Course:PHIL230-CH/exam-study-guide

Part 1: Short Answer Questions (20%)

There will be some short-answer questions in which you’ll need to define a few terms that have been introduced since class started (e.g., “descriptive moral relativism”). You may also be asked to explain how this term fits into one of the moral theories we’ve discussed. Or, some of them may be comparative terms, where you have to compare/contrast two related terms in one answer. There will be a list of terms and you’ll be able to choose from this list (you won’t have to do all of the terms listed on the exam). Most likely you will need to choose 3 or 4 terms out of a list of at least 6.

Terms & Definitions

SEP = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

WTLP = Wolf’s “Two Levels of Pluralism”

MU = Mill’s Utilitarianism

ICN = In Class Notes [posted online]

IEP = Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

1. Descriptive Relativism

“Descriptive relativism is a thesis about cultural diversity. It holds that, as a matter of fact, moral beliefs and practices vary between cultures (and sometimes between groups within a single society). For instance, some societies condemn homosexuality, others accept it; in some cultures a student who corrects a teacher would be thought disrespectful; elsewhere such behavior might be encouraged.” [IEP “moral relativism” 2.a.]
Make sure to understand that this is just an observation! It is this claim that leads people to believe in moral relativism.

2. Descriptive Moral Relativism (DMR)

“As a matter of empirical fact, there are deep and widespread moral disagreements across different societies and these disagreements are much more significant than whatever agreements there may be.” [SEP “moral relativism”]

3. Moral Relativism

“Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own.” [IEP “moral relativism” intro]
[Christina] This is the same as Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism, below

4. Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism

“The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.” [SEP “moral relativism”]
Moral judgements are not true of false in any absolute sense, but only relative to particular standpoints

5. Subjectivism

Similar to meta-ethical moral relativism, except the standpoint from which moral judgments are true or justified is an individual rather than a group. [ICN Definitions, 1]
No objective moral truths, e.g. “Murder is wrong” – can’t be objectively true

6. Moral Objectivism (also Moral Universalism)

“…Moral objectivism maintains that moral judgments are ordinarily true or false in an absolute or universal sense, that some of them are true, and that people sometimes are justified in accepting true moral judgments (and rejecting false ones) on the basis of evidence available to any reasonable and well-informed person.” [SEP “moral relativism”]
Moral norms can be justified “on grounds that are independent of culture, or on grounds that will be common to all cultures” [Wolf, Two levels of Pluralism]

7. Pluralism

“Pluralism in ethics, as I understand it, is the view that there is an irreducible plurality of values that are all relevant to moral judgments… the plurality of morally significant values is not subject to a complete rational ordering” [WTLP, 785]
Wolf denies that there must be one uniquely correct moral judgment in an given dilemma [ICN Wolf, 1 & WTLP 788, 791]
With absolutism, there is always a correct answer to any dilemma, with relativism, there is never a correct answer and with pluralism there is sometimes a correct answer. [ICN Wolf, 1]

8. Pluralism (First Level)

"Moral pluralism, in other words, can be understood in either of two levels… at the level of individual moral judgments of policy and action…” [WTLP, 791]
With first level pluralism, you can justify any of your actions based on some value that you hold, however, you can also act immorally with respect to your own code.
[Christina:] first level pluralism is about judgments about a particular moral question or policy. It doesn’t have to be restricted to an individual’s values or moral codes. It just means that there could me more than one justifiable answer to some moral questions or to questions of what policies would be morally better than others.

9. Pluralism (Second Level)

“… or independently, at the level of moral codes, moral outlooks, systems of moral principle which a society might adopt and internalize as a whole.” [WTLP, 791]
For second level pluralism to work, you need to have an accepted moral code of the group or society wherein you reside. Then you compare your action to the code of the group to determine whether it is moral or not.
There may be “several moral systems that are incommensurably good”, such that each is “unequivocally good,” even though they might conflict with one another [WTLP, 797]

10. Plain Consequentialism

“Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences. (If there is no one best action because several actions are tied for best consequences, then of course any of those several actions would be right.)” [IEP “consequentialism” 1.a.]
Synonymous to Maximizing Consequentialism (See Below)

11. Consequentialism

“Consequentialism is the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences. Here the phrase “overall consequences” of an action means everything the action brings about, including the action itself. For example, if you think that the whole point of morality is (a) to spread happiness and relieve suffering, or (b) to create as much freedom as possible in the world, or (c) to promote the survival of our species, then you accept consequentialism. Although those three views disagree about which kinds of consequences matter, they agree that consequences are all that matters. So, they agree that consequentialism is true. The utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham is a well-known example of consequentialism. By contrast, the deontological theories of John Locke and Immanuel Kant are nonconsequentialist.” [IEP “consequentialism” intro]
“Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act).” [SEP “consequentialism”]

12. Hedonism

“The term "hedonism," from the Greek word δονή (hēdonē) for pleasure, refers to several related theories about what is good for us, how we should behave, and what motivates us to behave in the way that we do. All hedonistic theories identify pleasure and pain as the only important elements of whatever phenomena they are designed to describe. If hedonistic theories identified pleasure and pain as merely two important elements, instead of the only important elements of what they are describing, then they would not be nearly as unpopular as they all are. However, the claims that pleasure and pain are the only things of ultimate importance is what makes hedonism distinctive and philosophically interesting.” [IEP “hedonism” intro]
“Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the pleasures and pains in the consequences (as opposed to other goods, such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on).” [SEP “consequentialism”]

13. Actual Consequentialism

“Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the actual consequences (as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences).” [SEP “consequentialism”]
It seems like this type of consequentialism can be paired or not paired with other type.

