PHI 3670: Ethical Theory Review for Midterm Exam Feb. 26, 2002
|
1. Plato, pp. 6-19 |
2. Aristotle, pp. 20-34 |
3. Epicurus, pp. 35-46 |
4. Epictetus, pp. 47-59 |
5. Augustine, pp. 60-74 |
6. Aquinas, pp. 75-88 |
|
7. Hobbes, pp. 89-102 |
8. Butler, pp. 118-129 (OMIT) |
9. Hume, pp. 130-142 |
10. Kant, pp. 143-156 |
11. Mill, pp. 157-171 |
12. Ethics of Friendship |
General Characterization of Ethical Theories:
Virtue theory – what characterizes virtue theory? Note that all of the virtue theories (Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Augustine, Aquinas) are teleological. What is the role of “function” and its relationship to human excellence in virtue theories generally?
Consequentialist/Teleological – which of the theories are teleological? What does this mean?
Deontological – which of the theories is deontological? What does this mean?
Which of the theories so far discussed is “meta-ethical” rather than “ethical” or “prescriptive”?
Consider these general concepts and how they relate to the specific questions about the ethical systems of thought listed in the chart above and in the questions below.
What is the good? How do these theorists conceive of the good life? What should we do?
Consider these concepts in their contexts:
Plato:
The harmony of the elements of the soul
The conceptions of justice mentioned in Republic and how Socrates finally defines it
The distinction between The Good and good things
The story of Gyges’ Ring and its significance
Aristotle:
Aristotle’s justification of the claim that happiness (eudaimonia) is the highest good
Aristotle’s notion that ethics is not an exact “science”
The state is prior to the individual/the whole is prior to its parts
Why the lives of gratification/pleasure and honor seeking are not sufficient for the good life
Aristotle’s definition of happiness
Habituation
The Doctrine of the mean
Epicurus:
Ataraxia
Epicurus’s materialism and his claim that in some sense, the soul is immortal. How this is relevant to achieving ataraxia. How this is consistent with the claim that “death is nothing to us” and it is nothing to the dead.
Epicurean hedonism (not the contemporary kind, but Epicurus’s kind)
Epictetus:
Epictetus was a hard determinist – he held the position that everything in the world is controlled and determined by specific and determinate laws. He also holds that our reason is in harmony with it, and we should strive to understand it.
That we are a “fragment torn from god”
Apathy
The distinction between things that are in our power and those that are not in our power
Augustine:
Augustine’s ethical position can be understood in part by his view of the problem of evil. Basically, it is the traditional problem. If god is all knowing, all powerful and all good, then how do we account for the problem of evil? If god knows everything, then he knows that evil will occur; if god is all good, god wants to prevent evil from happening, and if god is all powerful, god can prevent evil from happening. But evil does happen. So the problem is, then, either that god doesn’t know that evil will happen, or if god does know and wants to stop it, but it still exists, then god is not all powerful. But if god CAN stop evil but does not want to, then god must not be all good. Nasty problem, isn’t it?
How does Augustine go about attempting to solve this problem?
How, in particular, does he “solve” the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will? (Distinction between knowing the cause and being the cause.)
Briefly describe Augustine’s view of the goal of mankind as a freeing of the soul from the body and the soul’s flight to God.
Aquinas:
Aquinas’s conception of happiness and of ethics generally is much like that of Aristotle, but also differs significantly from it in many respects. For example, the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity (as well as humility) are not among the virtues of Aristotle, and among the virtues of Aristotle is pride, a sin according to Christian doctrine.
For Aquinas, as for Aristotle, whatever is natural is good. What does this have to do with Aquinas’s conception of the relationship between eternal law and natural law?
Thomas Hobbes (did you notice that they have last names now???):
Hobbes is the first systematic modern philosopher of ethics and political theory. What are some of the fundamental differences between ancient/medieval and modern philosophy’s conceptions of the relationship between the individual and the state (community) and the ability of the individual to know, as well as the place of the individual in the moral universe?
The relationship between Hobbes’s mechanistic materialism and his conceptions of good and evil prior to the creation of a state
Natural human equality – the ways it manifests itself
The meaning of the claim that the life of man is characterized by a “restless and perpetual desire for power after power that ceases only in death”
State of Nature and State of War
Causes of Quarrel
That human beings in the natural condition are not immoral or “bad”
The laws of nature, how they are discovered. The first through third laws of nature
In one sense, Hobbes’s sovereign is absolute – in another sense, his conception of the creation of government is thoroughly one in which we can rest assured that government exists by the consent of the governed. How are absolute sovereignty and the notion that government exists by the consent of the governed reconcilable?
David Hume:
For Hume, reason is not the impetus to our conduct. Something else is. What is it? What does this mean for reason, and how do you explain this claim: “Reason is and ought only to be, a slave to the passions….”?
Hume’s justification of the claim that moral statements are not objects of knowledge
You can use examples to explain the difference, and ones from mathematics will work in the first case, and the example of the tree and its offspring often work in the second case.
What is the role of benevolence in Hume’s claims about morality?
What does it mean to say that Hume’s ethics is actually “meta-ethics”?
Immanuel Kant:
Kant’s ethical theory is thoroughly non-emotional and fully rational. Explain with some example, and using the categorical imperative (first formulation) what this means and how it manifests itself. What about the second (the means-ends/respect for persons) formulation? What does that have to do with rationality?
Kant’s claim that reason was intended by nature to be the ruler of the will. Why happiness is not our ultimate goal
That the good will is the only thing good without qualification
Definition of duty
The immorality of lying promises and suicide
The requirements of Kantian moral theory
Hypothetical/Categorical Imperative
Universality and Means-Ends formulations of the categorical imperative
Intrinsic value of rational beings/the instrumental value of other things
John Stuart Mill: Mill’s ethical theory is a teleological/consequentialist one. He claims that the greatest happiness principle is the ultimate principle of morality. Further, for Mill, it is not relevant to social utility to know or even to wonder why a person performs the right or good action. What is important is simply that a person does what is morally required. This is considerably different from Kant’s theory, of course.
