Life, the Universe, and Everything

A Course Blog for GET1029/GEK1067

Category: Q&A (page 2 of 3)

W03 Q/A Part 3: Consequentialism; Trolleys, Warlords, and other Oddities

On to Consequentialism, introduced at Slide #17, the basic stance saying that the moral status of an action is all about the the value of its outcome for the world, i.e., we have only one duty—to act so as to bring about the best overall outcome for the world. But depending on how what the theorist counts as better or worse outcomes for the world, you get different kinds of Consequentialisms. In the class, I mentioned three (Slide #18):

Utilitarianism = Consequentialism where the goodness of outcome measured in terms of overall happiness.

Hedonic Utilitarianism = Consequentialism where happiness measure in terms of pleasure/pain.

Preference Utilitarianism = Consequentialism where happiness measured in terms of preference satisfaction.

So, in answer to these:

So consequentialism is utilitarianism?

Is consequentialism similar to utilitarianism?

is it right to say that consequentialism is something like the utilitarian approach?

Watch the direction of your “is”–Utilitarianism is a type of Consequentialism but not all versions of Consequentialism need be Utilitarian. Ok, on to the questions. But don’t forget the other posts I’ve made that cover a lot of relevant ground as well (see this and this).

Continue reading

W03 Q/A Part 2: Deontology, and the intentions behind our actions

As I mentioned in W03 (Slide #11) I’m not introducing “Deontology” and “Consequentialism” as fully worked out theories, but only to help you appreciate a critical divide in the way we can think about the moral domain. The reason why this divide occurs is because our own intuitions are themselves divided, even within ourselves–think of the majority reactions to Trolley and Transplant (Slide #23). For the purposes of the class material, your job is to grasp that critical divide. Many of your questions are interesting and important in their own ways–don’t get me wrong–but make sure you don’t let them distract you from the main points I’m making.

Continue reading

W03 Q/A Part 1 Terms of Evaluation; Belief vs. Truth

Let’s start with the terms of normative moral evaluation (W03 Slide #8). Not sure if you noticed but for right and wrong, only blameworthiness is involved. Praiseworthiness is not mentioned at all. Praiseworthiness only comes up in the next category of Supererogation. This should alert you to an important feature (and it’s commonsense) too of morality—the whole point is to escape blame. When we do our duty we are doing what’s required, that’s all. Praise is an extra. So the answer to:

So for Morally Right, if X is required would you then be praiseworthy for doing it?

Is “no”.

Continue reading

An Exchange with a Student

An email from a student (X), who gave me permission to share with the class.

Hi Prof. Loy,

This is X and I am one of your students in GET1029 this semester. I have some doubts that I don’t know if I should bring it up during tutorial but it’s keeping it awake at night so I thought I might just write an e-mail to ask you first.

1. The first topic discussing value theories have a big assumption that, everything in this world intrinsically contains value, ie something must be good or bad. So as a nihilistic person myself, who believes in that the illusion of well-being is merely a biological mechanism to ensure the survival of a life being, my stand is that why aren’t we scrutinizing this assumption? Because it is in my opinion a very strong argument against all three theories that we have discussed, as it directly challenges the ground that these theories stand upon.

2. And let’s say I accept the assumption that everything contains intrinsic value. One of the “worries” of the Objective List Theory is that different people may have a different list of things that constitute well-being, and different weightage/mixtures for the same list. My question is that, could it be that well-being might not have a universal benchmark, but is instead defined by the perception of each individual? So, the bigger question is that, is it acceptable for a philosophical theory to accept that the “one, whole story” about well-being just does not exist?

I would very much appreciate if you would allow me to pick your brain on these issues that I have!

Best Regards,

X

Continue reading

W02 Q/A Part 5: Desires, Preferences, and Beliefs (some questions left at the end)

To recap, W02 Slide #28 introduces the basic Desire Satisfaction Theory of Well-being–

Desire Satisfaction Theory of Well-being (DST) = Betty is doing well =df Betty’s desires are satisfied—she gets what she wants.

The next two slides talk about the problem of false beliefs, and then  Slide #31 introduces the improved version of the DST–

Preference Satisfaction Theory (PST) = Betty lives well =df Betty’s preferences are satisfied—she gets what she would have wanted if she didn’t have false beliefs.

Before moving on, let’s consider how DST/PST are different from PPT (and Ethical Hedonism), since some students are still slightly puzzled–

Continue reading

W02 Q/A Part 4: Ethical Hedonism

To recap (W02 Slide #21):

Ethical Hedonism = Pleasure is the only intrinsically good thing (pain is the only intrinsically bad thing).

