Key Ideas

Ethics: 3 types: metaethics (what are we doing when we say actions are wrong) Normative
(what in general makes actions right/wrong)Applied (is __ wrong).
Psychological & Ethical Egoism- Psychological: everybody acts selfishly all the time. Ethical:
Everybody should be selfishthere is nothing rationally defective about being selfish (weak).
CONCERNS: both undermine ethics/morality. 1. Everybody always does what they want to do
therefore they are selfish. However it depends what you do. Selfish is to desire your own good
regardless of how you affet others. What makes you selfish is what you want not that you do
what you want. 2. Everybody always acts in a way to make them feel good therefore they are
selfish. But what if you sacrifice a life for another person (you can still feel good and are
avoiding feeling bad). An ethical egoist will say that there is nothing irrational about being
selfish. Most parents choose to save the child but psych egoists think they would betray child.
ARGUMENTS: imagine a case wehre you would resent someone elses action because how it
affects you. they should have known better. You are one of the theys. If you perform an action
you would resent if done to you then you are being irrational.
RACHEL: defends EE. Its possible to be a consistent rational selfish person. Do not resent
others for what they do but you can dislike what they do. Value yourself and no one else. They
would want us to be unselfish bc our selfishness would hurt them.
Cultural Relativism vs Cultural Sensitivity- An action is wrong iff the culture
punishes/disapproves of the action Problems: rape tolerant culture. Cannibalism and genocide.
Also makes it impossible to criticize another culture or your own. There is no moral progress or
mandated tolerance.
MORAL OBJECTIVISM: there is at least one legit transcultural moral norm like stealing/kill
innocent.
CULT SENSITIVITY: objective moral principles can have culturally relative components
(respecting the dead).
Utilitarianism- Goodness and act centered based view. Combination of consequentialism
(conseq based), hedonism (pleasure is only good and pain is the only bad), and egalitarianism
(everybody counts equally. Greatest pleasure for greatest number).
MILL: Pleasures differ in intensity, duration, fecundity. Pleasures differ in kind and low: sex,
comfort, drugs, food. High: love, accomplishment. Higher pleasures are the ones preferred by
those who can properly appreciate both. COMPETENT JUDGES TEST: choose higher but likes
both. The issue is that sometimes some people still choose low over high (point is that they know
high is better). ISSUES: Organ harvesting: one life versus many. We have an obligation to kill
ourselves and others and harvest the organs. Response: survivors guilt, family and loved ones
sad for death, undermines trust in medical community. We cant really calculate the effects of
our actions that easily. Baby Hitler Argument. Actions are right/wrong and agents are
praise/blameworthy. Publicity Objection: Not everyone can be a utilitarian. Integrity objection:
capacity for an argument to stay strong. Utilitarianism ignores the consequences (Jim and the
Indians where Jim shoots one or pedro kills 10 but jim would become a killer and what is right is
not obvious).
Kantianism- Rightness based view. Start with right and derive good. Agent-centered. What is
good for its own sake? The happiness of evil is bad so pleasure is not always good. Anything
derived from evil is bad. Good for its own sake is Good Will: what decides whether you do
something or not and suppresses your desires. Doing what is right because it is right. Actions

have to be consistent with the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: independent of your desires.

HYP: If you want ___ then you should ___. The reasons behind should should depend on your
desires. Kant thinks that there is one principle behind all of morality but many formulations.
UNIVERSAL LAW FORMULATION: an action is right iff you can consistently will that the
principle behind the action outweighs the maxim and the generalized intention outweighs the
universal law. MAXIMS: cannot be too specific like dont kill.
THE END IN ITSELF FORMULATION: an action is right iff it treats everyone involved as
ends in themselves and never as mere means. (explains rape, murder, stealing) we are valuable
rational agnets. To treat someone as an end you must employ: respect (consent) and not
overpower and deceive. But is consent enough?:: suicide, BDSM, so except when consent is not
able to be given/not understood like in children/mentally ill. Combine Kant and Util to get
Virtue.
Virtue Ethics- Goodness Based and Agent Centered (derive right from good and look at the
goodness of people).
Aristotle: What is good for its own sake? Happiness (Eudaimonia). People disagree what
happiness is Proper satisfaction with life. Virtues: patience, confidence, honesty, temperance,
wisdom, justice, etc. NOT the vices. Virtues are virtues bc they cannot be negatively used. Each
virtue has two vices. You must practice in order to be virtuous.
IMPLICATIONS: There cannot be people who are wicked and happy. We need moral role
models to tell what is virtuous. An action is virtuous if it proceeds from virtues. The right thing
to do is what will make you more virtuous (consequentialist). BUT sometimes wrong actions
make us more virtuous (hitting rock bottom). Baby Hitler Case: hitting the brakes is wrong but
praiseworthy.
WWJD: what if two people have different things? Pick one. What if we dont know? There still
exists a right thing to do you just dont know it. Sometimes we cannot know what to do unless
we are virtuous. BUT we have moral defects. Virtuous people are not subject to temptation.
Suggestion: action is right if virtuous person would approve of it.
Normative/Applied: you dont need a complete normative theory to do applied ethics. There is
a lot of common ground between normative ethics. Each argument probably has its own idea
about right to life. Start with an example and generalize to a general principle.
Singer's Greater Moral Evil Principle- If it is in your power to prevent a great moral evil
without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth you are morally obligated to do it. Many
children die everyday from preventable causes and we are able to but still dont prevent this.
We dont have direct contact with those dying children so it affects our power to affect and
removes some of the guilt. But we could save as many as we can. But how much are we required
to give?:: You must give until giving hurts more than helps. *Diminishing Marginal Utility: At
some point the more you have the less its worth to you. CONCERNS: Its a lot like Util with a
focus of preventing evil and not promoting good. Singer agrees that it is too demanding. We find
charity as being above call of duty (supererogatory). GME makes it seem obligatory. But 1% of
GDP would meet everyones needs. We dont need to give up all luxuries because they make us
more productive. Keep what keeps you productive and get rid of the rest. How bad is it to not
work toward the eradication of absolute poverty?:: No we are not guilty of murder because we
have no direct causal connection or malicious intent. It is an indirect link (driving recklessly).
OTHER CRITIQUE: Reduction Ad Absurdum: Too demanding. We have two kidneys so give
them away. Or rape: we should just have sex with random creepy people.

