The following are notes for the ethics midterm: ***** Explain what Mills identifies as the ultimate sanction of the principle of utility. How do nature and nurture fit in? To what extent does this sanction plausibly support utilitarianism? For utilitarianism to be successful in a society that would otherwise be concerned only with personal happiness, the total happiness must be tied to individual happiness. Mill proposes that individuals are concerned with the total happiness because man is naturally a social animal and we are motivated by a sense of duty to others that is reinforced by society. Ultimate sanction of principle of utilitarianism: Utilitarianism deals with promoting general happiness, but consider sanctions or motivations of moral standards in general. Mill divides sanctions into external and internal: external (less important) --- hope/fear of praise/blame for pleasures/displeasures from others in society and God internal --- sense of duty, obligation, feeling, conscience Where does sense of duty come from? It is subjective. It is not innate. It can be cultivated. It is naturally derived from love, hate, experience, upbringing, etc. Fine line between nature and nurture. Nurture: Born with capacity for duty, but it can and must be taught. It is part of the education of the well-brought up. Society, culture, education, etc. must support the sense of obligation and serve as an example. Morals are reinforced by a reward/punishment situation. Nature: The natural state of man is that he is a social being. We need a feeling of unity with fellow creatures. Desire for unity is essential; it leads to compassion and cooperation. Utilitarianism-specific: Common good is just individual good when you have made yourself large enough. Bootstrapping problem: The more important sanctions are the internal ones. These must be already held by the individual to be morally binding. ***** What does Williams mean by "integrity"? Why does he think utilitarianism represents an attack on a person's integrity? Does the utilitarian have any good response? Utilitarianism and, in particular, the notion of negative responsibility, alienate individuals from their own feelings and personal goals. This loss of individuality is a direct attack on the notion of integrity, or acting out of one's own convictions. Meaning: literal --- integrity, from integritas, state or quality of being entire, complete, whole; Williams --- acting out of one's own convictions Utilitarianism places little weight on one man's individual feelings. Replaces personal motivation with impartial reasoning. Negative responsibility implies some responsibility for the actions of others. This implies loss of self as individual. Utilitarianism alienates one from one's moral feelings by asking him to disregard himself as an individual. This loss of moral identity makes integrity impossible. Utilitarianism demands one to step away from his own personal projects and commitments; this alienates him from his actions and convictions. Utilitarian responses might include: common good cannot be reached without consideration of individual good, individual is given some weight, to give the happiness of one individual more weight might very well lead to unhappiness of other individuals which is to say that perhaps some identity must be sacrificed for the common good, negative responsiblity may still have some place but just not with as much force as traditional notions of responsibility, those who already accept utilitarianism will not find their integrity in conflict **** Does the variety of moral beliefs support the conclusion that morality can have only relative normative force? Is this a problem for morality? Discuss in regard to Scanlon, Nussbaum, or Harman. Harman's relativism provides morality with relative normative force, but leaves it without any absolute moral truths. While this is not a problem for Harman, many others see it as a serious short-coming in his account of morality. Harman clearly defines five principles of his moral relativism. There is normative force relative to or within frameworks. No one framework is privileged over others and there are no non-trivial absolutes, so there is only relative normative force. Harman rejects nihilism and says that morality still plays an important role. But many consider that relativism presents problems for morality. One objection discussed by Scanlon is that we want grounds for condemnation of other cultures (Nazi Germany). Scanlon rejects relativism and introduces the notion of three concentric domains --- one of universals, one relative, and one personal. In this parametric universalism, there is both relative and universal normative force. However, there is also personal preference to take into consideration and the question of which framework/domain applies in a given situation. The simple answer: when in Rome, do as the Romans do; those in a society have agreed to be held accountable to its morals. ***** Why does Aristotle believe that happiness is the end of action? How do we learn what happiness is? Does his account face any serious difficulties? Happiness, for Aristotle, is the end action because all other possible ends lead to happiness. This still does not explain what happiness is. Aristotle proposes that happiness is linked to function, excellence, and moderation, and that we can learn what happiness is through action. His account leaves out many details that are necessary to present a convincing argument. Actions have aims, aim for good, the chief good is that which is done for its own sake, the end of all action. All agree that the aim is happiness. Happiness is self-sufficient. It leads to nothing else. For any other possible end you can think of it, it will lead to happiness. Happiness has to do with function and excellence (lyre player), as well as with moderation (means). We can learn what happiness is from others and through doing. One becomes just by doing just acts. Objections about happiness: Lots of assumptions, such as why there must be a final aim. Everyone differs in what they think happiness is. The definition of happiness seems to be circular so that completion of one's final goal leads to happiness and thus is happiness. Other objections: How do we know what our function is or what the mean is? If we learn from others who learned from others, eventually we reach someone who had to learn for himself. The paradox of learning by doing and where does it start. ****