Term
| Define Psychological Egoism, Define Ethical Egoism, And Explain The Difference Between Them |
|
Definition
o Psychological Egoism: Everyone always acts selfishly.
o Ethical Egoism: Everyone always ought to act selfishly.
o PE is a factual theory. It aims to fit the world. If the world is not as PE says it is, then something is wrong with PE: it is false.
o EE is a normative theory. It aims to have the world fit it. If the world is not as EE says it should be, then something is wrong with the world: that person acts irrationally. |
|
|
Term
| Explain The First Argument For PE and Objection |
|
Definition
o PE1
(1) Everyone always does what they most want to do.
(2) If someone does what they most want to do, they act selfishly.
Therefore, (3) Everyone always acts selfishly.
o OPE1
Premise (1) is false promise keeping
Premise (2) is false. The object of a want determines selfishness. |
|
|
Term
| Explain The Second Argument For PE and Objection |
|
Definition
o PE2
(1) Everyone always does what they most want to do.
(2) If someone does what they most want to do, they get satisfaction.
(3) If doing something brings someone satisfaction, then that satisfaction is their only goal.
(5) If satisfaction is one’s only goal, one acts selfishly.
Therefore (5) Everyone always acts selfishly.
o OPE2
Premise (3) is false. It is impossible for satisfaction to be one’s only goal. After revising, it’s the same and premise (4) is dubious. |
|
|
Term
| Explain The First Argument For EE and Objection |
|
Definition
(1) We ought to do what will best promote everyone’s interests
(2) The best way to promote everyone’s interests is for each of us to adopt the policy of pursuing our own interests exclusively
Therefore, (3) Each of us should adopt the policy of pursuing our own interests exclusively.
o OEE1
Premise (2) is false
Not an argument for EE at all. Premise (1) conflicts with EE. We have an argument for behaving like an egoist for non-egoistic reasons. |
|
|
Term
| Explain The Second Argument For EE and Objection |
|
Definition
o EE2
(1) Each of us will live his/her own life and no one else’s.
(2) It is rational to care only about lives you will live.
Therefore (3) It is rational to care only about your own life.
o OEE2
(1) The doctrine is arbitrary unless there is a difference between the members of the groups that justifies treating them differently.
(2) There is no difference between oneself and others that justifies this difference in treatment.
Therefore (3) EE is unacceptably arbitrary. |
|
|
Term
| Question 1 And Answer About Mill On Higher and Lower Pleasures |
|
Definition
o What kinds of experience does Mill think of as higher pleasures, and what kinds does he think of as lower pleasures?
Higher pleasures: intellectual pleasures
Lower pleasures: sensual pleasures |
|
|
Term
| Question 2 And Answer About Mill On Higher and Lower Pleasures |
|
Definition
o What test determines whether a pleasure is higher or lower?
1 Panel of judges and all must agree
2 To qualify, you have to be competently acquainted with both pleasures
3 The verdict is that any amount of the higher, however small, is worth more than lower, however great. |
|
|
Term
| Question 3 And Answer About Mill On Higher and Lower Pleasures |
|
Definition
o Is the test biased?
Yes, Mill is committing to stacking the jury to receive the results he wants. |
|
|
Term
| Question 4 And Answer About Mill On Higher and Lower Pleasures |
|
Definition
o How do you do utilitarian calculation if you distinguish higher from lower pleasures?
Choose the one with the most higher pleasures. Only consider lower pleasures when there is a tie with higher pleasures. |
|
|
Term
| Question 5 And Answer About Mill On Higher and Lower Pleasures |
|
Definition
o Are there higher and lower pains as well as higher and lower pleasures?
Yes, Higher pain is Mental pain and Lower pain is Physical pain |
|
|
Term
| Formulate Mill's Proof Of Utilitarianism |
|
Definition
o Proof
(1)Each person desires his or her own happiness.
(2)If something is desired by someone it is desirable (for him or her).
Therefore (3) Each person’s happiness is desirable (for him or her).
Therefore (4) The general happiness is desirable (for everyone). |
|
|
Term
| Explain The Four Objections To Mill's Proof Of Utilitarianism |
|
Definition
Premise 2 is false because Mill’s is misled into accepting premises 2 because he thinks desirable works the way visible does. It does not. “Visible” means “Capable of being seen” hence the fact that something is seen proves that it is visible.
Even if he can get to (3), Mill can get no further. There is no sound route from (3), which an ethical egoist will accept, to (4), which the utilitarian needs.
Mill has shown only that happiness is desirable, not that it’s the only thing that’s desirable.
The proof does nothing to establish the truth of consequentialism. |
|
|
Term
| Formulate Utilitarianism As The Conjunction Of Consequentialism, Hedonism, And An Equality Principle |
|
Definition
Consequentialism: Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences.
Hedonism: In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused.
Equality Principle: Each person’s Happiness counts the same. |
|
|
Term
| Describe One Of The Problem Cases For Utilitarianism, And Explain Why The Case Is Supposed To Raise A Problem For Utilitarianism |
|
Definition
| o You have just two options, (a) and (b). Utilitarianism tells you to do (a); moral common sense tells you to do (b). Hence, utilitarianism must be rejected. For example, McCloskey case; punishing the innocent. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| o Act-utilitarianism: an act is right if it maximally promotes general happiness. Act-utilitarianism gives a direct, one-step procedure for evaluating actions. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| o Rule-utilitarianism: an act is right if it is allowed by a set of rule, general conformity to which would maximally promote general happiness. Rule-utilitarianism gives an indirect, two-step procedure for evaluating actions. |
|
|
Term
| Formulate Singer's Argument For A Pro-Animal Position |
|
Definition
o (1) Discrimination between humans is wrong.
o (2) The only principle which adequately explains why discrimination between humans is wrong is the principle of equal consideration of interests
o Therefore (3) We should accept that principle.
o (4) The principle of equal consideration of interests prohibits discrimination against animals.
o Therefore (5) We should not discriminate against animals. |
|
|
Term
| Explain Machan’s Argument Against Animal Rights |
|
Definition
| o People are smarter and more valuable than animals. Animals are not moral agents and therefore have no rights to life, liberty or property. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| o A hypothetical imperative tells you to do something as a means to get something else you want. It applies to you only if you want that further thing. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| o A categorical imperative tells you to do something regardless of what else you want. It applies to all rational beings. |
|
|
Term
| Explain What Kant Means By The Term "Maxim" |
|
Definition
| o A maxim is the principle on which you act. It explains what you take yourself to be doing and the circumstances in which you take yourself to be doing it. |
|
|
Term
| Formulate Kant's Universal Law Test (Also Called "The Universal Law Formulation Of The Categorical Imperative") |
|
Definition
o i. Maxim- Is the principal in which you act
o ii. Will – commit yourself to try to bring about it if you can.
o iii. Universalizing a maxim –changing the maxim from only applying to you to applying to everyone.
o iv. Contradiction in the will |
|
|
Term
| Explain Two Of The Examples Of Actions On Maxims Which, According To Kant, Fail His Test. |
|
Definition
o Example 1: I will borrow money with the intent of not paying it back.
o Example 2: When I am well off I will give nothing to charity |
|
|
