Transcript INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY

Decision-Making
So, let’s revisit our big questions…
 Are humans responsible for their actions?
 What makes (or will make) humans happy?
 Do we need universal laws? Absolute laws?
Societal laws? Personal laws?



Analyze the actions of the characters
Determine whether or not they are responsible
Cite examples


“timshel”
Adam, Lee, Cathy, Cal
Ethics presupposes there ARE universal
principles of right and wrong…
Q: How do we know them?
A: Moral Theories
AQUINAS
WHAT WOULD GOD
WANT ME TO DO?



God’s command is the moral authority. If God
says it is right—it is. If God forbids it—it is
wrong. God is all good and all knowing.
Which “-ism” does this fall under?
To act morally, you must discover what God
wants you to do. One must discover morality.






Look to your
religious tradition
Ask advice of clergy
Pray
Read scriptures
If Christian, might
ask: What would
Jesus do?
Formation of
conscience
AQUINAS
WHAT WOULD A
RATIONAL
HUMAN BEING
DO ?




Basic moral principles are imprinted in
humans and can be discovered through use of
REASON.
“The demands of the law are written on their
hearts.” (Romans 2)
These natural laws are self-evident and are the
same for everywhere—independent of what
humans may feel, desire, believe.
Which “-ism” does this fall under?

Just as there are
physical laws
governing the
universe, so too are
there natural laws
governing human
behavior.
ASK: What would a reasonable person do?
Argument against suicide:
1.All rational people desire self-preservation
2. Suicide is the taking of one’s life
3. The taking of one’s life goes against the
basic law of self-preservation
4. Suicide is wrong according to natural law
REASON tells us this!!!
ARISTOTLE
What would a good
person (with
character and
integrity) do?
Which of these words reflect “good” behavior?
cruelty
greed
loyalty
arrogance
justice
gratitude
honesty
intolerance
kindness
laziness
honesty rudeness
brutality
generosity






We all know good when we see it.
We observe behavior, see what is good, choose
virtue and practice it.
Morality = the habit of doing the right thing.
Morality is “caught” not “taught.”
We become what we practice: we become brave
by being brave, kind by acting kindly,
courageous by acting with courage.
This theory assumes people want to be good.
Good people have a quality of honesty
Cheating on a test is not being honest
Good people would not cheat on a test
1.
RING OF GYGES
If you could become invisible, how would you act?
–
2.
MENTOR TEST
–
How would I feel if my action was witnessed by my
most revered mentor or role model?
3. PUBLICITY TEST
–
How would I feel if My contemplated action were
reported on TV, radio, news?
4. MIRROR TEST
–
If I do this action, can I look myself in the mirror and
feel pride and dignity?


The previous 3 theories believe we can
DISCOVER morality (God’s will, rational
reflection, observing behavior)
The next 2 CONSTRUCT morality: Social
Contract and Theory of Justice
Apply the three theories to each situation:


Cathy’s decision to shoot Adam
Lee’s parents’ story



Analyze the parents’ decision/behavior (lying)
Analyze the men’s decision/behavior (murder)
Tom’s suicide
HOBBES
Do you recall what he
believes about
human nature?



By nature, humans are entirely self-centered.
Left on their own, human society would be
uncontrolled egoism: no organization, strong
prey on weak, gross competition, chaos as
everyone tried to fulfill their own selfish needs.
“Life would be solitary, brutish and short.”




All humans have a desire for self-preservation
and want to be protected from the State of
Nature (a threat to their survival)
Therefore, they voluntarily give up some
freedom and accept LAWS restricting their
behavior, as long as others do the same.
“I won’t if you won’t.”
Moral code is made (constructed) when a
group of individuals reaches agreement on
laws to govern their interaction/
Morality = following
agreed upon laws


If I live in a society ,
I tacitly agree to
obey the law. I do so
because it is in my
self-interest.
What “social
contract” do you
have as a citizen?
Would this theory endorse or oppose Relativism?
ENDORSE



Humans are naturally
self-interested.
History shows than
people have a tendency
to adopt laws for own
self-interest.
Need to decide
principles (binding for
all) that a rationally,
self-interested person
would agree to accept.
Q: HOW DO WE ARRIVE AT THOSE PRINCIPLES?
A: VEIL OF IGNORANCE (ignore personal info):
 Male or female?
 Smart or ignorant?
 Black or white?
 Christian or Jew?
 Able-bodied or disabled?
 Rich or poor?
Ask the question:
What would a rational, self-interested person
decide from behind the “veil of ignorance”?
The greatest benefit should go to the
least advantaged and the possibility of
social advancement open to all.
THE PHILOSOPHER
LINKED WITH
THIS THEORY?
JOHN RAWLS
Truman had the atomic bomb. He was told of its
potential power by scientists who developed it,
and they advised him not to use it. His main
aim was to end the war. His military advisors
estimated that if an invasion of Japan was
necessary, as many as 1 million Americans
might be killed. The estimated loss of Japanese
lives using the bomb was 100,000. He reasoned
that more lives would ultimately be saved
using the bomb –ending the war and avoiding
an American invasion.
Did Truman use The Theory of Justice in making
his decision?
What theory did he use?


John Stuart Mill was a
major proponent of
this theory.
Basically, says
“motive doesn’t
matter.”
GHGN


An action is right if it produces
the Greatest
Happiness for the Greatest
Number of people, with
the least amount of pain..


Quality of happiness
counts
There is no preference
for immediate over
remote happiness
You may need to
sacrifice your own
happiness for general
good
You are only
responsible for doing
the action you thought
would produce GHGN
Motive is unimportant in determining moral
value of an action; only the consequences
determine moral value!
A = Gives to charity to save lives
B = Gives to charity for tax write-off
A & B have equal moral value!!
Immanuel Kant
totally disagrees.
The motive is
everything—moral
value is acting from
duty using the
categorical
imperative
TWO PARTS TO CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
#1
An action is right if you
could will that action
to be a universal law
for everyone.
#2
Humans must be
treated as the END
never as a MEANS
TO AN END.
He is the example of
the exact opposite of
Kant’s belief.
“The end justifies the
means.”
Now try again with the last four theories:


Cathy’s decision to shoot Adam
Lee’s parents’ story



Analyze the parents’ decision/behavior (lying)
Analyze the men’s decision/behavior (murder)
Tom’s suicide
Divine Command
Natural Law
Virtue
Social Contract
Theory of Justice
Utilitarianism
Kantian Ethics