Moral Philosophy

What matters? Our conduct or our

character?

Conduct Character

Consequentialism: Non-Consequentialism:
An action is good or bad based on the The right action we should take should
outcome it produces be good-in-itself

Kantianism : Universal set of principles that Virtue Ethics :

Utilitarianism : Provides greatest net utility is applicable to everybody What sort of person should we be?
Does the Quality or Quantity matter more?? What does it take for a will to be good?
Quality matters more! Quantity matters more! What constitutes to one being virtuous?

Deontology:
Quality Quantity What would best
promote the good?
Intensity x Duration Intensity x Duration x Quality Rating
Mill’s Higher and Lower Pleasure Test Is our decisions made on the basis of Good as a Whole? What must our actions fulfill? Intellectual (rational) Affective (non-rational)
Or Equally Concerned for an Episode?

Both x and y brings

similar amount of Categorical Imperatives Hypothetical Imperatives
Good as a Whole
pleasure BUT x is better
The action is necessary on its own, A necessity of an action in order to
Equally concerned achieve something
without relying on a reference
for an episode Virtue Vice
Permissible to do Impermissible to
x do y Temporal Categorical Imperative must fulfill FUL Rational + Non-rational  in agreement Rational + Non-rational  in agreement
Insensitivity Pursuing right ends
If x is permissible to do, does it take Not Moral Pursuing wrong ends
into account ones’ innocence? If you accept Temporal Imperatives
Insensitivity Harmony and Agreement Complete Indulgence
Yes No
Eg. In the case of Jim and Pedro How does one acquire virtues?
Rational  Freedom Not free or have Incontinence
Yes No Whole rational action
Fundamentalism
Do we need freedom to be rational? Perform similar actions Taking pleasure in Rational + Non-rational  in disagreement
Concerned with the Avoid extremes
by people with virtue virtuous actions Rational  right ends
Permissible to kill Commonsense quantitative whole Non-rational  wrong ends (overpower)
Doctrine of the Mean
Even though it is permissible to Conflicts with our natural process of
Personal Suppresses Rationality
kill/ sacrifice 1 Indian  does not “commonsense”.
Insensitivity Is balance important in virtues?
make it right as it does not take A utilitarian will sacrifice an innocent Yes No
into account ones innocence. person but commonsense will oppose Emphasis on oneself/ egoism
to this, even if sacrificing can solve Continence
all problems
Is the choice to do x the result of our Yes No Rational + Non-rational in disagreement
desires? Rational  right ends (overpower)
Formula of Universal Law Formula of Humanity: Not Rational
Non-rational  wrong ends
Act according to the maxim by which we can Treat humanity as an ends and never as a
Yes No Control
will for it to become a universal law. means. Doctrine of the Mean:
Flaw in Utilitarianism: Each virtue is intermediate
Nature of FUL: Nature of FH:
Requires an agent to perform an act between 2 states
1. Formulate a maxim 1. Value the ends that one sets for themselves
without objecting to their desires
2. The maxim to be applied as Universal Law 2. Value of those ends = conditional - Finding the right balance
for all rational agents 3. If you value the ends and recognize that it is - No excess or deficiency
If Step 3 fails = Perfect Duty 3. Can the maxim be applicable in the world by conditional = Recognizing that oneself has - Both rare and noble
this law of nature? worth-bestowing status
4. Can your maxim be rationally willed to be 4. If one is worth-bestowing = unconditional
If Step 4 fails = Imperfect Duty
acted upon in such a world? value (as an end in itself)
5. Step 1 – 4  virtue of ones rational nature
6. Step 5  we should treat other rational
being with the same unconditional value
(Step 4)
Is Virtue Ethics action
Objections to FUL 7. Act in a way that respects unconditional
guiding?
value

1. Sometimes we are required to Objections to FH No

refrain from performing certain
acts even if it is permissible
The problem:
2. Sometimes we are required to - Virtue Ethics tells us why
perform certain acts even when we
1. Promoting welfare: If enough performing an action is right
ought to refrain from acting
welfare is at stake it is permissible BUT, does not tell us how to
them
to use someone as a mere means turn it into action
- Self-defense - General account  specifies
3. The test might also say that some
key terms
test are permissible when it is - If both agents are virtuous but
impermissible
provides different solution,
which is the right action?
 Philosophy of Well-Being
What matters in our well-being?

Hedonism: Pain and Extrinsic

Pleasure Properties
The mind matters more
than the world
What is good for us?

Is the mere experience of having a family enough?

