response as rather than needing any justification, we can use a reliable cognitive process to
have knowledge.
Thus reliabilism overcomes scepticism as we can in fact gain knowledge from our sense
experiences, so long as we use a reliable process.
Thus reliabilism overcomes scepticism as we can in fact gain knowledge of our world with the
justification that sceptics struggle to achieve, so long as we have a true belief formed by a
reliable process.
25 marker: Is scepticism successful (?) DOES DESCARTES SUCCESSFULLY RESPOND TO
SCEPTICISM (in this case stick only to Descartes, don’t for example bring up indirect realist as
a response)
What I can include: Outline: scepticism - basket of apples, 3 waves, intuition/deduction, cogito,
godx3, external world, empiricist responses, hume fork, locke’s empiricism,tabula rasa,
involuntary nature, Russell on ‘I’, causal response.
Intro: not successful. I am going to focus on the cogito, Ontological.
Outline scepticism - 3 waves/ apples
Weak response: intuition and deductions
Why its weak:
: Cogito argument as an example of intuition and deduction.
: Why the cogito fails and thus intuition and deduction fails
Stronger response: argument for God e.g. Ontological
Weak response to Ontological
Why it’s weak (/a response to it)
Stronger critique that Ontological relies on God’s existence/ cogito
So scepticism is successful/ no response to it
Cogito weak as example of intuition and deduction
E.g Russell critique no enduring I
Stronger argument is Ontological
Critique with Kant
Strongest argument is Trademark
Strongest critique is Hume’s Fork, which overcomes both trade and ontological.
Fails to respond to scepticism.
3.2 Moral Philosophy:
3.2.1 Normative ethical theories:
The meaning of good, bad, right, wrong within each of the three approaches specified
below:
Similarities and differences across the three approaches specified below:
Apply the content of normative ethical theories to stealing, simulated killing, eating
animals and telling lies:
Utilitarianism:
The question of what is meant by ‘utility’ and ‘maximising utility’, including:
Utility is the state of being useful, profitable or beneficial.
Maximising utility therefore means to seek the most beneficial outcome from ones decisions
,Jeremy Bentham’s quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism (his utility calculus):
Utilitarians are consequentialists, judging the morality of an action based on its effects.
Bentham, as a hedonistic utilitarian, believes that good actions are those that bring about the
most pleasure. This is because humans are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance
of pain. His Act Utilitarianism therefore operates on the principle of utility - an action is right if it
produces the greatest pleasure for the greatest number - which he assesses on a case by case
basis using the Hedonic Calculus. This judges the utility brought about by an action using 7
criteria - Intensity, Duration (how long it will last), Certainty (probability the pain/ pleasure will
occur), Propinquity (nearness), Fecundity (probability of pleasure leading to other pleasures),
Purity (probability pain with lead to other pains) and Extent (how many persons affected). As a
quantitative utilitarian, he values the quantity of pleasure produced and doesn’t distinguish
between types of pleasure (unlike Mill with his higher and lower pleasures). His utilitarianism
and hedonistic calculus impartially considers the effects of a decision on anyone who can be
identified as ‘morally salient creatures’ - every being in this category counts for one and nobody
counts more than another.
John Stuart Mill’s qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism (higher and lower pleasures) and
his:
Utilitarians are consequentialists, judging the morality of an action based on its effects. Mill, as
a hedonistic utilitarian, believes that good actions are those that bring about the most pleasure.
This is demonstrated by his Happiness Principle which states that happiness is the only end in
and of itself. Actions are thus right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. As a Rule
Utilitarian, he focuses on the consequences of general rules rather than assessing each action
on a case by case basis as certain rules have been shown to yield the greatest happiness in
the past - an agent thus ought to live by certain rules regardless of how much pleasure they
bring in that moment. An a qualitative utilitarian, he takes into account the quality of each
pleasure rather than the quantity of it. We can see this with his distinction between higher
pleasures such as reading Byron which are of a higher quality than lower pleasures such as
eating food.
‘Proof’ of the greatest happiness principle:
Mill's proof of the Greatest Happiness Principle is as follows:
The only evidence that something is visible is that it can actually be seen.
Similarly, the only evidence that something is desirable is that it is actually desired.
Each person desires their own happiness. Therefore each person’s happiness is desirable.
The general happiness is desirable insofar as each person desires their own happiness.
The general happiness is a good to all persons.
It might appear that people don’t just desire happiness, but other things too, like virtues and
money.
However, these torah elements start as a means to gaining happiness for a person. One seeks
virtue because it brings happiness.
Because these elements are sought as a means of happiness, happiness should be seen as
the sole end of our conduct.
Therefore happiness is the sole good sought for its own sake.
