philosophy 101 final exam Montana state University with correct answers

Moral Theory - answer-What makes an act right? How do we decide what is the right thing to do? Empirical facts - answer-Not for us to create, but learn Logical truths - answer-discovered, not invented Normative Ethics - answer-the study of how people SHOULD make ethical decisions, regardless of how they actually make them. Describes what ought to be the case. This is what philosophers specialize in. Descriptive Ethics - answer-describing the principles that people in fact, do use , to make moral judgements. Sciences like psychology, sociology, and anthropology. The researcher is "neutral." Describes what IS the case. Sociobiology - answer-Can biology tell us what is right and wrong? Key idea: natural selection has determined what kind of social behavior has survival for the species, or at least your clan or tribe. E.O Wilson Sociobiology's approach to normative ethics - answer--An understanding of why people do in fact behave the way they do yields a theory about they SHOULD behave. This commits the naturalistic fallacy, assuming we can derive an ought from an is. Just because something is the case doesn't mean it should be the case. -This argument might have more force if we were bound by our biology and couldn't do otherwise. But the history of moral progress would indicate that's not true. We have eliminated slavery, for example. Emotivism - answer--the doctrine that moral utterances are simply expressions of emotions, and have no truth value , for they are not making any real claims about the world. -For example, saying cheating on a test is wrong is actually equivalent to saying, "cheating? Boo" -The theory of meaning that generated it was the verifiability theory of meaning popular in the mid part of the 20th century, championed by a school of thought called logical positivism: if a sentence cannot be verified (if there is no way to determine what would make it true or false), then it is cognitively meaningless-- that is, neither true nor false. Criticisms of Emotivism - answer--can't account for any real moral disagreements, which flies in the face of common sense. Saying Hitler was wrong to murder 6 million Jews means more than just "Hitler-Boo" -If this theory is correct, then we can't condemn something like torturing innocent children as genuinely wrong. But is it right? -Common sense can be wrong, but you need good reasons to reject it. Emotivism does not offer any. Objection to using a moral code to decide right from wrong - answer-they can offer guidance, but they can't function as full blown theories of what makes an act right or wrong, for they are often too general or specific to solve a moral problem, and they can offer conflicting advice. -What if my parents tell me to steal? What if the only way to save a bunch of people is to kill one? "Bizarre consequences" of individual realism - answer--you can never be wrong, (assuming you fully know the situation and have thought it through). -You are morally infallible by definition. -You make an action right simply by agreeing with it. -Moral disagreement is reduced to persuasion and matters of opinion, nothing objective. Most importantly, if taken to its logical conclusion, it leads to judgements no one would accept. Ex; if Hitler thought what murdering Jews was right , then it was right for him. Individual realsim - answer-nothing is ultimately right or wrong, depends on the individual. Whenever someone says an action is right, what that means is, it is right for them. Divine Command Theory - answer-Morally right actions are those decreed by God. What makes an action right is that God approves of it. God created morality. No God, no morality. Complications for Divine Command theory - answer--Would seem to imply that morality has an inescapable arbitrary element to it. -If God had decreed that murder was OK, then it would be? -On the other hand, if murder is wrong regardless of what God says, then God must not be the ultimate creator of morality (though he may be the ultimate enforcer). -Even if there is no God, isn't murder still wrong? Would imply morality ultimately does not rest on there being a supernatural being. cultural relativism - answer-- more sophisticated and progressive kind of moral relativism. -Moral rights and wrongs are relative to a culture (or even a subgroup in a society). Virtues of Cultural Relativism - answer--Promotes tolerance and acceptance of differences, leading to more empathy and compassion. Diffuses belief in the superiority of one's way of doing things. -Counteracts black and white thinking, us vs. them. Good antidote to ethnocentrism. Encourages us to try to understand a culture's beliefs and practices from within that culture's point of view. Challenges to Cultural Relativism - answer--Would seem to deny universal moral truths. Isn't sex trafficking of children wrong, no matter what? Isn't female genital surgery wrong, no matter what? -What about the notion of universal human rights? -How can we claim the world has made moral progress, in things like outlawing slavery, giving women the right to vote, protecting workers, etc? How to solve the problem of Cultural Relativism? - answer--Cultural practices are not the same thing as moral judgements. We need to understand the larger context within which the practice occurs. -Cross cultural moral-disagreements may not lie in moral principles, but in the factual beliefs. -Moral standard + factual beliefs= moral judgement -Perhaps everyone believes equals should be treated equally, but we disagree on what constitutes being equal. What differs are our views about the nature of reality, not the nature of morality. Consequentialism - answer--an ethical theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. -seek to maximize "intrinsic value", things that are valuable for their own sake. -Also called teleological theories -the consequences sought after are typically non-moral goods, such as happiness, or pleasure (things that are valuable in and of themselves, and need no further justification. Happiness is "intrinsically valuable"). So a right action would be the one that maximizes happiness or pleasure, and minimizes suffering Ethical Egoism - answer--(a strange version of consequentialism) -Whose happiness or pleasure should we try to maximize? This theory says just your own. What makes an action right for an ethical egoist is that it promotes one's own best interests -need not all agree on what that best interest is. For some it might be pleasure, pure and simple (hedonism). For others it might be knowledge, power, self-realization -Is not the same as saying do only what you want to do, because what you want to do at any one moment may not be in your own best interest -A sophisticated, disciplined ethical egoist will weigh his/her "best interests" against current desires. How might one respond to the claim we are all hardwired to be egoists? Use examples in your explanation. (possible essay question) - answer- Psychological Egoism (hedonism) - answer--We can't help but act in our own self-interest. To act voluntarily, to act on a desire, just is to act in our own self-interest. We can't help but be "selfish" 2 Criticisms of Ethical Egoism as a moral code - answer--As an "ethical" theory it would seem to condone evil acts so long as they are in the egoist's best interest. But that's not what an "ethical" theory is about. -You can't preach what you practice. Ethical theories are generally regarded on principles of equality, that equals deserve equal treatment. But it is not in the egoist's interest to try to universalize her theory. The clever egoist will not openly act like one, and will encourage others to act altruistically. Traditional utilitarianism ("Act-utilitarianism"): - answer--The right action is one that maximizes happiness for everyone affected by the act. -Basic intuition: Seek to maximize the total amount of good or happiness in the world (and minimize suffering). -Original proponent, British philosopher, Jeremy Bentham Hedonic Calculus (Bentham) - answer-The happiness produced by different kinds of actions can differ only in degree, not kind. So happiness derived from graduating with honors is not inherently better than that derived from getting drunk. Let's just measure how much overall happiness might be derived from any particular action. Factors taken into consideration in employing his "Hedonic Calculus"? - answer--Intensity -Duration -Probability -Propinquity (nearness in time) -Fecundity ( probability it will produce more happiness in the future) -Impurity (probability that it will produce less happiness in the future) John Stuart Mill's version of Utilitarianism - answer--"it is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that, while in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to spend on quantity alone." Main problems of utilitarianism - answer--Who determines the quality of happiness achieved from different activities? Mill: Those who have experienced both (all?), then go with the majority. -But the masses may well prefer lower or baser pleasures -To maintain the distinction between higher and lower pleasures, Mill must appeal to another standard of value besides utility. But then he is going outside the theory of utilitarianism -How can you calculate on the spot? -How do you know your calculation is any good? -How far out into the future do you consider potential consequences? An act that produces little happiness in the short term may produce a great deal of happiness in the future. -What about animals? Bentham believed what made a being worthy of moral consideration was not whether it could reason, but whether it could suffer. So what about animals? Do they need to be factored in to the utilitarian's calculations? Rule Utilitarianism - answer--An act is right if it follows a rule that, if generally followed, would maximize happiness, everyone considered. -But once we start down this path, we eventually collapse back in to act utilitarianism. Where do we draw the line with exceptions? And still, there is nothing in the theory inherently committed to rights, duties, justice. Problem with utilitarianism - answer--Even if happiness is an intrinsic good, is it the only intrinsic good? Should an ethical theory be solely concerned with promoting "happiness"? Teleological moral theory - answer- Deontological Moral Theory - answer--The rightness of an act is determined not by its consequences, but its form, by the kind of action it is. -also called formalist theories - reject the utilitarian assumption that happiness is the highest good and the only thing intrinsically valuable. -Even if an action does not turn out the way you planned, it can still be morally right. Its rightness is determined before and independent of its consequences -Good people do good for goodness' sake, not because they want something in return Categorical Imperative - answer--For Kant, the only thing intrinsically valuable and in need of no further justification, is a good will: "It is impossible to conceive of anything at all in the world, or even out if it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will." -To have a good will is to desire to do the right thing because it's right—not because you or others benefit. Good people do good for the sake of good, not because they expect anything in return. Hypothetical Imperative - answer-demand you do certain things only if there is a certain end or goal you