Class Notes (838,687)
United States (325,505)
Philosophy (78)
PHIL 2010H (22)
Preston (22)
Lecture 17

PHIL 2010H Lecture 17: PhilosophyNotesMarch13

3 Pages
72 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
PHIL 2010H
Professor
Preston
Semester
Spring

Description
03/13/2017 Supreme Principles of Morality Compared ● Kant: Acting out of duty to the moral law is what gives actions their moral worth. So the only unqualifiedly good thing is a good will-- the intention to choose duty to the moral law over inclination, regardless of the consequences of the action. Duty is respect for the moral law. What the moral law is in any specific circumstance can be determined by any rational being using the categorical imperative test. ● Mill: The promotion of happiness is what gives actions their moral worth. So the (foreseeable?) consequences of your action in terms of happiness and unhappiness determine its moral worth. *see powerpoint for cont.) ● Mill: The moral worth of an action is determined by its foreseeable consequences for happiness. ○ Advantage: others can tell what the moral worth of an agent’s action is by assessing its foreseeable consequences for happiness. Moreover, we can have moral obligations to non-human animals, assuming we agree that they experience pleasure and pain. ○ Disadvantage: the moral worth of an action is not completely under the agent’s control, since the consequences for happiness may not be entirely foreseeable or manageable. ● Kant: the moral worth of an action is determined by the moral law the agent is following out of duty. ○ Advantage: The moral worth of an action is completely under control of the agent through her free choice (will) to follow the moral law. ○ Disadvantage: there is no way for others to judge the moral worth of an agent’s action, since they have no direct access to her choice and intention. Also, it is not clear that we have any moral obligations to non-human animals, assuming we agree they do not have a rational free will in the way human beings do. Obligations to Utilitarianism (Mill cont.) ● Happiness cannot be the end (purpose) of human actions, because it is generally unattainable (9-11). ● It is not only possible for human beings to do without happiness; it is widely thought that renouncing happiness is a necessary condition for living a moral life (9, 11-12). ● Utilitarianism requires too much from the individual in terms of their moral duty to promote the happiness of all others on the planet (12-13). ● Utilitarianism just involves a cold calculation about the consequences for happiness of individual actions, and takes no account of the moral character of the person doing the action (13-14). ● Util
More Less

Related notes for PHIL 2010H

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit