TRUE or FALSE: Virtue Ethicists focus almost exclusively on (A) character traits (instead of actions) and on (B) the difference between "excellent" and "permissible" (instead of the difference between "permissible" and wrong").
TRUE
NAME three famous Virtue Ethicists studied in this course.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
TRUE or FALSE: Being a Virtue Ethicist is compatible with being a Platonist OR with being an Aristotelian OR with some of the other theories about the ultimate goal of human life.
TRUE. That's why Virtue Ethics was not listed as one of the 11 basic theories about the best achievable thing that would maximize human potential. It's compatible with more than one of those theories.
TRUE or FALSE: Modern Natural Law ethicists (like Thomists) typically view NL Ethics as an ADDITION to Aristotelian virtue ethics. They think Aristotle wrote generally well about the moral and intellectual virtues, which entail a kind of Imperfect Happine
TRUE
TRUE or FALSE: Modern Natural Law ethicists add the following 6 topics and emphases that Aristotle and most other "virtue ethicists" typically ignore.
(1) ethics involves a moral LAW (that is, commands like "Do this" instead of "If you want happiness, the
TRUE
(1) ethics involves a moral LAW (that is, commands like "Do this" instead of "If you want happiness, then do this")
(2) the moral law is based on purposes that are built into human nature
(3) much attention to how to evaluate an action (not just how to ev
TRUE
(1) ethics involves a moral LAW (that is, commands like "Do this" instead of "If you want happiness, then do this")
(2) the moral law is based on purposes that are built into human nature
(3) much attention to how to evaluate an action (not just how to ev
TRUE. That's why this list is important; it shows what modern Natural Law thinkers ADD to Virtue Ethics.
TRUE or FALSE: Natural Law thinkers typically view Virtue Ethics as part (but ONLY part) of the foundation of ethics. They then add points # 1-6 to complete the foundation of ethics.
TRUE
Who were the very first Natural Law thinkers?
the ancient Stoics - but note that they did not think that God is an entity different from Nature, so their version of the Natural Law did not include the "enforcement during the afterlife" feature or the "personal apology" feature listed above (part of p
Who are the most numerous Natural Law thinkers in modern times?
Thomists
TRUE or FALSE: Being a Natural Law thinker is compatible with being a Stoic OR with being a Thomist OR with some of the other theories about the ultimate goal of human life.
TRUE. That's why NL was not listed as one of the 11 basic theories about the best achievable thing that would maximize human potential. It's compatible with more than one of those theories.
TRUE or FALSE: All Stoics throughout history have been Natural Law thinkers.
FALSE. Immanuel Kant is a type of Stoic (namely, a Kantian Stoic) but he is not a Natural Law thinker. Also, although he thinks excellent moral conduct is the ultimate goal of human existence, he is not a Virtue Ethicist! - for reasons that you'll soon le
Match the thinkers with the theories:
THEORIES: Utilitarianism, Kantian Stoicism, Virtue Ethics, Altruistic Hedonism, Natural Law Ethics
THINKER: JOHN STUART MILL
utilitarianism (synonym for altrusitic hedonism)
Match the thinkers with the theories:
THEORIES: Utilitarianism, Kantian Stoicism, Virtue Ethics, Altruistic Hedonism, Natural Law Ethics
THINKER: IMMANUEL KANT
Kantian stocism
Match the thinkers with the theories:
THEORIES: Utilitarianism, Kantian Stoicism, Virtue Ethics, Altruistic Hedonism, Natural Law Ethics
THINKER: SOCRATES
Virtue Ethics
Match the thinkers with the theories:
THEORIES: Utilitarianism, Kantian Stoicism, Virtue Ethics, Altruistic Hedonism, Natural Law Ethics
THINKER: PLATO
Virtue Ethics
Match the thinkers with the theories:
THEORIES: Utilitarianism, Kantian Stoicism, Virtue Ethics, Altruistic Hedonism, Natural Law Ethics
THINKER: ARISTOTLE
Virtue Ethics
Match the thinkers with the theories:
THEORIES: Utilitarianism, Kantian Stoicism, Virtue Ethics, Altruistic Hedonism, Natural Law Ethics
THINKER: ANCIENT STOICS
Natural law ethics
Match the thinkers with the theories:
THEORIES: Utilitarianism, Kantian Stoicism, Virtue Ethics, Altruistic Hedonism, Natural Law Ethics
THINKER: ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
natural law ethics
MATCH THE THEORIES WITH THE VIEWPOINTS:
THEORIES: Utilitarianism, Kantian Stoicism, Virtue Ethics, Altruistic Hedonism, Natural Law Ethics
VIEWPOINTS:
a. much attention to how to evaluate an action (not just how to evaluate character traits) is required i
Utilitarianism (which is the same thing as Altruistic Hedonism) = c
Kantian Stoicism = c
Virtue Ethics = d
Natural Law Ethics = c
The three major aspects of an action are the Act Itself, the __________, and the _________________.
the motive and the circumstances
What is meant by the term "Act Itself"?
consent of will derives its morality first and foremost, if act is willed by nature the willing must be bad. moral order is order of willing and some features can kill some features cannot be detached from act willed
what you are trying to do first
What is meant by the term "Motive?
goals which you are trying to achieve by means of act itself; usually there is more than one goal since each goal SERVES a further goal until you reach ultimate goal: Eudimonia
What is meant by the term "circumstances?
everything else that is relevant to action
Can there be more than one Motive at the same time for an action?
