Expert answer:Explain one of the theory making sure to expand up
Expert answer:Explain one of the theory making sure to expand upon the main points including the strengths and weaknesses, and explain how this theory can aid us in making ethical decisions The minimum word count for this assignment is 500 words We did not cover Ayn Rand in this class. Her theory of Objectivism is not the same as the theory of Moral Objectivism that we covered. There is no outside research needed for this , but if you choose to do so, please, please make sure that you are looking at correct material. As well, this is not a response, but a short essay exam. As such, I will be looking for evidence that you understand the material. Please do not add your opinions and anecdotes to this. Treat this as a scholarly.http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.htmlhttp://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
objectivism.ppt
objectivism.ppt
ethics_of_care.pptx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Objectivism
EX: Just War or Act of Terror
Truman vs. Anscombe
Objectivism tells us moral rules have no
exceptions.
Usually this is linked to religious commands
Can Objectivism succeed on its own?
Kant believed objectivism could be linked to
an idea of moral goodness.
In the search for intrinsic ‘good’, Kant did not believe
that any outcome was inherently good. Pleasure or
happiness could result out of the most evil acts. He
also did not believe in ‘good’ character traits, as
ingenuity, intelligence, courage etc. could all be used
for evil. In fact, he used the term good to describe the
‘good will’, by which he meant the resolve to act
purely in accordance with one’s duty. He believed
that, using reason, an individual could work out what
one’s duty was.
To ascertain the moral worth of an action, we
must discover whether it was motivated
through duty or through some other
inclination.
The example of the grocer
“It accords with duty that a grocer should not
overcharge his inexperienced customer; and
where there is much competition a sensible
shopkeeper refrains from so doing and keeps
to a fixed and general price,,,Thus people are
served honestly; but this is not nearly enough
to justify us in beleiving that the shopkeeper
has acted in this way from duty or from
principals of fair dealing; his interests required
him to do so”
It is in the shopkeeper’s best interests to keep
his prices lower than that of his competitor,
thus insuring his customer’s business.
Therefore his action is not done from duty or
any inclination to do good, but only from his
self-interest.
Consider the joy of giving
It is a duty to help others where one can.
Yet the person who finds an inner pleasure and
sense of well being from giving, acts from self
interest, rather than true dedication to duty.
Therefore the act, while charitable, does have
has as much moral worth as the charitable act
done against one’s inclination, but according
to duty.
An imperative is a statement of command.
Kant makes a distinction between hypothetical
imperatives and categorical imperatives.
A hypothetical imperative tells us what must
be accomplished if we desire a specific end
result. “If we want to be healthy, then we must
exercise.” The hypothetical imperative here is
the then statement, “then we must exercise”.
A categorical imperative does not require a then
statement. A categorical imperative is the
means in itself.
Ex. “Stop”
“Go to bed”
“Put down that gun”
Kant believes we can use categorical imperatives
to decipher universal laws.He states this as
follows:
I ought never to act except in such a way that I
can also will that my maxim should become a
universal law.
Maxims, according to Kant, are subjective rules
that guide action.
All actions have maxims, such as,
Never lie to your friends.
Never act in a way that would make your parents
ashamed of you.
Always watch out for number one.
It’s ok to cheat if you need to.
How can we universalize maxims?
Use the categorical imperative to discover whether or not lying is acceptable. Standard form:
We should do only those actions that conform to rules that we could will to be applied universally.
If you were to lie, you would be following the rule “It is okay to lie”
This rule could not be applied universally because it would be self-defeating. People would stop
believing each other and then it would do no good to lie.
Therefore, you should not lie.
What is the maxim?
It’s ok to cheat when you want/need to?
Can this consistently be willed as a universal law?
No, it undermines itself, destroying the rational expectation of trust upon which it
depends.
Anscombe’s objection:
Must we grant (2)? Perhaps we could say, “I
will lie when doing do would save someone’s
life”. That would not be self defeating. It could
become universal law, so Kant’s theory seems
to both allow and not allow lying.
The Case of The Inquiring Murderer
Objection: May we lie to someone proposing
to do evil?
Kant’s response:
We are tempted to make exceptions to the rule against lying because we think the
consequences of honesty will be bad and the consequences of lying will be good.
However we can never be sure of the consequences. The best policy is to avoid
known evil and let the consequences come. Even if the consequences are bad, we
can avoid responsibility if we have done our duty.
Can this argument be applied to Truman?
Is it convincing?
What happens when moral commands
conflict?
This would seem to disprove moral law.
Ex: It is wrong to lie
It is wring to facilitate the murder of innocent people.
However the conflict is between pairs of moral rules, not the existence of moral
rules in general.
Kant requires uniform behavior.
We cannot justify modifications simply because they suit us. The problem lies in
his insistence that moral rules be exceptionless.
