PHI2600 HW2 Chpt 4 & 8 Eth Subjectivism & Utilitarianism
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Broward College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2600
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by SuperPencil4723
Name: Nicole Jimenez
HW Chapter 4: Ethical Subjectivism
Ethics HW on Ethical Subjectivism
(Note: Ethical Subjectivism is a WEAK and potentially dangerous type of justification for moral claims. Use this HW to explore WHY that is the case.)
1.
(Recap) Respond to at least one of the following questions:
o
What is a specific question
(related to our class) that stands out to you at the moment (from class, the reading, etc.)? Why does it stand out?
The question that stands out for me is "Can you go down a stage in the stages of moral development?" because the answer was unexpected. This is because we as human beings are always destined to progress and not regress but, equally, regressing is a possibility; therefore, I assumed that this possibility existed in this theory. However, I was faced with the understanding that this type of moral process has no regression since it is very difficult for human beings to want to return to precarious moral habits, in addition to the fact that knowledge never disappears.
o
What statement
, made by another student, stands out to you at the moment? Why does it stand out?
I believe that it was not just a statement, it was the variety of answers that were given to the question if it is ever okay to be angry. It is not common for a person to analyze their emotions and introspection but considering that this strong emotion needs a real factor to be able to feel it makes me think that by knowing our emotions better we can improve as a society.
o
What is one concept
on which you gained clarity in our most recent class? What is one concept that is still unclear for you, and how can you go about
clarifying it?
Taking Kohlberg's stages of moral development into account, I believe that I better understood what the post-conventional stage encompasses and the process to achieve this knowledge, as well as its relationship with the history of Socrates and Plato. However, the pre-conventional stage, more specifically ethical subjectivism, is still a topic that I need to do more research and reading to understand. I believe that through this homework I will be able to understand this subject, in addition to the lectures we receive, I do not consider it to be a difficult subject to understand, but rather that I need to acquire more information.
o
What is one philosophical question
you have asked someone outside of our class? What did you learn by listening
to their response?
I asked a family member if it was ever okay to be angry, to which she replied, "Yes, since it is a form of expression of feelings, although it must be done in moderation so it does not hurt people's feelings that are around us, it is a moment in which one must know how to express emotions and be coherent with what one thinks and with what one feels."
2.
In your own words, or in words directly from our class book, finish these statements:
o
“According to ethical subjectivism, morality is determined by ___expression of individual opinions or feelings___.” o
“According to an ethical subjectivist, the ONLY thing that determines whether something is morally permissible or not is _an opinion since it encompasses personal beliefs_.”
3.
Is the author, Judith Boss, ultimately arguing that you should
be an ethical subjectivist OR that you should not
be an ethical subjectivist? (Hint: Be careful here2. Sometimes the author’s language confuses people. The answer is: “Should NOT!” – look for it... Also check the short section that comes just before the Ethical Subjectivism chapter in the book.)
According to Judy Boss, nobody should be an ethical subjectivist since these theories handle continuous inconsistencies and flaws in their propositions. She still recognized that the importance of these theories is not to accept them but to find their errors in order to learn that they are not the best-proposed methodology in the exercise of making truly good moral decisions.
4.
Once you have identified the author’s conclusion
/assessment/evaluation
regarding ethical subjectivism (in the above question), write out as many premises
(the reasons and analysis
she uses to support that conclusion) as you can find throughout the chapter. (By doing this, you are starting to identify the elements of
her argument
/reasoning.) (Label “descriptive” premises - matters of fact – with a D) (Label “prescriptive” premises – value/ought claims – with a P)
There are fundamental moral standards for which the majority of moral philosophers disagree with ethical subjectivism. (P)
Ethical subjectivism has been used incorrectly to support conclusions; however, relative premises cannot support a conclusion containing a universal moral principle. (D)
Universal moral duties do not exist in ethical subjectivism. (D)
Ethical subjectivism is prescriptive and fails to recognize the difference between prescriptive and descriptive. (D)
There is moral uncertainty due to its disagreement about moral values. The author implies that it is important to recognize that ethical subjectivism does not have objective standards. (P)
“We cannot know with certainty whether or not objective moral standards exist.” (P)
©Kimber 2023
5.
Reflect: Do you agree with the author’s conclusion/assessment/evaluation regarding ethical subjectivism? Why or why not? Use support from the chapter (as premises) to back up your position. Judy Boss's analysis of ethical subjectivism seems to me to be a very good process since it takes into account both positions on this theory. Likewise, the author firmly maintains her position by establishing each premise and researching each area that ethical subjectivism encompasses. Therefore, she believes that her opinion is credible since she obtains arguments and counterarguments from robust philosophical theories adding her opinion.
6.
What else did you find interesting / surprising in this chapter? Explain.
