PHILOSOPHY NOTES:

Moral philosophy: (ethics)

 Composed of 2 greek words= “philo” meaning love and “Sophos” meaning wisdom, which is
“philein Sophia” which translates to the lover of wisdom.
 Moral philosophy is concerned with what is morally right or wrong, as well as what is morally
good or bad= moral principles.
 Branch of learning that deals with the nature of morality and the theories used to determine
what someone ought to do and why.

The right thing to do:

Act: ethically + morally + properly in a conscious manner = maintaining this character even when no
one is watching.

Theories of justice:

1. Utilitarianism- welfare
2. Deontology- duty
3. Virtue ethics- vices and virtues
4. Ubuntu- community and personhood
5. Social contractionarism- agreement and consent

Consequentialism: (3)

 The view that normative properties that depend only on consequences.

 What is best or right is what will make the world a better place in the future, because we
cannot change the past so it is not worth worrying about the past.

 The morality of an action is judges only by the consequences of that action. Therefore if the
action produces a good outcome, then it is considered morally right (vice versa).

Ex: lying is wrong, but if you lie to save a life, then consequentialism would argue that it is
morally right.

Utilitarianism:
 Refers to school of consequentiality ethical philosophy based on “the greatest good for
the greatest number of people.”
 Also known as the pleasure principle, refers to the idea that the best course of action is
determined by analyzing a situation and choosing the act that would ensure the greatest
pleasure/ happiness for the greatest number of people. (or maximizes greatest pleasure
for greatest amount of people and minimizes the greatest amount of pain.)
 Principles that govern Utilitarianism:
 1. Pleasure/happiness is the only thing with intrinsic (life is better with it) value.
 2. Actions are right so far as they promote happiness, wrong so far as they produce
unhappiness.
 3. Everyone’s happiness counts equally. (Utilitarianism thinks we need to overcome our
tendency of placing monetary value on a human’s life, as it obstructs clear and rational choice
making.)

Objections to Utilitarianism:

 Individual rights: utilitarianism seemingly allow outrageous actions in certain hypothetical

scenarios, which compromises individual’s rights to achieve the greatest good for others.
This falls in line with the weakness of consequantialism which focuses only on the outcome of
the action, which overlooks the evil/terrible acts committed to achieve a morally desired
outcome.
Example: Christians to lions

Act Utilitarianism:

 Made by the political theorist : Jeremy Bentham

 Focuses on the act that maximizes immediate pleasure. (immediate greater good)
 Based on a hedonistic calculus= a way of determining how great a pain or pleasure is. (moral
worth/ value of the act)
 Disregards individual liberty in the face of the greatest good.

Rule Utilitarianism:

 Formulated by John Stuart Mill

 He belived that actions that lead to people’s happiness are right and that that leads to
unhappiness are wrong.
 This theory focuses on the greatest good in the long run and does take individual liberty into
account in the face of the greatest good.
 A person is accountable for their own actions and have sovereign right over mind and body;
people do have their right to independence, provided they do not harm others.

Higher and Lower Pleasures:

Not all pleasures and pains are equal

Higher Pleasures > lower pleasures

Higher Pains > lower pleasures

Higher pleasures > lower pains

 Deontological Ethics:
 The word 'deontology' derives from a combination of two Greek words; 'deon' which
means 'duty' and 'logos' (English adaptation - 'logy') which means 'study' or 'science'.

 Simply construed, deontology may be defined as the science of duty or the study of the
nature of duty.

Ethics that grounds morality on 'acting from duty'.

Forms of Deontological Theories:

1. Agent-Centered Deontological Theories

2. Patient-Centered Deontological Theories

3. Contractualist Deontological Theories

1. Agent-Centered Deontological Theories:

 Agent-centered theories are primarily duty-based theories.

 A personal situation with desires gives rise to a genuine moral restriction and goals in
relation to their personal duty/ obligation.
 Duty is priority of the right over good.
 Built around objective reason for moral actions.