YES. Think of examples from class, for instance, where one Motive is for the sake of a further motive, or where someone wants to achieve two different goals simultaneously ("kill two birds with one stone," as they say).
In an example that you've never seen before, be able to identify the Act Itself, the Motives and the Circumstances. If you know what the terms mean and practice applying them as we did in class, then you'll be able to handle the test questions on this top
ie. student in ethics class taking the class (act) for the motive of (passing the class to get graduation to get a job to provide for family, etc.) circumstances wold be that you attend class to pass the class
Which component(s) of an action do Utilitarians care about? How does that connect with their theory - that is, WHAT ASPECT of the Circumstances is all ethics based on, in their view?
they only care about the circumstances specifically only one circumstance - is the action going to produce more net pleasure for the world as a whole in long run, which is in-line with their phil. bc they want the biggest net pleasure for the largest amou
Which component(s) of an action do Kantian Stoics care about?Which Motive is the only good one, in Kant's view?
the motive specifically only one motive - did you perform the action solely bc it was your duty; good one= DUTY
Which component(s) of an action do Natural Law thinkers care about?
ALL THREE
How many components must be OK in order for an action to be OK according to NL thinkers? and WHY?
requires all three to be okay bc in every action we have three separate decisions - 1 for each component
1. what goals do I want to achieve (motive)
2. what will i do first in order to achieve these goals (act)
3. are these circumstances okay for this act
According to NL thinkers, does the end justify the means?
no they claim the end does NOT justify the mean which means choosing a great motive or great circumstances does not justify choosing an evil act itself
What does the statement "The end does not justify the means" signify, in terms of Act Itself, Motives, and Circumstances, when the Natural Law thinkers say it?
choosing a great motive ("end" in one sense of the term "goal") or great circumstances ("end" in another sense of term, "end-result circumstances") does not justify choosing an evil act itself (an evil method of achieving that goal or end result)
What is a directly voluntary act-component?
one in which is directly selected or enjoyed; act itself and the motive (regardless of whether you enjoy them) plus any side effects or other circumstances which you enjoy
What is an indirectly voluntary act-component?
one which is a foreseen but unenjoyed side effect of a directly voluntary act-component - all are circumstances but not all circumstance are this type of act-component
TRUE or FALSE: "indirectly voluntary" is a synonym for "involuntary.
FALSE
TRUE or FALSE: The will has a direct relationship with a directly voluntary act-component.
TRUE. That's part of why it is called "directly voluntary"!
TRUE or FALSE: The will has a direct relationship with an indirectly voluntary act-component.
FALSE. That's part of why it is called "indirectly voluntary"!
TRUE or FALSE: The will has NO relationship at all with indirectly voluntary act-components.
FALSE. The will has an indirect relationship to them. because, even though they are not enjoyed and are not being used as means to an end, they are still among the foreseen side effects of what is being chosen, and a person is aware of those circumstances
TRUE or FALSE: All foreseen side effects of a directly voluntary act-component are themselves directly voluntary. Why?
FALSE, side effect is directly voluntary if a person enjoys it. But if a person does not enjoy a side effect that he foresees, then that side effect must be indirectly voluntary, by definition.
(b) TRUE or FALSE: All foreseen side effects of a directly voluntary act-component are indirectly voluntary. Why?
FALSE, side effect is directly voluntary if a person enjoys it. But if a person does not enjoy a side effect that he foresees, then that side effect must be indirectly voluntary, by definition.
TRUE or FALSE: Some foreseen side effects of directly voluntary act-component are directly voluntary, but some are indirectly voluntary. Why?
TRUE, side effect is directly voluntary if a person enjoys it. But if a person does not enjoy a side effect that he foresees, then that side effect must be indirectly voluntary, by definition.
Something which is a foreseen side effect of either your "Act Itself" or of your "Motives" is
a. always directly voluntary
b. always indirectly voluntary
c. always involuntary
d. sometimes directly voluntary and sometimes indirectly voluntary, depending o
D
Something which is chosen an end is . .
.a. always directly voluntary
b. always indirectly voluntary
c. always involuntary
d. sometimes directly voluntary and sometimes indirectly voluntary, depending on whether you enjoy it.
A by definition
something which is chosen as a means to an end is . . .
a. always directly voluntary
b. always indirectly voluntary
c. always involuntary
d. sometimes directly voluntary and sometimes indirectly voluntary, depending on other factors.
A by definition
something which is foreseen with certainty as a mere side effect of an act-component (such that it is not being used as a means to an end, in other words), but which is not enjoyed at all, is . . .
a. always directly voluntary
b. always indirectly volunta
B by definition
something which is foreseen with certainty as a mere side effect of an act-component (such that it is not being used as a means to an end, in other words), and which a person enjoys, is . . .
a. always directly voluntary
b. always indirectly voluntary
c.
A by definition
TRUE or FALSE: Only the "Act Itself" can have side effects. Motives cannot.
FALSE. (Remember the examples from the handout in class?)
TRUE or FALSE: Indirectly Voluntary Side Effects are considered part of the Circumstances of an action.
TRUE
TRUE or FALSE: Every Act Itself is directly voluntary.
TRUE. It's directly chosen as a means to an end!
TRUE or FALSE: Every Motive is directly voluntary.
TRUE. It's directly willed as either a means to a further Motive or as an end in itself.
TRUE or FALSE: Every Circumstance is directly voluntary.
