The overall results improved from the last quiz, from 3.71 to 4.15–good job! There’s still a lot of headroom to grow, of course. But I think many of you are beginning to acclimatize. Click through to see…
Life, the Universe, and Everything
A Course Blog for GET1029/GEK1067
Tag: W03
- Question 1
General advice that applies to all the questions–if you haven’t, read this.
- Question 2
Note, Questions 2-3 continue the story from Question 1–but otherwise, everything you really need can be found inside the questions themselves. Hint: Did either of them present an argument against the other person’s moral theory? Also, reminder that when you present an argument against something, you do have to present an argument the conclusion of which contradicts that something. If you are not sure what an argument is, check out “A Short Lesson on Arguments and Logic”. Also, no need to worry about the strength of their arguments–as long as they have an argument, against the correct target.
- Question 3
A moral theorist (e.g., a Deontologist or Consequentialist) can believe in all sorts of interesting descriptive theories about the world–but presumably, those theories aren’t strictly speaking, part of her moral theory. To give an example. Hedonic Utilitarians count pleasure and pain as the determinants of the best consequences for the world. But the fact that one such Utilitarian believes that animals can feel pain and another one disagrees doesn’t make either of them not a Hedonic Utilitarian.
- Question 4
Don’t overthink this–it’s easier than it looks.
- Question 5
See my advice for Question 1. And get clear on definitions!
- Question 6
The DDE isn’t part of this story. For Option C, keep in mind that you are basically comparing implementing the prototype vs not doing so, and the option is talking about the scenario where doing so will increase overall happiness compared to the alternative. (I’ll make that clear in an edit.)
- Question 7
It’s ok to read “true moral rules” = “true moral norms”. For IV–Imagine a world in which the only true moral rules are X, Y and Z. And it also happens to the the case that when people comply with X, Y and Z, it generally leads to the best outcomes . Question now is this—in such a world, do consequences of actions matter to the moral evaluation of actions for the Deontologist?
- Question 8
See my advice for Question 1. And get clear on definitions!
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).
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.
So you’ve been introduced to the difference between a Consequentialist and a Deontological perspective on the question–“What actions are morally right/wrong?” in W03 Right and Wrong. Something that might have occurred to you is this: What exactly is the significance of intentions to the two major perspectives? (As I work through the Q/A for W03, I see similar questions raised.)
Often enough, many students will think that the difference between the Deontological and the Consequentialist perspectives is that while the agent’s intentions matter to the former, it doesn’t matter to the latter. That’s not quite right.
In response to one student, Mr Jeremias Koh (one of my previous tutors), wrote a long reply in which I was copied. I thought that it is very good and so decided to reuse large parts of it, with his permission, plus additional material in the post I created that semester. The below is an updated version.
Subscribe by Email
Completely spam free, opt out any time.
This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
© 2024 Life, the Universe, and Everything
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