2. Patient-Centered Deontological Theories:

 According to patient-centered deontological theories, it is morally wrong to use another’s

body, labor, and talent as a means for producing good consequences without their consent.
 Focuses on human rights, specifically the rights of another being used for the user’s benefit.

Major distinction: PCDT are primarily rights-based as opposed to ACDT which are primarily duty-
based.

3. Contractualist Deontological Theories:

Can be more or less subsumed under PCDT / still needs development.

Philosopher Immanuel Kant:
Kant:
 Founder of critical philosophy and believes in goal directed behaviour.
 Duty comes from the capacity for reason
 Reason is a priori- Inherent, not dependent on external observation or experience.

KANT AND THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES:

 Morality, Freedom, Reason:

o Contrast 1 (morality): duty v. inclination

o Contrast 2 (freedom): autonomy v. heteronomy

o Contrast 3 (reason): categorical v. hypothetical imperatives

MORALITY: Duty Vs Inclination

 Duty= moral worth is not a matter of consequence, but of motive.

The motive that brings about moral worth is duty.
Acting according to moral law.
 Inclination= acting according to what is useful/ convenient.
 Actions done through inclination lack moral worth

Freedom: Autonomy Vs Heteronomy

 Heteronomy= is not self- govenerned and is morality emposed by outside forces(moral

realism).
 Autonomy= is self- governed and is morality based on own rules (moral relativism). When
internal law comes from reasoning then you will act out of duty. Your duty is rooted in your
priori reasoning.

“Kant’s answer: from reason. We’re not only sentient beings, governed by the pleasure and pain
delivered by our senses; we are also rational beings, capable of reason. If reason determines my will,
then the will becomes the power to choose independent of the dictates of nature or inclination.”
(Sandel)
 REASON- Hypohetical Vs Categorical

HYPOTHETICAL Imperative

 Employs instrumental reasoning (if you want something, you have to do something in order
to get it)
 Therefore it is always conditional
 An action would be good only as a means for something else.

Example: “Do not steal if you want to stay out of jail” and “You should take an umbrella in
case it rains”

CATEGORICAL

- Commands our actions without dependence on further reasoning/ purpose. (duty

commands it)
- Therefore it is unconditional
- Done because it is the right thing to do

 Categorical imperative 1: UNIVERSALIZE YOUR MAXIM

- Act on principal that you can universalize this action without contradiction.
- If you do it now, then it is okay for everyone to do it all the time regardless
of circumstances.
- “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.”

If I lie now…

If I steal now…

If I cheat on this test…

 Categorical Imperative 2: KINGDOM OF ENDS/ PRINCIPLE OF RESPECT FOR PERSONS

- Treat other persons as ends in themselves, instead of means to an end
- Make you’re end, their end.
- Humans have an absolute/ inherent value as rational beings, we are all worthy of repect.
- Based on universal respect not particular feelings.
- Justice= uphold everyone’s universal rights.

We can’t base the moral law on any particular interests, purposes, or ends, because then it would be
only relative to the person whose ends they were. “But suppose there were something whose
existence has in itself an absolute value,” as an end in itself. “Then in it and in it alone, would there
be the ground of a possible categorical imperative. (Sandel)
Ends in themselves:

Cheating on a test or a partner

Stealing from a convenience store

A hookup?

Cops looking for your friend, would you snitch?

Example: “You shouldn’t kill”, “You ought to help those in need”, “Don’t steal” and “Keep your
promises”

Kant’s rigidity:

• Note that Kant was a retributionist ( One who holds that there must be retribution
(vengeance, punishment) for transgressions- act that goes against the law), unlike
Utilitarians

• He believed in harsh retributive punishment, regardless if it increases pain

• When someone who delights in annoying and vexing peace-loving folk receives at last a right
good beating, it is certainly an ill, but everyone approves of it and considers it as good in
itself, even if nothing further results from it (Rachel).

• I.e. punishment is a good in itself, regardless of the consequences, because it rebalances the
scales after someone used someone else as a means to an end.

Consequences be damned!