FALSE
TRUE or FALSE: Every Circumstance is indirectly voluntary
FALSE
TRUE or FALSE: Some Circumstances are directly voluntary, but some are indirectly voluntary. AND EXPLAIN WHY
TRUE Only side effects which are foreseen but not enjoyed are indirectly voluntary. A side effect which is foreseen and enjoyed is directly voluntary, since your will is taking pleasure in it.
Study the examples that we went over in class. Also try to make up your own. These thought processes will give your mind practice in actually applying the definitions of directly and indirectly voluntary, so that you can do the same thing on the test with
Acts that is DV: take medicine
this act leads to IV: awful taste in mouth
act of taking medicine leads to motive that is DV: be heathy, attend class, happiness
Understand the problems that can arise from too much "lumping" or (at the opposite extreme) too much "splitting" in one's description on the components of an action (by either breaking it down not enough or too much into different steps in the way you thi
too much lumping
DV act: beat up old lady
leads to DV act2: take purse
leads to DV motive: use $ to help poor
leads to DV motive: develop liberality
When in reality it could just be described as this
DV act: help the poor
DV motive: develop liberality
TRUE or FALSE: The Principle of Double Effect (PDE) is used for analyzing an action that has both major good effects and major bad effects.
true
What type of situation prompts Natural Law ethicists to bother to use the PDE?
a situation where no matter what you do, both major good effects and major bad effects are likely to result.
Which part(s) of the PDE comes from looking at what it means for the Act Itself to be morally OK?
condition 1: act itself must not be morally bad
Which part(s) of the PDE comes from looking at what it means for the Motive(s) to be morally OK?
CONDITIONS # 2-3, where you're making sure that the bad effect is neither a means to an end nor an end - in other words, you're making sure that it in no way shows up in your chain of Motives!
condition 2: the bad effect must not be used as a means to end
Which part(s) of the PDE comes from looking at what it means for the Circumstances to be morally OK?
CONDITION # 4, where you're making sure that it is reasonable to PUT UP WITH the bad effects lurking in the Circumstances of your action. You did not directly CHOOSE these bad effects if you passed conditions # 1-3, but condition # 4 is added because you
The Principle of Double Effect did not just drop out of the sky. It's not arbitrary. It comes from doing a more detailed analysis of ____________________________________________________________________.
what it means for the Act Itself, the Motive, and the Circumstances to be morally permissible
According to Natural Law thinkers, for an action to be morally permissible, which or how many of the following have to be morally OK: Act Itself, Motive(s), Circumstances? why?
need all components Because the PDE is simply a more detailed way of stating that the Act Itself, and the Circumstances must ALL be morally permissible
TRUE or FALSE: One way of looking at the Principle of Double Effect is to say that
:~ in conditions # 1-3, the PDE is ensuring that whatever is bad is truly just an indirectly voluntary side effect (not a DIRECTLY voluntary act-component - in other words,
true
apply the PDE to a case that you've never seen before. If you BOTH have memorized AND have UNDERSTOOD the PDE, this should be no problem. Study the examples found in Chapter 9 as well as Dr. Kent's examples from class, and these will provide mental practi
For instance, we saw with the flashlight example that the sailor's drowning was not what saved his fellow sailors, per se. Instead, it was simply the shining of the flashlight. The fact that the sailor holding the flashlight later ended up drowning was no
What is St. Thomas Aquinas's famous definition of LAW?
An ordinance of reason for the common good promulgated by someone(s) in authority
According to Natural Law thinkers, state the JUSTIFICATION for ORDINANCE of the definition of LAW. (That is, why do they say it must be "an ordinance"? Why do they say it must be "of reason"? Etc.)
Ordinance: because in everyday life the concept of law implies command not a description or mere hypothetical statement or suggestion
According to Natural Law thinkers, state the JUSTIFICATION for "OF REASON" of the definition of LAW. (That is, why do they say it must be "an ordinance"? Why do they say it must be "of reason"? Etc.)
because laws are aimed at humans and humans have a reasoning part of the soul that is supposed to govern them, so an unreasonable command would not fulfill a need in human nature but instead work against it
According to Natural Law thinkers, state the JUSTIFICATION for "FOR THE COMMON GOOD" of the definition of LAW. (That is, why do they say it must be "an ordinance"? Why do they say it must be "of reason"? Etc.)
because the notion of a law implies command being given to a group; command given to group fulfills need for human nature only if it in some ways benefits the group
According to Natural Law thinkers, state the JUSTIFICATION for "PROMULGATED" of the definition of LAW. (That is, why do they say it must be "an ordinance"? Why do they say it must be "of reason"? Etc.)
means "made public" because notion of law includes notion that command is given, but no command is truly given unless the lawgiver makes it possible for people to find out about it
According to Natural Law thinkers, state the JUSTIFICATION for "BY SOMEONE(S) IN AUTHORITY" of the definition of LAW. (That is, why do they say it must be "an ordinance"? Why do they say it must be "of reason"? Etc.)
because notion of law includes the notion that someone or some group of people have the right to give a command to whole community; if anyone could make up his own laws at anything that would be lawlessness
Finish the famous quote from St. Augustine's book On Free Choice of the Will: "An unjust law is, it seems to me, __________________________.