14. Expectable Consequentialism

“Expectable Consequentialism: The morally right action is the action whose reasonably expectable consequences are best. (There can also be a scalar version of this view and of the others introduced below.)” [IEP “consequentialism” intro]
This is the opposite of actual consequentialism.
Allows you to accidentally do a good action

15. Reasonable Consequentialism

“Reasonable Consequentialism: An action is morally right if and only if it has the best reasonably expected consequences.” [IEP “consequentialism” intro]

16. Plain Scalar Consequentialism

“Plain Scalar Consequentialism: Of any two things a person might do at any given moment, one is better than another to the extent that the overall consequences are better than the other’s overall consequences.” [IEP “consequentialism” intro]

17. Maximizing Consequentialism

“Maximizing Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on which consequences are best (as opposed to merely satisfactory or an improvement over the status quo).” [SEP “consequentialism”]

18. Universal Consequentialism

“Universal Consequentialism = moral rightness depends on the consequences for all people or sentient beings (as opposed to only the individual agent, members of the individual's society, present people, or any other limited group).” [SEP “consequentialism”]

19. Impartialism (also Impartiality, Equal Consideration)

“Equal Consideration = in determining moral rightness, benefits to one person matter just as much as similar benefits to any other person (= all who count count equally).” [SEP “consequentialism”]
Mill’s view is impartialist, at least for human beings. [ICN Consequentialism, 4]
“the value of the consequences of an action is to be assessed from an impartial point of view; the value of the consequences on all who are affected are given equal weight in determining the [moral] status of an action” (Timmons, Moral Theory, 2nd ed (Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), p. 149).

20. Utilitarianism

Mill’s version of Utilitarianism: in determining the moral value of an action, must consider consequences for all sentient beings affected [ICN Consequentialism, 4]
“Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders or supernatural beings. Instead, utilitarians think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable is its positive contribution to human (and perhaps non-human) beings.” [IEP “utilitarianism” intro]
A simplified overview: we can judge the moral value of actions by the degree of happiness they tend to produce for the sentient creatures involved. [ICN Utilitarianism, 1]

21. The Greatest Happiness Principle (also GHP)

“actions are [morally] right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, [morally] wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” [MU 4]
““happiness” is defined in terms of pleasure and reduction or absence of pain” [MU 4]
“pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends; and…all desirable things…are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain” [MU 4]
Morality can be defined as “the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation.” [MU 7]
“happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it the test by which to judge of all human conduct; from its necessarily follows that it must be the criterion of morality, since a part is included in the whole” (19)

22. Supererogatory

“observed or performed to an extent not enjoined or required” [Merriam-Webster]
This is used in Mill’s Utilitarianism to describe non-obligatory moral actions.
What is morally praiseworthy to do, but not required. You’re not acting morally wrongly if you don’t do it, but also not just neutral if you do

But since morality for Mill means what can be compelled (and so obligatory; you’re acting morally wrongly if you don’t do it), then perhaps Mill doesn’t, strictly speaking, having a category of the supererogatory

Even charity/generosity is a moral obligation (not optional) such that you’re wrong if you don’t do it (though you have a choice as to when/for whom)

23. Prudence

acting with or showing care and thought for the future

24. Rule Utilitarianism

Rule Consequentialism: An action is morally right if and only if it does not violate the set of rules of behavior whose general acceptance in the community would have the best consequences—that is, at least as good as any rival set of rules or no rules at all. (IEP consequentialism)
Rule Utilitarianism: “An action A is right if and only if A is mentioned in a moral rule whose associated utility is at least as great as the utility associated with any alternative moral rule applying to the situation” (Timmons 139)
rule utilitarians believe that we can maximize utility only by setting up a moral code that contains rules. The correct moral rules are those whose inclusion in our moral code will produce better results (more well-being) than other possible rules. Once we determine what these rules are, we can then judge individual actions by seeing if they conform to these rules. The principle of utility, then, is used to evaluate rules and is not applied directly to individual actions. Once the rules are determined, compliance with these rules provides the standard for evaluating individual actions. (IEP Utilitarianism: Act and rule)

25. Expedience

Act of Convenience but possibly immoral

26. Ideal Moral Code

A moral code is “ideal” if its currency in a particular society would produce at least as much good per person (the total divided by the number of persons) as the currency of any other moral code”

Consequentialism chart

Below is a chart of “make your own consequentialism”, you have to first pick what type of consequence you value, then how the spectrum of rightness/wrongness exists, then who is included in the count and how. This chart could have many more options.

Actual	Expectable	Reasonable
Plain Scalar	Maximizing
Hedonism	Impartialism	Universalism

[Christina:] Note that the last row includes fairly different things. Hedonism is about what we use to determine what counts as "good consequences" (pleasure and pain). Impartialism is about whether we take everyone's interests into account equally, regardless of whether we are hedonists or whether we think there is some other way to justify what counts as good consequences (e.g., desire satisfaction). Universalism is about taking the interests of all those affected into account, not just those of oneself, one's family, one's social group or society, etc. So Hedonism, impartialism, and universalism can be combined separately with the other things; it's not that one has to choose between these three like one chooses between the items on the first two rows. One can be a hedonist, impartialist, universalist consequentialist!