Philosophers
This philosopher's writings are founded on the belief that humans are rational beings, worthy of dignity and respect.
Who is Immanuel Kant?
How does Bentham define utility?
Whatever produces pleasure/happiness and whatever reduces pain/suffering.
True/false: According to Kant, you choose your desire to "obey your thirst" and drink Sprite.
FALSE! YOU'RE A SUCKER FOR ADVERTISING YOU HETERONOMOUS FOOL!
Batman is an example of someone who follows this moral philosophy.
What is deontology?
Imagine you're in ancient Rome, and you're about to go to the Coliseum to see Christians thrown to the lions. The crowd LOVES it. Is this morally okay?
To a utilitarian, if the majority is pleased - maximizing total happiness - then yes. (Although how the heck are you calculating the joy of the audience against the pain/death of the Christians and the grief their families experience?)
Kant? HELL NO!
This philosopher's writings can be read as a strenuous attempt to reconcile individual rights with utilitarian philosophy.
Who is John Stuart Mill?
Define Bentham's 'highest principle of morality'.
The overall balance of pleasure over pain- the maximization of happiness.
What does Kant mean when he says 'respect human dignity'?
No person should be used as a means to an end, rather an end in and of themselves on the basis that we are all autonomous human beings, capable of acting and choosing freely.
Utilitarianism. (Explain)
If you kill someone else, thus becoming a murderer, would Kant say that you are no longer worthy of dignity and respect?
Nope. He'd still think the murderer is a rational being, capable of choosing to do the right thing with his reason. Thus, that murderer still deserves dignity and respect.
This philosopher scorned the idea of natural human rights and launched a moral philosophy that exerts a powerful hold on economists and politicians to this day.
Who is Jeremy Bentham?
Define Kant's duty versus inclination.
Duty is doing the right thing for the right reason, while inclination is doing the right OR wrong thing because of its consequences.
What are the two formulations of Kant's categorical imperative?
2. Treat persons as ends.
A murderer comes to your door looking for your friend, so you claim not to know her to allow her time to flee. While escaping, the murder sees your friend and kills her.
True/False: From Kant's perspective, it is your fault that she is dead.
True! Because you lied you are morally wrong and therefore responsible for whatever negative outcome takes place.
Michael Jackson made music that has brought pleasure and happiness to (at least) millions of people. He's also been frequently exposed as a sexual predator.
When it comes to supporting his art, what's the right thing to do? Distinguish between Bentham, Kant, and Mill.
Bentham: all good
Mill: it's complicated
Kant: nope...but...it's also complicated
In what way does Mill's version of utilitarianism differ from Bentham's version? Who adheres to act utilitarianism and who adheres to rule utilitarianism?
Though both agree that the maximization of utility is the highest principle of morality, Bentham focuses on utility in the present moment (act) and Mill focuses on utility in the long run (rule).
Define Kant's categorical versus hypothetical imperative.
Categorical imperative- you do something because it is unconditionally right.
Hypothetical imperative- you do something to achieve something else (possibly wants/desires).
How is Kant's categorical imperative different from the Golden Rule?
The Golden Rule depends on contingent facts and/or assumptions about how individuals would like to be treated; Kant says to forget such contingencies and respect people as rational beings no matter what they might want in a particular situation.
The lifeboat example (with captain Dudley, first mate Stevens, sailor Brooks, and cabin boy Parker) illustrates which moral philosophy? What two arguments do Dudley and Stevens make for killing Parker? What problems arise from their logic?
Utilitarianism- they cite his illness and his orphan status in the justification of his murder.
Their logic suggests 1) that their assumption of his imminent death was more than a hypothesis, and 2) that not all humans are equal (those with families are more valuable than those without).
You are in your late 40's and have an extremely rare blood type. You've read on the internet that selling your kidneys can be beneficial for those who are close to death and desperate for a transplant. You decide to sell one- you don't need both, after all- because you want to help someone, especially because you know how hard it is to find a willing donor with your exact blood type.
True/False: Kant would say that you are doing the right thing for the right reason.
False! Kant does not believe one should sell themselves- organs or sexually. He states that a person "is not entitled to sell a limb, not even one of his teeth," as doing so is treating oneself as an object or instrument of profit.
How do Bentham/Mill and Kant's accounts of human nature differ? What does this imply for their opinions of the treatment of people?
Bentham/Mill believe that humans are solely pleasure seeking creatures, and can be used as a means to an end.
Kant believes that humans, though pleasure seeking, are foremost rational beings and must be viewed as ends in and of themselves.
Define Kant's autonomy versus heteronomy.
Autonomy- acting in accordance with law you have given yourself.
Heteronomy- acting in accordance with law given to you by an outside force/actor.
Which of the three philosophers do you think John Rawls would agree with most?
Theroux's discretion.
At the end of 'The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas', some citizens of the city leave after witnessing the child's torturous conditions. What might we call the moral philosophy of those that leave? What might we call the moral philosophy of those that stay?
Those that leave- deontology (do you agree?)
Those that stay- utilitarianism
In regards to the previous question: what is paradoxical about Kant not supporting selling oneself sexually or for organs?
Kant believes human beings are autonomous, obeying the law they give themselves and in charge of their actions and decisions. By asserting that selling oneself he contradicts himself, saying "The underlying moral principle is that man is not his own property and cannot do with his body what he will." Thus, human beings are not truly free or autonomous, as he previously suggests.