is no law at all
Who wrote a book entitled On Free Choice of the Will, in which he famously stated "An unjust law is, it seems to me, no law at all"? And in what century did they live in
St. Augustine (300s-400s AD)
If someone dresses up like a doctor, prints a fake ID badge for himself, enters a hospital, tricks other people into thinking he is a doctor, and starts doing surgery, despite having no medical training or expertise, is he a real doctor? And Why is the do
NO, Because just as the person who fails to live up to the "natural definition" or reasonable role of a "doctor" is not a real doctor and does not deserve to be treated like a doctor (even if he is dressed up like one), so also a command that fails to liv
St. Thomas Aquinas's famous definition of "law" is: "An ordinance of reason, for the common good, promulgated by someone(s) in authority." Think of ways in which some particular part(s) of that definition might be violated by an unjust law, resulting in t
Fake doctor only is hypothetical and therefore not actual a real doctor, just like a command that may fail to be the natural definition of a law or not be a reasonable law
St. Thomas Aquinas's famous definition of "law" is: "An ordinance of reason, for the common good, promulgated by someone(s) in authority." Think of ways in which some particular part(s) of that definition might be violated by an unjust law, resulting in t
king passed laws but sole purpose is to be unjust against group bc he doesn't like them therefore it is not within reason bc it does not fulfill a need in human nature
St. Thomas Aquinas's famous definition of "law" is: "An ordinance of reason, for the common good, promulgated by someone(s) in authority." Think of ways in which some particular part(s) of that definition might be violated by an unjust law, resulting in t
trying to exploit certain people for sake of others; racist laws
St. Thomas Aquinas's famous definition of "law" is: "An ordinance of reason, for the common good, promulgated by someone(s) in authority." Think of ways in which some particular part(s) of that definition might be violated by an unjust law, resulting in t
ie. Dr. Kent getting parking ticket on SUmmit yet there was no sign of no parking overnight therefore it was not truly promulgated and therefore is unjust that he got a parking ticket
St. Thomas Aquinas's famous definition of "law" is: "An ordinance of reason, for the common good, promulgated by someone(s) in authority." Think of ways in which some particular part(s) of that definition might be violated by an unjust law, resulting in t
own civil war, south Carolina wanted to become own country but Pres. Lincoln said they did not have the authority to make that call
TRUE or FALSE: Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. quoted St. Augustine's famous dictum that "an unjust law is . . . no law at all" in his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail," in order to justify his violation of Birmingham, Alabama's "laws" which oppressed
TRUE
TRUE or FALSE: In his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. cited St. Thomas Aquinas by name and said that he was justified in breaking Birmingham, Alabama's racist "laws" because he agreed with St. Thomas's position that
TRUE
TRUE or FALSE: In his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that he was justified in breaking Alabama's racist "laws" because any manmade "law" that violates the Eternal Law and the Natural Law is rendered unjust (and
TRUE
Here are the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776), which is the founding document of the United States of America:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which ha
true
TRUE or FALSE: In this class, the claim was made that the Natural Law view of ethics has been important in American history in various ways, from the founding of the country through to modern times, such as the civil rights movements, for example.
TRUE
What does the term "Eternal Law" mean?
God's plan for everything as found in God's mind
Where does the Eternal Law exist? (In all things created by God, only in human nature, or only in God's own Mind?)
in God's mind only
What is the Natural Law, in relation to the Eternal Law?
a copy of part of the Eternal Law in the nature of a rational being
Where is the Natural Law found: In God's nature, or in human nature?
in human nature (or, more specifically, in the goal-oriented structures/ features that are built into human nature across the species as a whole)
Where is the Natural Law found? (In all things created by God; only in human nature (and the natures of other created rational beings); or only in God's own Mind?)
only in human nature (and the natures of other created rational beings)
How do we find out what the Natural Law says?
By analyzing the built-in purposes found in human nature across the human species, since they give us evidence as to what God intends us to DO with this human nature that He created.
According to Natural Law thinkers, how do we know that the built-in purposes which are found across the entire human species reflect part of the Eternal Law of God?
Because philosophy can show that there is a God Who is the source of the existence of these purposes. We did not make human nature; we did not put those purposes there in human nature; an uncaused cause of all existence did.
NOTE: There are diseases and m
Since the Natural Law is based on purposes that are built into human nature (the features that whole human species has in common), the question arises: Who put those purposes there? You know that YOU didn't invent human nature. Nor did your parents - they
The being that made all existence - that is, the Creator, the Uncaused Cause, also known as God
According to Natural Law thinkers: In order to be good, any thing must fulfill its ____________. And the Natural Law commands you to respect the built-in _____________ of your own human nature.
BOTH BLANKS= purpose; Therefore, putting together the first two sentences and saying the same thing in different words: the Natural Law commandsyou to be good (that is, to fulfill your built-in purposes).Hence, being good isn't MERELY "a good thing to do
TRUE or FALSE: One of the things that Natural Law tells us is: Have reason, not your animalistic drives, in charge of your life.
TRUE
How can we figure out this particular example is indeed a command of the Natural Law?
the same way we figure out any other command of the Natural Law: by looking at the way human nature is built and figuring out what kind of behavior our species is built for, whether we feel like it or not.
What is meant by the term "positive law"? (In other words, what do all positive laws have in common, aside from the fact that they are either Divine or Human?)
law that is promulgated by means of external signs (that is, signs that are NOT found only inside human nature or in the Mind of God)(NOTE that some laws are promulgated BOTH by means of external signs AND by means of signs placed inside human nature itse
TRUE or FALSE: Positive laws are made known to us by being placed inside our very nature.
false
TRUE or FALSE: The Natural Law was created by God. Therefore, it is made by someone besides us and is laid upon us by this outside Source (namely, God). Therefore, the Natural Law is a kind of positive law. AND WHY?