And if we frame this as a theory of well-being, we get–

Pleasure/Pain Theory of Well-being (PPT) = Ah Beng is doing well =df Ah Beng experiences pleasure rather than pain (or, a positive balance of pleasure over pain).

And this is a specific instance of a general kind of theory in which well-being consists in experiencing certain mental states, e.g., pleasure and the absence of pain. Ok, on to your questions.

Continue reading

W02 Q/A Part 3: Well-being, and Morality

Hi prof, what is the difference between value theory and normative theory? whats the diff between good vs bad (value) and morally good/morally bad(normative)?

The short answer is that the matter of W02 is the good/bad while the subject of W03 is right/wrong. I’ll revisit this in W03.

What do we mean by morally correct if it is not subject to criticism? Since what is morally correct is subject to each other’s point of view (so everyone’s criticism?)

If you really did what is objectively right, then, you are not–rationally, deservingly–subject to criticism. This might not stop others from criticizing you, of course, since they might not have the correct beliefs. I should make this clearer in W03.

Continue reading

W02 Q/A Part 1: Course Matters

Let me start with the course or study related questions, before going to the substantive content questions in subsequent parts on the blog, or podcasts.

Hi Prof, just suggesting – i think itd be btr for the QnA to be shifted over to Zoom’s QnA function. That way while you’re explaining, maybe the tutors can help answer the questions asked using that function. the quality of the qns can improve since everyone here hides behind anonymity to shitpost

Hi Prof, I feel like the Pollev questions might be too distracting at times, is it possible for this to be shifted to another format so that the questions can be better curated/ less distracting?

prof can create a subreddit? then have different discussions for each lecture? cos that way we can respond to each others questions too

As far as I can tell, the fundamental constraint here isn’t really the platform–it’s the fact that there are many students. If you think it’s distracting to you, it’s just as distracting for us too… This is why I believe the it’s important for there to be smaller groups–likely based on tutorial groups, or clusters of them under the same tutor. Or your own informal peer groups. Likely using Telegram or some other persistent platform. But these can be managed by students, or perhaps the tutors.

Continue reading

W01 Q/A Part 4: Life

Whats the meaning of life

Will we become all depressed or become great thinkers? Will everything become meaningless?

how to deal with weekly existential crises? :c

Is it true that ignorance is bliss?

Do you become more cognizant as you learn? Or do you feel like the more you learn the lesser you actually know?

Will we gain more IQ? Will I get a good looking partner? Does it even matter? Do we have free-will? So is freedom a mere social construct that we use to lie to ourself?

“Meaning of life” isn’t one of the topics in the module, though Topic 1 will be relevant. Also, the module can’t promise that you will “find meaning in life” by taking this module. Nonetheless, I hope that by the end of the module, you would have picked up the sensibility to see that the whole matter (“meaning of life”) is actually a more involved topic than might appear at first sight–since answering it will require that we have a plausible idea about what kind of “meaning” we are talking about in relation to “life”, since, presumably, the may meaning in question is clearly not the same as the meaning in the question What is the meaning of “life” (i.e., the word “life”)? So before we can start, we need a theory about the the sort of meaning that non-word things can have…

Continue reading

W01 Q/A Part 3: Philosophy and Studying Philosophy

Hey prof what if we find out halfway into the mod that Philo doesn’t really work for us?

shouldve taken something else to clear my humanities basket sry

If the module isn’t working out for you, it’s not too late to drop. This is serious advice here–I always tell students to please read modules that you are interested in whenever given the chance.

I really dont want to flop this mod, please show me the way

Is there a high bell curve for this module?

How to study GET1029? I’m worried I don’t study in the wrong way.

how do we keep up with the module? esp students from a vastly different faculty

do you have any tips if we are looking to take philosophy as a second major?

What is the best mindset to have when approaching this module?

How well-versed in philosophical jargon do we need to be to properly experience this module?

The curve for this module is… very classical. Mostly because of large numbers. By the way, in case you are under some misinformation–the NUS curve is actually relatively forgiving. No one needs to fail, for instance. Also, if there’s good reason to deviate, we will just have to deviate and justify. I also take it a matter of doctrine to design modules that–in principle–everyone enrolled can pass. That is, I see it as my job to give you the sort of structured learning experience that, as long as you are willing to do the work, you will be able to learn and pass! So how to keep up? Take the intended workflow mentioned in W01 seriously and be consistent. Work together with tutorial small group mates and other peers–test each other’s understanding. Don’t be shy to reach out to your tutors or I to seek clarifications where needed. All this applies whether you are intended to take Philosophy as your first major, second major, minor, or just reading this module.

Continue reading

Older posts Newer posts
Skip to toolbar