Regardless of what happens, as long as you stick to the categorical imperatives, you did the right
thing…

“Yes babe, that outfit makes you look like a disaster”

“My parents are dead, but at least I did not lie to the murderer about their location”

“I snitched on a poor mom stealing bread. They beat her nearly to death, but at least I told the
truth”.
 Ubuntu and the Concept of Community:
Normative Ethics:

- branch of moral philosophy/ ethics

- Concerned with the criteria of what is morally right or wrong.

The theories we have looked at so far…

“One of the biggest challenges posed by [them] is their emphasis on the centrality of the individual
when deciding whether a moral act is right or wrong. This emphasis on individualism does not sit
well with most African cultures, as these locate the morality of actions within a particular group of
persons.” - Mangena

Problem with Normative Ethics:

The point is that the concepts of justice and happiness may cut across all cultures but the idea of
placing an individual person at the centre of justice and happiness can be problematic, especially
within communitarian cultures.

- In these communitarian cultures, justice does not reside in the individual – it resides in the
community of which the individual is part.
- Does not consider the individual to being an isolated being
- As long as he/she is born in the community and upholding varying moral institutions
- The individual cannot universalize their moral thought
- Individual thought is dependent on relation with others

In sub-Saharan Africa, the ideas of reason, spirit and desire which, in Platonic terms, define justice in
the individual, project the individual as being part of a community. Thus, reason, spirit and desire
exist as assets of the community and not as elements that make up an individual.”- Mangena

Ubuntu as Dialogical Ethics:

- “Dialogue is two-way communication, where the persons involved in the dialogue do not
have to hold the same views on a particular subject, but must have different points of view
on issues of mutual concern”- Mangena

Osikhena defines dialogue as the “effective communication between human persons aimed at a
shared understanding of reality”. In Shona society, however, the dialogical process does not only
involve human beings, it also has a spiritual dimension.
The Individual and the community:

Ubuntu (Mangena):

 An indigenous African philosophy that shows how the dialogical character of this philosophy
captures African notions of morality.

 At the centre of hunhu/ubuntu is the value attached to the community

 Individuals only become important when they contribute positively to the community

 John S Mbiti captures it very well when he says: “I am because we are, since we are
therefore, I am”.

 Desmond Tutu also explains it in a different way when he says: “umuntu ngumuntu
ngabantu” which, when translated to English, means “a person is a person through other
persons.”

- Everyone’s humanity is ideally expressed in relationship with others

- Dialogical relationship with others within the community

 This means that whatever a person does must be for the betterment of the community to
which he or she belongs rather than seeing himself as an isolated being.

 “Hunhu/Ubuntu is not only a dialogical African moral theory; it is also a way of life. This
means that hunhu/ubuntu does not only EVALUATE and JUSTIFY moral acts in African
settings, but it is also a world view for the Africans.”

Dialogue (Mangena):

- According to this philosophy, individual moral acts are only IMPORTANT if they CONFORM to
the expectations of the community.
- Thus, notions of right and wrong or virtue and vice are notions that are negotiated through
dialogue.
- Individual opinions, varied and diverse as they may be, have to be put together in order to
come up with what can be called a “common moral position” which is meant to safeguard
the interests of the community as a whole. This can be called the “common moral position”
because it is a moral position agreed to by the majority of elders who are the custodians of
moral, epistemological and ontological wisdom.

Common Moral Position:

A person can adhere to the common moral position if his or her actions are in conformity with the
community’s agreed moral standards.
 In the case of sub-Saharan African cultures, the process of reaching a common moral position is
dialogical.

Elders, who are considered to be fountains of wisdom (including moral wisdom), set the moral
standards or parameters through dialogue,.

Individual and Community:

• Normative Ethics - Individualistic (is this fair?)

- Individual undermines their humanity- prioritises seeing themselves In light of

others and ensures the requisite dignity which out to be afforded to others.
- Meaning f personal responsibility is premised on relationship with others in the
community , not idea of individual autonomy.

• Ubuntu - Dialogical (worked out by the community)

Ubuntu and:

• Utilitarianism (greater good… for the community?)