FALSE; because it's based on a faulty understanding of "Positive Law." Being created by an outside source isn't what makes positive laws "positive." What makes them "positive" is the answer to # 369, which deals with HOW A LAW IS MADE KNOWABLE rather than
. TRUE or FALSE: Basically, the difference between the Divine Positive Law and the Human Positive Law is simply who made the law.
true
What is an example of a Human Positive Law that is NOT also REPEATED in the Natural Law?
speed limit laws, parking laws, laws specifying exact tax rates, draft laws, cities' youth curfew laws, etc. etc. The specifics of these laws are not based directly on human nature. That is, you can't know that you should only go 30MPH (instead of 31MPH)
TRUE or FALSE: Human Positive Laws that are not repeated in another level of law are able to be changed by humans (at least those who are in authority, I mean).
TRUE. Human authorities made them, so human authorities can change them.
TRUE or FALSE: Only God can change a Human Positive Law, since such a law is "laid upon" humans.
FALSE. Such a law is laid upon humans by other humans (namely the humans in the government)! Thus, the humans in the government may change it. The St. Paul City Council can change the speed limit on Cleveland Avenue, for instance!
According to Christianity, what is an example of a Divine Positive Law that God made at some point in human history, and that is not repeated in the Natural Law?
it is not in the natural law that we must rest and communal worship on Saturday? SUnday? but it is found in the Divine Positive law
TRUE or FALSE: Divine Positive Law is so unchangeable that not even God Himself can change any of it.
FALSE. Consider the case of a DPL that is not repeated in the NL (that is, that is not also built into the very structure of human nature). In the case of such a DPL, we would still be human and He would still be God if He decided to change that Divine Po
TRUE or FALSE: Sometimes the very same action is commanded by multiple kinds of law (for instance, both the Natural Law and Human Positive Law) at once.
true
TRUE or FALSE: Sometimes the very same action is simultaneously forbidden by multiple kinds of law (for instance, both by the Divine Positive Law and by Human Positive Law).
true
Give examples of how the same action is either commanded or forbidden by multiple kinds of laws (divine positive and human positive laws)
laws forbidding murder, laws forbidding theft, laws commanding parents to take care of their children
Why would more than one level/kind of law forbid the very same action? Why isn't a prohibition by one kind of law enough? For instance, why isn't it enough that the Natural Law tells us not to cheat people? Why do Divine Positive Law and Human Positive La
to make sure that people really do follow the moral law, since some people need to be motivated by the threat of Divine or human punishment. Also, the additional layers of law repeating the same thing reinforce each other to make sure everyone - including
Suppose what appears to be a Human Positive Law conflicts with the Natural Law. What should you do, according to Natural Law thinkers? AND WHY?
natural law; we learned about how a law must come from a competent authority, but some types of authority outweigh others. So if you "break" a law that a lower-level authority has made in contradiction to a law that a higher-level authority made, you have
WHY is a HPL that violates the NL an unjust law (and hence no law at all) - that is, which part of the definition of "law" does it violate, according to NL thinkers?
a HPL has less authority than the NL, since the NL comes from God, Who made and Who thus owns all things. So a HPL that violates the NL is by that very fact not made "by someone(s) in authority," since a human does not have authority to overrule God. We h
Suppose a Human Positive Law conflicts with the Divine Positive Law. What should you do, according to NL thinkers? Why?
Follow the Divine Positive Law; because a human government that gives a command that contradicts the Divine Positive law doesn't have authority to make "law" that is trying to be made thus if you break the law, you're not breaking any REAL laws
WHY is a HPL that violates the NL an unjust law - that is, which part of the definition of "law" does it violate, according to NL thinkers?
a HPL has less authority than the NL, since the NL comes from God, Who made and Who thus owns all things. So a HPL that violates the NL is by that very fact not made "by someone(s) in authority," since a human does not have authority to overrule God. We h
State the four sub-levels of Natural Law in order from more general to more specific.
2a. the first principle of the natural law
2b. general principles of natural law
2c. remote conclusions of natural law
2d. particular applications of natural law
What is commanded by the First Principle of the Natural Law (also called the First Moral Principle)?
Do good and avoid evil" NL thinkers claim that this is self-evidenct, figuring out what counts as good or evil is not always 100% easy but knowing that whatever is "good" and what is "evil" is it's something that I am supposed to do is 100% easy for sane
TRUE or FALSE: Natural Law thinkers claim that the First Principle of the NL is self-evident. That is, anyone who truly understands the terms "good" and "evil," in even the most basic way, recognizes that we're supposed to DO whatever counts as "good" and
TRUE
What do all the General Principles of the Natural Law have in common?
They are obvious. Any normal person would immediately recognize them by just a quick glance at human nature.For instance, consider this General Principle of the Natural Law: "Care for your offspring." You do not have to undertake a long, careful study of
From class and/or the textbook (page 179, bottom), give two specific examples of General Principles of the Natural Law.
caring of your offspring, do not murder, be faithful to friends
What's the difference between General Principles of the Natural Law and Remote Conclusions of the Natural Law?
General Principles does not take a long, careful study of human nature to figure out these things fulfill built-in purpose whereas remote conclusions requires more thought, as it is NOT as obvious
Give two examples of topics where figuring out right and wrong involves Remote Conclusions of the Natural Law.
is duelling always wrong by very nature? Is divorce?
Math analogy
By what method do we figure out the General Principles of the Natural Law?
the same way we figure out any other command of the Natural Law: by looking at the way human nature is built and figuring out what kind of behavior our species is built for.