Principle of Utility
Defense of the claim that utilitarianism is a moral theory fit “for swine”
Distinction between higher and lower pleasures/explanation why some people prefer the lower pleasures over the higher ones
How does Mill respond to the claims that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine, that it is not possible to expect people to act for the greatest happiness, and that there is not enough time in practical circumstances to act on the principle of utility?
Sanctions of the principle of utility
What is the difference between act and rule utilitarianism?
Philosophy (Ethics) of Friendship:
Aristotle: In what sense is Aristotle’s conception of friendship consistent with his general ethical theory?
What are the three types of friendship, and why are the first two incomplete while the third one is the best and most desirable?
Cicero: What, in your view, is the most important or significant claim of Cicero regarding friendship? Why do you hold this view?
Montaigne: As you know, Montaigne writes his essay on friendship largely with respect to the death of his (best) friend. What does he say about the relationship between two people when they are friends in the way he has described them. What does it mean for Montaigne to say that after his friend died, he (Montaigne) now feels in some way like he is only half a self?
Emerson: Emerson made the claim that we should treat our friends like spectacles, that we should use them the way we use our books, and that it is not necessary that friends be together all the time, most of the time, or even any time. How does he express these claims, and how do you think they relate to a conception of “morality”?
In your considered view, is it the case that all three of these thinkers consider friendship to be characterized by our relationships with others as “other selves”?
Conclusion:
There’s a lot here – of course, we’ve gone through an entire half-semester, and approximately half of the text, in addition to four selections on the ethics of friendship. If you have read the selections in the text and online, if you have engaged yourself in the subject and attended regularly, there’s little reason to think that you can’t do well on the midterm on Feb. 26. I certainly have confidence, given what I’ve seen so far of your written work on the whole, that you can do very well. The test will be composed of a variety of questions from which you can choose the ones for which you have the strongest preference in each section. I’ll design the test so that there will be four sections, and at least two questions in each section. Section I will be composed of very short answer, identification “questions”, terms and concepts. Sections II-IV will be composed of longer essay questions. Choose one question from each of the sections (II-IV). Pace yourself, of course, and think of it this way: you have approximately 75 minutes for the test, and you’ll have four sections of the test to complete. That gives you about 18 minutes per section, or just a bit longer for sections II-IV if you take seriously the notion that section I will be definition-type questions and will not require much time.
Don’t forget to bring a blue book with you to class on Tuesday Feb. 26th – but don’t write in it until the test starts. It is probably best to get an 8.5x11” blue book – they have more space to write than the smaller ones – and then everyone gets the same size. Remember that you need to turn in the blue books before the test starts, and then they will be redistributed. You will need only one blue book. PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY, AND IF YOU CAN’T WRITE LEGIBLY, THEN PRINT – PREFERABLY IN DARK INK OR DARK PENCIL.
Here’s an example of the general format of the test (some of the questions below may be actual questions on the test – in fact, if I were you, I’d count on that):
Section I: Describe/define any three and only three of the following terms or concepts:
a. The distinction between normative and meta-ethics
b. Psychological Egoism vs. ethical egoism
c. Deontology
d. Virtue Theory
e. Social Contract Theory
f. Doctrine of the Mean
g. Plato’s concept of justice
h. The notion of virtue and its relationship to excellence in virtue theory
i. The Hobbesian distinction between a right of nature and a law of nature
Section II: Answer one and only one of the questions in this section:
Consider this example. There is a person contemplating cheating on this test. Perhaps he or she has even prepared a cheat sheet and has it hidden inside the fold of his or her shirt sleeve, or under a watch band, or has written interesting notes on his or her forearm. (Of course, NOBODY in an ethics course would consider cheating, so this is a purely hypothetical consideration.) Choose one of the questions below
a. Could this person justify cheating using Kant’s moral theory? Why or why not? Justify your answer.
b. Could this person justify cheating using Aristotle’s moral theory? Why or why not? Justify your answer.
c. Could this person justify cheating using Utilitarian moral theory? Why or why not? Justify your answer
Section III: Answer one and only one of the questions in this section:
a. In your considered and justified view, what is the major weakness of Kantian or Utilitarian moral theory? Be sure to justify your answer.
b. In your considered and justified view, between the theories of Plato and Aristotle, which is the most consistent, believable, or “workable” ethical theory?
c. In your considered and justified view, is Hobbes’s moral theory plausible? That is, do you think it expresses accurately the nature of ethics and/or the nature of humanity? Defend your answer.
d. Whose position (among the four we discussed) on the ethics of friendship most accurately or completely reflects your own view? Why is this the case, and what elements of that theory are most important to the development of the view?
Section IV:
a. What are, in your considered opinion, the three most significant and well-justified aspects of the moral theory of either Epicurus or Epictetus? Explain.
b. What, in your considered opinion, are three aspects of the ethical theory of either Augustine or Aquinas that are most significant in the development of the particular theory? Why do you hold this position?
c. If you were an ethical egoist, could you consistently and fully live according to the dictates of the moral theory of Thomas Hobbes? Why?
d. If you were Epicurus, what would be your primary critique of the ethical theory of either Augustine or Aquinas? Justify your answer.
Yes, yes, these are difficult questions. But as Spinoza said (in a different context), “All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.” You have so far in this course, and will in the future, read some of the most significant works of ethics in the Western world. Socrates pointed out that considering the problems of ethics is not something to be taken lightly because in doing so, we are talking about how we ought to live our lives. What could be more important than that?