Ethics Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Ethics – philosophical study of moral phenomena; asks what we ought to do and what is right. Morality vs. Ethics – morality = obligations we have; ethics = broader ideas about the good life and normative theories. Normative Ethics – seeks general principles of right action (e.g., utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics). Applied Ethics – applies normative principles to concrete issues (abortion, environment, business, etc.). Metaethics – investigates the meaning, truth‑value, and existence of moral facts (realism, relativism, non‑naturalism). Value Theory (Axiology) – studies what is intrinsically good (pleasure, knowledge, beauty) vs. what is merely instrumental. 📌 Must Remember Consequentialism: right ⇢ best overall consequences. Deontology: right ⇢ duty/rules, regardless of outcomes (Kant’s categorical imperative). Virtue Ethics: right ⇢ cultivation of virtues & practical wisdom (phronesis). Utilitarian Calculus: weigh intensity × duration of pleasure vs. pain; higher pleasures > lower pleasures. Moral Realism vs. Relativism vs. Nihilism – objective facts, culture‑bound truths, or no facts at all. Cognitivism vs. Non‑cognitivism – moral statements are truth‑apt vs. expressions of attitude/commands. Supererogation – actions beyond duty (e.g., heroic charity). Rights vs. Permissions – a right imposes a duty on others; permission = no duty to refrain. 🔄 Key Processes Top‑Down Applied‑Ethics Method Start with a universal principle (e.g., “do no harm”). Test the principle against the concrete case. Bottom‑Up Casuistry Examine the facts of the case first. Derive or adapt principles that fit the pattern of similar cases. Kantian Categorical Imperative (Universalization) Formulate the maxim of your action. Ask: Could everyone act on this maxim without contradiction? → If yes, action is permissible. Utilitarian Decision‑Rule Identify all affected parties. Estimate pleasure/pain (intensity × duration). Choose the action that maximizes net positive utility. 🔍 Key Comparisons Consequentialism vs. Deontology Focus: outcomes vs. duties. Decision: “What gives the greatest good?” vs. “What rule must I follow?” Act Consequentialism vs. Rule Consequentialism Act: evaluate each act’s actual consequences. Rule: adopt rules that generally produce the best outcomes. Kantian Deontology vs. Divine Command Theory Source of duty: rational universal law vs. God’s commands. Virtue Ethics vs. Ethics of Care Virtue: character traits & practical wisdom. Care: relational responsibilities and empathy. Moral Realism vs. Moral Relativism Realism: moral facts exist independent of attitudes. Relativism: truth varies with culture, history, or individual perspective. ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “Consequentialism ignores rights.” – Rule consequentialism can protect rights by endorsing rights‑preserving rules. “Kant says you must always tell the truth, even to a murderer.” – Kant allows lying only if the maxim “always lie” fails universalization; however, many interpret the “dangerous liar” case as a conflict requiring nuance. “Virtue ethics is vague because it lacks rules.” – Virtue ethics supplies guidelines via the “golden mean” and practical wisdom (phronesis). “All moral statements are factual claims.” – Non‑cognitivists argue they express emotions or commands, not truth‑apt propositions. 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition “Consequences = Scorecard” – Imagine each action as a spreadsheet of pleasure/pain units; total the columns to see the winner. “Kantian Universal Law = Switch Test” – Treat the maxim like a light‑switch rule: if flipping it for everyone would cause a blackout, it fails. “Virtue = Character Muscle” – Like exercising a muscle, repeatedly practicing courage makes it stronger; the “mean” is the comfortable weight. 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Expected vs. Actual Consequentialism – If an action’s foreseeable outcomes are good but actual outcomes turn bad, expected consequentialism judges it permissible; actual consequentialism does not. Satisficing Consequentialism – In time‑pressured situations, “good enough” actions may be justified over the optimal but unknown choice. Divine Command Theory – Only applies where the authority of divine commands is accepted; otherwise, it lacks persuasive force. 📍 When to Use Which Choose Consequentialism when the problem is outcome‑oriented (public policy, cost‑benefit analysis). Choose Deontology for rights‑heavy dilemmas (contracts, promises, confidentiality). Choose Virtue Ethics when the focus is on character development or leadership (professional ethics, education). Apply Rule Consequentialism for institutional policies where consistency matters. Use Expected Consequentialism in uncertain environments (medical prognosis, climate policy). 👀 Patterns to Recognize “Maxim → Universalize?” – Whenever a decision involves a personal rule, test it with Kant’s universalization. “Pleasure‑Pain Balance?” – In any utilitarian framing, look for explicit or implicit calculations of intensity × duration. “Rights vs. Duties Conflict?” – Spot when a duty (promise‑keeping) clashes with a right (bodily autonomy) – signals deontological tension. “Care vs. Justice Language?” – Presence of relational terms (“relationships,” “dependence”) often indicates an ethics‑of‑care angle. 🗂️ Exam Traps Distractor: “Consequentialism always yields the same answer as utilitarianism.” – False; rule consequentialism or satisficing may diverge. Distractor: “Kantian ethics permits lying to save a life.” – Misreading; universalization of “lie to save life” typically fails. Distractor: “Supererogatory acts are required.” – Incorrect; they are beyond duty, not obligatory. Distractor: “Moral relativism means ‘anything goes.’” – Relativism allows cultural standards; it does not endorse arbitrary behavior. Distractor: “All meta‑ethical positions deny moral truth.” – Only nihilism and error theory deny truth; realism and non‑naturalism affirm it. --- Use this guide for a quick, confidence‑building review before your ethics exam. Focus on the bolded decision‑rules and pattern‑recognition cues to tackle multiple‑choice questions efficiently.