I found it very interesting to know the positions of the philosophers who support ethical subjectivism since the situations in which they apply it are very controversial. These positions basically denigrate and exclude certain aspects of the human being; therefore, their thinking personally seems rude and questionable to me.
7.
Generate
an inquiry/philosophical question related to the reading and write it out.
Is it easy for a person who is learning about ethics and morality to confuse ethical subjectivism with tolerant ethics, or is the difference evident if the concepts are studied well?
HW Chapter 8: Utilitarianism ETHICS HW on Utilitarianism
(Note: Utilitarianism is a STRONG type of justification for moral claims. Use this HW to explore WHY that is the case.)
1)
In your own words, or in words directly from our class book, finish these statements:
a.
“According to utilitarianism, morality is determined by __the consequences an action produces over someone or something__.” b.
“According to a utilitarian, the most moral choice is the one that generates/produces/yields _the greatest good or happiness for everyone_.”
2)
Create a chart where you identify PLEASURES
& pains you experience this week. Give each pleasure and pain a number to indicate its pleasure value or pain value. (For example: I am eating a delicious piece of pizza, and that’s a +20 out of a possible +100 units of pleasure; I got bit by a mosquito and now it is itchy, and that’s a -15 units of pleasure out of a possible -100 units of pleasure.) (If you use negative pleasure units to indicate pain as I did in this example, you can put
all of your data on one chart or one line.) Experiences from this week
Pleasure or Pain number
My dad returned to Colombia and I will not see him again until December
-75
My mom came to spend time and live with me for a month
+60
Filling out the chemistry lab report in a short time was a stressful situation
-20
I received my biweekly salary
+5
I remodeled the organization of my room and kitchen
+20
I started training again both in the gym and swimming
+10
Total
Pleasure: 95
Pain: 95
3)
Do non-human animals deserve ethical treatment – or only humans? What does it mean to treat animals ethically? Can you think of any examples? How is this similar to or different from the ethical treatment of humans?
Yes, animals and all living beings in general deserve to be treated ethically. This means that they deserve respect, love, humane treatment, protection, and affection, among many others about their life and environment. For example, for wild animals, not destroying, attacking, or invading the habitat to which they belong, since it generates alterations to their ecosystem and space, nobody wants someone to invade their space without being invited; for domestic animals such as pets, provide them with care, food, and housing, since these animals are not used to living in the wild.
a.
Explain how you can use utilitarianism to enhance your response to this question.
Seeking the general good of a majority means personally providing good actions; therefore, the theory of utilitarianism is fulfilled since many animals benefit if one does the previously mentioned good actions.
©Kimber 2023
4)
Does it make sense to talk about treating the earth ethically? What would it be like to treat the earth ethically? Are humans treating the earth ethically right now? Have they ever done so? Are you? Explain – and use examples.
As with animals, the earth deserves to be treated ethically since it provides us human beings with unimaginable and essential benefits such as life in addition to food, and habitat, among others. Treating the earth ethically means caring for, protecting, and properly managing its resources but unfortunately throughout the history of the human being since its inception, it has never ensured its protection and its state has progressively deteriorated to the point that it is currently in crisis.
a.
Explain how you can use utilitarianism to enhance your response to this question.
If we human beings applied and understood utilitarianism in-depth, we would understand that caring for the planet is a priority in order to preserve the life of human beings and our society as we know it.
5)
In the prompts below, you will see some important Critical Thinking (CT) Outcomes/Objectives written in bold.
The questions are structured to help you see how you can use them to analyze and evaluate big questions, so pay extra attention to them as you answer. a.
(CT) Explain the question
, problem or issue:
“Is it morally acceptable to euthanize people who have terminal illnesses and who want to end their lives? Why or why not?” Empathy, a fundamental ethical and moral value is essential in the development of the human being for a good coexistence and life. Accordingly, it is morally acceptable to help a person who wishes to die to help him die the way that person wishes. By putting yourself in the position of another person, you understand situations better and it is a duty to help those who need it to be rewarded with the satisfaction that the wishes of the other have been fulfilled.
b.
NOW
:
Clarify your initial response by explaining exactly what makes this issue a moral dilemma
. That is, explain which universal moral principles
are at stake in this dilemma. Underline the universal moral principles in your reply.
It is clear that this is a moral dilemma, however in this case the opinion of the person involved must be considered, a different case would be if it were a unipersonal decision. In this case, the moral principles that are involved in this situation are life
because it helps in the dying process, autonomy
in a certain sense since the person cannot do it by their own means and another person must intervene, and humanity
since its integrity is being invaded, although with its consent and desire.
c.
(CT) Analyze and interpret relevant information
: Identify or write out the facts and variables that will need to be considered to effectively evaluate this case with utilitarianism. You can fill in variables by making them up. For example: Life expectancy of the patient is 8 months. AND…. AND….