desire. For example, if you want to be a good student, study diligently. Categorical Imperative - answer--is one that must be obeyed under any circumstances. For Kant, moral principles are categorical imperatives, hence his moral theory has come to called the "categorical imperative." Kant's 2 thought experiments - answer--Thought experiment 1: To determine whether a particular action is moral, imagine what the world would be like if everyone acted on that principle. If such a world is conceivable, and you would be willing to live in it, then it is morally permissible to act on that principle. (This is universalizability)• -Thought experiment 2: Put yourself in the other person's shoes and decide whether you would let them do to you what you are about to do to them. If not, refrain from performing the action. (This is reversibility)—like the golden rule, except focuses on the principle in question, not the people involved. Kant's Categorical Imperative, first formulation - answer--An action is right if it meets two conditions, universalizability and reversibility. -Universalizable: Everyone can act on the principle. (e.g. can't universalize a principle such as, "borrow money on the basis of a false promise whenever you need it." -Reversible: You would be willing to have everyone act on it. (similar to the "golden rule"—do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Perfect duties, established by the categorical imperative - answer-not kill innocent people, do not lie, do not break promises Kant's Categorical Imperative, Second formulation - answer--An action is right if it treats people as ends in themselves and not merely as means to an end -To treat people as "ends in themselves" is to treat them as being intrinsically valuable, that is, valuable for their own sakes, verses instrumentally valuable, value for the sake of something else Problems with the Categorical Imperative - answer--Isn't it possible that some people would be willing to have everyone act on certain principles that are clearly wrong? E.g., only white men should ever be allowed to be President. -Are there really any "perfect duties", ones that admit of no exceptions? You may break a promise to meet a friend to stop and assist at a roadside accident. You may feel that killing one innocent person if it saves the lives of many more innocent people is justified -But what about those thorny moral dilemmas where it seems we have to consider consequences. Don't we have to sometimes treat people as means to end, to avoid the greater evil? If the evil to be avoided is great enough, no duty is absolutely inviolable. Give a detailed explanation of Rawl's "veil of ignorance" thought experiment, and what it was designed to show. - answer-Thought experiment: Suppose six hungry people have equal claim to a slice of an uncut pie. We'll draw straws for who gets to do the slicing. How do we ensure fairness? Simple: Make the person cutting get the last choice. -Can we generalize this method to distributing goods in society in general? -The parties to the social contract are in an original position of being behind a "veil of ignorance" with regards to their natures or position in society. -This means they are bargaining on a social contract for how to set up society, while not knowing anything about who they will be in terms of their race, age, sex, religion, social position, income, sexual orientation, talents, abilities, physical aptitudes, health, etc -So, Bargain on the assumption that for all you know, you will come into the world poor, or part of a historically underprivileged group, handicapped, with one parent, few talents, limited IQ, etc. KEY POINT: Behind a veil of ignorance, any rational and self-interested person will only agree to a contract that protects the least among society, and discriminates against no particular group. Contractarianism - answer--HOW DO WE PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON GOOD WHILE RESPECTING RIGHTS AND UPHOLDING OUR DUTIES? -"Justice as fairness" -In other words, freedom is intrinsically valuable, and is more valuable than happiness or pleasure The three principles Rawls claims people would agree to behind a veil of ignorance - answer-1) The principle of equal liberty: each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. 2) The principle of fair equality of opportunity: offices and positions are to be open to all under conditions of fair equality and opportunity. 3) The difference principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons. Major problem with all the theories we have examined so far? - answer--What about caring for those we love? Kohlberg's highly influential descriptive (and normative!) six stages of moral development - answer-1) Punishment and obedience: obey authority to avoid punishment. 2) Self-interest: make deals to benefit oneself. 3) Interpersonal accord and conformity: Be good to fit in with others. 4) Authority and social order: Obey the law out of a sense of duty. 5) Social contract: Adhere to principles that benefit society. 