Nathan Chen

Zylstra
Philosophical Perspectives
10 December 2019
Exam 3 Study Guide
A. Terms
 Vegetarianism: someone who abstains from eating meat
o Moral vegetarian: someone who abstains from eating meat and animal products
for moral reasons
 Consequentialism vs nonconsequentialism/deontology
o Consequentialism: A species of moral theory that says that the morality of an
action is determined solely by its consequences – the end justify the means
o Non-consequentialism: The morality of an action is not determined solely by its
consequences
 Morally prohibited vs permissible vs. obligatory vs. supererogatory actions
o Morally prohibited: actions that are bad to do and good not to do. One ought not
to do them
o Permissible: actions that are not bad to do and not good to do. One can do them.
o Obligatory: actions that are good to do and bad not to do. One ought to do them
o Supererogatory: actions that are good to do but not bad not to do. One goes
‘above and beyond’ the call of duty in doing them
 Duty vs charity
o Prohibited and obligatory actions: the realm of duty
o Supererogatory actions: the realm of charity
 Utilitarianism: the overall happiness and suffering determines the morality of an action
 Utility: the sum of total happiness
 Principle of utility / “Great Happiness” principle
o Principle of utility: an action is morally good to the degree that it maximizes he
pleasure and minimizes the pain
o The Great Happiness Principle: the greatest happiness for the greatest number
 Hedonism (with respect to happiness): the sum of the pleasures minus pains
 Incommensurate: It is impossible to rank
 ‘Higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures
o Lower pleasure: intense but short-lived
o Higher pleasures: more fecund, lead to more happiness in the long run
 Deontology: the morality of an action is not determined solely by its consequences
 Autonomy: the right or condition of self-government
 The good will
o It is your intention in acting that matters, not the consequences of your action
 Inclination vs. duty
o If I act from inclination, I am doing it because it satisfies some desire of mine
o If I act from duty, I am doing it “out of reverence for the law”
 Acting from duty vs. acting in accordance with duty
o Acting from duty is out of reverence for the law
o Acting in accordance with duty without acting from duty
 Hypothetical vs categorical imperatives
o Hypothetical: Based on inclination: “if I want x, I ought to do y”
 Instrumental use of reason: given certain ends, reason counsels the means
o Categorical: “You ought to do x, period”
 Reason commands something absolutely (as law)
 The Formula of the End in Itself
o Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of
every other, always at the same time as end and never merely as means
 Persons vs. Things
o Value determined by inclination: things (Means have conditional value)
o Value is intrinsic and absolute: persons (ends have value in themselves)
 Perfect duties / the requirements of justice vs. imperfect duties / the requirements of
beneficence:
o Respect their rationality – don’t treat them as mere means
 The realm of perfect duties and the requirements of justice
o Foster and promote their ends (Especially their happiness and rational capacities)
 The realm of imperfect duties and the requirements of beneficence
 Sexual objectification: To objectify someone sexualy is to treat/regard that person as a
mere means to satisfy one’s sexual desires
B. Questions
1. David DeGrazia claims that the extensive harm that factory farming causes to animals is
unnecessary. Explain what he means by this. How might someone deny this claim? Who
do you think is right? Why?
a. DeGrazia’s “weak” thesis: All people with ready access to healthful alternatives
are morally obligated to make every reasonable effort not to purchase meat, eggs,
or dairy products from factory farm”
i. DeGrazia bases his argument on widely accepted moral principles (as well
as empirical claims about the conditions in factory farms).
b. DeGrazia’s Argument: Animals have (at least some) moral status
i. Factory farming causes massive harm to animals
ii. This massive harm is unnecessary
iii. (If animals have at least some moral status, and factory farming causes
massive harm to animals, and this massive harm is unnecessary, then
factory farming is “morally indefensible”.)
iv. Therefore, factory farming is “morally indefensible”.
v. If factory farming is morally indefensible, then anyone with access to
healthful alternatives is morally obligated to avoid purchasing animal
products from factory farms.
vi. Therefore, anyone with access to healthful alternatives is morally
obligated to avoid purchasing animal products from factory farms
c. Objections
i. Step 3:
1. The economic necessity objection: shuttering factory farms would
cause great economic hardship
 2. The cultural/gustatory necessity objection: easy access to
inexpensive meat is an important and beloved part of people’s lives
and cultures. Most people would miss eating meat
2. Explain what David DeGrazia means by saying that there is a “bridging issue” involved
in getting from ‘factory farming is morally indefensible’ to ‘one ought to avoid
purchasing factory-farmed animal products’. What arguments does he use to “cross the
bridge”?
a. Step 4: The bridging premise
i. This step involved another moral principle, this one providing a ‘bridge’
from the immorality of institutional practices to the immorality of
individual actions.
ii. Basically, DeGrazia is saying: if factory farming is morally wrong, you
shouldn’t buy their products
b. Objections:
3. Why does Peter Singer think that well-off persons in developed nations are morally
obligated to donate large portions of their money to famine relief (or other similar
causes)? Explain his argument
a. Normally giving money to famine relief is thought to belong to the realm of
charity. It is a supererogatory action.