The internal state of the patient is precarious, which generates discomfort and pain.
Even though there is a probability of staying alive, the quality offered to the patient does not meet her expectations and wishes.
The patient's family cannot provide the financial and emotional support and assistance that the patient needs.
The patient's emotional state is not in good condition; therefore, he/she decides not to be a burden.
The patient has simply considered the options and her greatest desire is to die with dignity.
For the logic of utilitarianism, the patient, despite his/her pain and illness, must continue to live.
d.
(CT) Evaluate the information to determine possible conclusions
: In this case, use utilitarianism as your evaluative “lens” to help you identify possible conclusions. For the patient the greatest good is death; if life expectancy is short and the quality of life is questionable, death is the greatest good; personally helping a patient is the greatest good; therefore, in utilitarian matters the greatest good is priority and opinions as serious as in this case are essential
e.
Challenge: Include an explanation of how the conclusions would be different if you evaluated the same information through the “lens” of ethical subjectivism
From ethical subjectivism, this situation becomes complex, since two things can happen: that the person who has been chosen for this task does not agree with euthanasia and refuses to help this person or that they evade the situation causing greater conflicts due to the intervention of his personal intervention and priority.
f.
Challenge: Include an explanation of how the conclusion could be different if you changed some of the variables.
Despite a change in the life projection variable, if a patient's decision does not change, the decision should continue to be respected from a ©Kimber 2023
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
medical perspective because to me everyone must decide what to do with their life and in this case how they want to die. Once all options have
been discussed with the patient, if he/she believes that he/she wishes to die, regardless of the personal reasons for which he/she desires this action, I will understand and proceed with euthanasia, as I do not wish to have people question my decisions after considering and analyzing them carefully.
g.
(CT) Generate a well-reasoned conclusion
: Explain which conclusion makes the most sense after completing your analysis and evaluation.
Everyone has the right to decide, if it is in their hands, how one should die, our function as humans is to help and accompany people. Therefore, personal opinion cannot interfere with social respect.
6)
(Synthesis - purpose) What, do you think, was the purpose
of reading and evaluating ethical subjectivism
and utilitarianism
at the same time?
The purpose of evaluating these two theories was to understand that in most cases individuality (from ethical subjectivism) does not progress in a correct way since it is also essential to aim for the greater good for the majority (from utilitarianism). It is necessary to understand that there are theories that do not work for the benefit of society to value, understand, study, analyze, and practice the theories that do provide benefits to human beings.
7)
(Synthesis) Now that you’ve read about ethical subjectivism (moral relativism) and utilitarianism (a universal moral theory), consider this: Should political leaders make decisions based on ethical subjectivism, or utilitarianism? Use an example and explain your reasoning.
In any field, ethical subjectivism should not be applied since it goes against the main rule of being in society, which is to ensure the well-being of people. Therefore, political leaders should be based on the utilitarian theory which would improve the quality of society. Furthermore, as Judy Boss mentioned, it is important not to confuse ethical subjectivism with other theories that focus on personal moral decisions, which I consider happens a lot in the political sphere thanks to ignorance. For example, an example of real life, in Colombia recently the son of the current president Gustavo Petro was denounced and prosecuted in court for constant robbery and embezzlement in his political work, this being a serious crime. However, the president put aside his family ties and decided that if it was beneficial for society for his son to pay for his bad deeds then the law had every right to do so, unlike in past situations in Colombia where presidents found a way to "forgive" their relatives of their crimes. I consider it a very respectable action, a great example of utilitarianism, and an obviation of ethical subjectivism.
8)
Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance (I call it the Veil of Impartiality because it’s less confusing for folks) --- Gain an initial understanding of the Veil of Ignorance/Impartiality
(look it up in the glossary or index if you don’t know what it is and then go to the pages in the book that discuss it). a.
In your own words, or the words of Judith Boss, describe the Veil of Ignorance/Impartiality
:
The veil of ignorance or impartiality refers to the fact that in social situations, to search for the best option or answer, personal interests and conjectures should be ignored, taking a neutral opinion where the previous factors are never used to decide. The concept of the veil should be considered as figurative, since in reality a veil is never used, but one is imagined as a barrier that prevents the personal from coming out but allows the social to be seen.
b.
Would a person who is using/applying – that is, under - the Veil of Ignorance/Impartiality be more likely to apply ethical subjectivism or utilitarianism when making a moral decision? Explain.
Being a theory that significantly avoids the personal and its consequent ramifications, it should be considered that the veil of ignorance or impartiality is linked to utilitarianism. Remembering that utilitarianism refers to the search for good or general happiness, through the application of the veil this process is facilitated, allowing it to achieve its goal. It should be noted that the person or persons who apply the veil of ignorance or impartiality are basically the means of seeking good and are not considered participants in the result of good, since society must
prevail.
©Kimber 2023