Review for Chapter 4
1. Numerical identity: two people are identical if they are one and the same. The idea of "individuality" = indivisibility. Qualitative Identity: Two people are identical if they share same qualities.
Animalism: Sort of "I'm my body." We are embodied, bodies being crucial for our physical interactions. C/E Locke's Tale of the Prince and the Cobbler, Siamese Twins. Also with the phenomenon of "transgender" (the transgender rejects his/her body for a different one, i.e. "I was born in the wrong body" is the claim).
2. Memory Theory. "I'm my memories." a- Direct memory, indirect memory. C/E Circularity in Locke's theory.
3. Psychological Continuity Theory: Real memory, apparent memory, quasi-memory. Psychological connectedness. C/E: Parfit's Teletransportation Machine: If Parfit dies, Parfit (the copy) is psych. continuous with the original and has a similar body (remember that it is not really the same body, i.e., Parfit is only numerically identical to himself). One implication at the end of 4.2 is this: Is identity a necessary condition for survival? The answer is no.
5. Brain Theory: "I'm my psyche caused and realized in my brain." C/A: Split Brains, Parfit’s Division (in this case Parfit's surviving brothers are psych with Parfit and have similar bodies being that they are twins). The experiment shows that one can be psyhc identical to someone else in the same brain (each brother share Parfit's half-brain hemisphere).
6. Identity and what matters in survival and responsibility.
7. Self as "process." Character. What's character? The consistency of behavior through time. An interesting summary on Personal Identity here.
Animalism: Sort of "I'm my body." We are embodied, bodies being crucial for our physical interactions. C/E Locke's Tale of the Prince and the Cobbler, Siamese Twins. Also with the phenomenon of "transgender" (the transgender rejects his/her body for a different one, i.e. "I was born in the wrong body" is the claim).
2. Memory Theory. "I'm my memories." a- Direct memory, indirect memory. C/E Circularity in Locke's theory.
3. Psychological Continuity Theory: Real memory, apparent memory, quasi-memory. Psychological connectedness. C/E: Parfit's Teletransportation Machine: If Parfit dies, Parfit (the copy) is psych. continuous with the original and has a similar body (remember that it is not really the same body, i.e., Parfit is only numerically identical to himself). One implication at the end of 4.2 is this: Is identity a necessary condition for survival? The answer is no.
5. Brain Theory: "I'm my psyche caused and realized in my brain." C/A: Split Brains, Parfit’s Division (in this case Parfit's surviving brothers are psych with Parfit and have similar bodies being that they are twins). The experiment shows that one can be psyhc identical to someone else in the same brain (each brother share Parfit's half-brain hemisphere).
6. Identity and what matters in survival and responsibility.
7. Self as "process." Character. What's character? The consistency of behavior through time. An interesting summary on Personal Identity here.
Chapter 5
1. Subjective Absolutism: The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it; Counterarguments: (a) By "Logical contradiction" we mean that two opposing arguments cannot be right at the same time, and (b)impossibility of moral disagreements (one can only agree with the absolutist and the reason is that he believes he's the ONLY ONE THAT'S RIGHT). 2. Subjective Relativism: What makes an action right is that it is approved by that person. Counterarguments (same as above). You must be able to tell the difference between the (the absolutist thinks she's the only one that's right, whereas the subjective relativist believes that many people can disagree and still be right at the same time) absolutist and the subjective relativist.
3. Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: (a) Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and (b) differences between deep values (moral values, i.e., human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare) and superficial values (domestic habits, etiquette, fashion, etc) other cultural values to the effect that most cultures seem to share the same deep moral values.
4. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: Moral standards + factual beliefs = Moral judgments (this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a factual belief? A belief held by factual evidence (i.e., child abuse is wrong because of the facts we know about psychology, human rights, child development, etc,).
5. Are there universal moral principles? YES! 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) and 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).
Section 5.2.
Difference between consequentialist theories and formalist theories. Consequentialism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. Formalism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the action's form (i.e., "killing is wrong": the formalist believes that moral actions are objective).
2. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest in the long run = PRUDENCE. Counterarguments: (a) Egoist's motivations (if known, the egoist's intentions seem to betray reversibility principle). (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office).
3. Act Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (which means, "bringing happiness for the greatest majority of people"). Counterarguments: (a) Mc Closkey’s informant (b) Brandt’s Heir, (c) Ross' unhappy promise, (d) Goodwin's Fire Rescue. In each one of these cases one has violated principles of justice, duty and equality.
4. Rule Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that if generally followed would maximize happiness everyone considered. RU is a better theory than AU. Why? Because if applied, it can solve the problems posed by the previous counterarguments.Section
5.3.1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility: Golden Rule)
2. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS AND NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END. Problems with the second formulation: Problem of exceptions: Some times we have to treat people as means to ends: Broad's Typhoid Man.
Pluralistic Formalism: What makes an action right is that it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation.
3. Ross’ Prima Facie Duties. Actual duties: One that must be performed in a particular situation. Prima Facie Duty: A duty that must be performed unless it conflict with a more important duty. You must know hierarchy and each one of these duties as I explained in class: 1- Justice, 2- fidelity and 3- reparation being the first three, because they explain out the remaining ones: beneficence, non-maleficence, gratitude, self-improvement.
4. Why is Pluralistic Formalism better than Kantian theory? Because it allows for exceptions.
1. Subjective Absolutism: The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it; Counterarguments: (a) By "Logical contradiction" we mean that two opposing arguments cannot be right at the same time, and (b)impossibility of moral disagreements (one can only agree with the absolutist and the reason is that he believes he's the ONLY ONE THAT'S RIGHT). 2. Subjective Relativism: What makes an action right is that it is approved by that person. Counterarguments (same as above). You must be able to tell the difference between the (the absolutist thinks she's the only one that's right, whereas the subjective relativist believes that many people can disagree and still be right at the same time) absolutist and the subjective relativist.
3. Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: (a) Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and (b) differences between deep values (moral values, i.e., human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare) and superficial values (domestic habits, etiquette, fashion, etc) other cultural values to the effect that most cultures seem to share the same deep moral values.
4. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: Moral standards + factual beliefs = Moral judgments (this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a factual belief? A belief held by factual evidence (i.e., child abuse is wrong because of the facts we know about psychology, human rights, child development, etc,).
5. Are there universal moral principles? YES! 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) and 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).
Section 5.2.
Difference between consequentialist theories and formalist theories. Consequentialism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. Formalism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the action's form (i.e., "killing is wrong": the formalist believes that moral actions are objective).
2. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest in the long run = PRUDENCE. Counterarguments: (a) Egoist's motivations (if known, the egoist's intentions seem to betray reversibility principle). (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office).
3. Act Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (which means, "bringing happiness for the greatest majority of people"). Counterarguments: (a) Mc Closkey’s informant (b) Brandt’s Heir, (c) Ross' unhappy promise, (d) Goodwin's Fire Rescue. In each one of these cases one has violated principles of justice, duty and equality.
4. Rule Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that if generally followed would maximize happiness everyone considered. RU is a better theory than AU. Why? Because if applied, it can solve the problems posed by the previous counterarguments.Section
5.3.1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility: Golden Rule)
2. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS AND NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END. Problems with the second formulation: Problem of exceptions: Some times we have to treat people as means to ends: Broad's Typhoid Man.
Pluralistic Formalism: What makes an action right is that it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation.
3. Ross’ Prima Facie Duties. Actual duties: One that must be performed in a particular situation. Prima Facie Duty: A duty that must be performed unless it conflict with a more important duty. You must know hierarchy and each one of these duties as I explained in class: 1- Justice, 2- fidelity and 3- reparation being the first three, because they explain out the remaining ones: beneficence, non-maleficence, gratitude, self-improvement.
4. Why is Pluralistic Formalism better than Kantian theory? Because it allows for exceptions.