This isn’t necessary. Kant’s system requires that when we violate a rule, we do so
for a reason we would be willing to accept from anyone.
The case of the Inquiring Murderer seems to provide such a case.
Consider the unhappy man
We have a duty to treasure our own happiness.
A man becomes sick of his life and wants to end it.
He asks whether the maxim of his action (suicide) can
become a universal law of nature
His maxim is “From self-love I make it my principal to
shorten my life if its continuance threatens more evil
than it promises pleasure”
It certainly seems as though this would conform to the
duty to treasure our own happiness.
Yet what would be the outcome if everyone were to
apply this maxim when happiness is threatened?
The Categorical Imperative: Respect
for others
Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in that of any other, in every case
as an end in itself, never as means only.
We must consider ourselves to be beings who
make universal law through the maxims of our
will, and must judge ourselves and our actions
from this point of view. This leads to the
concept of a kingdom of ends.
In the Kingdom of Ends, everything has either a
price or a dignity.
Intrinsic vs. Instrumental value
What is relative to human inclinations and needs
has a market price.
That which can be an end in itself has an
intrinsic value; dignity.
Fidelity to promises, and kindnesses based on
principals (morality) have an intrinsic worth
Objectivism
EX: Just War or Act of Terror
Truman vs. Anscombe
Objectivism tells us moral rules have no
exceptions.
Usually this is linked to religious commands
Can Objectivism succeed on its own?
Kant believed objectivism could be linked to
an idea of moral goodness.
In the search for intrinsic ‘good’, Kant did not believe
that any outcome was inherently good. Pleasure or
happiness could result out of the most evil acts. He
also did not believe in ‘good’ character traits, as
ingenuity, intelligence, courage etc. could all be used
for evil. In fact, he used the term good to describe the
‘good will’, by which he meant the resolve to act
purely in accordance with one’s duty. He believed
that, using reason, an individual could work out what
one’s duty was.
To ascertain the moral worth of an action, we
must discover whether it was motivated
through duty or through some other
inclination.
The example of the grocer
“It accords with duty that a grocer should not
overcharge his inexperienced customer; and
where there is much competition a sensible
shopkeeper refrains from so doing and keeps
to a fixed and general price,,,Thus people are
served honestly; but this is not nearly enough
to justify us in beleiving that the shopkeeper
has acted in this way from duty or from
principals of fair dealing; his interests required
him to do so”
It is in the shopkeeper’s best interests to keep
his prices lower than that of his competitor,
thus insuring his customer’s business.
Therefore his action is not done from duty or
any inclination to do good, but only from his
self-interest.
Consider the joy of giving
It is a duty to help others where one can.
Yet the person who finds an inner pleasure and
sense of well being from giving, acts from self
interest, rather than true dedication to duty.
Therefore the act, while charitable, does have
has as much moral worth as the charitable act
done against one’s inclination, but according
to duty.
An imperative is a statement of command.
Kant makes a distinction between hypothetical
imperatives and categorical imperatives.
A hypothetical imperative tells us what must
be accomplished if we desire a specific end
result. “If we want to be healthy, then we must
exercise.” The hypothetical imperative here is
the then statement, “then we must exercise”.
A categorical imperative does not require a then
statement. A categorical imperative is the
means in itself.
Ex. “Stop”
“Go to bed”
“Put down that gun”
Kant believes we can use categorical imperatives
to decipher universal laws.He states this as
follows:
I ought never to act except in such a way that I
can also will that my maxim should become a
universal law.
Maxims, according to Kant, are subjective rules
that guide action.
All actions have maxims, such as,
Never lie to your friends.
Never act in a way that would make your parents
ashamed of you.
Always watch out for number one.
It’s ok to cheat if you need to.
How can we universalize maxims?
Use the categorical imperative to discover whether or not lying is acceptable. Standard form:
We should do only those actions that conform to rules that we could will to be applied universally.
If you were to lie, you would be following the rule “It is okay to lie”
This rule could not be applied universally because it would be self-defeating. People would stop
believing each other and then it would do no good to lie.
Therefore, you should not lie.
What is the maxim?
It’s ok to cheat when you want/need to?
Can this consistently be willed as a universal law?
No, it undermines itself, destroying the rational expectation of trust upon which it
depends.
Anscombe’s objection:
Must we grant (2)? Perhaps we could say, “I
will lie when doing do would save someone’s
life”. That would not be self defeating. It could
become universal law, so Kant’s theory seems
to both allow and not allow lying.
The Case of The Inquiring Murderer
Objection: May we lie to someone proposing
to do evil?
Kant’s response:
We are tempted to make exceptions to the rule against lying because we think the
consequences of honesty will be bad and the consequences of lying will be good.
However we can never be sure of the consequences. The best policy is to avoid
known evil and let the consequences come. Even if the consequences are bad, we
can avoid responsibility if we have done our duty.