• Ubuntu acts clearly above and behond the call for duty as the max universally
accepted by Kant. Utilitarianism upholds the tenacity of its engagement on the
principles of utility and consequences.

• Deontology (universal guided by a-priori duty… for community?)

• Deontological approaches finds some rules- based theory of right of action by which
to define ubuntu- like behaviour.

Virtue Ethics
Virtue:

• Excellent Properties of a person (character trait) that can be acquired (learning, habituatuation,
growth)
• Disposition well entrenched by possessor: something that goes all the way down to your core= to
notice, expect, value, feel, desire, choose…
• To possess virtue requires a certain type of person with a certain complex mindset.
• Learned and practiced through action, but can be destroyed to become a vice.
• Found in the place known as the golden mean which lies between vice deficiencies and vice
excesses.
• Virtue are stable personality traits that reliably dispose a person to act well.
 Vices:
• Stable personality trait that reliably dispose a person to act badly.
• It is found on extreme ends of the virtue continuum known as vices of deficiency and vices
of excess.

Aristotle (384BC-322BC)

- Ancient greek philosopher and poly math

- Student of Plato
- Tutor to Alaxander the great
- He was a virtue ethicist that believed we could achieve eudemonia (to live happily and to flourish),
by using reasoning excellently in everything we do
- “theory of a good life”= to reach eudemonia which is living an excellent, flourishing and happy life
with excellent character and has taken time to develop their virtues.

TELEOLOGICAL REASONING:
• Derived from the word “Telos” meaning goal or purpose.
• Therefore teleological reasoning is focused on the goal/ purpose of things based on cultivation moral
character to reach eudemonia.
• Does not prescribe fundamental actions as either right or wrong.
• Character based approach and is centred around persuit of achieving eudemonia= living virtuously
and experience a happy and flourishing life.
• To live virtuously you have to constantly use reasoning to decide certain courses of action of which
you find yourself in.
• A person who has achieved eudemonia is a moral exemplar and has achieved it through either
habituation or through hexis (automatic disposition)

Golden mean:
The ability to discern the correct amount of characteristic to be able to act virtuously in any given
situation.
Virtue continuum:
Vices of Deficit Virtue Vices of Excess
Corruption integrity legalism
Cowardness courage recklessness
Disregard respect idolatry
Selfishness love enablement
laziness diligence workaholism
Foolishness discernment judgementalism
HABIT VS CHARACTER:

• Habit= makes for repetitive and predictable behaivour that gives moral equilibrium to life.
• Habit cannot be any part of character, therefore we try to understand how an active
condition can arise as a result from a passive one and why that active condition can only be
attained if the passive one comes first.
• Character is produced by habit but has a life of its own.

How to attain virtue:

• We get virtue by working at them

• Must implement the habit to allow you to the divine golden mean.
• Parental training is needed as a way of neutralizing the irrational force of impulse and desire.
• As human beings, our desires need to be mindless and random, but can be transformed by
thinking into choices.

Social contract theory:

In the past, humans existed in a state of nature with no social agreements on rules/ governance, this
caused for humans to compete for resources and cause inharmonious relationships.

Therefore humans must engage in mutual agreements] on : conduct, treatment, rights , freedom,
duties, restriction… this will guarantee harmony.

Kinds of contract theory:

1. THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679)

• Advocates for “leviathan” with sovereign rule
• He believed that humans are inherently selfish
• Therefore sovereign laws are needed to prevent them from harming each other to
serve their selfish needs.

2. JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704)

• Advocates for “common wealth”
• =citizens should have the right to select the leaders and allowed to vote them out if they are
unjust.
• These selected leaders are allowed to decide on rules to govern people
• Human beings do not require totalizing and oppressive restrictions.

3. JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU (1712-1778)

• “man is born free and he is everywhere in chains”
• People could only experience full freedom if they lived in a civil society
 • With existing civil authority/government that ensures their rights and well being as a
citizen.

