PHIL 215

Midterm worth 45%, Take-home Final worth 55% Don't have to buy the book. Attend lectures and it's hard not to do well.

Lecture #1
Why do we care about ethics? Generally, good ethics lead to good business. Madoff - Ponzi scheme (Pyramid Scam) "147 years sentence" - middle class - wanted to go to upperclass - considered working legitimately vs. going with a scam. - saved up $60k initial sum - went to a couple of "suckers", billy and sally who each have $100k to start with. - (S&P 500 is about 6.5% over the past 100 years) - on Jan 1st, invest 100k from billy and sally. - on Dec 31st, pays out 30k each to billy and sally. - On the next year, Madoff asks each of billy and sally to get 2 more friends - On the next year, Madoff has 600K from 6 ppl, and only has to pay out 30k x6 - His son turned him in. What does it mean to behave ethically? - To gain insight from the 5 theories: (all have strengths, but all have flaws) 1. Virtue 2. Deontology 3. Consequentialism 4. Rights based 5. Feminism We shall use a plural of these above, because: 1. Wisdom of multiple advisors 2. Wisdom of NOT going with your gut (instincts/intuition are usually from your earliest upbringing - parental, religious, etc - conditioned to simply be most comfortable) 3. Minimize chance of getting in trouble

4. Chain vs. Table Chain approach: start with some premise and slowly build, one chainlink at a time, to some conclusion. However, this is a bad argumentative strategy because it's only as strong as its weakest link. Putting all your eggs in one basket is not a good strategy. Table approach: surface of the table is the conclusion, and the table's legs are the premises.

Virtue Ethics Summary:

- Key concept is virtue defined as an "excellence of character." This tradition is all about the development of good character over time; moral problems are character defects. - Founding figure: ARISTOTLE (384-322 BC) - His ethical vision: In life, we must pursue eudaimonia (i.e. our fullest development) - "Eudaimonia" - "happiness, flourishing, human excellence" - This is: - Pleasure + - Internal Goods + - the virtues - External Goods - good society & parents (Aristotle said that if you were not bore into a good family, your emotional growth would be stunted. He did not believe in redemption. He believed that if a bad upbringing would not allow any further development morally) - financial security - health & safety - friends & relationships - beauty *Solve Moral Dilemmas by Consulting a Moral Expert A virtue: - is not natural, or automatic - must be developed over time, with conscious & deliberate effort (like exercising a muscle) - must become a reliable, stable part of your character - benefits self & others - "traits we praise in others & strive to develop in ourselves" - are usually in a mean between extremes (e.g. courage) - 4 cardinal virtues: courage, moderation, prudence, justice. Strengths: 1. Excellent verified account of general human happiness 2. Actions comes out of character.

3. Attention to moral development, & the need for continued moral "practice" 4. Stress on social & relationship context needed for (moral) thriving not just individuals making choices in a vacuum, 5. (Inspiringly Optimistic & Hopeful) Common Criticisms: 1. "Inspiring", or Naive, re: "perfectibility" 2. Illiberal, Oppressive Overtones re: character judgement & social context 3. Elitism & Issue of "moral Experts" 4. Too Selfish to be a Moral Code? 5. Vagueness of Virtues + Cultural Relativity (e.g. of courage) 6. Are Virtues Enough?

Duty-Based Ethics Summary Deontology:

- Key concept is duty / obligation / responsibility. Key differences from virtue ethics: 1) deontology separates prudence & morality, whereas virtue ethics blended them; 2) deontology focuses on judging actions; virtue ethics concentrated on character. 3) deontology is clearly, strongly committed to universality; virtue ethics is less so. - central figure: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 A.D), German Enlightenment Thinker - his ethical vision: through a strength of will, we must bring our body (or animal instinctuality) in line with commands of our mind (or free rationality). When we do this, we shall be truly autonomous (i.e. ruled by our own selves: not by God, nor by nature). Autonomy for all the big inspiration: The Kingdom of Ends. Deontologists are concerned with Actions and the Intentions behind these actions: (Action + Intention = Good) Action (Objective) Christianity Kant - 10 Commandments - Golden Rule - Categorical Imperative (categorical: must be obeyed; imperative: rule, co mmand) Intention (Subjective) - Love - Respect

Kant was inspired by the Christian moral view. However, he believes that categorical imperative is already instilled within each of us, we just need to self-reflect to find it. He believes that motivating people with love is too demanding. I have a hard time loving the people I should love (much less my enemy). Its too much to ask everyone to love

everyone else. Attitude of respect should suffice. - For an action to be morally permissible, it must be both: a) in accord with the objective duty / law of the Categorical Imperative; and b) motivated by the proper subjective intention of respect for everyones autonomy. A+B = Morally OK (Thus, we solve moral dilemmas by determining the correct duty & performing it with right intention) (crucial thing for this course is solving moral dilemma: so in this context Kants solution is to use categorical imperative is to find the most important moral duty, and to performing that duty with the right frame of mind) - More on The Categorical Imperative. This is an innate command of reason, which we must always obey (lest we betray our true selves). It is Kants secular reinterpretation of The Golden Rule (i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which is to say: the rules of right conduct are universal, and everyone would approve). - Two tests of the Categorical Imperative: 1) The Universality Test (would anyone veto or reject my action? If so, impermissible: morality is about rules binding on all of us, equally); and 2) The Humanity Test (will my action result in my using anyone as a mere prop in my project, thus disregarding their autonomy? If so, impermissible: people arent things to be used, but, rather, are ends-in-themselves.) Strengths: 1. Focus on Action allows us to be nonjudgement re: character. 2. Clear universality, no relativity. 3. Morality clearly understood: no ongoing development of character, nor complex calculations of consequence. Just simple rules we must obey. 4. Ideal of Equality, & Respect for the Autonomy of All (fits in with modern democracy, secularity, globalization) Common Criticisms: 1. Too simple: artificial, legalistic, cookiecutter, binary ethics (vs. scalar) 2. Vagueness & Problems Interpreting the Rules 3. Western-only approach? 4. Problems with Intention (e.g. selfdeception; do we need it?) 5. Empty Form of Rule-Worship. What about the consequences of our actions? Kants terrible example of knife-wielding maniac

(EOF)