Can this argument be applied to Truman?
Is it convincing?
What happens when moral commands
conflict?
This would seem to disprove moral law.
Ex: It is wrong to lie
It is wring to facilitate the murder of innocent people.
However the conflict is between pairs of moral rules, not the existence of moral
rules in general.
Kant requires uniform behavior.
We cannot justify modifications simply because they suit us. The problem lies in
his insistence that moral rules be exceptionless.
This isn’t necessary. Kant’s system requires that when we violate a rule, we do so
for a reason we would be willing to accept from anyone.
The case of the Inquiring Murderer seems to provide such a case.
Consider the unhappy man
We have a duty to treasure our own happiness.
A man becomes sick of his life and wants to end it.
He asks whether the maxim of his action (suicide) can
become a universal law of nature
His maxim is “From self-love I make it my principal to
shorten my life if its continuance threatens more evil
than it promises pleasure”
It certainly seems as though this would conform to the
duty to treasure our own happiness.
Yet what would be the outcome if everyone were to
apply this maxim when happiness is threatened?
The Categorical Imperative: Respect
for others
Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in that of any other, in every case
as an end in itself, never as means only.
We must consider ourselves to be beings who
make universal law through the maxims of our
will, and must judge ourselves and our actions
from this point of view. This leads to the
concept of a kingdom of ends.
In the Kingdom of Ends, everything has either a
price or a dignity.
Intrinsic vs. Instrumental value
What is relative to human inclinations and needs
has a market price.
That which can be an end in itself has an
intrinsic value; dignity.
Fidelity to promises, and kindnesses based on
principals (morality) have an intrinsic worth
Definition of Feminism
A commitment to ending the
subordination/domination/oppression of women
Are there psychological (not physical)
differences between men and women?
Do men and women think differently?
Yes answer usually been used to subjugate women to men
Aristotle: Women not as rational as men, so naturally ruled by
men
Kant: Women lack civil personality and should have no voice in
public life
Rousseau: They possess different virtues, neither better than the
others. But it turns out that men’s virtues fit them for leadership
and women’s for home and hearth
Feminism’s answer to question of
whether men and women think
differently
They disagree; no unified answer to question of possible psychological
differences between women
Women’s movement of 60’s and 70’s rejected psychological differences
Supposed differences, e.g., men rational, women emotional–a mere
stereotype
If see such differences, due to conditioning/up bringing
Women have been conditioned by an oppressive system to behave in
“feminine” ways
Recent feminist thinkers
suggested women/men do
think differently
Female style of thinking has insights missed in more maledominated thinking
By attending to distinctive female approach, new insights
can be gained and progress made in areas that were stalled
Ethics is good example (feminist ethics)
http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Intro_Philosophy_SP_201
1/Feminist_Ethics_Table.htm
Famous Harvard education psychologist
Lawrence Kohlberg has a scale of moral
development that suggests women are less
morally developed than men
According to the scale, those who put a focus on
relationships, loyalty and trust with people (typical
of women) are on a lower level than the typical male
approach of appealing to universal ethical principles
Heinz drug stealing story: Shows how girls and boys think
differently and girls end up lower on this scale (147-148)
Jake thinks like typical male, seeing the situation as a conflict of
life/property solved by logic
An ethic of principle
Male way of thinking abstracts away from details that give each
situation its special flavor
Men’s moral theories: impersonal duty, contracts, harmonization
of competing interests, and calculation of costs and benefits
Amy responds in a typically female fashion and focuses on the personal aspects of
situation
Ethic of caring
Intimacy, caring, and personal relationships
Women don’t like to abstract away from detail of situation
Basic moral orientation is caring for others in a personal way, not general concern for
all humanity
Sensitivity to the needs of others
Include the points of view of the other in one’s deliberation
Amy couldn’t just reject the druggist’s point of view
Overriding concern with relationship and responsibility
Feminist ethics (e.g., Carol Gilligan’s In a Different
Voice) argues for a feminist point of view in ethics and
rejects idea that an ethic of care is a lower level of moral
development
Caring, empathy, feeling with others, being sensitive
to each other’s feelings, may all be better guides to
what morality requires in actual contexts than
applying abstract rules of reason, rational calculation
At least they are necessary components of an
adequate morality
Rachels’ view: The two sexes don’t inhabit different moral
universes
Even if do think differently about ethics, difference can’t be
very great, rather difference in emphasis
Also some men prefer caring perspective and some women
prefer an ethic of principle
Still it could be that in general, women tend to the former
and men the latter.
How account for this general difference
between men and women (if there is such)?
Nurture: Women think differently because of social
role to which they have been assigned
Been assigned to do the housework and take care of the
kids
Values of care could be part of this psychological
conditioning
Nature: Since women are child-bearers, women’s
nature as mothers makes them natural care-givers
They come equipped by nature with required (care
giving) skills
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades