General

a posteriori vs. a priori ethics

A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All
bachelors are unmarried"). Galen Strawson wrote that an a priori argument is one in
which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up of
your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You
don't have to do any science.
a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical
evidence (for example "Some bachelors are very happy"). A posteriori justification
makes reference to experience; but the issue concerns how one knows the
proposition or claim in questionwhat justifies or grounds one's belief in it.

consequentialism vs. deontology

Deontology The morality of an action is determined by duty; adherence to
given rules.
Consequentialism The morality of an action is determined by the specific
results of that action.

Kant
Khant: can't lie can't cheat can't do anything that might be at all morally
questionable even if the consequences turn out to be positive. Only cares
about intent or motivation.

Criticisms of a posteriori ethics

Pure ethics vs. practical anthropology

Good will

Thebasicideaisthatwhatmakesagoodpersongoodishispossessionofa
willthatisinacertainwaydeterminedby,ormakesitsdecisionsonthe
basisof,themorallaw.Theideaofagoodwillissupposedtobetheideaof
onewhoonlymakesdecisionsthatheholdstobemorallyworthy,taking
moralconsiderationsinthemselvestobeconclusivereasonsforguiding

herbehavior.Thissortofdispositionorcharacterissomethingweall
highlyvalue.Kantbelieveswevalueitwithoutlimitationorqualification.
Bythis,Ibelieve,hemeansprimarilytwothings.possessingand
maintainingone'smoralgoodnessistheveryconditionunderwhich
anythingelseisworthhavingorpursuing.Intelligenceandevenpleasure
areworthhavingonlyontheconditionthattheydonotrequiregivingup
one'sfundamentalmoralconvictions.Thevalueofagoodwillthuscannot
bethatitsecurescertainvaluableends,whetherofourownorofothers,
sincetheirvalueisentirelyconditionalonourpossessingandmaintaining
agoodwill.

Duty

AccordingtoKant,whatissingularaboutmotivationbydutyisthatit
consistsofbarerespectforlawfulness.Whatnaturallycomestomindis
this:Dutiesarecreatedbyrulesorlawsofsomesort.Forinstance,the
bylawsofaclublaydowndutiesforitsofficers.Cityandstatelaws
establishthedutiesofcitizens.Thus,ifwedosomethingbecauseitisour
civicduty,orourdutyasaboyscoutoragoodAmerican,our
motivationisrespectforthecodethatmakesitourduty.Thinkingweare
dutyboundissimplyrespectingcertainlawspertainingtous.Indeed,we
respecttheselawstothedegree,butonlytothedegree,thattheydonot
violatevalues,lawsorprinciplesweholdmoredear.YetKantthinksin
actingfromdutythatwearenotatallmotivatedbyaprospectiveoutcome
orsomeotherextrinsicfeatureofourconduct.Wearemotivatedbythe
mereconformityofourwilltolawassuch.
What,then,isthedifferencebetweenbeingmotivatedbyasenseofdutyin
theordinarysense,andbeingmotivatedbydutyinKant'ssense?Itis,
presumably,this:Motivationbydutyismotivationbyourrespectfor
whateverlawitisthatmakesouractionaduty.Butwecanrationallyopt
outofourmembershipinthecity,state,cluboranyothersocial
arrangementanditslawsforinstance,byquittingtheclubor
expatriating.Thoselawsonlyapplytousgivenwedon'trationallydecide
tooptout,giventheopportunity.Ourrespectforthelawsguidingusis
qualified,inthesensethatthethoughtthatthelawgivesusadutyis

compellingonlyifthereisnolawwerespectmorethatconflictswithit:
Myrespectforthelawsofmyclubguidesmyactiononlyinsofarasthose
lawsdonotrequiremetoviolatecityordinances.Butmyrespectforcity
ordinanceguidesmeonlyinsofarastheydonotrequiremetoviolate
federallaw.Andsoon.

Acting from/for the sake of vs. merely acting in accordance with

Moral law
The moral law is to act in accordance with the demands of practical reason. morality
is not rooted in consequences (consequentialism), but rather in sheer duty
(deontological ethics).

Categorical imperative
For Kant, practical reason issues a "categorical imperative" that commands us to act
in a accordance with the dictates of reason. There is only one categorical imperative,
but Kant offers three formulations of it:
1) Act as if your maxim were a universal law of nature. What if everybody did this
action? A "maxim" is a personal principle of action, such as "I will never lie," "stealing
is wrong." If your maxim is not one that can be universalized, then it does not issue
from the categorical imperative. For example, if your maxim was "lying is
permissible", then human relationships would not be possible because we would not
know who to trust. This formulation, then, can be summed up with the question,
"What if everyone did this"?
2) The second formulation goes as follows: Treat another rational being as an end in
himself, not as a mere means. This means that we should value the other person
solely for who they are and not merely use them to serve our needs. Of course, in
daily life we cannot avoid this (you use the shop clerk in order to get your can of cola).
Kant's point is that a person should not be a "mere" means. Treat that person as a
rational being, much in the same way you would want to be treated.
3) The third formulation is as follows: Act as if your maxim would harmonize with a
kingdom of ends. This means that the action should be consistent with a world in
which people are treated as ends in themselves.