6) Universal ethical principles: Adhere to abstract principles that benefit everyone. Gilligan's challenge to Kohlberg's views - answer--claimed from her research that women tend to make ethical decisions differently (Kohlberg's system was based entirely off interviews with boys and men) Gilligan's Ethics of Care - answer--When faced with moral decisions or dilemmas, men tend to think about rights and responsibilities. Women tend to think about compassion and care, about who is involved. Men want justice to be served, women care more about preserving and nurturing relationships (though not at the expense of justice). -An ethics of care simply emphasizes an aspect of our moral lives that the traditional (male philosopher created) moral theories tend to overlook—namely that our relationships matter in deciding what it the morally right thing to do. So maybe we should add it to the recipe for making moral decisions. -Not a full blown ethical theory What was the central empirical claim of Gilligan's regarding gender differences in moral decision making? - answer--When faced with moral decisions or dilemmas, men tend to think about rights and responsibilities. Women tend to think about compassion and care, about who is involved. Men want justice to be served, women care more about preserving What distinguishes and Ethics of Care from all the other moral theories we examined? - answer-Unless further developed, knowing we should factor our commitments and relationships into our ethical decisions does not by itself tell us what to do. (Not that any of the theories we have examined so far, have! What problems do we run into when we try to apply the concept of being a virtuous person to utilitarianism or Kantianism? - answer--For act-utilitarianism, a virtuous person would be one who always tries to maximize happiness. -This asks too much. We lose the distinction between doing one's moral duty, and going above and beyond what's required. (If the money I spend on dinner out could have sponsored a child for a month in a poor country, I would seem to be morally obligated to give that money instead to charity, according to utilitarianism.) -In obeying the categorical imperative, Kantianism requires us to always act out of a sense of duty. But that isn't always enough. -A virtuous person will perform her duties, but not simply out of a sense of duty, but also for reasons of love, empathy, and compassion How does virtue ethics change the focus in discussions about morality? - answer-The emphasis changes from doing the right thing, to developing one's moral character, to living a virtuous life Understand the argument for how judging your virtues might collapse virtue ethics back into an ethics of duty. (from the readings). - answer- Virtue Ethics - answer--Virtue ethics focuses on what it is to lead a good life, instead of what it is to do the right thing. -So let's assume the purpose of morality is to enable us to live together in such a way that everyone has an equal chance to flourish, to realize their full potential while leading good lives. Cartesian Dualism argument #1: The conceivability argument - answer-1)An attribute is essential to something if and only if it's inconceivable that the thing exists without it. 2) It is conceivable for me to exist and not have a body. 3) Therefore my body is not essential to me. 4) It is inconceivable for me to exist and not have a mind. 5) Therefore my mind is essential to me Cartesian Dualism (the ghost in the machine) - answer--Mental states are states of an immaterial substance that interacts with the body. (Allows for survival after death) Cartesian Dualism argument #2: Indivisibility argument - answer-1)If minds are identical to bodies, then whatever is true of minds is true of bodies, and vice versa. 2. Minds are indivisible and bodies are divisible. 3. Therefore, minds are not identical to bodies. Objections to Conceivability argument - answer- objections to the indivisibility argument - answer-Even if Descartes is right and minds are indivisible, it doesn't follow necessarily that they are independent from bodies and can exist apart from them. -Analogy: voices are not vocal cords. Losing your voice is not the same as losing your vocal cords, it is losing the capacity to produce sound. That capacity isn't divisible, yet it is fully dependent on vocal cords and cannot exist independent of them. So maybe minds are a "capacity" of an embodied brain Regarding the mind/body question, the bible supports... - answer--Most Biblical scholars agree that the Biblical picture of a person is non-dualistic, soul-body unity The problem of interaction for the Cartesian Dualist - answer--How can an immaterial mind interact with a material brain/body? Answers that appeal to any biochemical processes, like neuro-transmitters, electromagnetism, "energy", etc, just push the question back one step, for all of those things are still on the matter side of the divide. For example, how does the immaterial mind cause neurotransmitters to fluctuate? -This just is the problem of the "Ghost in the Machine. Epiphenomenalism - answer-Yes, there are Cartesian minds, but they have no causal powers. -The mind arises out of, and is caused by, the brain, but it is merely an ineffective byproduct of physical processes -Solution to the cartesian dualist problem (there is no interaction) Identity Theory - answer-A reductionist theory-reduces mental states to brain states - mental states are effected by changes in brain states Virtues of Identity Theory - answer-Compared to Cartesian dualism, a simpler and more conservative theory because a) it doesn't assume the existence of a mysterious non-detectable mental "substance" (supernatural stuff), and b) it fits well with existing scientific theory and methods of studying cognition. -consistent with the fact that we have no solid evidence that the mind survives the death of the brain. -it is a fruitful theory. Leads to successful research programs on how to alleviate effects of dementia, mental illness, PTSD, etc -it has broad scope. That is, it accounts for a wide range of mental phenomena Carbon Chauvinism - answer-being unwilling to acknowledge that non-carbon based entities could have minds) The doctrine of multiple realizability - answer-minds can be realized in things other than brains Use Gilbert Ryle's notion of a "category mistake" to critique the idea that the "mind" is anything more than just the sum total