Study Guides (400,000)
US (230,000)
UC-Irvine (3,000)
PHILOS (30)
Study Guide

PHILOS 1 Study Guide - Spring 2019, Comprehensive Midterm Notes - Trust Law, Time, The Dickies


Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHILOS 1
Professor
Sven Bernecker
Study Guide
Midterm

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 20 pages of the document.
PHILOS 1

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Week 1
Ethics: concerned with the ? of how I ought to live
- May be all sorts of elements of a good life that are not moral
Some conceptions of the good life
- Aristotelianism: life of virtuous action and engagement, with wisdom conventrestage
- Stoicism: life lived in light of reason (not by passions)
- Pyrrhonism: life sustained doubt
- Romanticism: devoted to beauty
- Epicureanism: devoted to pleasure
- Existentialism: authentic radical freedom
- Nihilism: no good life
Extrinsic Goodness
- Instrumental: $$
- Non-instrumental: the first printing press
Intrinsic Goodness
- Instrumental: ??
- Non-instrumental: the good will
Part 2
Ethical theory
- Normative ethics: particular theories of right and wrong such as utilitarianism or virtue
ethics
- Meta-ethics: nature of morality itself, rather than the ? of what is moral
- Applied ethics: applications of normative ethical theory to real-world problems,
euthanasia, warfare
Moral relativism: domains of judgement such as taste and humor
- Different views that is moral or not depending on the person
Moral subjectivism: one way of thinking about moral relativism
- Stating opinion and nothing more
- No moral disagreement
Moral objectivism:
The open-? Argument
- Challenge to moral objectivism by G.E. Moore
- Argued that whatever natural property that we tried to identify w/ moral property
- Ex: one could describe an action in as much detail as one wanted but it would
nonetheless be intelligible to ask whether that action was right or wrong
- Moore thought that this showed that morality can’t be identified with natural property.
Part 3
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Moral motivation: incite us to action
- Ex: someone kicking baby for fun is wrong, we are motivated to try to prevent from
occuring, or admonish the person committing this act
Moral expressivism: Argue that the role of moral judgements is not to describe the objective
features of the world but rather to express our desires and feelings
- Ex: murder is wrong is to express one’s dislike of murder therefore indicate that this is
something that one disapproves of
- Expressivism is right, then moral judgements are very different from perceptual
judgements. Not attempting to state objective facts about the world
Consequentialism: normative ethical theory
- Argues that moral rightness/wrongness of an action is determined by its consequences
- Ex: pleasure,well-being,enlightenment,tranquillity
- Key advantage is by focussing on good outcomes than good motivations have better
chance of accurately evaluating which acts are best from a moral POV
Utilitarianism: form of consequentialism focuses on promote consequences that maxmize
pleasure and minimize pain
- A problem is how to determine which pleasures and pains are relevant, as some
pleasures are unworthy (taking pleasure in another’s misfortune) while some pains are
worthy (involved in self-improvement)
- 2nd problem: other things we righty value besides pleasure and avoidance of pain
(wisdom, authenticity, understanding, friendship)
- 3rd problem: seems too demanding. Always things that i can do which promote the
greater good, such as giving away all my belongings to those less fortunate
- 4th: concerns motives. Act out of bad motives, but the consequences of my actions are
nonetheless good, is my act still morally right?
Rule VS Act Utilitarianism
Part 4
Experience machine: if quality of our experiences are all that count, then shouldn’t we prefer a
life where ‘fake’ pleasurable experiences are generated for us
Utilitarianism to think about it one thought too many alienate moral psychology
Deontology: not the consequences of our actions we should be focusing on but rather on
motives behind the actions
- Ex: trying to kill you but save you instead
- The good will but
Kantian Deontology: fundamental moral principle is the categorical imperative. States one
should act only on the maxim that it should become a universal law
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

- Should not steal b/c everyone steal lead to social breakdown
- Stealing immoral according to categorical imperative
Part 5
Virtue ethics: develop a normative ethical theory we should be focused less on motives and
consequences much less general moral principle, and more kinds of distinctive character traits
of a good person
Part 6
Applied ethics: involves the application of normative ethical theory to particular domains
Euthanasia: involves bringing about someone’s death for their own good
- Meant to Distinguish it from murder
- Voluntary euthanasia: explicit consent from person concerned ex. Thru living will
- Involuntary: subject actively not consenting (at least not being consulted)
- Non-voluntary: consent is not available (person in permanent coma)
Animal rights
Animals have no moral obligation; we only have moral obligations to people
1. Replaceability argument: eating meat benefits animals otherwise many animals would
not exist
- However humans are not replaceable
a. Most farmed animals are generally happy
b. Balance out the loss of the animals killed with the happiness they have
experienced in life
Animals can suffer pain
- Consider more relevant similar to humans
Animals and humans to be equal
- b/c we dont eat humans so dont eat animals
What do you think is the best moral argument for vegetarianism? Does it work?
I believe the best moral argument for vegetarianism is animals are capable of
experiencing pain. Therefore, deciding to eat an animal would cause the species a great
amount of suffering. This argument points out the advanced emotions of animals that
the public tend to dismiss. Sadly, it is mainly known that humans have the ability to feel
pain, so it would definitely be controversial we people started eating each other.
Fortunately, people will now know the truth about the emotions of the animals. Without
this important knowledge, the people neglect the relevancy of animal’s pain similar to
human’s.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version