, Non-hedonistic utilitarianism (including preference utilitarianism):
Utilitarians are consequentialists, judging the morality of an action based on its effects. Hare, as
a non-hedonistic preference utilitarian, focuses not on maximising pleasure, but on maximising
the satisfaction of people’s preferences. It acknowledges that every person’s experience of
satisfaction is unique and therefore we must take such variants into consideration when
assessing the goodness of an action. To Hare, the good is that which is subjectively preferred,
desired, or wanted.
Hare maintains that there are two levels of moral thinking. The intuitive level involves applying
general principles to individual situations learned from others culturally and environmentally.
The critical level involves the consideration of people’s preferences. To Hare, the good is that
which is subjectively preferred, desired, or wanted.
Rule utilitarianism is more like intuitive moral thinking, and when moral conflicts arise out of
this, preference utilitarianism is more useful in using critical moral thinking. For example, a law
against the discrimination of one group may not be passed under Rule if the majority are
against it, however under Preference (and Act) it could be passed on the basis that the
discriminated group have a stronger preference for the law being in place. (Act higher pleasure
from law being in place than from not being in place).
Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism:
Comparing act, rule, and preference.
Bentham (act) said that all pleasures are equal. Act= case by case basis. Mill (rule) said there
are higher and lower pleasures. Rule= general rules to follow. Hare (preference) said it
depends on the individual and their particular circumstance (strength of preference).
Act and rule and hedonistic. Preference is not hedonistic.
Issues including:
Whether pleasure is the only good (Nozick’s experience machine):
Nozick’s experience machine can respond to hedonistic utilitarianism by undermining that all
we desire is happiness/ pleasure. Nozick's thought experiment is as follows:
Suppose there was an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired,
neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel that you were
doing anything you wanted, such as writing a great novel. All the time you would be floating in a
tank, unaware however that your experiences weren’t real. Nozick asks us to consider whether
we would plug into the machine for the rest of our lives.
If Bentham (response to act) is correct that as a matter of fact all we desire is happiness/
pleasure, then we would have no good reason not to plug into the machine (assuming it
increased the quantity of pleasure experienced.)
However, there are actually a number of good reasons we may not want to plug into the
machine, such as that we want to share reality with other people, or we care about being
connected to reality.
This highlights the issue with Bentham's view in that it doesn’t make sense of our considered
moral beliefs, many people would rather be in a world where their experiences were genuine.
This therefore undermines Bentham’s view (/hedonistic utilitarian) that pleasure is the only
good as we may not want to plug into a machine that gives us more pleasure, thus undermining
Bentham’s utilitarianism as it relies upon the pursuit of happiness being the ultimate goal.
have knowledge.
Thus reliabilism overcomes scepticism as we can in fact gain knowledge from our sense
experiences, so long as we use a reliable process.
Thus reliabilism overcomes scepticism as we can in fact gain knowledge of our world with the
justification that sceptics struggle to achieve, so long as we have a true belief formed by a
reliable process.
25 marker: Is scepticism successful (?) DOES DESCARTES SUCCESSFULLY RESPOND TO
SCEPTICISM (in this case stick only to Descartes, don’t for example bring up indirect realist as
a response)
What I can include: Outline: scepticism - basket of apples, 3 waves, intuition/deduction, cogito,
godx3, external world, empiricist responses, hume fork, locke’s empiricism,tabula rasa,
involuntary nature, Russell on ‘I’, causal response.
Intro: not successful. I am going to focus on the cogito, Ontological.
Outline scepticism - 3 waves/ apples
Weak response: intuition and deductions
Why its weak:
: Cogito argument as an example of intuition and deduction.
: Why the cogito fails and thus intuition and deduction fails
Stronger response: argument for God e.g. Ontological
Weak response to Ontological
Why it’s weak (/a response to it)
Stronger critique that Ontological relies on God’s existence/ cogito
So scepticism is successful/ no response to it
Cogito weak as example of intuition and deduction
E.g Russell critique no enduring I
Stronger argument is Ontological
Critique with Kant
Strongest argument is Trademark
Strongest critique is Hume’s Fork, which overcomes both trade and ontological.
Fails to respond to scepticism.
3.2 Moral Philosophy:
3.2.1 Normative ethical theories:
The meaning of good, bad, right, wrong within each of the three approaches specified
below:
Similarities and differences across the three approaches specified below:
Apply the content of normative ethical theories to stealing, simulated killing, eating
animals and telling lies:
Utilitarianism:
The question of what is meant by ‘utility’ and ‘maximising utility’, including:
Utility is the state of being useful, profitable or beneficial.
Maximising utility therefore means to seek the most beneficial outcome from ones decisions
,Jeremy Bentham’s quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism (his utility calculus):
Utilitarians are consequentialists, judging the morality of an action based on its effects.
