if u have a vice aim for the excess to hit the middle. Not subjectivecontectsensi |
| how too learn how to find golden mean | practice, good judgement habituation. |
| virtue necessary | Aristotle says necessary but not sufficient. |
| snows argument for virtue ethics | psychologically, ppl r happier w community and personal relationships, therefor virtue is necessary in order to build meaningful relationships in turn creating happiness. |
| situationalist challenge to virtue ethics | founded on flawed conception of human nature. there are no such thing as character traits. no virtue and vice as vir ethics understands them. context more than anything causes ppl to act |
| miscalls critique | high correlation with same situations (marshmallow) low correlation across change. diff context is diff response. no such thing as a stable disposition . eg cheat in sports don't cheat on test |
| milligrams obedience study | seeing how far u go if u know someone gets hurt. not real shocks, replicated hella, shows situational aspect as lit everyone did it. |
| good samaritan experiment | ppl in a hurry leave, ppl with time stop |
| fundamental attribution error | attributing the cause of an action to a trait in the agent rather than a feature of a situation |
| what are implications of no character traits | more tolerance, pause b4 blame for particular action, better understanding of conflict, blame forthings that aren't fundamental traits, humility when achieving things. |
Created by:
cautionarytale