The ethical life notes

Seite 1

Hedonism - p.11-19

Utility/Greatest-happiness Principle - as the foundation of morals.

Pleasure and absence of pain.

What includes in this - open question.

Different kinds of pleasure/pain - some levels are more desirable.

A beast's pleasures do not satisfy humans conceptions of happiness.

No pain or pleasure is alike and very different in content/character.

Preferable in kind instead - Only the experienced has a say.

Evidence depend on whether people desire it or not.

Quality of pleasure and pain.

Things we prefer over others.

"Enjoyment superiority in quality, so far outweighting quantity"

Quality must be what you prefer irrespective to moral obligations.

"A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy"

Easier to satisfy those with low capacities of enjoyment.

Higher will see imperfection and not as easy to convince.

Some higher are tempted to go lower.

We will not resign what we posses as agents - lower yourself under equals.

If not extreme unhappiness outshines the undesirable.

Pride, dignity love of liberty, personal independence.

Youthful enthusiasm.

Go lower because of indolence and selfishness.

"Nobler feelings are a very tender plant"

Then have to grow up - higher to get sustenance.

Some lose their higher capacity

Cannot indulge in them anymore

The only thing they can access

The only thing they are any longer capable pf enjoying.

"Happiness has made out its title as one of the ends of conduct"

Consequently one of the criteria of morality.

The end has to be greater than the virtue itself.

The proof of virtue's existence is that we benefit from it/or get harmed by it.

Consciousness of its pleasure and without pain.

Happiness is various and each desire is great in itself.

Nothing originally desirable with money - it's about what we buy.

In many cases the desire to posses is stronger than the desire to use it.

Same with power and fame - aid to give attainment of our other wishes.

A part of happiness

You balance the pleasure-pain, not pleasure-pleasure or pain-pain.

QUESTIONS

* Pleasure and freedom from pain is not the only things desirable as ends. Deep relationships, hobbies and accomplishments. More goals/meanings in life, happiness could be seen as an instrumental value. You need pain to help you grow and learn - have no happy perspective without painful experiences. Striving towards happiness tends to fail.

* Yes. Certain experiences yield more happiness than other. There different levels of happiness that we could rank on a list of things we do in a day. Long term or short term also comes into the question.

* Because being Socrates satisfied means that you have a higher level of satisfaction and understanding of the complex and imperfect world. He can try to bear the burden of life condition but would never envy the fool for being unaware.

* Yes, in order to see it you need an object have visibility. You need something desirable to be able to desire it. You cannot fake or force desire in that way. Concrete fool proof.

* It's a good definition since it aggregate the individuals' happiness of each person into a whole in society......????

* Yes kind of does, intrinsic value should not have a content as ingredients that you need and value to feel happiness. Then happiness must be of instrumental value.

* Pleasure and happiness is connected to each other but personally I would not claim them as equals. Pleasure feels like more of a result of ongoing satisfaction and happiness could be defined in a more generally speaking consideration. You can feel happiness out of nowhere but pleasure is often connected to an activity of some sort.

Instuderingsfrågor – Hedonism

1. Vad innebär det att något har intrinsikalt värde? Vad innebär det att något har instrumentellt värde?

Något har intrinsikalt värde om det är värdefullt utan att det behöver härleda till något positivt - positivt i sig själv utan evidens av dess konsekvenser.

2. Ge ett exempel på något som har instrumentellt värde.

Plugga inför ett prov, öva smärtsam träning, pengar, inte droga, äta hälsosamt, omge sig med trevliga människor, hjälpa kurskamrater.

3. Vilken fråga är det som hedonisten försöker besvara?

Hur det går för personen som lever det, lycklig or not. Inte om livet är bra eller dåligt, om det är ett moraliskt bra liv.

4. Vad säger hedonismen?

Att finna lycka i sitt liv är det enda som har intrinsikalt värde och är därför det ultimata målet med livet.

5. Vilken anser du är hedonismens största fördel? Motivera ditt svar utförligt.

Jag anser att hedonismens största fördel är dess flexibilitet i handlingsalternativ. Du får göra det som funkar för dig själv och den förklarar varför människor är olika samt vad som är ett gemensamt mål - lycka. Den är foolproof på det viset att alla personer kan göra det som just de anser är mest gynnsamt utan att det skär sig när folk har olika åsikter. Dess flexibilitet gör också den lätt att ta till sig av och är inte allt för krävande för utövarna. Det gör teorin intuitivt attraktiv på direkten och är baserad på rationella grunder i empirisk mening.

6. Redogör för den invändning som kallas "hedonismens paradox". Diskutera huruvida den ligger till grund för en bra invändning mot hedonismen.

Hedonismens paradox säger att det inte är rationellt att endast göra det som gör en lycklig intrinsikalt. Den metoden brukar resultera i att man motverkar den effekt man vill få. Föräldrar vill att sina barn ska uppnå något mer än bara lycka vilket borde betyda att hedonismen är falsk - lycka är inte allt. Det är inte ett jättestarkt motargument eftersom den inte angriper kärnan att lycka är av intrinsikalt värde samt är det ultimata målet i livet. Det är bara att svara att det går att med instrumentala medel göra sig lyckligare. Logiken att vi bör göra saker som gör oss lyckligare är på det viset rationell och svår att komma ifrån. Men det går.

7. Konstruera ett eget exempel där en persons lycka är helt baserad på falska trosföreställningar. Diskutera om det utgör ett gott skäl att förneka hedonismen.

Till exempel om jag har gjort en tenta och dör i tro att jag har fått VG men det visar sig att jag har fått underkänt :(. Hedonismen bygger på autentiska lyckoupplevelser och det gör att detta inte är förenligt med teorin i sin kärna. Vi väljer med nöje bort the experience machine för att vi vill uppleva livet på riktigt och inte bara stimulera våra sinnen att tro att vi gör det - lycka är därmed det enda vi vill åstadkomma vilket ger oss ett gott skäl att förneka hedonismen.

8. Vad innebär det att tala om "formen" på ett liv? På vilket sätt kan denna faktor ligga till grund för en invändning mot hedonismen? Är invändningen övertygande?

Formen på ett liv avgör hur du väljer att bedöma det ur ett perspektiv av lycka. Om det börjar på topp och slutar i misär så har vi svårt att kalla det ett bra liv. Om det börjar miserabelt men slutar i lycka så kan vi enkelt kalla det ett bra liv. Om dessa två olika liv innehåller lika mycket lidande som tillfredsställelse så är de enligt hedonismen lika bra. Detta har vi svårt att acceptera, vi skulle hellre döma livet som går uppåt som det mer eftertraktat - hedonismen förnekar detta. Argumentet om formen på ett liv är ett starkt argument mot hedonismen som uttalar sig om att ett mått på lycka inte är den enda definitionen av vad ett bra liv är.

Seite 2

The experience machine - Robert Nozick . p.21-23

The experience machine.

Machine that stimulates our senses to experience things.

Reality vs virtual reality.

"We want do it in real life, not just experience it virtual."

We want to be a certain way - knowing we did it.

Keep our self-image intact.

What reflects what we are must be real experiances in life.

In comparison with a "result machine" or a "personality changing machine".

These machines live our lives for us.

Awarness of our authentic self.

We learn that something matters to us because we would not prefer to use the machine.

Does not satisfies our desires connected to preserving self-image and living authentically.

Animals perspective

"One cannot resonably claim that only the felt experiences of animals limit what we may do to them"

Acting on what we can be aware of.

Is eating meat morally justifable?

Discussing the issue of the experience machine:

- Does our outside world matter in this case?

Only your experience matter * but it's not an accurate experience * how can we compare each others' lives if not on the same grounds * you could have an awful life if you were aware of it * drug addicts for example * if you're still content it's cool * when we're sleeping and dreaming *

- Is our inner emotional life superior our reality outside?

Our inner emotions are the foundation of our experiences * but our inner emotional life may not rely on reality * emotions are emotions and that's why happiness is different things for different people * what doesn't hurt you won't harm you * but our inner life could be deceiving and misleading * misunderstandings between people for example * not reliable source of data *

- Is our awarness of the truth valuable?

Not really in the case that you think that you know the truth * awarness sees the world how it really is and reflects an accurate picture of any circumstance * but an imaginary truth is as true for us as a real one if we believe in it * but if an alternative truth is the reality then we would change if we were totally aware* only accurate awarness is a foundation of an authentic experience in life *

- How to you deal with the consequences your unconciousness creates?

Nothing if you see it through the unconcious person's mind * but if you would wake up you would reevaluate * there are no bad consequences for you as long as you don't know it * but the reality around you is clearly an unhappy state * is the mental experience superior the physical * then suicidal thoughts an accurate reflection of reality *

- It is your emotions from an experience but you're not actually living it or?

Living your life is not the same as thinking you're experiencing stuff * theatre for example * you must be dead inside because you're not actually living your life for you * but you're experiencing something that's similiar to a real life * you're experiencing life mentally thoo but you're not physically involved *

- We are what we experience or we are what we do?

What we mostly remember is what we experience throughout life * what are we without our emotions * what we do is clarified and confirmed by others * we can prove that we've done something but not that we've experienced something in reality * we are what we think we are by our own judgement * but the outside perspective, if you would see it how it is*

Seite 3

Faring well and getting what you want - Chris Heathwood p. 25-35

Welfare and getting what you want are connected (?)

What is a good life?

We find happiness in satisfaction.

What is intrinsically good for us?

What makes our lives better for real - in itself.

Objectivists answer by presenting a list of things whose possession all by themselves make us better off.

Heathwood rejects all objective values - endorses subjectivism about welfares.

Only what we have an interest in matters.

Our attitude towards things.

Or something that results in good things.

The question of welfare - What is it to fare well?

What benefits us and makes us better off.

A narrower question than what is a good life.

Other reasons than a benefit to you.

Moral virtue - showing other people respect.

Sometimes doing good doesn't benefit you directly.

Excellence in accomplishment is not always benefitting to a life - "gets nothing out of it".

Not about the meaning of life.

You can fare well but not find meaning.

What makes us better off in themselves - independent of the changes it may cause in life.

Improve quality of life is not about what tend to make you happier, but intrincically values.

First steps of answering the question.

Intuitive intrinsict value only - good in itself.

Not the effects of something - instrumental values.

Is health an intrinsic value or merely an instrumental?

Some possible candidates are friendship, love, freedom, creativity, knowledge, gratitude.

Subjective vs objective theories of welfare.

Does these things make us better even if we lack interest in them?

Objective view of welfare says yes but subjective view of welfare says no.

Not the same issue as whether morality is objective or subjective.

According to the subjective theory - our attitude matters.

"We simply cannot fare well by something that's not benefitting us in any extent."

No benefit is superior the other.

According to the objective theory - the nature of things matter

"It's not the freedom you want - it's the freedom itself that is of value."

You can benefit from things you're lack interest in.

Can a criminals life (before getting caught) be a good life?

Subjectivists say yes - he got what he wanted.

Objectivists say no - he did not get what he wanted.

Want to do voluntarily (behavioral) vs being genuinely attracted to it.

Pleasure and happiness.

Happiness = desire satisfaction.

The desire theory is also pro happy life situation.

Want and satisfaction is connected.

Refining the theory. (subjevtivism)

Well-being is based on our idealized desires.

Our desires we have the whole picture / facts.

The informed desire theory.

"We wouldn't do it if we had all the facts."

Then there's someone else (improved you) who has a desire

Also have a strong desire to not get killed by cherry pie

Buuut it's about the actual desired result.