Universalizability formulation

Ends formulation

Potentially problematic cases for Kant (and Kantian responses)

1) An action is right in and of itself without appeal to consequences. In this sense,
Kant is a "deontological" thinker, not a consquentialist.
2) Only rational beings are worthy of moral consideration. If you are a dog or a tree,
you do not fit into Kant's moral ontology.

Mill
Principle of utility/greatest happiness principle
-An action is good and morally right as long as its results maximize pleasure
and minimize pain.
-The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Not merely the
subjects pleasure, it is the maximum please for the whole world. In the
scenario when people say there is no happiness in the world, there is only
sufering. Mill says that utilitarianism can still be used by simply minimizing the
sufering.

Swine objection
utilitarianism is dehumanizing, and doesn't recognize the greater worthiness of some
nobler pleasures, including those of poetry, music, and, presumably, philosophizing.
The objection was I think that utilitarianism doesn't see that the pleasures of swine
(eg eating, drinking and fornicating hard) are inferior to the more cultivated pleasures.
If, for example, I get 10 'utils' (or any other arbitrary, fixed, intersubjective unit of
pleasure) from smoking a cigarette, and 10 from observing something beautiful, then
many forms of utilitarianism would say these are two equally good acts. Bentham, I
think, thought this was the case, and presumed it was for his felicific calculus (which
you should check out). Mill actually ended up revising his theory of utility to give
greater weight to the nobler pursuits, so that the nobler ones were somehow better
even if they provided strictly less utility. He had some quote to defend this, about how
he'd rather be a miserable socartes than a satisfied swine, or something like that.

Higher vs. lower pleasures

A pleasure is of higher quality if people would choose it over a different
pleasure even if it is accompanied by discomfort, and if they would not trade it

for a greater amount of the other pleasure. Moreover, Mill contends, it is an

"unquestionable fact" that, given equal access to all kinds of pleasures, people
will prefer those that appeal to their "higher" faculties. A person will not
choose to become an animal, an educated person will not choose to become
ignorant, and so on. Even though a person who uses higher faculties often
suffers more in life (hence the common dictum "ignorance is bliss"), he would
never choose a lower existence, preferring instead to maintain his dignity.

Impracticality objection
How can you try and judge the outcome of everything? Mills
answer: dont be stupid
Act vs. rule utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism states that the right action is the one which produces the greatest
amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people...
Rule Utilitarianism states that the morally right action is the one that is in accordance
with a moral rule whose general observance would create the most happiness.

Primary vs. secondary principles

The ultimate sanction of the principle of utility (according to Mill)

Ultimatesanctionofprincipleofutilitarianism:Utilitarianismdeals
withpromotinggeneralhappiness,butconsidersanctionsormotivations
ofmoralstandardsingeneral.Milldividessanctionsintoexternaland
internal:external(lessimportant)hope/fearofpraise/blamefor
pleasures/displeasuresfromothersinsocietyandGodinternalsense
ofduty,obligation,feeling,conscience
Wheredoessenseofdutycomefrom?Itissubjective.Itisnot
innate.Itcanbecultivated.Itisnaturallyderivedfromlove,hate,
experience,upbringing,etc.Finelinebetweennatureandnurture.
Nurture:Bornwithcapacityforduty,butitcanandmustbetaught.
Itispartoftheeducationofthewellbroughtup.Society,culture,
education,etc.mustsupportthesenseofobligationandserveasan
example.Moralsarereinforcedbyareward/punishmentsituation.
Nature:Thenaturalstateofmanisthatheisasocialbeing.Weneed
afeelingofunitywithfellowcreatures.Desireforunityis
essential;itleadstocompassionandcooperation.Utilitarianism
specific:Commongoodisjustindividualgoodwhenyouhavemade
yourselflargeenough.Bootstrappingproblem:Themoreimportant
sanctionsaretheinternalones.Thesemustbealreadyheldbythe
individualtobemorallybinding.

Mills proof for the principle of utility

The first proof is the proof that happiness is one of the criteria of morality.
He says that happiness is the only thing desired by utilitarians in the end. He
claims that each person desires his or her own happiness is proof that a
general happiness is desirable. This to me seems like a pretty vague
assumption because not everyone's happiness is, ultimately, going to be the
same. In Mill's next argument he presents proof that happiness alone is
desired. He claims that people don't always desire solely happiness, but that
they also desire other things. One of the things he says people desire is
virtue. At first I wasn't sure exactly what Mill meant by virtue so I decided to
see exactly what virtue meant altogether. According to the dictionary, the
definition of virtue is "the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is
wrong." This reminded me of what Kant was talking about in The
Foundation of the metaphysics of Morals. However, Mill was basically
saying the complete opposite of Kant. In terms of Kant's ethics, Mill's ethics
would focus primarily on the self will rather than the object of volition. In
other words, the outcome is not as important as the reason for why you are doing
something in Mill's ethics.

Various potentially problematic cases for utilitarianism (torture, trolley)

Responses by act and/or rule utilitarians

Nietzsche
Anti-realism about morality
nietzsche's anti-realism is the position that there is no universal standard for
morality (which acts are "right", and which are "wrong") nietzsche's antirealism ("there is not an objective reality") is principally applied to his moral
philosophy;
nietzsche's objection with morality was that there isn't such a thing as "good"
and "bad", such that it can be universally applied to every culture, and everyone; there's no "realm of ideas" universal template for "right and wrong".
nietzsche's anti-realism constitutes the denial that there is an objective morality
-- that there is no universal "good" and "evil" (one of his books is called 'beyond
good and evil'). morality doesn't exist in the realm of ideas, which itself doesn't
exist in the first place. i believe nietzsche thought that there might be an
objective reality for some objects (maybe dogs?), but certainly not morality.
that was his big thing.

Criticisms of standard moral systems

higher types vs. lower types

Higher types and lower types. Higher types have the will to power, while lower
types are "sickly" and have no influence on the world. Thehighertypecreates

hisownvaluesoutofstrength;themeekandpowerlessbeginwith
resentment.Coexistenceisimpossiblebecausetheherdseekstoimposeits
valuesuniversally.

Master vs. slave morality

Two types of moral systems (ways of evaluating things):
Master Morality:
-Higher types opt for this in order to flourish.
-One looks at oneself and says this is good, and anything like me is good.
Anything not like me is bad.
-Value system based on goodness. Primary judgement is goodness.
Slave Morality:
-The morality adopted by those who cannot express their own will to power.
-The lower types, who develop a sort of resentment.
-Fundamentally reactionary.
-Thinks what master morality thinks is good is bad. Therefore what master
morality thinks is bad slave thinks as good.
-Through trickery slaves can make masters think with slave morality, then
masters think they themselves are evil. BAD CONSCIENCE. A method for
the slaves (lower types) to change the mind of the masters (higher types).

Nietzsches preferred sort of morality

Nietzsche, however, did not believe that humans should adopt master morality as the
be-all-end-all code of behavior - he believed that the revaluation of moralswould
correct the inconsistencies in both master and slave morality - but simply that master
morality was preferable to slave morality

Criticism of the distinction between this world and the real world
Nietzscheoutlinesasixstagehistoryoftherelationshipbetweentherealandapparent
worlds.Inthefirststage,manconsideredtherealworldtobeaccessibleto"thewise,the
pious,thevirtuousman"(50).Platoandhisfollowersheldthisview.Manyignorantand
unenlightenedsoulsaretrappedintheapparentworld,butescapetothehigherrealmis
availableinthislifethrougheducationandselfimprovement.WhileNietzschescomplete
rejectionofthenotionofanotherplaneofexistenceoutsideourowndoesnotallowhimto
acceptthisviewpoint,hedoesallowthatitis"relativelysensible."Certainlyhemusthave
founditsfocusontheattainmentofenlightenmentinthislifesomewhatmollifying.The
birthofscience,however,beginstoseverheavenfromtherealworld,andGodbecomes
moreofanabstractconcept,somewhere"outthere,"ratherthanamajorfacetofeveryday
existence.ThismarksNietzschesthirdstage.Therealandapparentworldscontinueto
recedefromoneanother,untilbythefourthstagethedivineisseenasutterlydivorced
fromconventionalrealityandcompletelyunattainable.Yetoldhabitsdiehard,andso
religioncontinuestoexistasasortofanachronisticlegacyofearliertimes.Onlyinthefifth
stageisreligionfinallyrejected.Manatlaststepsoutunderthecoollightofreasonand
rejoicesinhisnewfoundfreedom.

Criticism of the worship of reason

Nietzscheobjects,firstly,thatreasoninfactdoessomethingquite
different:itdoesnotsimplyrenderthings,butschematizesthem,knocks
themintoshape,reshapesthemaslies."`Reason'isthecauseofour
falsificationoftheevidenceofthesenses"(`ReasoninPhilosophy',
2,Twilight,75).Nietzschecontinuallypointsoutthewayinwhichwecover
upthesingularityandvariabilityofphenomenabymeansoffictive
generalityandconstancy.(5)
Goingbeyondsuchsingularobjections,however,Nietzschequestionsthe
wholeprincipleoftheconventionalunderstandingofreason.Hecallsthe
"contemplation"(Beschaulichkeit)purportedofreason"emasculated
leers"(Zarathustra,235).Thetheoreticiandoesnotsimplycontemplate,
butdistorts,andthishedoesincastratingconditions.Hedeniestheshare
ofinstinctivedrives(Triebe)incognitionandthusfallsshortofthewhole
constitutionofcognition.
Inbrief:cognitionisnottheoretical,butpragmaticinnature.Itisa
`meanstolife'.Reasonismerelyoneoflife'sinstruments(cf.BeyondGood
andEvil,191,104).(6)Itremainsonlytoask,forwhichtypeoflife?I
willexpandonthiswhiledealingwiththesecondpoint.

Comparisons with and criticisms of Plato/Aristotle, Kant, and Mill