By what method do we figure out the Remote Conclusions of the Natural Law?
the same way we figure out any other command of the Natural Law: by looking at the way human nature is built and figuring out what kind of behavior our species is built for. It's just that the Remote Conclusions take more study/ analysis/ experience/ time
Can the Remote Conclusions of the Natural Law be proven with certitude?
YES, they CAN be, if someone has enough time, information, reasoning ability, and effort to figure them out. Such a person could attain certitude about them.
why don't all normal, morally mature adults know Remote Conclusions of Natural law?
Because by definition they are not obvious, so not everyone ACTUALY HAS enough time, information, reasoning ability, and effort to figure them out
TRUE or FALSE: Some Particular Applications of the Natural Law apply General Principles of the NL. Other Particular Applications of the NL apply Remote Conclusions of the NL.
TRUE
Give an example of Particular Applications of the Natural Law. UNDERSTAND what all Particular Applications of the NL have in common.
Knowing that if you take that water bottle right now, it will count as theft. Knowing that if you scream at your dad for not taking out the trash last night, that will count as unjustified disrespect toward a parent. In each case, we are figuring out what
Can any of the Particular Applications of the Natural Law be proven with certitude?
YES, some of them (namely, the ones that are obvious, like "suddenly spitting on Dr. Kent in the middle of today's class would count as unjustified disrespect") (please tell me that you agree that this is obviously unjustified disrespect)
Then why don't all normal, morally mature adults know ALL particular applications of natural law?
Because SOME of them are not obvious. It's not always obvious what COUNTS as unjustified taking (theft) or what exactly COUNTS as too much severity when considering whether to punish a small child by denying him dessert after dinner, etc.
(a) TRUE or FALSE: All of the Particular Applications of the Natural Law are obvious.
(b) TRUE or FALSE: None of the Particular Applications of the Natural Law is obvious
c) TRUE or FALSE: Some of the Particular Applications of the Natural Law are obvious
A) False
B) False
C) True
Out of the four sub-levels within the Natural Law, which sub-levels contain AT LEAST SOME truths that CAN be proven with certitude by those who do have the time, opportunity, energy, and mental ability to investigate them thoroughly, carefully, and insigh
All four
Can any normal, morally mature adult be invincibly ignorant (that is, ignorant through no fault of their own) of the First Principle of the Natural Law? Why or why not?
NO because it is obvious
Can any normal, morally mature adult be invincibly ignorant (that is, ignorant through no fault of their own) of any of the General Principles of the Natural Law? Why or why not?
No because by definition it is obvious
Can any normal, morally mature adult be invincibly ignorant (that is, ignorant through no fault of their own) of any of the Remote Conclusions of the Natural Law? Why or why not?
YES, because by definition they are not obvious, so not everyone has enough time, information, reasoning ability, and effort to figure them all out
Can any normal, morally mature adult be invincibly ignorant (that is, ignorant through no fault of their own) of any of the Particular Applications of the Natural Law? Why or why not?
YES, because some of them are not obvious, so not everyone has enough time, information, reasoning ability, and effort to figure them all out
(a) In what century did Kant live? What nationality was Kant?
German, late 1700s
Kantian ethics has four different names. Recognize all of them and be able to tell them apart from fake names in a multiple-choice question.
Kantian ethics, duty ethics, kantian stoicism, deontological ethics
TRUE or FALSE: Kantian ethics can also be called Kantian Stoicism. TRUE or FALSE: Kantian Stoicism is the same as duty ethics.
TRUE or FALSE: Deontological ethics is the same as Kantian ethics.
ALL TRUE
TRUE or FALSE: The word "deontological" comes from a Greek word that means "duty.
TRUE
Describe what Kant basically thought about the physical world.
Kant claimed that our minds make up our experience of space and time and everything in them. We have never directly experienced reality in the way it really exists. In reality, space and time and everything in them are a massive coordinated hallucination.
TRUE or FALSE: Kant thinks that ethics should avoid being too abstract. He says we need to pay attention to experience of everyday life much more than other ethicists before him did.
FALSE
TRUE or FALSE: Kant claims that in everyday life we intuitively admire most of all someone who is motivated by pure duty in the abstract, instead of by pleasure or money or some other goal known by experience.
TRUE
Which of the three act-components that we studied is the only one that CAN be totally abstract - Act Itself, Motive, or Circumstances? Why?
Motive, because the Act Itself and the Circumstances are happening at some particular place and time (and thus are not abstract), but the motives that are inspiring you CAN include an abstract ideal.
Let's recall our earlier comparison of Kantian Ethics with Utilitarianism and with Thomism. Every action has three major aspects - the Act Itself, the Motive(s), and the Circumstances. Which of those three aspects matter(s) to Kant?
Motive
Which of those three aspects matter(s) (Act, circumstances, motive) to Utilitarians?
circumstances
Which of those three aspects (act, circumstances, motive) matter to Thomists?
All three
What is the only motive that has moral value, according to Kant? Why?
DUTY because that motive can be purely abstract, and thus not be based on wanting money, pleasure, power, or anything else that is intrinsically known and defined through experience of the physical universe. And everyone, according to Kant, admires someon
TRUE or FALSE: Kant claims that the notion of [moral] law in the abstract is the same as the notion of duty in the abstract.
TRUE
According to Kant, what does duty / moral law say, if you keep the concept purely abstract (as he wants us to do)?
Do only what you could want everyone to do
TRUE or FALSE: Kant got the wording of the categorical imperative by analyzing what is involved in the PURELY abstract - as abstract as abstract can be - notion of "duty" or "moral law."
