PERS 2002 Exam 3
Key Concepts
• Moral dilemmas, for example trolley problems, are where we are
forced to challenge our intuitions and make the most ethical choice in
a hypothetical situation
• Consequentialist ethical theories consider only the consequences
of an action to determine its moral value, like utilitarianism, whereas
deontology ethical theories = Kantian ethics, where moral rules
determine the status of an action – like following the categorial
imperative
• Mill presents the Utilitarian view of acting in ways that produce the
most pleasure/happiness and the least amount of pain for everyone
involved
• Rule utilitarianism is where the moral value of an action is
determined by how well it complies with a set of moral rules, not in
individual consideration
• Kant’s categorical imperative is a universal moral dictate, the first
formulation of which is to act in ways that you can at the same time
will become universal, and the second formulation is to act in ways
that treat people never as means to an end, but ends in themselves
• Some common objections to deontology are that it requires that we
avoid lying to a murderer about the known location of their victim
which goes against our intuitions, and consequentialism can
sometimes dictate actions we intuit as immoral even if they have no
bad repercussions, like dumping someone’s ashes in a toilet, and
actions that pass the utility maximization test but allow for
discriminatory treatment, and rule consequentialism can sometimes
contradict itself
• The switch trolley problem is where we can flip a switch to divert a
trolley to a track with one person, saving five, or can push a large man
off a footbridge in the footbridge trolley problem, killing him but
saving those five on the tracks
• When people make utilitarian decisions they have more brain activity
in rational cognition areas, while deontological decisions produce
emotional brain activity
, • Pinker and Goldstein debate the origins of moral progress, with
Pinker arguing that reason rationalizes gut decisions we make and
progress comes from expanding those gut feelings in new directions,
while Goldstein argues that reason explains progress and emotion
follows along because empathy is arbitrary and progress comes from
reasoned arguments on inconsistencies
• Free will is a set of capacities for imagining, reasoning on, planning,
and acting on future courses of action while remedying competing
desires. – the ability to act otherwise in a situation -- Free will is a
precondition for blame for bad acts and receiving recognition for
accomplishments
• Willusionists believe we never have free will, that it’s an illusion or
that we simply experience our decisions, while Nahmias responds by
saying that having free will is compatible with a determinist world,
and that we can have free will even with a physical mind since it is
non-physical (we don’t necessarily need an immaterial soul)
• Determinism says every event is inevitable because of past events
that lead to it in a chain of laws. Some say we cannot thus have free
will since everything is predestined, and we cannot do otherwise
• Bypassing – our decisions sometimes occur in ways that bypass our
conscious desires and intentions, like the brain experiments about
pressing the buttons
• Dennett’s three stances of explaining the cause of agents are the
physical stance: things are explained by motion and the laws of
physics, intentional stance: entities are psychological agents acting on
beliefs and desires, and ‘reasons’ stance (free will): entities are moral
agents acting on reasons, choices, promises, plans
• Libet’s studies included asking participants to choose which button
to press, report when they have made their decision, then do it –
updated experiments in scanners show discernible neural activity up to
7 seconds before the action, showing we have already decided before
doing something, which could be the very neural decision-making that
the original experiments seem to disprove
• Haynes fMRI studies included participants choose when to press the
button up to 7/10 seconds before doing so – Nahmias responds
pointing out that this neural activity predicted the decision only 60% of
Key Concepts
• Moral dilemmas, for example trolley problems, are where we are
forced to challenge our intuitions and make the most ethical choice in
a hypothetical situation
• Consequentialist ethical theories consider only the consequences
of an action to determine its moral value, like utilitarianism, whereas
deontology ethical theories = Kantian ethics, where moral rules
determine the status of an action – like following the categorial
imperative
• Mill presents the Utilitarian view of acting in ways that produce the
most pleasure/happiness and the least amount of pain for everyone
involved
• Rule utilitarianism is where the moral value of an action is
determined by how well it complies with a set of moral rules, not in
individual consideration
• Kant’s categorical imperative is a universal moral dictate, the first
formulation of which is to act in ways that you can at the same time
will become universal, and the second formulation is to act in ways
that treat people never as means to an end, but ends in themselves
• Some common objections to deontology are that it requires that we
avoid lying to a murderer about the known location of their victim
which goes against our intuitions, and consequentialism can
sometimes dictate actions we intuit as immoral even if they have no
bad repercussions, like dumping someone’s ashes in a toilet, and
actions that pass the utility maximization test but allow for
discriminatory treatment, and rule consequentialism can sometimes
contradict itself
• The switch trolley problem is where we can flip a switch to divert a
trolley to a track with one person, saving five, or can push a large man
off a footbridge in the footbridge trolley problem, killing him but
saving those five on the tracks
• When people make utilitarian decisions they have more brain activity
in rational cognition areas, while deontological decisions produce
emotional brain activity
, • Pinker and Goldstein debate the origins of moral progress, with
Pinker arguing that reason rationalizes gut decisions we make and
progress comes from expanding those gut feelings in new directions,
while Goldstein argues that reason explains progress and emotion
follows along because empathy is arbitrary and progress comes from
reasoned arguments on inconsistencies
• Free will is a set of capacities for imagining, reasoning on, planning,
and acting on future courses of action while remedying competing
desires. – the ability to act otherwise in a situation -- Free will is a
precondition for blame for bad acts and receiving recognition for
accomplishments
• Willusionists believe we never have free will, that it’s an illusion or
that we simply experience our decisions, while Nahmias responds by
saying that having free will is compatible with a determinist world,
and that we can have free will even with a physical mind since it is
non-physical (we don’t necessarily need an immaterial soul)
• Determinism says every event is inevitable because of past events
that lead to it in a chain of laws. Some say we cannot thus have free
will since everything is predestined, and we cannot do otherwise
• Bypassing – our decisions sometimes occur in ways that bypass our
conscious desires and intentions, like the brain experiments about
pressing the buttons
• Dennett’s three stances of explaining the cause of agents are the
physical stance: things are explained by motion and the laws of
physics, intentional stance: entities are psychological agents acting on
beliefs and desires, and ‘reasons’ stance (free will): entities are moral
agents acting on reasons, choices, promises, plans
• Libet’s studies included asking participants to choose which button
to press, report when they have made their decision, then do it –
updated experiments in scanners show discernible neural activity up to
7 seconds before the action, showing we have already decided before
doing something, which could be the very neural decision-making that
the original experiments seem to disprove
• Haynes fMRI studies included participants choose when to press the
button up to 7/10 seconds before doing so – Nahmias responds
pointing out that this neural activity predicted the decision only 60% of
