Final Exam.docx

6 Pages

Political Science
Course Code
Nathalie Fournier

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 6 pages of the document.
Final Exam: ETH 220 1. Aim if the Interdisciplinary study of Moral Psychology -our moral intuit about particular cases gives us reason to believe there in contents -our moral intuition about particular case track particular moral principal -Evidence about what moral principal over moral intuit traces gives us reason to believe in that principal -Fact about what principals our intuit track are empirical -therefore, psychology evidence about princpals gives us reason to endure them Ex. Trolley problem: track moral princpals for reason to endure them – Ulitaritaism: save more people- greater common good 2. Psychological data informs moral debate -gardener/Deer example- S=D, NS=D, ND=S, D=S -only 30 percent get it right -this shows the psychology argument can be wrong -just because you have a moral intuition doesn’t mean it’s the right track of moral principal -We need both descriptive and normative approach- Psych and Phl- to abstract moral thinking Criticisms: 1) Morality as a virtue- differs from culture -Difficult to define- virtue is living the good life but what is the good life 2) Morality as a principal -Deontology- knowing what moral is- we ought to act according to moral rules -the trolley example indicates that morally as a principal doesn’t always fit what we ought to do -indicates that we are both deontology and utilitarian intuition about morally problems 3. Problems associated with Traditional Philosophical Ethics 1) Moral philosophy should not employ a distinction prior method of yielding substantive evident and foundational truths from pure conceptual analysis -we are not going to come to conclusion based on logic rather than facts -knowledge prior to experience -we shouldn’t reason without experience -justifications 2) There are no sharp distinction between moral philosophy and other relevant distinction 3) Moral philosophy is not an automous discipline 4) Explain why natural philosophy plausible 5) Explanation of bridge between descriptive and normative 4. Problem appealing to Psychological Data or Criticisms of Evolutionary Ethics Open Question Argument -Self-righteous anger –stabilize social norms – Questionable -Suppose N is a term for a particular natural prop -Encountering N is good -We can identify the N-ness Conc: goodness and Nness are not the same thing -objective to naturalism - a natural property and moral property-questionable -this natural property could be good but can reasonable ask -everything is not a reduction to natural property -but there are exactly reducing in this argument -Goodness can never be a natural property Fairness:Capuchins’s Experiement -when a monkey had a low value item and the other monkey had a high value item, the monkey get upset -Purpose: is fairness a trait? -Normative cognition-rule guided behaviour (moral thinking) -Moral Components - Moral Normative Cognition- emotions, use rules and facts to establish -Fairness- equal distribution of windfall gains -tried to share equally-experiment failed -all same trait with humans- we express differently –detials are hard to follow evolutionary ethics Is/Ought Fallacy -cant derive ought from is -if you can be held for X then you could have done otherwise -if not possible for you to do otherwise then your motives are plausible ex. Psychopath 5. Difference between Descriptive and Normative Moral Theories Descriptive: Psychology view: what you are doing: you want ex. I should study because I want to -Problem: what if there is no feeling of want (Hollow)- only looks at behaviour Normative: desire to do something: PHL- I ought to do ex. Pleasure- act on desire (standpoint of making a good choice 6. Belief-Desire Model Descriptive Theory -Desire=the end goal -belief- how to achieve that desire- reason why you are acting Ex. D=I want to study B= Get on Subway to get there Concern: conflict Desires . ex. D1- party D2-Study -rank preferences in terms of strength 7. Belief Desire Model: Normative Theory -everything that is desired as kind of good -normative theory: defines desire and tells you what it is 8. Plato’s Normative Account of Moral Judgement -should pursue knowledge in order to get what we want 1) the content of our desire is based on belief 2) if we have false beliefs we will have misguided desire, we will not have gotten what we really want 3) if we pursue misguided desires we will not have gotten what we really want Conc: Responsible beliefs is a crucial issue in a decision 9. Polous’s Normative Account of Moral Judgement -should purse power in order to get what you want -knowledge does not move us in the world -Having power is good- asses our belief in the world 10. Difference between Apparent and Real Good 3 interpretations of Good - False depending- if good meaning something formal (religion, pleasure)- False since some people don’t desire these things - Everyone desires what they desire- their highest object to desire - Doyle’s right way of good: Rational individuals, desire their real good as oppose to their apparent good - The real good represents a substantive constraint on what is to count as a rational desire and action - What seems best is apparent good- it can lead to the real good - Subjectivism vs Objectivism 11. Apparent and Real Desire -we experience real and apparent desire by between attitude and belief -the difference between the 2 in terms of whether our desires represents the world truly/falsely –Belief -Attitudes: attitude toward something can lead to a desire (ex. Eating everything until you found what you were craving) 12. Plato: Belief and Knowledge ought to be the focus of moral decision - False belief to achieve the good with knowledge will result in apparent goodness (Concern: how do you know your beliefs are true) - Only act to your beliefs that you know is true - Action should be restrained by rationality - Instrumental- means to an end - Belief motivates to act –opposing Belief/Desire Model 13. Humanism: Subjective 3 points -If A acts intentionally then A desires to act -If A acts intentionally, A’s desire to motivate and explains the action -If A has a reason to act then A has a desire to act which justifies the action -Relates to Belief Desire model- whatever you end up doing there is a desire and motivation -Psychological version- explaining- describing something they have desire -desires justifies -Differences: desire motives, justifes and reason to action – Belief how to achieve the action 14. Hybrid Humanism -some beliefs can generate a desire -desire motivates actions, and justifies action -Reject #3- no room for ethics- always follow your desire? No everything is permitted -desire shouldn’t justify because it’s not rational -other things can justify action- beliefs or desires 15. Micheal Smith Appealing to Desire in explaining our actions Teleological Argument – desire is the reason we act- it is our motivation 1) Reasons explantions are essentially teleological- teleology: explains in terms of
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.