It abandoms the core idea of subjectivism

Must be directly connected to who you are.

Things must actually occur in real life.

Could solve it to think only aboout one's own life.

Heathwood appreciates original desires more.

The desire theory paradox

"Paradox arises just from the desire to have one's desires frustrated – whether or not desire satisfactionism is the right theory of welfare. ... If desire satisfaction were true, this would entail that it is also impossible to desire one's life to go badly on the whole"

QUESTIONS

* You could have a lot of meaning in life - like only playing guitar or smoke weed - but not benefit from it. You could help all these people around you/ invented a cure of cancer but still feel have no meaning in your life. Going to school but feel no passion for it - A toxic partner gives you meaning but you don't benefit from the relationship.

* Two people running every morning, one of them eats sallad after and one eats hamburger. Their choice of food will show that health has instrumental value since it. Or two cancer sick peope but only one knows it. Health cause then you feel good. You don't want health just for the sake of health.

* We need more evidence, more cases of proof that objectivism is false. The result of freedom might actually lead to a beneficial life in the future. It benefits him by being able to explore different options in life.

* Ideal desire is one where we are fully informed about the status and consequence of the desire we have. Heathwood sees the acual desires as the authentic real one - that are not influenced by other circumstances than the actual desire.

* His uncles life doesn't effect his own life if he is not aware of the situation. Cannot be effeted by something you don't know. If you know how your uncle is doing than you could possibly get some satisfaction from knowing that. But it won't make any significant difference in your life as a whole.

* We feel harmed by our closest relations if they are unsatisfied and they could lower our well-being by being damaged by that. That doesn't mean that their unsatisfied desires effects us - only their behavior and ability to provide us what we need are affected.

* If you do bad life choices that seems beneficial in the moment but in the long run ruin you. An addiction could be something of genuine attraction but won't benefit you when you're in it satisfied. Or like a max hamburger that makes you wanna throw up afterwards :)

Instuderingsfrågor – Prefentialism

1. Vad säger preferentialismen?

Preferntialismen säger att ens önsketillfredsställellse är grunden till vad vi bör göra för att må bra i livet. Du gör endast det som du önskar att göra och det i sig rättfärdigar dina handlingar. En person som inte vill känna välbefinnande ska inte göra det.

2. Ge ett exempel på ett liv som är bra för den som lever det enligt preferentialismen men inte enligt hedonismen.

Om du har en önskan att självskada dig själv så är det bra enligt preferentialismen eftersom det tillfredsställer dina behov, oavsett om det gör dig lyckligare eller inte. Eller till exempel drogmissbruk som inte gör ditt liv lyckligare.

3. Ge ett exempel på ett liv som är bra för den som lever det enligt hedonismen men inte enligt preferentialismen.

Om du är lycklig men inte har någon lust att vara lycklig, du vill bara dricka dig för full och sabotera dina relationer/din omgivning. Det är vad du önskar att göra men du gör det inte för att de allmänna idealen och svenska lagen säger emot.

4. Vilka invändningar mot hedonismen drabbas preferentialismen inte av? Utveckla och motivera ditt svar.

De som inte vill vara lyckliga behöver inte vara det, vilket är en fördel med preferentialismen (objektsversionen framförallt). Teorin undviker dessutom hedonismens problem med falska förhoppningar. Antingen så är dina önskningar tillfredsställda eller så är de inte det, i denna teori uppstår det ingen konflikt med falska upplevelser då det enda som spelar roll är de behov som du vill ha tillfredsställda.

5. Vilka andra fördelar har preferentialismen?

Den ger konkret svar på vad som är bra för dig samt från vilken grund du bör handla. Det är bara att följa dina önskningar. Teorin är dessutom flexibel i metod och ger tydligt svar på vad som gör teorin applicerbar.

6. Redogör för olika fall som tycks ge skäl att tro att önsketillfredsställelse inte är tillräcklig för att göra en persons liv bättre. Hur skulle en preferentialist kunna bemöta dessa möjliga motexempel till teorin? Diskutera vilka eventuella problem som finns med dessa bemötanden.

Om du endast tar beslut som är baserade på falska trosföreställningar om vad du önskar, vilket kan falla tillbaka på dig senare när du inser att det du trodde va vatten var ren vodka till exempel. bland önskar du dessutom att någon annan i din omgivning ska lyckas med något vilket inte i sig tillfredsställer dina önskningar. Du kan också få din önskan tillfredsställd utan att få veta om det.

Ett motargument mot det första argumentet är att du kan korrigera teorin till endast välinformerade önskningar vilket dock inte skulle göra önskningarna lika intuitivt attraktiv och naturlig. Mot andra argumentet kan man korrigera teorin genom att smalna av den genom att endast inkludera dina egna önskningar. (detta vore dock att ändra teorin för mycket). Det sista argumentet är svårt att motargumentera förutom att man bestämmer sig för att personens medvetenhet är det som spelar roll (vilket underminerar teorins kärna i att önskningar måste vara tillfredsställda punkt slut).

7. Vilket argument för eller emot hedonismen eller preferentialismen anser du vara det starkaste? Motivera svaret.

Jag anser att det starkaste argumentet är falska trosföreställningar eftersom det skapar problem i båda teoriernas kärna om vetskapen om lycka/tillfredsställda önskningar. Det visar lite på en stor brist vi människor har ibland, gällande vår bedömningsförmåga om vad vi vill uppnå och vad vi är. Moral bör i det hänseendet inte grundas i människors känsloliv eftersom det är ett instabil och opålitlig källa i många fall - dessutom något som inte skapar en gemensam ståndpunkt moraliskt.

Seite 4

Puppies, pigsand people: Eating meat and marginal cases. by Alastair Norcross

p.267

Norcross thinks that it's immoral to eat meat.

Whenever we're aware of how animals are treated.