Or actually having a family? Desire Satisfactionism Objective List Theory

Real Contribution Requirement: Life has certain objective goods and objective bad
Intrinsic Unity between the experience and the contribution.
Properties
Pleasure is the Subjective Satisfaction of Desire
Changes in ones’ well-being must
involve changes in one’s intrinsic
properties Pluralistic Objective

Focus on collection of goods Benefits and harms can accrue to

Restriction  we should only you based on your psychology
count on Intrinsic Desires - Counting what contributes to ones’
Yes No
well-being
Problems with Desire Satisfactionisms: Solutions for Desire Satisfactionisms:
Problem 1: Changing Concurrent Intrinsic Desire
Desires Satisfactionism
Experience Experience Machine simulation is
Real Experience
Machine indistinguishable from the Real Experience How can desire be a good State of affairs = desire
Real Contribution Requirement: indicator if our desires satisfactionism only if a person
Experience Requirement if TRUE Attitude-
Unity between the experience and the contribution. changes all the time? wants something and gets it AT
= Independence
THE SAME TIME
Hedonism is TRUE
Not the case the G is not good for some
agent x, only if x or some counterpart of x

Mental State
Supervenience To be plugged in the Argument for Experience Belief
Problem 2 : Remote Desire
machine? Or not? Requirement
Is it better to do the actual thing? Or is it enough to just experience it? Desiring certain remote Desire satisfaction is satisfied if
Welfare supervenes Mental States 1. If x can benefit or harm another
states of affairs to obtain the subject believes it Starting Place Too Few Goods Too Many Goods
Change in Welfare = Change in Mental Properties without affecting their experiences
2. Nothing benefits after death Support pre-theoretic  Experience machine Desire Satisfactionism
3. Hence, nothing can benefit or harm judgements
without affecting ones’ experiences
4. If Experience Requirement holds up
= Hedonism is TRUE
5. Hedonism is TRUE Problem 3 : Defective
Intrinsic Properties
Intrinsic Desires
Argument Desires
What if the problems we Intrinsic desires can be criticized
1. Change in well-being requires change in a person’s desire are actually not good BUT criticism is an extrinsic/
Counter intuitive
intrinsic properties for us? / are worse of if those external contribution
2. Person = Body and Mind Accepting Experience Objection for Experience Perfectionism
desires are satisfied?
3. Change in person’s well-being = MUST involve change in Requirement Requirement
Criticism is directed to the end Well-being = development of ones’ natural or
intrinsic properties of Body and Mind Perfect Coherence result/ what they were led to and essential capacities
4. Change in Body and Mind can generate changes in ones’ not what they originally are. Good life for K is determined by core account
experience
of what it means to be K.
5. Change in well-being MUST involve change in
Experience
Welfare Can perfectionism be measured?
Sentietism
Who possess welfare? And what does not?
Ability to posses consciousness and capacity to
have experiences
Yes No
Yes With revisions made No
Is Sentience a necessary requirement in ones’ well- Concern with Perfectionism
being? Calculate magnitude of benefit that presence of
each good brings
Subjective Desire Actualist Desire
Satisfactionsim Satisfactionism
Also known as Intrinsic Attitudinal Problem: unable to accommodate
No Hedonism that somethings are bad for oneself
Yes
What is the connection between :
Lin’s rejection to Experience Welfare  intrinsic desires (at some What are some of the desires that are Being human and good-for-you?
Requirement. time for some state of affairs) defective?
The time of obtaining that state of
affairs  subjective desire 1. Ill-informed
The right kind of theory of
frustration 2. Irrational
well-being can account for the
3. Base
apparent fact about welfare
4. Poorly cultivated
subjects even if the
5. Pointless
requirement is false
6. Artificially aroused
7. To be badly off

If Desire Satisfactionism is TRUE Objection to Objective List Theories

Rejects Resonance
Requirement
When do we benefit Are there defective desires? 1. Can we actually improve ones’ quality of
from our desires? life by giving him a supposed good?
When we want the desire? When Yes No 2. If x has everything but fails to endorse it =
we achieve the desires? But if Actualist Desires waste of it
Satisfaction is TRUE 3. Lack desires = defective desires

There are no Defective

Concurrentism
Desire and Object Obtains
Time of Desire Time of Object Asymmetrism
Desire
Time of object occurs after
time of desire = time of object
Time of desire occurs after Actualist Desire-Satisfaction
time of object = time of desires Theory is NOT TRUE

All-necessary
conditions
You do not benefit from
satisfaction x until it has been
met (earliest time)
University University