PHIL 4 Study Guide - Final Guide: Categorical Imperative, Psychological Egoism, Thrasymachus
Phil 4
Fall 2017
Possible Short Answer Questions for Final
1. Explain Aristotle’s conception of human function and what it means to be a virtuous
person.
According to Aristotle, happiness can be found in the function of humans. The good of a
sculptor or athlete resides in his or her function as such. He says that plants have a function of living
and animals have perception function and can perceive the world around them (see, smell, ect.) but
humans have a unique function of reason since only humans reason. The function of a man is
activity of the soul (mind) accordance with reason, and humans become good by living, or trying to
live, in accordance with reason. He talks about excess and defect, both of which destroy the nature
of things. A virtuous person will seek the intermediate between excess and defect, or the “golden
mean” in every aspect of their life. For example, if you spend too much money it is wasteful but if
you don’t spend enough it is miserly. The golden mean would be classified as generous. Not
everything has a golden mean, such as murder, can be just simply bad.
2. Describe what Thrasymachus means when he says that “justice is the advantage of the
stronger”. What is one response that Socrates issues against this claim?
Thrasymachus means that justice is put into terms to benefit those who are in power.
Essentially, the rules that are advantageous for the established power, or the stronger, are just
because “might makes right.” Socrates says that it is possible for the rulers to pass laws that are not
in their interest since they are imperfect. He argues that ruling people is like any trade; similar to
how doctors have the good of the patient as their interest, a ruler should also have the good of his of
the people as their interest. Each craft has its own goal even if you benefit yourself(such as earning
wages a a doctor) in the process. He says that ruling is the same; the goal of the ruler is to keep his
power and rule but the means is that the people are well taken care of.
3. What is psychological egoism, and how does Hume’s account of primary and secondary
desires challenge the view?
Psychological egoism is the idea that humans are always motivated by self interest, even in
what seems like acts of altruism. A primary desire is the immediate desire for a thing whereas a
secondary desire is the desire for something in recognition of the potential for a primary desire in
the future. For example, going to the store and buying food because you know you will be hungry
later. This is acting in self-interest because you are behaving in a way that does not concern a
primary interest. Hume thinks that egoistic behavior can only arise from secondary desires. If your
desire is self-interested, it would involve a deeper chain of reasoning. This is too complicated for
Hume since he argues that the simplest answer is probably correct. For example, eating food
because you are hungry is not self-interested because there is no real reflection on your
self-interest; it is a primary desire.
4. Why is it that a good will is the only thing that is good without qualification, according to
Kant? Provide and elaborate on an example of action in accordance with the right thing, but
that is not necessarily aligned with Kant’s conception of a good will.
What makes a will good is its intention. Good will is the only thing that is good without
qualification because it acts from duty, rather than acting from desires. Things can be good but not
without qualification, such as intelligence. Intelligent people can use this for good such as finding
cures for diseases, but also for bias such as getting away with crimes. Acting from duty means that
you do something because duty commands it, regardless if you have the desire to do it or not. Kant
distinguishes this between acting in accordance with duty, or doing the right thing for the wrong
reason. An example is a shopkeeper that does not overcharge a child for candy because he does not
want the parents or other citizens to get him in trouble and then have a bad reputation if they find
out that he overcharged them. The shopkeeper acted in accordance with what is right, but because
of his intentions, it was not right.
5. Explain one of Kant’s formulations of the categorical imperative. Provide an example.
The categorical imperative is the idea that a command is good in itself and applies to all
rational beings. One of kant’s formulations is to act only on the maxim that one can at the same time
will to be a universal law, or act in a way that could be a universal law. This is the basic idea that
you aren’t allowed to do anything yourself that you aren’t willing to allow everyone else to do as
well. For example, if everyone lied to get something they want, than it would destroy the notion of a
promise and there would be no trust in the world. Since lying cannot be applied as a universal law,
it is wrong and you should not lie.
6. Explain Mill’s argument that higher pleasures are preferable to lower pleasures.
mill says that happiness is pleasure, and that there are higher and lower pleasures. Higher
pleasures are more emotionally and intellectually based whereas lower pleasures are more
immediate, sensually based pleasures. For example: a deep connection with another, or love would
be a higher pleasure whereas having sex would be a lower pleasure. Mills argues higher pleasures
are preferable to lower pleasures because humans who have experienced both agree that higher
pleasures are better; anyone would prefer a life of higher pleasures. Those people who have
experienced both will always choose higher pleasures over lower ones, and those who argue for a
life of lower pleasures don't fully understand the higher pleasures. He even says that it is better to
be socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. This means that someone who is smart enough to enjoy
the higher pleasures but is unhappy would still not chose a life full of lower pleasures.
7. Explain the “Fred” counterexample to the Greatest Happiness Principle.
The Greatest Happiness Principle states that the right thing to do is the thing that produces
the most happiness. Imagine a situation where a man named Fred is relatively healthy but has no
family or friends, meaning nobody really cares for him. There are a lot of people who need organ
transplants to live, and they have family and friends who will care for them and will be sad if they
die. Fred’s organs could be used to save these people. Since nobody cares about Fred it wouldn’t be
a big loss in terms of happiness, but would produce a lot of happiness for others if his organs were
used to save their lives. According to the Greatest Happiness Principvle, Fred should be killed and
his organs should be used to save the other people since it produces more happiness. However, it
seems wrong to kill someone just because it makes other people happier and brings up a moral
dilemma since Fred should have the right to life.
8. Provide a brief description of the account of animal sentience/consciousness that
pervaded much of medieval and enlightenment thought. Why is this problematic in today’s
context?
In medieval times, people believed that animals had no feelings of pleasure or pain.
Vivisections, or live dissections, were often performed in order to learn about anatomy and
circulation of blood. However, they believed animals to be like clocks, or a machine, meaning they
didn't feel anything and their screams were like springs making noise when they were touched.
Today, very few people deny that animals have the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, or are
sentient beings. It is problematic because the view is inconsistent; people are concerned with the
sentience of their pets but not with the sentience of the animals we raise for food or experiment on.
All animals deserve rights against being harmed since they are sentient beings. However, that is not
the case since we kill some for food and other people still view them as below humans, but others
we recognize these rights (dogs).
9. Provide an account of Frey’s argument that testing on animals may not be speciesist.
What potentially controversial implication results?
Frey’s argument that animal testing should be allowed is not speciesist because he justifies
it based on the quality of life and does not exclude humans from this standard. He says that the
quality of life is shaped by experiences and determines the value of a life. Humans have a higher
Document Summary
Possible short answer questions for final: explain aristotle"s conception of human function and what it means to be a virtuous person. According to aristotle, happiness can be found in the function of humans. The good of a sculptor or athlete resides in his or her function as such. He says that plants have a function of living and animals have perception function and can perceive the world around them (see, smell, ect. ) but humans have a unique function of reason since only humans reason. The function of a man is activity of the soul (mind) accordance with reason, and humans become good by living, or trying to live, in accordance with reason. He talks about excess and defect, both of which destroy the nature of things. A virtuous person will seek the intermediate between excess and defect, or the golden mean in every aspect of their life.