Meat-eaters do not intend to hurt animals

The induvidual meat-eater is off the moral hook - cannot affect factories

Their choice of food is a moral stand itself

The argument from marginal cases

Marginal humans and animals are on the same level of understanding - why harm animals?

Difference between moral agent and moral patient (lacks moral judgement but should be respected)

Animals lack human rationality but should be respected as almost equals

Fred's basement

Find animal abuse in his basement

Sadist - should be more severe penalty

Not really - "I don't enjoy it, it has to be done"

Car incident - head trauma - different taste of chocolate

Puppies could be stimulated to give him chocolate sense back

Wouldn't do it that way if there was another method without suffering

Does it for his own pleasire

Isn't the meat industry the same issue as Fred's behavior?

Fred's behavior compared with our behavior

Fred tortures vs companies torture

Fred could have employed someone

The unawarness of the consumers

Much ignorance

We must condemn both acts tho

It's too large of a scale

They will suffer whatever I do

Fred could prevent by not eating chocolate - can't compare to one person

What if there was a big puppy cocoamone industry - they will suffer whatever

Example - chicken industry

One does not make much a difference - but a larger group

What procent of chance to make a difference are you ready to take in order to change

Do we accept small risks of great harm? No

Even small prevention is important - plane security

You becoming vegetarian influences others - making a change

The doctrine of double effect

Intended harms are wrong - Forseen side effects are okay

Meat-eaters do not intend to harm - Fred intend to harm puppies

Must be an outweighting good effect by actions - no it cannot be okay

What if Fred's action made suffering a side effect of the production?

Puppies are morally different compared to cows and pigs and so on

Puppies have a higher moral status - why?

More rational, loyal and devoted?

But what about smart pigs?

If Fred made the puppies more stupid??

All animals must be equals - this cannot be justified.

Humans vs animals ethical status

The humans have more rights bc of rationality?

Must find properties possessed by humans and not by animals - rationality

Suffering animals is better than suffering humans

The marginal cases

Animals never had the original ability of morality

Morally speaking marginal humans are inferior / still pragmatic reasons for treating them equally

We could accept marginal humans / but change our view on sophisticated animals

We don't hurt senile or cognitively disabled

Alan White

"We cannot communicate with animals about rights"

Cannot claim, demand, assert or insist a moral right - marginals have rights

David Schmidtz

"Typical characteristics of species determine"

Animals could be as sophisticated but we are different types

Normal conditions of moral status

Making general assumptions - Men (bc Hitler Stalin) are bad bc they are men

Cannot make such claims - what if men and women had different capacities

Different defected humans - what's more okay?

Evolutionary grounds for humans sake

Survival value for the species

Hard to see the moral relevance

Agent and patient - confusion

What is the moral relevance of rationality?

Is it important whether they are rational beings

Can they suffer? is the real question

Animals cannot carry moral significance

Won't engage in moral reflection

Cannot be moved by moral reasons - they don't count as much

We don't get any moral respect back from moral patients

The fundamental difference of grounds of agents/patients

Cannot compare our status with eachother

QUESTIONS

1. Så stort lidande emot hans lilla nöje

2. Min konsumtion spelar roll - influerar andra - företag gör att vi inte direkt skadar djur

3. Konsekvensen blir ändå lika dålig trots medvetenhetsgrad

4. Vi är inte på samma mentala nivå alltid, djur kan likställas med människor. Rationellargumentet faller, evolutionsperspektivet kommer in, natural bias

5. Agenter har moralisk kompass, patienter har inte det men respektera still, kan inte ge moraliska eftergifter, har inte vår rationalitet. Låter lovande att du kan få respekt även om du inte föddes med samma mentala förmåga/moralisk kompass att resonera med.

Seite 5

Moral standing, the value of lives and speciesism by R.G. Frey. p 283

Unequal value thesis

The idea that human life is more valueable than animal life

Membership itself is not morally important

Just being human does not make you superior

A form of speciesism accordning to some

The higher the quality of a life - the better

Some have higher capacity for creating an enriched life

In that way being human is better - ability to create a life of quality

Still not a kind of speciesism

Alzheimer patients have far less capacity

The former life is superior the latter life

He judges that their lives are less valueable

Some animals have a more valueable life than some humans

Value is not the same as being outside the moral community

Where do you draw the line between different species?

Dogs are more valueable than mice?

In extreme cases we choose humans over animals

But how do justify the unequal value thesis then?

Evil is evil whatever the case is

Autonomous or not doesn't matter

Infant and dog are at the same level

The benefit is superior the suffering

Like when we go to the dentist

But why sacrifice animals?

How do we defend the unequal value thesis?

Pain= killing other species

What about killing without suffering

Life has a value in itself

"The value of a life is a function of its quality"

Richness in activities we do in life

What we look back at

Activities that differ from animals - talents of ours

We can embrace different conceptions of how we want to live

Our unawareness of a rabbit's rich/not rich life condition

We cannot know about their quality of life

Autonomy is essential for the quality

We can exercise our autonomy to become what we want to become

Failure could be a part of it.

Power to change our life conditions

Still share some activities with rabbits

Ability and potentials

As varied and rich as humans?

Then we cannot be more valueable

Agency matters to the value of life

Animals are not agents

Cannot say bc it is the only life it has

Them being alive does not make us equals in quality

Not all in the moral community have the lives of equal value

Justifying different treatment of species in the moral community

Membership does not determine value of life

What justifies experiments on healthy rabbits compared to disabled humans?

Quality of life then?

Must find an argument for absolute human life value

The marginal cases

We must count all animals as equals

We would avoid animal lives so how can they be equal?

Where do we draw the line for un unworthy life?

Natural bias

Don't have to defend ourselves for choosing our species over others

Father giving kidney to his son for example

Where do you draw the line of bias?