Arthurs Entitlements-based Criticism of Singer- We deserve good things and bad things as a
result of what we do. Lazy farmer v industrious. So for Kidney case: You have bodily integrity,
sexual integrity, etc. RIGHTS: Negative: right to life, property, you get these by being a rational
and social human. Positive: rights to another persons resources. Buying something, taxes/wages,
Must be given intentionally and usually by contract. CONCLUSION: We should help people in
need but we do need to consider entitlement. GME is too simplistic and therefore too demanding.
With other rights it becomes more tolerable. We want human moralitynot angel morality.
Pogge's Causes of Poverty: - Do we deserve the wealth that we enjoy?:: We do not deserve to
be born somewhere, our ancestors may not have deserved it because they created it. There may
be moral limitations on giving wealth to your descendants. The wealth we enjoy is morally
tainted.
1. Focus on contemporary causes (our current practices create and perpetuate poverty). 2.
Economic Protectionism: Protecting your own economy from outside threats. Ie: tariffs,
subsidies, intellectual property, labor regulations (raising labor costs so we can use other
places for labor like china), corruption (we install and bribe), purposeful actions to keep
people poor.
How responsible are we: 1. Consumption patterns: we buy lots of stuff and cheap stuff. Who we
buy from and what we buy. 2. Political Patterns: voting, political engagement. 3. spiderman
principle: with great power comes great responsibility. If you benefit from something that
benefit gives you power to do something about it. 4. Our nations pollute the most but the
impoverished places suffer the most as a result.
What can we do?:: Give back wealth, buy less stuff from better people, political influence.
Movement in Space vs Movement in Time- At different times youre in different points in
space, but it must be relative to something. Time dilation: If both people on Earth and one goes
superfast into orbit then one would take less time than the other. Basically the rate of passage of
time is relative.
Spacetime Theory- time is like space. Space time is a 4D object and we are a 4d worm. But
what is now? It is relative. All moments are equally real. Space time itself never changes
because time does not flow. Time is the fourth dimension. Space and time is one continuum.
CRITIQUES: 1. Change is more real than STT allows for. There is a distinct now that moves.
Time flows and things change. Time is only one direction and you can move back and forth in
space, but not time. The past is fixed and future is open.
Two Types of Time Travel- Issue: Is it possible to originate at one point in time and end at a
previous point in time? Space theorists say maybe but critics of space time say no. Terminator:
skynet born, humans v robots, john connor was awesome so build terminator to go back and kill
him, but john connor finds out so they send a human back to defend sarah from the robot,
terminator is killed and he dies too but baby born 9 months later. KEY: Past does not change and
there is one timeline. Back to the Future: Lorraine and George get married. Marty born and
hangs out with lame family but he is so cool. And also hangs out with Doc Brown and gf. Doc
Brown shows him the time machine, gets shot and dies, and Marty is sent to the past. Lorraine
falls in love with Marty instead of George. Marty starts to disappear. Marty comes back but now
George is cool and Biff works for him. Here there is a Grandfather Paradox: If you go back in
the past and kill your grandfather there will be mayhem. In this view there is an unfixed past so
therefore there are multiple timelines. But where do they start? (explanatory loop)

Essay Question Bank

REMINDER: For each question, you need to clearly present the arguments in favor of your view,
show
that you understand how people might object to it, and explain how you can respond to their
objections. As
you write, also make sure to engage the authors and arguments we have read or discussed in
class.
1) Which moral theory do you think is best? Why?
2) What are our moral obligations regarding those who suffer in extreme poverty?
3) Do you think time travel is possible? Why or why not?