EXPLAIN HOW HE GOT IT
TRUE; First, "duty"/"law" has to be a type of command - so it tells you to "DO" something. But, next, duty/law "in the abstract" is not restricted to Egypt or Australia or Brazil, or the 21st century or the 8th century. Instead, "in the abstract" a duty/l
TRUE or FALSE: Kant claims that the notion of [moral] law in the abstract is the same as the notion of duty in the abstract. So "Do only what you could want everyone to do" is the [moral] law.
TRUE
State the first formula of the categorical imperative. (Use the simplified wording that Dr. Kent wrote on the board to summarize, instead of using Kant's longer original wording as found in the textbook.)
Do only what you could want everyone to do
TRUE or FALSE: Kant claims that there is only one foundational rule in ethics (though you can state it three ways, from three different angles). What does he call this rule?
TRUE; The categorical imperative
What does the word "categorical" mean, in this context? What does the word "imperative" mean, in this context?
categorical= exceptionless (the abstract part)
imperative= command (the duty/moral law part)
What would the categorical imperative would say about lying - that is, would the categorical imperative allow me to lie? Why or why not?
No, I cannot want that bc the moment I lie and actually DO want to be believed, nobody will believe me. if everyone lied, nobody would be believed
Be able to try to apply the categorical imperative to any other example that Dr. Kent throws at you.
May I commit suicide? No because you could not realistically want EVERYONE in all times and places to do that
MULTIPLE CHOICE: The categorical imperative...
a. requires us to IMAGINE what would happen in a universe where everyone did what I am about to do, and ask whether I could really want that universe.
b. implies that Kant thinks that, in fact, every time we
A. Kant does not necessarily think that every action we do will actually influence others to do the same thing. Even if our action in actual fact influences NOBODY else, it does not matter for purposes of ethics. The test for morality is (he says) to IMAG
Apply the first formula of the categorical imperative to the following proposed action: "I will treat a rational being as a mere tool." Be sure to explain WHY the first formula of the categorical imperative leads to the conclusion that such an action is w
NO you cannot bc imagine a world that everyone treats rational beings as mere tools, which leads to 2nd formula "Never treat a rational being as a mere tool
What, then, is the second formula of the categorical imperative? (Just use Dr. Kent's simplified wording instead of Kant's original wording.)
Never treat a rational being as a mere tool
Because of the second formula, Kant concludes that rational beings have "_____________," not "price.
dignity
What does it mean to say that rational beings have dignity, not price?
they must each be respected as an end in themselves, never used MERELY as a tool
What is the third formula of the categorical imperative? (Use Dr. Kent's simplified wording instead of Kant's longer, original wording.) And where did it come from?
It is a combination of Formula 1 and 2, "always act as if you were in a kingdom of ends, where nobody is treated as mere tool
What does Kant mean by "autonomy"? (Don't just give the literal meaning of the word. Explain what KANT means by it.)
auto= self, nomy=law so autonomy means the law of the self
THIS IS GOOD, because you are supposed to order yourself to follow the cat. imp. by your subconscious giving commands to you
What does Kant mean by "heteronomy"? (Don't just give the literal meaning of the word. Explain what KANT means by it.)
hetero= other, so this means "law of another" in Greek
This is BAD, means not acting for sake of pure duty but instead being motivated by money, pleasure, honor or God
According to Kant's analysis of autonomy and heteronomy, which is good, and which is bad, and why?
Autonomy is good (Kant says), because it means following the categorical imperative, which he claims you subconsciously give to yourself.But heteronomy is bad (Kant says), because it means having some other motive that comes from OUTSIDE the real, subcons
EXPLAIN the criticism of Kant's claim that the kind of dignity that we have involves autonomy.
It makes no sense to say ultimate source of moral obligation is me, that's like syaing "I am irreversibly trapped in this room bc I told myself to stay here" Why would subconscious have ultimate authority?
EXPLAIN the criticism of Kant's claim that the only motive with moral value is "duty.
Duty is not intuitively the ONLY motive with moral value, granted everyone agrees the honest store owner is honest solely for sake of duty, but intuitively there are other and even more praiseworthy motives too like LOVE
The third criticism states that the "categorical imperative is empty." To explain what they mean by this, Kant's critics explain how re-wording our description of an action leads to different results from Kant's ethical system, and how this is a problem f
Suppose I want to sit in my fav chair while watching this lecture. May I sit in this chair? NO bc I cannot want everyone to sit in my favorite chair. 7 billion ppl wouldn't fit in one chair. BUT if I reword and ask "May I sit in an available chair owned b
Who or what imposes moral law on you, according to Natural Law thinkers such as Thomists (followers of St. Thomas Aquinas's philosophy)?
God
Who or what imposes moral law on you, according to Utilitarians?
humanity as a group
According to Utilitarians, is lying always wrong? Why or why not?
lying is NOT intrinsically evil bc they claim the only test for morality is "will my action promote more net pleasure for the world in the long run? In some cases lying can promote more pleasure
According to deontologists (that is, Kantian ethicists), is lying always wrong? Why?
YES bc test for morality is cat. imp. "Am I doing something I want everyone to do?" I cannot want it to be a universal law that everyone always lies bc nobody would be believed
According to Natural Law thinkers, is lying always wrong? (b) Why?