of the various mental properties we already talk about, such as thoughts and feelings and sensations. (possible essay question) - answer- Objection to Identity Theory - answer--Misses qualitative experience -Minds and brains don't seem to have exactly the same properties. The subjective 1st person character of conscious experience, what it is like to be you at this moment, is not capturable by describing some brain state, even if the brain state and conscious experience are strictly correlated Functionalism - answer-mental states are functional states. Your mind is the software that is running on your brain. AKA our minds are like computers. Virtues of functionalism - answer--Does not limit minds to organisms with carbon based brains. -Raises the possibility of indefinite life: "If you can make a machine that contains the contents of your mind, then that machine is you. The hell with the rest of your physical body, it's not very interesting. Turing Test - answer-The "standard interpretation" of the Turing Test, in which player C, the interrogator, is given the task of trying to determine which player- A or B- is a computer and which is a human. The interrogator is limited to using the responses to written questions to make the determination. -designed to show that the mind is just about function. John Searle's Chinese Room Example (1980) - answer-A person (or machine) in the room with a very detailed rule book could successfully imitate speaking and understanding Chinese enough to fool real speakers of Chinese, but we would NOT say the being in the room speaks Chinese. The being is manipulating symbols solely on the basis of their physical features or forms (rules for syntax), but not on the basis of their meaning (semantics) -supposed to illustrate that there is more to thinking than just running a program of successful inputs and outputs. Intentionality - answer--Mental states have intentionality. -Intentionality in this case does not mean doing something on purpose (common usage), but the property of being directed on our about something. -Functionalism is lacking in intentionality Emergent Materialism, non-reductive materialism: - answer-Mental properties are emergent properties that arise out of sufficiently complex physical properties, but are not reducible to those physical properties. -An Emergent property comes into being when various individual things which lack that property (say neurons) interact together in certain ways -An emergent property is one that is had by a whole, but not any of its parts. So while a neuron can not have a mental state, a sufficient number of them, interacting in the right way, can. Consciousness emerges from a certain level of physical (neurological) complexity. Property Dualism - answer-Mental states have both physical and nonphysical properties, but those nonphysical properties are not grounded in ghostly stuff, in supernatural substance, they are rather their own primitive (i.e. irreducible) kind of property. Virtue of property dualism - answer-Can preserve our intuition that mental states—our desire, beliefs, intentions—effect our behavior. Pan Psychism - answer-Not every physical thing has consciousness, but every physical thing, down to the subatomic level, has "mental properties" -MENTAL PROPERTIES ARE IN EVERYTHINg Double aspect theory - answer-Rather, mental and physical properties are two different "aspects" of a single underlying substance that is neither physical nor mental -THERE IS A MORE FUNDAMENTAL REALITY, OUT OF WHICH MENTAL AN PHYSICAL PROPERTIES ARE JUST TWO DIFFERENT ASPECTS Humans have a history because of technology - answer-the story of humanity is the story of changing our environment, which is the story of technology. Explain the idea that technology may not give you more choices, just different choices, using two examples not given in the lecture. (possible essay question) - answer- What did Max mean by making the claim that this could also be characterized as the age of missing information? Illustrate with two of your own examples (possible essay question) - answer-This could also be characterized as the age of missing information because while we do have a lot of information at the tips of our fingers, we also have a lot of missing information. Do we know how to grow food? Read the weather? Sew your own clothes? Recognize the flora and fauna in your region? Our ancestors knew tons of things we have lost. What kinds of knowledge are most worth having? Understand Pang's concept of the monkey mind, and how media technology caters to it. - answer-you are born with a "monkey mind" -The monkey mind leaps about and never stays in one place, it is undisciplined and jittery. -it flits about, "attracted to today's infinite and ever-changing buffet of information choices and devices. It thrives on overload, is drawn to shiny and blinky things, and doesn't distinguish between good and bad technologies or choices. Extended Mind Thesis - answer--claims that our mind and associated cognitive processes are neither skull-bound nor even body-bound, but extend into the surrounding environment via objects and technologies that help us negotiate reality. Why did Sartre think the question of God's existence was largely irrelevant to the question of how to live? - answer--Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing." Translation, God or no God, you still have to decide what to believe, how to live your life, what's true. You can't escape responsibility for your life and choices. You are condemned to freedom. Why does Camus think Sisyphus is the absurd hero? - answer--The myth of Sisyphus: Opening line of the essay: " There is but one serious philosophical question, and that is suicide...judging whether life is or