The special moral relationship with other human beings

Direct speciesism

Discriminate depending on membership

Value of different species

Indirect speciesism

Trying to determine the quality/value of life

Human-centred criterias - cannot do equal evaluation

The unawarness does not make us equals

Don't fall into that assumption bc we don't know that either

The brains do make an important difference

Life we choose vs life appropriate to our species

To hold the unequal value thesis close comes at a cost

We must cause discrimination of animals

Neglect our own rules to not kill and so on

QUESTIONS

1. Högre kvalité på livet kan rättigfärdiga favorisering av oss människor. Vår förmåga att enrich our lives, men hur vet vi hur djur upplever livet.

2. Kan göra olika val och värdera olika utfall som enriches deras liv. Vi följer inte ett mönster helt o hållet while djur gör det instinktiva.

3. Indirekt jämför oss i (kvalifikationer beroende på art) utvärderingen om värdefullt liv och direkt diskriminerar på grunder av arttillhörighet. Vem kan klättra högst, en apa eller en fisk= indirekt problem - Bara för att du tillhör en grupp så har du ett grundvärde

4. Att människor har högre moralisk status gör det okej att använda djur till vår fördel

5. All low quality beings should be sacrificed for the sake of science, the benefit is bigger.

Seite 6

The good will and the categorical imperative - by Immanuel Kant

.p. 107

The good will

Only thing possessed of unconditional value

Reflects good character

You could have good fortune but no morality

"Representation of the law in itself, which can of course occur only in rational beings"

You become evil without this basic principle

Not good because of the effects - good in itself

Universial laws

"I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universial law"

Is it duty or purposes of self-interest

Everything else lack moral content

Only promise what I intend to keep

Otherwise evil act

Could it become universial?

The categorical imperative

Hypothetical

Represents a necessity of an action as a means to achieving something else

You don't really know what it contains

Categorical

Good in itself

You know what it contains

"All imperatives are formulate for the determination of action that is necessary in accordance with the principle of a will which is good in some way"

"Act only with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law"

"Act as it the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universial law of nature"

Some examples

Suicide is contradicting yourself

Duty to help yourself through lying will fail as a maxim

As a rational being you must will that all capacity from talent to develope - could serve good

If we all ignored hepling others the world would not function well - you would rob yourself of assistence

Exceptions cannot exist in any matter

Will find contradiction

Doesn't work if we all act that way

Rational being is called person

Irrational being is called thing

"Rational nature exists as an end in itself"

Humans represents existence through this

Objective ends over subjective

"Use humanity whether in person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never as a means"

Lying for example

Asking do I want to be treated this way?

Must harmonize with humanity - not only don't conflict

The natural end that all human beings have is their own happiness

QUESTIONS

* Good without limitations mean that it's unconditionally good in every possible circumstance.

* Happiness could cause/result in bad morality and decisions that won't harmonize with duty.

* When you do something in conformity to duty you do what is expected but with no inner worth and therefore no maxim that is satisfying. Yes, it must be from duty, no feelings involved.

* Yes - for example doing favours without personal gain like saving someone's life, cooperate/keeping promises.

* I would say it's a great test because it's objective. If I promised I would hit you every time I saw you - as something that would pass in spite of immorality. Supporting your friend (drug dealer). To harm "things" / someone's dog - as a permissible action that would fail if everyone did it.

* Treating someone as an end means that you respect them in themselves without seeking personal gain. They are meaningful in themselves without your involvement. You don't want to use someone for your own benefits. But if you have a commitment to use eachother or like a criminal in prison for exemplary punishment.

Instuderingsfrågor – Kantianism

1. Beskriv skillnaden mellan kategoriska och hypotetiska imperativ.

Hypotetiska imperativ är de handlingar vi gör för att nå ett visst mål - löpa för att gå ner i vikt till exempel - vi gör det som krävs oavsett beroende på om vi bryr oss om resultatet (good reasoning). Kategoriska imperativ är rationella plikter som inte är kopplade till vad vi önskar/vill göra. Om vi inte handlar efter dem så agerar vi irrationellt.

2. Hur lyder Kants universaliserbarhetsprincip? Förklara även med egna ord vad den går ut på.

En handling är moraliskt acceptabel om dess maxim är universiliserad - dvs kan appliceras på alla och fortfarande nå våra mål i livet. Om en handling bara fungerar i världen om du gör ett undantag för dig själv så är det emot din moraliska plikt,

3. Ge ett exempel på en handling som är fel enligt Kant och förklara hur han motiverar att den är fel med hänvisning till universaliserbarhetsprincipen.

Om jag till exempel ljuger om min bakgrund för mina kompisar så är det moraliskt fel eftersom det inte skulle bli ett fungerande samhällsliv om alla ljög om sin bakgrund till folk - ingen skulle då kunna lita på varandra vilket skulle skada oss.

4. Kant menar att vissa sorters handlingar är absolut förbjudna. Anser du att han, inom ramen för universaliserbarhetsprincipen, kan hålla fast vid denna uppfattning? Motivera ditt svar.

Nja, det är moraliskt förbjudet att ljuga, men om du skyddar en oskyldig person från att dödas av en mördare så är det plötsligt okej att ljuga. Då måste man alltid justera principen, typ "Skydda alltid oskyldiga människor, i vissa fall genom lögner" men då är fortfarande flera absolut förbjudna handlingar som går emot varandra. Eller marginalfall brott t.ex.

5. Hur klarar universaliserbarhetsprincipen, uppfattad som ett riktighetskriterium, de sex kriterier på normativa teorier som tas upp i handout "Etik 1"? Gå igenom kriterierna ett i taget.

Den ligger bra till vid förklaringsvärde, internt stöd och intuitiv attraktion. Den har det däremot svårare vid dess konsistens samt dess bestämdhet då den lätt kan skapa contradiction.