4. JOHN RAWLS
• Advocates for a “just society”
• = basic features of the government would be discovered by rational people who
have been made to be ignorant of their position in society.
• We must agree to live according to rules we would agree upon, if we were not
aware who we would be in society.
• Original position behind the veil of ignorance
• Original position: meant to be impartial and fair as rational agents negotiate
principles of an agreement or contract to govern their everyday lives based on self-
interest.
• Why is original position fair? = due to the veil of ignorance the rational people
negotiate principles of a contract under the veil of ignorance because they don’t
know who they represent.
• The veil of ignorance= we know nothing of ourselves, natural abilities, position in
society, sex, race, individual taste…. Therefore we don’t know who we would be in
society so we design a society that would be fair for everyone
• This would lead to an Egalitarian society= where all are considered equals, there is
no class system of which everyone has relatively equal access to income and wealth.

Equality: each individual/ group of people is given the same resource/ opportunity.

Equity: recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact recourses
and opportunities needed to reach equal outcome.

Advantages of social contract: (7)

 Rule of contract instills: civic duty and creates a sense of community

 Rules of contract faciliatate in harmounious relationships among citizens.
 We abide by rules because there are repercussions if we break them, therefore it is logical to
follow them for self preservation.
 There are mechanisms: laws, judges, prisons, government… of which we can use to hold the
person accountable for their unjust behaivour/ break rules.
 LIBERTY: social contracts enhance liberty, and decrease wars among people who’s related to
society’s resources.
 FAIRNESS: since everyone is bound to contract, no one can limit anyone else’s liberty… this
voids inequality and treats everyone the same.
 LEGITIMATION: social contract creates a situation where gov has agreed with citizens to
avoid wars.
Kinds of Consent:

 ECPLICIT/ ACTIVE CONSENT: you consent continuously and willingly through a signed on a
piece of paper or made an out in front of witnesses.
 TACIT: your silence/ inaction could count as a form of tacit consent to obey the gov/state.

READINGS:

1. Justice
 The debate about price gouging that arose in the aftermath of Hurricane Charley raises hard
questions of morality and law: Is it wrong for sellers of goods and services to take advantage
of a natural disaster by charging whatever the market will bear? If so, what, if anything,
should the law do about it? Should the state prohibit price gouging, even if doing so
interferes with the freedom of buyers and sellers to make whatever deals they choose?
 The arguments for and against price-gouging laws revolve around three ideas: maximizing
welfare, respecting freedom, and promoting virtue. Each of these ideas points to a different
way of thinking about justice
 Outrage is the special kind of anger you feel when you believe that people are getting things
they don’t deserve. Outrage of this kind is anger at injustice.
 . A just society distributes these goods in the right way; it gives each person his or her due.\
 Theories that see justice as bound up with virtue and the good life... In contemporary
politics, virtue theories are often identified with cultural conservatives and the religious
right.

2. Welfare, Freedom, and Virtue

 These questions are not only about how individuals should treat one another. They are also
about what the law should be, and about how society should be organized. They are
questions about justice.
 Markets promote the welfare of society as a whole by providing incentives for people to
work hard supplying the goods that other people want. (In common parlance, we often
equate welfare with economic prosperity, though welfare is a broader concept that can
include noneconomic aspects of social well-being.)
 contemporary political debate is about how to promote prosperity, or improve our standard
of living, or spur economic growth... we think prosperity makes us better off than we would
otherwise be—as individuals and as a society. Prosperity matters, in other words, because it
contributes to our welfare.
 Markets respect individual freedom; rather than impose a certain value on goods and
services, markets let people choose for themselves what value to place on the things they
exchange.
 They argue that the welfare of society as whole is not really served by the exorbitant prices
charged in hard times. Even if high prices call forth a greater supply of goods, this benefit has
to be weighed against the burden such prices impose on those least able to afford them.
 Defenders of price-gouging laws maintain that, under certain conditions, the free market is
not truly free. If you’re fleeing a hurricane with your family, the exorbitant price you pay for
gas or shelter is not really a voluntary exchange. It’s something closer to extortion.

