From Last TimeFrom Last Time

The good will is the only good thing in an The good will is the only good thing in an ‘unqualified way”‘unqualified way”

Acting from duty vs. acting in accord with Acting from duty vs. acting in accord with dutyduty

Categorical vs. hypothetical imperativesCategorical vs. hypothetical imperatives

Universalizability test for duty (four Universalizability test for duty (four examples)examples)

Second formulation of the Second formulation of the categorical imperativecategorical imperative

Treat other people not merely as a means, Treat other people not merely as a means, but also as an end.but also as an end.

We always use other people, but Kant We always use other people, but Kant thinks its wrong to treat other people just thinks its wrong to treat other people just as instruments, as things to be used for as instruments, as things to be used for other purposes.other purposes.

Kant and AristotleKant and Aristotle

Kant takes as fundamental the notion of duty—Kant takes as fundamental the notion of duty—the right action done from a respect for the moral the right action done from a respect for the moral law. A good person will be one who acts this law. A good person will be one who acts this way (from duty)way (from duty)

Aristotle thinks a good person will do the right Aristotle thinks a good person will do the right thing from inclination. They will want to be thing from inclination. They will want to be virtuous. For Aristotle what is fundamental is virtuous. For Aristotle what is fundamental is what makes a person virtuous, not what makes what makes a person virtuous, not what makes a particular action righta particular action right

An argument against KantAn argument against Kant

If Kant’s view is true, some duties are If Kant’s view is true, some duties are absolute. It is always wrong to make a absolute. It is always wrong to make a lying promiselying promise

But it is obviously right to make a lying But it is obviously right to make a lying promise when you can save an innocent promise when you can save an innocent person’s life by doing soperson’s life by doing so

Therefore, Kant’s moral theory is incorrectTherefore, Kant’s moral theory is incorrect

UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

The right action is the action that, of the The right action is the action that, of the alternatives available to you, produces the alternatives available to you, produces the greatest net pleasure relative to pain.greatest net pleasure relative to pain.

Consequentialism: The consequences Consequentialism: The consequences determine what is right or wrongdetermine what is right or wrong

Hedonism: the only thing that is good for Hedonism: the only thing that is good for its own sake is pleasure. The only thing its own sake is pleasure. The only thing bad for its own sake is painbad for its own sake is pain

Is Hedonism true?Is Hedonism true?

Aristotle and Mill: two different conceptions Aristotle and Mill: two different conceptions of Happiness.of Happiness.

Aristotle: Happiness as pleasure too Aristotle: Happiness as pleasure too “brutish”“brutish”

Mill: There are different kinds of pleasures. Mill: There are different kinds of pleasures. All pleasure is good, but human beings All pleasure is good, but human beings can experience qualitatively better, can experience qualitatively better, “higher” pleasures. “higher” pleasures.

The competent judge argument.The competent judge argument.

If intellectual pleasures are preferred over If intellectual pleasures are preferred over physical pleasures by those who physical pleasures by those who experience them both, this shows experience them both, this shows intellectual pleasures are superiorintellectual pleasures are superior

People who have experienced both sorts People who have experienced both sorts of pleasures prefer intellectual pleasuresof pleasures prefer intellectual pleasures

Therefore, intellectual pleasures are Therefore, intellectual pleasures are superior to physical pleasures.superior to physical pleasures.

What are intellectual and physical What are intellectual and physical pleasures?pleasures?

Intellectual pleasures consist of, e.g. Intellectual pleasures consist of, e.g. Appreciation of art, literature, philosophy Appreciation of art, literature, philosophy (duh), science. (duh), science.

What is a physical pleasure? Food and What is a physical pleasure? Food and drink and sex—any pleasure that is shared drink and sex—any pleasure that is shared with non-human animals.with non-human animals.

What about the pleasures of casual non-What about the pleasures of casual non-intellectual conversation, of sports, etc. ?intellectual conversation, of sports, etc. ?

Is the argument good?Is the argument good?

Do those who prefer intellectual to Do those who prefer intellectual to physical pleasures really have adequate physical pleasures really have adequate experience of physical pleasures?experience of physical pleasures?

Does the preference indicate an objective Does the preference indicate an objective fact about the pleasures, or a fact about fact about the pleasures, or a fact about the kind of person who makes the the kind of person who makes the judgment?judgment?

Utilitarianism and rulesUtilitarianism and rules

Moral rules are important but they do not Moral rules are important but they do not define or constitute moralitydefine or constitute morality

Moral rules, such as “do not lie” are useful Moral rules, such as “do not lie” are useful because they generally provide good because they generally provide good advice about what actions would produce advice about what actions would produce the most happiness relative to the most happiness relative to unhappinessunhappiness

Always possible to have exceptions.Always possible to have exceptions.

Utilitarianism and the virtuesUtilitarianism and the virtues

Virtues are good to cultivate because they Virtues are good to cultivate because they are character traits that in general lead to are character traits that in general lead to actions that produce better consequences.actions that produce better consequences.

A possible counterexample to A possible counterexample to utilitarianismutilitarianism

Suppose someone goes to the doctor with a Suppose someone goes to the doctor with a headache. The doctor kills this patient and headache. The doctor kills this patient and uses the organs to save the lives of five uses the organs to save the lives of five other people. other people.

It looks like this doctor performed an action It looks like this doctor performed an action that has much better consequences than that has much better consequences than the alternative.the alternative.

But was it really the right action?But was it really the right action?