Moral philosophy Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Ethics (moral philosophy) – philosophical study of what we ought to do and what is morally right. Morality – the actual norms and duties people follow; ethics asks why they should. Normative Ethics – seeks universal principles that tell us how to act (e.g., consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics). Meta‑ethics – investigates the nature of moral facts, meaning of moral terms, and how moral knowledge is possible. Applied Ethics – uses ethical theory to resolve concrete real‑world problems (bioethics, business ethics, etc.). Consequentialism – an action’s rightness depends on its outcomes. Deontology – rightness is determined by duties or principles that must be followed, regardless of outcomes. Virtue Ethics – focuses on character traits (virtues) and practical wisdom (phronesis) rather than rules or consequences. Intrinsic vs. Instrumental Value – intrinsic = good in itself; instrumental = good as a means to something else. --- 📌 Must Remember Act vs. Rule Consequentialism: act‑consequentialism judges each act by its actual results; rule‑consequentialism judges actions by whether they follow rules that would generally produce the best outcomes. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Universalizability – act only on maxims you can will to be universal laws. Ends‑in‑themselves – treat persons always as ends, never merely as means. Virtue’s Golden Mean (Aristotle): each virtue lies between an excess and a deficiency (e.g., courage = between rashness and cowardice). Meta‑ethical Positions: Moral realism – objective, mind‑independent moral facts exist. Moral relativism – moral truths are relative to cultures/individuals. Moral nihilism – no moral facts at all. Cognitivism vs. Non‑cognitivism: Cognitivism – moral statements are truth‑apt. Non‑cognitivism – moral statements express emotions (emotivism) or prescriptions (prescriptivism). Applied‑ethics methodologies: Top‑down – start with universal principles, apply to cases. Bottom‑up (casuistry) – start with particular intuitions, derive principles. --- 🔄 Key Processes Evaluating a Consequentialist Claim Identify the action. Predict expected consequences (reasonable anticipation). Compare total pleasure vs. suffering (utilitarian calculus). Choose the action that maximizes net value (or satisficing if a rule‑consequentialist approach). Applying Kantian Deontology Formulate the maxim of your intended action. Test for universalizability (can everyone act on it?). Check the ends‑in‑themselves condition (does it treat persons merely as means?). If both pass → action is morally permissible. Virtue‑Ethics Decision Flow Recognize the relevant virtue(s) (e.g., honesty, compassion). Determine the golden mean between excess and deficiency for the situation. Apply practical wisdom (phronesis) to choose the right expression of the virtue. --- 🔍 Key Comparisons Consequentialism vs. Deontology – outcome‑focused vs. duty‑focused. Act Consequentialism vs. Rule Consequentialism – evaluate each act directly vs. evaluate adherence to beneficial rules. Kantian Deontology vs. Contractualism – universal rational principles vs. duties derived from mutual agreement of rational agents. Intrinsic Value vs. Instrumental Value – valued for itself vs. valued as a means. Cognitivism vs. Non‑cognitivism – moral statements have truth value vs. they express attitudes or prescriptions. --- ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “Consequentialism = “anything goes” – false; it still requires rational assessment of outcomes, often guided by utilitarian principles. “Kant says we must never break promises” – misread; Kant allows exceptions if the maxim of breaking a promise could be universalized without contradiction. “Virtue ethics ignores rules” – wrong; virtues inform when rules should be followed or flexibly applied. “Moral relativism means “anything is okay” – relativism claims truth varies by culture, not that there are no standards at all. “Non‑cognitivism denies moral language matters” – it denies truth‑aptness, not that moral talk is irrelevant. --- 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition “Result‑oriented lens” → Ask “What will this produce?” for consequentialism. “Universal‑law filter” → Imagine a world where everyone acted the same way; if absurd, the action is impermissible (Kant). “Golden‑mean compass” → Visualize a line between two extremes; the virtue lies in the middle. “Fact‑vs‑Feeling” → Separate cognitive claims (truth‑apt) from affective claims (express emotions) to decide between cognitivism and non‑cognitivism. --- 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Actual vs. Expected Consequentialism: When outcomes are highly uncertain, expected consequences guide moral judgment; actual consequences matter only after the fact. Satisficing Consequentialism: Some rule‑consequentialists accept “good enough” rules rather than strict maximization when optimal calculation is infeasible. Moral Supererogation: Acts that go beyond duty (e.g., heroic sacrifice) are praised but not required. Moral Motivation Internalism vs. Externalism: Internalists claim moral judgments automatically motivate; externalists argue additional desires are needed. --- 📍 When to Use Which Use Consequentialism when the primary ethical question is “Which outcome yields the most overall good?” (e.g., public‑policy cost‑benefit analysis). Use Deontology when the issue concerns rights, duties, or treating people as ends (e.g., medical consent, truth‑telling). Use Virtue Ethics for personal character development or when navigating nuanced situations where rigid rules feel too blunt (e.g., leadership dilemmas). Apply Top‑down method for clear, established principles (e.g., professional codes). Apply Bottom‑up (casuistry) when faced with novel, context‑rich cases lacking ready‑made rules (e.g., emerging bio‑tech issues). --- 👀 Patterns to Recognize “Utility‑maximization” → Look for language about greatest happiness, pleasure vs. pain. “Universalizable maxim” → Spot phrasing like “If everyone did X…” indicating a deontological test. “Golden mean” – statements contrasting excess and deficiency point to virtue‑ethical analysis. “Intrinsic value claim” – phrases “valuable in itself” signal intrinsic value discussions. “Emotion‑laden moral claim” – exclamations or “I feel” indicate non‑cognitivist (emotivist) stance. --- 🗂️ Exam Traps Distractor: “Consequentialism always requires the best possible outcome.” → Some forms (satisficing, rule‑consequentialism) accept satisfactory outcomes. Distractor: “Kantian ethics permits lying if it saves a life.” → Kant’s universal law test would still prohibit lying because the maxim “lie when convenient” cannot be universalized. Distractor: “Virtue ethics is the same as moral relativism.” → Virtue ethics seeks objective virtues (e.g., courage) and practical wisdom, not culture‑dependent norms. Distractor: “Moral relativism means no moral judgments can be made.” → Relativism allows judgments within a cultural framework; it denies universal standards. Distractor: “All non‑cognitivist theories deny any moral significance.” – They deny truth‑aptness, not that moral language has no impact; they view statements as expressions of attitudes or prescriptions. ---