PHIL 3000 Study Guide - Final Guide: David Kaczynski, Categorical Imperative, Psychological Egoism
19 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Philosophical Ethics Final study guide
Moral desert- something you deserve for something moral you have done.
The Supreme Principle of morality
●Immanuel Kant says that what confers morality is our capacity to rise above self-interest and
inclination and to act out of duty.
●Kant’s test for determining morality: to identify the principle expressed in our action and then ask
whether that principle could ever become a universal law that every other human being could acto
on.
A lesson in lying
●Kant says that lying is a violation of one’s own dignity
A deal is a deal
●John Rawls argues that a fair set of principles would be those principles we would agree to if we
had to choose rules for our society and no one had any unfair bargaining power.
●Anyone who enjoys the benefits of the government consents to the law.
●‘Veil of ignorance’- prevents us from knowing anything about ourselves. It ensures the equality
of power and knowledge that the original position requires.
●Social contract- a hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality.
●Argues that we will not choose either utilitarianism or laissez-faire libertarian and meritocratic
systems are unfair because they base distributive shares based on arbitrary factors.
●Two principles of justice would emerge
○Provides equal basic liberties for all citizens- takes priorities over considerations of social
utility and general welfare.
○Concerns social and economic equality. Only permits social and economic inequalities
that work to the advantage of the least well off members of society- The Difference
Principle.
Moral Limits of Contracts.
●Actual contracts are not self-sufficient moral instruments. No actual social contract is guaranteed
to produce fair terms of social cooperation.
●Can consent create obligation?
●Actual contracts carry moral weight insofar as they realize two deals: autonomy and reciprocity.
●Agreement does not guarantee fairness. Consent is not enough to create a moral binding claim.
The case of the woman who was gonna pay 25k for plumbing.
●Hume critiqued this idea of social contracts.
Four rival theories of distribution justice
●Feudal or caste system: fixed hierarchy based on birth
●Libertarian: free market with formal equality of opportunity
●Meritocratic: free market with fair equality of opportunity
●Egalitarian: Rawls’ difference principle.
Objections
1. Incentives: if the talented can benefit from their talents only on the terms that it would help the
well off, they make work less.
Response: the difference principle permits income inequalities for the sake of incentives. If the
incentives generate wealth that would help the least off, the difference principle works.
2. Effort: People put in effort to hone their skills.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Response is that the willingness to make an effort, to try and so to be deserving in the ordinary
sense is itself dependent upon happy family and social circumstances.
What is a fair start?
●Rawls argues that meritocracy- a distributive system that rewards effort- does not go far enough
in leveling the playing field especially in the case of those who are naturally gifted.
●If we remove social and economic barriers to success, people can be said to deserve the rewards
their talents bring
●Also argues that naturally gifted cannot claim credit to their success because their success
depends on some things that are arbitrary such as birth order.
●Distributive justice is about meeting the legitimate expectations that arise once the rules of the
game are in place.
What do we deserve?
●Fairness of pay differentials in modern society. Rawls believes it is not.
●Distributive Justice is not a matter of rewarding moral desert. It is about meeting the legitimate
expectations that arise once the rules of the game are in place.
●Rawls proposes that we deal by agreeing to share one another’s fate for the common benefit.
●What you are entitled to is not necessarily what you deserve because society calls the shots on
these things and we have no control over such factors like supply and demand.
Arguing Affirmative Action
●Cheryl Hopwood who sued a law school because of affirmative action.
●The pros and cons of affirmative action.
●Affirmative action hiring and assistance policies violate the US Constitution’s guarantee of equal
protection of the laws.
○Correcting for the testing gap: correct for possible bias in standardized tests.
○Compensating for past wrongs: remedy for past wrongs. Minority students should be
given preference to make up for history of discrimination that has placed them at an
unfair disadvantage. Some critics say that people who benefit may not have suffered.
Affirmative action should apply to class not race.
○Promoting diversity: treats admission as a reward to the recipient than as a means of
advancing social worthy. Argument for the common good of the school. The use of
racial preferences will not bring about a more pluralistic society or reduce prejudice but
damage the self-esteem of minority students. These objectives do more than harm.
○Using race or ethnicity as a factor in admissions is unfair violates the rights of applicants
who are arbitrarily put at a competitive disadvantage.
○Using race in affirmative action does not violate anyone’s rights. Most of the admission
process are because of things you cannot control.
○Occupancy controls- goal of racially integrated community. The quota system however
favored white people over blacks although its aim was to racially integrate.
Some things are a measure of our good fortune not our virtue.
The first question about fairness and the second about honor and resentment.
What’s the Purpose?
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Moral desert- something you deserve for something moral you have done. Immanuel kant says that what confers morality is our capacity to rise above self-interest and inclination and to act out of duty. Kant"s test for determining morality: to identify the principle expressed in our action and then ask whether that principle could ever become a universal law that every other human being could acto on. Kant says that lying is a violation of one"s own dignity. John rawls argues that a fair set of principles would be those principles we would agree to if we had to choose rules for our society and no one had any unfair bargaining power. Anyone who enjoys the benefits of the government consents to the law. Veil of ignorance"- prevents us from knowing anything about ourselves. It ensures the equality of power and knowledge that the original position requires. Social contract- a hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality.