6. Hur lyder Kants mänsklighetsprincip? Förklara även med egna ord vad den går ut på.

Du bör använda människor som mål och inte enbart medel. Principen handlar om att behandla andra människor med den respekt som den förtjänar - med andra ord inte enbart använda personer som instrument för din egen framgång.

7. Ge ett exempel på en handling som är fel enligt Kant och förklara hur han motiverar att den är fel med hänvisning till mänsklighetsprincipen.

Till exempel om du hjälper någon bara för att inte blir ansedd som egoistisk - eller typ inte råna banker eftersom du kan åka i fängelse. Du använder andra människor enbart för att gynna dina egna intressen - de har inget värde i sig själva.

8. Ger universaliserbarhetsprincipen och mänsklighetsprincipen alltid samma utslag när det gäller en handlings moraliska status? Motivera ditt svar. Får svaret några följder för rimligheten hos kantianismen?

Om vi enbart ska titta åt mänsklighetsprincipen så finns det inget moraliskt värde i legal punishment - då det främst är ett instrument för att skrämma andra brottslingar till att inte göra samma brott. Dock funkar inte samhället om vi inte konsekvent sätter brottslingar i fängelset. Detta går inte enligt universaliseringsprincipen. Eller om en mycket fattig pojke tar bröd från en mataffär utan att bli tagen - det går att universalisera trots att han behandlar medmänniskor som medel.

9. Hur klarar mänsklighetsprincipen, uppfattad som ett riktighetskriterium, de sex kriterier på normativa teorier som tas upp i handout "Etik 1"? Gå igenom kriterierna ett i taget

Den ligger bra till vid internt stöd , konsistens och bestämdhet, men ligger mer dåligt till vid förklaringsvärde, externt stöd samt intuitiv attraktion.

Seite 7

Leviathan by Hobbes p.120

State of nature

All men are equals

Greater equality than that of strenth

We all try to accomplish success in our own lives

Power struggle and fight for autonomy

If two people desire the same thing that they cannot both enjoy they become enimies

They will try to destroy eackother to reach their end

No way to be safe than anticipation

Must control others to be the greatest danger

-Men have no pleasure of keeping company without a greater power over them

- Men of the same company value themselves equally

Undervaluing the efforts to be made

Three principles of quarrel

Competition

Diffifence

Glory

A war as is of every man against every man

War when peace is not promised

No place for industry -> "the fruit is uncertain"

"And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"

There must be a social code/rule for people to not be savages

The desires are not a sin in itself -> no just yet.

Need someone to be over them

Authorities can do power struggle through continual jealousies

Certain passions like fear of death tie us together

THE RIGHT OF NATURE

Each man get to use his power to preserve his own nature

A LAW OF NATURE

A man is forbidden to do what is destructive of his life

First law of nature = seek peace and follow it

-Second law of nature= by all means we can to defend ourselves

Everyone needs to do it in order for it to work properly

Signs of contract is express or inference

Words or expressed through silance or action

Sometimes you're silant bc of oppression and then it's not obligatory duty

They become their own subjective judges with no contract

Whatever is not injust is just

People not doing their part of the job ruin the whole thing

Unjust if it doesn't harm you in any way

Unexpected events do not count as just/wiserly done/reasonably

Us expecting the same treatment as others

Makes us safer than eye to eye situation

Those who doesn't cooperate are ignorant of what they need

Needs punishment for those

By gaining that from the law you teach others how they can gain too

A law to protect people from eachother and keep it going cooperating

Questions

* Equals because we share the same needs and fears of survival. We are dependent on how people choose to deal with us in situations. In spite of our physical strenth we have basic desires that we all want to satisfy as much as possible.

* Without laws and government people would create their egoistic play rules that only apply to them and it would in that sense be like a war against all - a place where everyone fight to get a piece of the cake when it's limited and of competition.

* If we had absolutely no established laws - on a social level as well as a political - nothing would actually be wrong or right about the actions we do. We would have our personal opinions in specific situations, but they woudn't be justified in a wider perspective in societies.

* I agree with him on that point, if we have nothing to gain in a situation we usually stay out of it. Then there are some exceptions when we save another person's life and so on - maybe situations when we will lose respect if we don't obey duty. I believe that self-sacrifice is a basic human action that has roots in preserving society because members of it benefit you.

* A counterexample to that is wrong to lie to your mother, even if there is no official contract that makes it forbidden to do so. An action like breaking a promise or taking responsability for something you did not do is not just even if you don't find it as unjust according to a social contract.

* By breaking the rules for your own self-interest will teach people around you that they can do the same which eventually will lead to worse life condition for you in the future

Instuderingsfrågor – Kontraktualism

1. Vad säger kontraktualismen?

En handling är moraliskt acceptabel om den stämmer med den gemensamma lagen som omgivningen har bestämt sig för att följa för allas bästa - moralen är baserad på ett samhällskontrakt.

2. Beskriv "fångens dilemma". På vilket sätt kan en kontraktualist använda fångens dilemma som stöd för sin teori?

När det gäller väldigt riskfyllda situationer så väljer vi hellre att bryta överenskommelser för att inte riskera att bli offrad och sviken av sin medspelare - även om det skulle vara bäst att hålla löftet så lägger du ditt öde i någon annans händer, dessutom en person som också gynnas av att bryta löftet. Maktbalansen is real och visar att detta "state of nature" när alla gör det som krävs för att säkra sin överlevnad och inte litar på varandra är dåligt i det stora hela - ett samhällskontrakt är då mer gynnsamt. Det krävs då att en större massa följer dessa regler, annars måste du hård tävla eller offras tillitsmässigt.

3. Ge ett exempel på en handling som är moraliskt rätt enligt handlingsutilitarism men moraliskt fel enligt kontraktualism.

Det är acceptabelt att döda en deprimerad människa enligt handlingsutliarismen om det höjer det allmänna måendet medans samhällskontraktet i kontraktualismen förbjuder det enligt lag.

4. Ge ett exempel på en handling som är moraliskt rätt enligt kontraktualism men moraliskt fel enligt etisk egoism?

Enligt kontraktualismen är det moraliskt rätt att betala ut lön till sina medarbetare om de har jobbat sina timmar. Etisk egoism förbjuder det om det inte gynnar din egen välfärd. Egoism kan också acceptera brott om du vinner på att utföra det.

5. Vilken är den starkaste fördelen med kontraktualismen, enligt dig? Motivera svaret.

Den starkaste fördelen med kontraktualismen enligt mig är att den enkelt förklarar varför vi bör följa vår moraliska plikt - även om den inte gynnar oss själva direkt. I kontrast förklarar den också syftet med legal punishment samt varför det är okej att bryta lagarna om de inte är förenliga med demokratiska värderingar.

6. Vilken är den starkaste nackdelen med kontraktualismen, enligt dig? Motivera svaret.

Den starkaste nackdelen med kontraktualismen är enligt mig att det finns en oklarhet gällande både begreppet rationalitet när det gäller kontraktet. Rationaliteten är det som samhällskontraktet grundar sina värderingarna på och det är problematiskt att det inte är klarlagt i vilken form den tar sig i - Kants syn eller Hobbes syn. Då vet vi inte fundamentet i teorin.

7. Hur klarar kontraktualismen de sex kriterier på normativa teorier som tas upp i handout "Etik 1"? Gå igenom kriterierna ett i taget.

Den ligger bra till gällande bestämdhet, förklaringsvärde, samt internt stöd . Däremot är intuitiv attraktion, konsistens och externt stöd lite mer illa ute när det gäller kontraktet som helhet samt the moral community issue.

Seite 8

What makes a right action right? by W:D Ross p. 130

⦁ A bit of utilitarism and bit of kantianism

Result is important but not all-important

Prima facie duties are self-evident

Produce more good by choosing one duty over the other

Not not bc of maximizing good

Study situation carefully and reflect on priority

⦁ More than pleasure has intrinsic value

Because several conflicting rules exist

Taking a risk whatever you do

⦁ The consequence of not doing duty is bad

But not what we directly think of

⦁ Several reasons to act a certain way

Break rules if to prevent worse results

Depends on circumstances around the moralproblem

⦁ The circumstances of a duty rather than it's the duty in itself

⦁ Duty arises from its whole nature - not just element of nature

Circumstantial, not a general consideration

⦁ Some duties rest on previous acts of my own

1. Duties of fidelity

2.Duties of reparation

Rest on previous acts of other men to me

Duties of gratitude

Rest on unfair action

Duties of justice

Rest on the fact that we can improve a situation

Duties of self improvement

Rest on not harming others

Duty of character

Different kinda virtues

Self-evident and mental maturity

Only right and wrong we have is prima facie duties

Cannot draw a conclusion

No particular beauty

Never know what an act will bring in the long run

The duties are not self-evident from the start

Experiences and knowledge create maturity

Till we can think in general terms

We have no other way to know the right action than reflecting about it

Evaluate possible contradictions and values in the specific situation

QUESTIONS

1. When we make promises for example we don't think of the future nor the possibility to maximize the goodness in an action. We often think of the past, how others treated us, how other people handled a similar situation, prevention of something bad happening: we choose an action because we believe that the specific situation requires you to act. There're many factors that influences our morality in situations and that makes it implausible to have one eternal solution to every moral issue. Conflicting duties will always occur.

2. All moral duties are circumstantial in his opinion. Moral comes from the specific nature of a moral problem and not as an element or general applied rules. I agree that many issues of morality is partly circumstantial and that one rule can outweight another in the case of maximizing greatness in the world. There are some exceptions in morality that we should evaluate but usually it's good to have a demand set of rules that everyone can act from so that the exceptions don't cause us trouble

3. Prima facies duties are duties that are more important and kind of a standard that you can go after when you make moral considerations. They are the key points of moral value that you can choose from. They can be overridden, a duty proper cannot. A duty proper is a moral obligation related to the fact that no other prima facie duty is relevant in the situation

4. We justify the prima facie duties by common sense in every individual. It's plausible in many theories, ethical and those connected to science for example. Ethics require common sense which makes it a good starting point. Though, common sense is not the same to every person, there's not only one definition and there're various cases of rational choices that common sense could make equal according to different moral agents.

5. Our morality is neither self-evident or a valid conclusion of a self-evident premises. They are not like facts you can make a fundamental statement of. There is always a certain element of risk taking when we make moral considerations. There are always several options to choose from when we are supposed to act some way. Morality is not something that's based on logical conclusions only.

6. I think that a good starting point in ethics is partly to look at ourselves - how would I prefer to be treated in that situation? for example - and then widen your perspective to the social environment that's surrounding you. All we really can know is our own beliefs and views at issues. Though, if all people only saw to their own interests and benefits then the whole society would collapse. Plus, you need to have altruistic and mentally stable personality in order to make good moral conclusions that really is valid and plausible in real life. In science there's usually one right way of thinking - water can turn to ice for example - meanwhile in ethics there're more alternative views at the issues it handles. We'll never come up with a real answer in ethics, it all depends on the agents views that are partly based on upbringing and culture. I would say that it's beneficial to look at what the general opinion is - killing is wrong for example - and establish standard rules from that. In that way ethics and science meets though, collecting data to come to a conclusion.

Seite 9

A defense of abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson p.333

The fetus moral status

Yes is as much of a person as we are

Though not enough to say that fetus is entitled to mother's resources

Example of transfusion machine for musician - nice but not our duty

Drawing a line of existence

A seed is not a plant

Opponents do the slippery slope arguments

Fetus has human traits early on

Mother's right to autonomy vs fetus right to autonomy

Mother's right outweights fetus

What if it's caused by rape? Less of right?