is not worth living is answering rthe fundamental question of philosophy." -Camus' answer: be the "absurd hero." Humans want meaning. They can't help but quest for it. The universe will never grant it. That is absurd. Life is repetition with no ultimate meaning, and no lasting results. We are all Sisyphus, rolling our rock up the hill. -Camus' answer to living a meaningful life, "roll your rock defiantly, even joyfully, knowing all along it will roll back down, and your life ultimately amounts to nothing. -the clash is between us and a meaningful world. Compare and contrast Camus and Nagel's views on what gives rise to the feeling of absurdity in human existence? - answer--Nagel's view is that the clash is not between us and a meaningless world, but between us and any conceivable world that contained us. -As long as we are human, our questions will always outrun our answers. The essence of the absurdity of our lives lies in "...the collision between the seriousness with which we take our lives and the perpetual possibility of regarding everything about which we are serious as arbitrary, or open to doubt." -We cannot live human lives without energy and attention, nor without making choices which show that we take some things more seriously than others. Yet we have always available a point of view outside the particular form of our lives, from which the seriousness appears gratuitous. These two inescapable viewpoints collide in us, and that is what makes life absurd. It is absurd because we ignore the doubts that we know cannot be settled, continuing to live with nearly undiminished seriousness in spite of them." objective time - answer--also known as clock time, or chronological time. It is regular, and absolutely even. Uni-directional (cause and effect goes in one direction). Units are arbitrary and indefinitely divisible. Clock time runs your life. psychological time - answer-subjective time, experiential time -elastic (can speed up, slow down)—oxnly know this by being able to compare to some outside event in the world that is not elastic. -could be defined as the individual's experience of the continuum of consciousness. -Starts after our birth. Ends with the cessation of consciousness. What paradox does thinking about the present generate when you approach it from the perspective of objective time? - answer-The present in "objective time." If the past no longer exists, and the future hasn't happened yet, isn't the only "real" time the present? Isn't it always now? But how do you define that "moment." Is it a duration-less point? A timeless boundary between the past and the future? Not a part of time itself, but a boundary? Then we seem to have a paradox, for there is no present, even though the present is all there is, objectively speaking. What makes the Malagasy experience of time different from all the others we discussed? - answer--The malagasy experience of time is different from the others because the situation, not the clock, triggers the event. In this experience of time the future is unknowable (not just unknown). -The past is "in front of my eyes" because it is visible, known, and influential. -Situation trigger events as they occur. So the bus leaves when it is full. The filling stations order more gas when they run dry. Hordes of would be passengers all show up at the airport and are THEN assigned seats once check-in starts, whatever it says on the ticket. Everyone is in a sense on standby. The plane will depart when it is full. What does Kant's duty based ethics ignore? - answer-moral dilemmas What happens if we try to apply the concept of being a virtuous person to utilitarianism? - answer--For act-utilitarianism, a virtuous person would be one who always tries to maximize happiness. -This asks too much. We lose the distinction between doing one's moral duty, and going above and beyond what's required. (If the money I spend on dinner out could have sponsored a child for a month in a poor country, I would seem to be morally obligated to give that money instead to charity, according to utilitarianism.) -So can't look to consequentialism for guidance on virtues, as it clashes with our moral intuitions about what a moral life requires. Requires too much self-sacrifice. -A supererogatory act is one that goes above and beyond what one is morally obligated to do. I am morally obligated, for instance, to honor your right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But I am not morally obligated to help you pursue those things benefit of raising people to be virtuous people instead of teaching them to think about consequences? - answer- A basic fact about how we make moral judgements ignored by most theories was... - answer--What about caring for those we love?! -Utilitarian and Kantian approaches to ethics both emphasize impartiality in cranking out moral decisions, making them blind to any special obligations to caring relationships. Rawls' veil of ignorance makes the same assumptions. -Shouldn't we prioritize family and loved ones in our moral lives? Dont parents have special obligations to their children over obligations to others, in addition to maximizing the general good or carrying out their duties to society in general? Isn't going for total impartiality, wrong? Multi-active time - answer--Adhering to schedules and punctuality is less important than completing the human transaction. -The business we have to do and our human relations are what matters, not "being on time." -"Why are you so angry because I came at 9:30?" "Because it says 9:00 in my planner" "Then why don't you write 9:30, and we'll both be happy!" Recall "subjective" or "psychological" time. Nietzsche's parable of the madman raises questions about what might happen.... - answer-