b. Singer argues that this common view is mistaken. Giving money to famine relief
belongs in the realm of duty. It is morally obligatory.
i. Strong version: If it is in our power to prevent something bad from
happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral
importance, we ought, morally to do it.
ii. Weak version: “if it is in our power to prevent something very ad from
happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought,
morally to do it”
c. Objections:
i. Distance
ii. Others can help
iii. Unintended effects
iv. Demandingness: if Singer is right, it is always wrong to spend money on
such frivolities.
v. Political Solutions
vi. Futility
4. Is it possible (i.e., consistent) for a utilitarian to be against the use of torture in all real-
world cases (Such as the CIA’s adoption of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ after
9/11)? Explain and defend your answer.
a. Three positions
i. There are some circumstances in which torture would likely result in
dramatically less suffering and more happiness than refraining from
torture would (Empirical premise)
1. One ought to do that action which maximizes happiness and
reduces suffering (Principle of Utility)
2. Conclusion: There are some circumstances in which torture is
acceptable
 ii. There are no circumstnaces in which torture would likely result in less
suffering and more happiness than refraining from torture would (Torture
doesn’t work)
1. One ought to do that action which maximizes happiness and
reduces suffering (Principle of Utility)
2. Conclusion: There are no circumstances in which torture is
acceptable
iii. There are some circumstances in which torture would likely result in
dramatically less suffering and more happiness than refraining from
torture would (Empirical)
1. There are no circumstances in which torture is acceptable
2. Conclusion: One ought not always do that action which maximizes
happiness and reduces suffering (Denial of Principle of Utility)
5. Using examples, explain and evaluate E.F. Carritt’s objection that utilitarians “make no
room for justice”.
a. The problem of unjust consequences
i. The principle of utility (in theory) justifies horrendous actions
ii. Horrendous actions are morally wrong
iii. Therefore, the principle of utility is false.
iv. Ex: Hanging an innocent man to avoid a riot, Killing one person to save
five, etc. Commented [NC1]: This answers the question
b. The problem of Quantifying Utility
i. It is impossible to calculate the utility produced by our actions
1. Can’t rank pleasures and pain (Can make rough calculations of
utility)
2. People experience things differently (We rank incommensurate
experiences all the time)
3. Can never know all the consequences of our actions (We can and
should strive to estimate how different people will be affected by
the same kind of experience)
ii. If it is impossible to calculate the utility produced by our actions, then the
principle of utility is false
iii. Therefore, the principle of utility is false Commented [NC2]: Extra
6. According to some utilitarians (like J.S. Mill), qualitative differences between kinds of
pleasures and pains should be factored into the utility calculus. Explain why someone
might want to hold this position and discuss whether it is consistent.
a. Bentham’s utility calculus includes only quantitative features of pleasures and
pains. This means that if someone gets more pleasure out of playing pushpin than
reading poetry, it is morally right to play pushpin. But should the higher or more
qualitatively better pleasures be pursued over lower ones? Is it better to be a
human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a
fool satisfied?
b. All things being equal, one ought to pursue or maximize higher pleasures over
lower ones
 i. If the principle of utility is true, it is not the case that all things being
equal, one ought to pursue or maximize ‘higher’ pleasures over ‘lower’
ones
ii. Therefore, the principle of utility is false
7. Using examples, explain the two basic ways (that correspond to perfect and imperfect
duties) in which one should treat all humans as ends in themselves, according to Kant.
a. Respect their rationality – don’t treat them as mere means
i. The realm of perfect duties and the requirements of justice
ii. Do no injustice
1. Don’t cheat to get more food for your family, don’t price-gouge,
try to fulfill your duties to particular others, aid should not be
coercive
b. Foster and promote their ends (especially their happiness and rational capacities)
i. The realm of imperfect duties and the requirements of beneficence
1. A matter of discretion
2. Stronger duties to those who are in dire need
3. Beneficence directed at putting people in a position to pursue
whatever ends they may have is for Kant a stronger claim on us
than beneficence directed at sharing ends with those who are
already in a position to pursue varieties of ends
4. (Example): Assessing dire need?
a. Need-based scholarship as opposed to giving scholarships
to those who have the financial means to pay?
8. Using the Formula of the End in Itself and the concept of sexual objectification, explain
why Kant thinks that casual sex is morally wrong, even if it is consensual and doesn’t
hurt anyone
a. Formula of the End in Itself: Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own
person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as end and never
merely as means
b. Sexual desire is especially problematic from a moral standpoint because it
involves valuing a person for their body (a thing)
c. Casual sex is wrong, even if both partners consent and enjoy it because each of
them dishonors the human nature of the other. They make of humanity an
instrument for the satisfaction of their lusts and inclinations.
d. Prostitution is likewise a violation of human dignity
e. “To allow one’s person for profit to be used by another for the satisfaction of
sexual desire to make of oneself an object of demand, is to … oneself a thing on
which another satisfies his appetite”
f. Marriage is required because: “Only when two persons give each-other the whole
of themselves, and not merely the use of their sexual capacities, can sex be other
than objectifying