Philosophy 210 Exam 1

Although they connect, they are not the same. Ethics and law cannot be equivalent because there will always be one group affected adversely by a decision. What is ethical could be illegal; what is legal could be unethical.

Personal responsibility (his name goes on the documents), part of Parnas' job was to consider the risks and benefits to society, and he was in a unique position to be able to recognize the risks and act on them

It's used for guidance, for professional societies and memberships, and to justify ones actions. It is generic enough that is allows for social, religious, and political differences. It's intentionally not detailed and precise to avoid people finding loopholes.

Public safety. 11.1-it is the primary obligation "engineers shoudl hold paramount"

-11.3.c disclosure is Kantian. Part of the respect for persons--letting them make autonmous, fully-informed decisions--even bad ones.
-The idea of informed consent. Ex. medicine: giving the patient all relevant information including risks.
-11.5.b. gifts must be made openly and publicly according to the company Texas Instrument to avoid bribes and an unfair advantage towards other employees.
-You should say if you have a conflict of interest when speaking on something related to your empoyer or making money off of it to invite the public's "scrutiny".

Descriptive claims state facts. Descriptive doesn't mean true, but it means trying to say how things are. Even if they're false they count as descriptive.

Normative claims are prescriptive--they say how things shoudl be or how one ought to behave. Normative claims on the exam should always have "should" or "ought".

Applied ethics, normative ethical theories, and moral epistemology. The distinction amongst these is based on what type of question is asked.

Applied ethics asks which acts are permissible, impermissible, or obligatory. Ex. everyday ethical decisions; "trying to figure out what the right answers are". Other examples could be medical ethic boards, codes of conduct, etc.

Normative ethical theory askswhy is act x permissible, impermissible, or obligatory. What establishes my obligation to do x or refrain from x (if you have an obligation in the first place)?

Moral epistemology is the theory of knowedge. how do we know that a given statement is true? What are the sources of knowledge? Moral epistemology has to do with how we come to know or believe moral statements.

A relativist says there are answers for different cultures, groups of peoples at different times, etc. There is no one set of moral facts for all people.

Relativism is a normative ethical theory.

x is right if the majority of persons in a given culture approve of x. You could have different "right" answers. Majority and time are factors in different cultures.

Another type of relativism. Says x is right if I approve of x. Relative to individual preferences.

Knowing what the majority of people think in your culture at the time.

It's introspective. I know how I feel about it and I know whats right and wrong for at any given point in time.

Think of the humor theory of medicine and the phlogiston theory. We have much better theories now. Ethicists look at relativism like the two thoeries above--it works to explain certain things but has serious problems.

-One cannot condemn even the worst atrocities. Ex. they could not say the holocaust was wrong because they would be in a logical contradition. Their ethical view ssays whatever the majority of that time thinks is right, it can be the right thing.
-No moral progress. As soon as you distinguish some sort of better or worse way, you're not doing cultural relativism anymore.

-One cannot logically condemn any behavior wahtsoever. Ex. you can't say murder was wong because under your theory, they did what they thought was right at the time.
-No moral progress even in yourself. You act in accordance with waht you approve of and therefore it was the right thing to do for the time.

Non-relativistic ethical systems are generally forward-looking. They consider the future consequences of the action. ex. do the right thing today to make the future better

Backwards-looking: they consdier what people are entitled to based on the past. Fairness of justice related

Forward-looking theory. Whether an act is permissible or impermissible depends only on its consequences. For example, ethical egoism: an act is permissible if it is good for me.

Egoism is a type of consequentialism but its different than subjectivism because it doesn’t depend on consequences—just depends on how the individual feels about it. Ethical egoism is also a type of realism. For every realist theory, theres one right answer to every ethical problem. The ethical egoist can be wrong about an ethical decision. A subjectivist cannot be wrong because it depends on feelings at an individual time.

According to all deontologists, xis right if x fulfills ones duty. Duty usually has nothing to do with good or bad consequences. Example would be divine command theory: it's ones duty to obey god, there x is right if god allows x. Divine command theory is not very useful in matters of public debate, however.

X is right if it brings about the greatest (intrinsic) good for the greatest number of people. It's okay if x has some bad consequences as long as the good outweighs the bad. Unlike egoism, we have to consider the consequences to everyone affected by x.

Intrinsic goods are only valuable in themselves. Things like life itself, happiness, etc. You don't want to trade them off bc they are good on their own.

Instrumental goods are only good for something esle. They are a means for some other good. Ex. tools allow you to do stuff so they are instrumental goods.

Every indivdual act must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Robinhood is a great example, in which stealing is permissible for this case specifically.
Problems with act utilitarianism:
-Exploitation of the few. ex. unwilling organ donor. Someone could kill you if your organs would benefit multiple people and justify it!
-Deviant happiness. If someone really enjoys doing something "wrong" but it makes them happy, act utilitarianism can excuse these actions.
-Special responsibilitie: An act utilitarianist could change their view or neglect their responsbilities if it means producing a greater good. ex. neglecting kids in lecture

An act is right if it accords with a set of rules that collectively bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. Examples of these rules: don’t steal, don’t falsely testify against innocent people, etc. in some individual cases, this might not maximize happiness, but in general it will.
Problems with Rule Utilitarianism:
-Exploitation (again)
-Could justify rules that are legal but not ethical, such as slavery