YES Because it uses speech/gestures in a way that directly attacks the built-in purpose of the communicative portion of human nature: namely, to signify what one thinks to be true. To the extent that one does speak or gesture, this is clearly its built-in
What is a Broad Mental Reservation?
speech or gestures which, IN CONTEXT, can have more than one possible meaning, and NOT POINTING OUT to your audience which meaning is accurate
Give an example of BMR.
Grandma is upstairs taking a nap at your home. A man holding a bloody axe knocks on your door and asks, "Is Grandma home?" The bloody axe adds meaning to his question. He is REALLY asking: "Will you help me kill Grandma?" Or "given what axe-murderers have
According to NL ethicists, how does a BMR differ from a lie?
In BMR, you are truthfully answering the question that you were REALLY asked, in context. Hence it can sometimes be justified to do a BMR (for instance, to keep a secret from someone who has no right to know it, or to play a game or to write a novel), sin
According to NL thinkers, is BMR always wrong? Why or why not?
no Because what you said truly answered the question that you were asked. You stated the truth to the extent that you did speak/gesture, and then you simply did not go on to explain your statement more.
According to Natural Law thinkers, does human nature require physical things for its survival and flourishing?
yes
According to Natural Law thinkers, does human nature require that you personally have THIS particular house or car or potato for survival and flourishing?
NO
So the goods of the Earth are naturally meant for all of us, but at the same time no particular piece of land or food or other physical thing is by its very nature "mine" instead of "yours"? (according to natural law thinkers)
right
if I join a monastery and we share all our goods in common, am I by that very fact violating the Natural Law?
No. The Natural Law does not require that everyone claim a piece of private property as his own, if he decides not to. It just requires that somehow or other you and the other monks do see to it that you all have enough supplies.
Alright, then why don't we just make EVERYONE become a monk? Why have private property anywhere in society at all? (according to NL thinkers)
Because society at large includes mostly people who are not well suited to become monks!
What 3 famous reasons from St. Thomas Aquinas did we study on behalf of the claim that private property is usually helpful for getting enough material goods into everyone's hands?
(1) in society at large, outside monasteries, a system of private property is more orderly - each person knows exactly what he is responsible for, and thus (for instance) you don't get two people trying to farm the same piece of land while ignoring anothe
In Natural Law thought, then, is private property merely an important means to an end, or an end in itself?
an important means to an end
what do NL thinkers believe is A means toward what end?
A means toward the end of fulfilling the built-in purpose of human nature to have sufficient material goods for survival and flourishing.
TRUE or FALSE: According to Natural Law thinkers, in those rare and unusual cases where private property would actually INTERFERE with, instead of PROMOTE, someone's survival and flourishing, private property ceases to be a means toward its usual end. In
TRUE; SAMPLE ANSWER # 1: If you are starving to death and have no other way to obtain food, then you may take food from another person who has enough food. That's because the very justification for private property is that it USUALLY helps to ensure that
Suppose you can save a million lives by directly targeting an innocent human life for destruction as part of finding a cure for cancer. Your Motive is to find a cure for cancer. Your proposed Act Itself is to kill an innocent life on human authority alone
utilitarians would say it is only justified if the end result causes more net pleasure in the world in the long run
Kantian Stoics say no because you could not want everyone to kill anyone
Natural Law thinkers say this is wrong since all three of the comp
What is the difference between direct killing and indirect killing?
direct killing means "directly voluntary killing" meaning you want the death of a human as either a means or as an end
Indirect killing means "indirectly voluntary killing: meaning someone's death was a foreseen but unwanted side effect of some other Act
According to Natural Law theory, which of the following are always wrong, and why or why not?
a. direct killing
b. indirect killing
c. killing on human authority alone
d. killing on Divine authority
a) not always wrong, depends on who is authorizing it
b) not always wrong, depends on if it passes PDE
c) always wrong bc no human created human life and hence no human owns human life.
D) always justified bc there is a God who is author and hence owner o
According to Natural Law theory, which of the following are always wrong, and why or why not?
a. War
b. Capital Punishment
c. Self-defensed.
d. Mercy-Killing
e. Suicide
f. Abortion/embryocide/feticide
g. Refusing to use extraordinary means of life preserv
a. not always wrong there must be a just cause for war, must be approved by legitimate authority, country must have right intention and must be right use of means
b. not always wrong; can be used when someone has committed serious crime against order of j
What are the conditions for a Just War, according to traditional Natural Law analysis?
just cause for war, must be approved by legitimate authority, country must have right intention and must be right use of means
(a) Which of the 4 conditions for a Just War is/are about the Act Itselfs performed during the war?
(b) Which of the 4 conditions for a Just War is/are about the Motives of the war?
(c) Which of the 4 conditions for a Just War is/are about the Circumstanc
legitimate authority & just cause are CIRCUMSTANCES
right intention is MOTIVE
Right use of means is ACT ITSELF
Consider ANY issue that involves sexual activity.(For instance, is sexual activity outside of marriage ever OK? Is artificial birth control ever OK? etc.)How will the issue be solved by . . .
(a) Utilitarians?
(b) Kantian Stoics?
(c) Natural Law thinkers?
a) does this produce more net pleasure for the world in the long run
b) probably not.. as you could not want everyone to do this
c) no bc it thwarts a thing's own function so using the sex organs in a way that directly attacks the built-in natural healthy
Do Natural Law thinkers claim that we owe public honor to God? Why or why not?
yes Bc human nature is built in such a way that we are supposed to live by reason, with a capacity to recognize truth, and one important truth (which Natural Law thinkers claim philosophy can prove) is that an infinitely wise and good God, not humanity, m