3. Vices an virtues
 Greed is a vice, a bad way of being, especially when it makes people oblivious to the
suffering of others. More than a personal vice, it is at odds with civic virtue... A society in
which people exploit their neighbours for financial gain in times of crisis is not a good
society.
 Price-gouging laws cannot banish greed, but they can at least restrain its most brazen
expression, and signal society’s disapproval of it. By punishing greedy behaviour rather than
rewarding it, society affirms the civic virtue of shared sacrifice for the common good.
 To acknowledge the moral force of the virtue argument is not to insist that it must always
prevail over competing considerations.
 Virtue—about cultivating the attitudes and dispositions, the qualities of character, on which
a good society depends.
 Many who support price-gouging laws, find the virtue argument discomfiting. The reason: It
seems more judgmental than arguments that appeal to welfare and freedom
 The virtue argument, by contrast, rests on a judgment that greed is a vice that the state
should discourage
 When we probe our reactions to price gouging, we find ourselves pulled in two directions:
We are outraged when people get things they don’t deserve; greed that preys on human
misery, we think, should be punished, not rewarded. And yet we worry when judgments
about virtue find their way into law.

4. Philosophers point of views- ancient theories of justice:

 Aristotle teaches that justice means giving people what they deserve. And in order to
determine who deserves what, we have to determine what virtues are worthy of honour
and reward.
 Aristotle maintains that we can’t figure out what a just constitution is without first reflecting
on the most desirable way of life. For him, law can’t be neutral on questions of the good life
 from Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century to John Rawls in the twentieth century—
argue that the principles of justice that define our rights should not rest on any particular
conception of virtue, or of the best way to live. Instead, a just society respects each person’s
freedom to choose his or her own conception of the good life.
 So you might say that ancient theories of justice start with virtue, while modern theories
start with freedom.
 Justice that animate contemporary politics—not among philosophers but among ordinary
men and women... Devoted though we are to prosperity and freedom, we can’t quite shake
off the judgmental strand of justice. The conviction that justice involves virtue as well as
choice runs deep. Thinking about justice seems inescapably to engage us in thinking about
the best way to live.
 Some of our debates reflect disagreement about what it means to maximize welfare or
respect freedom or cultivate virtue. Others involve disagreement about what to do when
these ideals conflict. Political philosophy cannot resolve these disagreements once and for
all. But it can give shape to the arguments we have, and bring moral clarity to the
alternatives we confront as democratic citizens.
 Laissez-faire camps are free-market libertarians who believe that justice consists in
respecting and upholding the voluntary choices made by consenting adults. The fairness
camp contains theorists of a more egalitarian bent. They argue that unfettered markets are
neither just nor free. In their view, justice requires policies that remedy social and economic
disadvantages and give everyone a fair chance at success
 Not only the Taliban, but also abolitionists and Martin Luther King, Jr., have drawn their
visions of justice from moral and religious ideals.

5. Utilitarianism
 the most influential account of how and why we should maximize welfare, or (as the
utilitarians put it) seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number
 Theories that connect justice to freedom: emphasize respect for individual rights, though
they disagree among themselves about which rights are most important.
 The idea that justice means respecting freedom and individual rights is at least as familiar in
contemporary politics as the utilitarian idea of maximizing welfare.

6. Moral dilemma and reasoning:

 One a fanciful hypothetical story much discussed by philosophers, the other an actual story
about an excruciating moral dilemma.
 Philosopher’s hypothetical. It involves a scenario stripped of many realistic complexities, so
that we can focus on a limited number of philosophical issues.
 One principle that comes into play in the trolley story says we should save as many lives as
possible, but another says it is wrong to kill an innocent person, even for a good cause.
Confronted with a situation in which saving a number of lives depends on killing an innocent
person, we face a moral quandary. We must try to figure out which principle has greater
weight, or is more appropriate under the circumstances.
 Other moral dilemmas arise because we are uncertain how events will unfold.
 Life in democratic societies is rife with disagreement about right and wrong, justice and
injustice
 Dialectic between our judgments about particular situations and the principles we affirm on
reflection, has a long tradition. It goes back to the dialogues of Socrates and the moral
philosophy of Aristotle.