"The extreme view"

In danger of the mother's life

Equal right to life?

You rather let a person die than killing it directly = mother directly

She cannot passively wait for her death

A third party cannot answer the question

Refuse mother's moral status - must decide herself

A mother's independence - she's not just a house

The mother runs the house

"This body is my body!"

Right to feel angry if no one cares

No right to use mother's resources even if it depends on them

Could be of kindness but no duty

A life doesn't guarantee the right to use mother's body

What is unjust?

What is wrong might not be unjust

Who gives the fetus the right?

It's her responsibility?

Responsibility for pregnancy gives her right to decide about her body

The dependence of the fetus doesn't ensure mother's responsibility

Called it to existence vs didn't intend to do it - prevention?

Agrees that fetus sometimes has a right to use mother's body

Prevention and just?

No danger for mother?

1. Minimally decent samaritanism

2. No right to secure death - but right to unplugg

CONCLUSION

"A very early abortion is not a killing of a person"

QUESTIONS

* Yes. It's not your duty to plugg yourself to the machine and use your resources on someone else. At the same time you haven't caused the violonist's existence. It says something about our duty to preserve a life that is dependent on us.

* Abortion is wrong even if it threathens the existence of the mother. I agree that direct killing is worse than passivley letting someone die as a result if an action for the mother's sake.

* The bare need to continue life doesn't take an equal status as a mother's existing life. Only because the fetus depends on her for its bare needs it doesn't give the fetus the right to use the mother's resources for its own sake

* She thinks it's okay to do abortion because the woman is in charge of her own body and must decide what she desire to do with it. It's her responsibility for it existing but it's just that she runs her own house. She could do a minimally decent samaritanism but no duty.. It's just to do abortion but not to intentionally kill it if i happens to survive for example.

* If she intentionally causes a pregnancy even if she could prevent it. Or if the fetus is highly developed

Why abortion is immoral by Don Marquisi

Fetus possess human traits and a genetic code

Fetus isn't a rational agents or social beings

Require a more general principle of characteristics that gives fetus rights

"Always wrong to take a human life"

Being a person gives you intrinsic moral worth

Living human cancer cell then? - to broad of an argument

"It's only wrong to kill persons"

What defines a person?

Marginal cases and animals

Why is it immoral to kill an adult but not a fetus?

The loss of a valuable future of experiences

No care for fetus future value

Only biological beings - but others?

Because active euthanasia is wrong

Deprive someone's future - killing someone

Because it's immoral to kill infants and children

We believe they have a valuable future

They have identical potential of a future

Could be justified under some circumstances

Where the result would be as bad as an abortion

Some marginal cases are also always wrong to kill

Having a future in itself

Because a fetus cannot value their life

But they still have value

Suicidal people

Because they lack the ability to desire continued existence

Doesn't mean that we can do whatever our interest is

Harm made by contraception

Sperm, ovum, both separately or together

So many cells - no combination - no life

No identified subject of harm

QUESTIONS

* I think so, at least towards the end, comparing to active euthanasia and killing infants. Just claiming that we should never kill a life isn't strong enough. Too broad to apply.

* It's wrong to kill an adult so there's no reason to kill a fetus. The value of life and the basic conditions are the same comparing adult and fetus.

* The fetus is indeed not a rational agent with awarness of one's existence. Hard to feel loss of something you never had. We think it's wrong to kill innocent children and infants which makes it wrong to do abortion.

* People with mental disabilities or suicidal thoughts are not aware of the value of their lives. Animals and senile people still have valuable lives and should be respected.

* I think he succeeds when he explains that the subject of harm is not identified and therefore cannot be a real victim. A sperm and an ovum is not a combination that causes a genetic code and human traits which undermines the argument of contraception.

Seite 10

UTILITARISM John Stuart Mill

⦁ Utility - the greatest happiness principle

⦁ Only a few can make a larger difference - the rest ought to rely on familiar rules

⦁ Strictly impartial and disinterested spectator

⦁ The interest of individual in harmony with society needs

⦁ Education of true character - habitual motives of action

⦁ Too high for humanity

⦁ "No system of ethics requires a sole motive of all we shall be a feeling of duty"

⦁ You save person whatever your motive be duty / motive irrelevant

⦁ The majority of actions does nothing to the world as a whole but to the agents living in it

⦁ Public unity vs private unity

⦁ Makes moral agents to cold-hearted and hard to sympathize with

⦁ Not taking the personal moral agent into consideration

⦁ Then a complaint of having a moral standard at all

⦁ Utilitarians are aware of the fact that there are other desirable things than virtue

⦁ Right actions does not assure a good character

⦁ Wrong actions are sometimes not to blame bc intentions

⦁ Better if the error lays on to exclusive grounds than other errors

⦁ End goal to do what benefits mankind as a whole

⦁ Whatever Gods existence - goal is utility in a supreme degree

⦁ Read it how you want

⦁ The expedient - (???)

⦁ Sensible feeling on the subject of veracity

⦁ Short term is less valuable

⦁ There are exceptions in all ethic theories

⦁ The principle of utility must be good for weighting different interests

⦁ Don't have to be calculating - ain't got time to read the bible every time

⦁ We learn by experience and pass it on through generations

⦁ We still have things to learn about morality

⦁ Happiness is the end of morality - but there could be a road laid down to it

⦁ As a secondary principle

⦁ We always need several goals under the primer

⦁ Must draw general conclusions from morality experiences

⦁ Navigation is founded on astronomy

⦁ Rational creatures calculate results beforehand

⦁ We learn how to handle contradictions

⦁ Happens in all theories

⦁ Moral responsibility of agent / virtue intellect with more or less success

⦁ There are always a better option even if we need to think a lot to figure it out

⦁ Maybe with special cases - single person recognizes the principle herself