Bentham, as a hedonistic utilitarian, believes that good actions are those that bring about the
most pleasure. This is because humans are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance
of pain. His Act Utilitarianism therefore operates on the principle of utility - an action is right if it
produces the greatest pleasure for the greatest number - which he assesses on a case by case
basis using the Hedonic Calculus. This judges the utility brought about by an action using 7
criteria - Intensity, Duration (how long it will last), Certainty (probability the pain/ pleasure will
occur), Propinquity (nearness), Fecundity (probability of pleasure leading to other pleasures),
Purity (probability pain with lead to other pains) and Extent (how many persons affected). As a
quantitative utilitarian, he values the quantity of pleasure produced and doesn’t distinguish
between types of pleasure (unlike Mill with his higher and lower pleasures). His utilitarianism
and hedonistic calculus impartially considers the effects of a decision on anyone who can be
identified as ‘morally salient creatures’ - every being in this category counts for one and nobody
counts more than another.
John Stuart Mill’s qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism (higher and lower pleasures) and
his:
Utilitarians are consequentialists, judging the morality of an action based on its effects. Mill, as
a hedonistic utilitarian, believes that good actions are those that bring about the most pleasure.
This is demonstrated by his Happiness Principle which states that happiness is the only end in
and of itself. Actions are thus right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. As a Rule
Utilitarian, he focuses on the consequences of general rules rather than assessing each action
on a case by case basis as certain rules have been shown to yield the greatest happiness in
the past - an agent thus ought to live by certain rules regardless of how much pleasure they
bring in that moment. An a qualitative utilitarian, he takes into account the quality of each
pleasure rather than the quantity of it. We can see this with his distinction between higher
pleasures such as reading Byron which are of a higher quality than lower pleasures such as
eating food.
‘Proof’ of the greatest happiness principle:
Mill's proof of the Greatest Happiness Principle is as follows:
The only evidence that something is visible is that it can actually be seen.
Similarly, the only evidence that something is desirable is that it is actually desired.
Each person desires their own happiness. Therefore each person’s happiness is desirable.
The general happiness is desirable insofar as each person desires their own happiness.
The general happiness is a good to all persons.
It might appear that people don’t just desire happiness, but other things too, like virtues and
money.
However, these torah elements start as a means to gaining happiness for a person. One seeks
virtue because it brings happiness.
Because these elements are sought as a means of happiness, happiness should be seen as
the sole end of our conduct.
Therefore happiness is the sole good sought for its own sake.
, Non-hedonistic utilitarianism (including preference utilitarianism):
Utilitarians are consequentialists, judging the morality of an action based on its effects. Hare, as
a non-hedonistic preference utilitarian, focuses not on maximising pleasure, but on maximising
the satisfaction of people’s preferences. It acknowledges that every person’s experience of
satisfaction is unique and therefore we must take such variants into consideration when
assessing the goodness of an action. To Hare, the good is that which is subjectively preferred,
desired, or wanted.
Hare maintains that there are two levels of moral thinking. The intuitive level involves applying
general principles to individual situations learned from others culturally and environmentally.
The critical level involves the consideration of people’s preferences. To Hare, the good is that
which is subjectively preferred, desired, or wanted.
Rule utilitarianism is more like intuitive moral thinking, and when moral conflicts arise out of
this, preference utilitarianism is more useful in using critical moral thinking. For example, a law
against the discrimination of one group may not be passed under Rule if the majority are
against it, however under Preference (and Act) it could be passed on the basis that the
discriminated group have a stronger preference for the law being in place. (Act higher pleasure
from law being in place than from not being in place).
Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism:
Comparing act, rule, and preference.
Bentham (act) said that all pleasures are equal. Act= case by case basis. Mill (rule) said there
are higher and lower pleasures. Rule= general rules to follow. Hare (preference) said it
depends on the individual and their particular circumstance (strength of preference).
Act and rule and hedonistic. Preference is not hedonistic.
Issues including:
Whether pleasure is the only good (Nozick’s experience machine):
Nozick’s experience machine can respond to hedonistic utilitarianism by undermining that all
we desire is happiness/ pleasure. Nozick's thought experiment is as follows:
Suppose there was an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired,
neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel that you were
doing anything you wanted, such as writing a great novel. All the time you would be floating in a
tank, unaware however that your experiences weren’t real. Nozick asks us to consider whether
we would plug into the machine for the rest of our lives.
If Bentham (response to act) is correct that as a matter of fact all we desire is happiness/
pleasure, then we would have no good reason not to plug into the machine (assuming it
increased the quantity of pleasure experienced.)
However, there are actually a number of good reasons we may not want to plug into the
machine, such as that we want to share reality with other people, or we care about being
connected to reality.
This highlights the issue with Bentham's view in that it doesn’t make sense of our considered
moral beliefs, many people would rather be in a world where their experiences were genuine.
This therefore undermines Bentham’s view (/hedonistic utilitarian) that pleasure is the only
good as we may not want to plug into a machine that gives us more pleasure, thus undermining
Bentham’s utilitarianism as it relies upon the pursuit of happiness being the ultimate goal.
