PHIL 130 Study Guide - Final Guide: Trolley Problem, John Stuart Mill, The Good Life
Ho do Mill ad Aistotle defie happiess? Be pepaed to opae/otast these defiitios, ad
their implications.
• Mill: The geatest happiess piiple holds that atios ae ight i popotio as the ted to
promote happiness; wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness. By happiness is
intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure
• Aistotle: Aistotles appoah is ot iediatel oeed ith ight atio. ‘athe, he is ost
immediately concerned with the question: what does a good human life look like? A good
human life must be one in which the human actively excels at using rationality. He defines it as
living a good life, developing the good virtuous and deliver those to virtuous people
What is relativism? What are some problems with relativism? What are some lessons we can learn from
it?
• Relativism claims that there is no objective truth in morality, and that right and wrong are
therefore only matters of opinion. Put another way, relativism claims that ethics are relative to
soethig: Pehaps the ae elatie to a pesos opiios o pehaps the ae elatie to a
ultues opiios.
• If elatiis is tue, the I at itiue the oals of othe ultues o o ecause there
are no objective truths in morality, so its false because there are moral truths
• First, it may help us see that certain practices and beliefs really are just matters of opinion, and
are therefore not ethical concerns Ex: Relativism is probably true when it comes to matters of
food tastes, etiquette, burial practices, and so on. Second, it offers a lesson in humility Ex: While
relativism is false, realizing that other cultures (and families) disagree with us on moral
statements should make us wonde hethe e aet the oes gettig thigs og.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Be able to evaluate ethical problems from the perspective of a utilitarian, deontologist, and Aristotle.
For example, how would a utilitarian (increase happiness), deontologist (following the duty), and
Aristotle (look if they are living the good life) approach:
o The Trolley Problem (in its various forms)?
o The distribution of ventilators in a flu epidemic?
o The problem of world poverty?
o The use of social media?
What ae the ipliatios of “iges Argument for the way we think about charity?
• “ige thiks that hait ist giig aa ou possessios. Hoee, he thiks it is oall
oligato to gie aa ou possessios to iease happiesssie he is a utilitaia fo
those who are in pain
Wiso dislikes “iges aalog etee the shallo pod ad gloal poet. What is the shallo pod
aalog? What ae soe easos Wiso thiks the aalog is a poo oe see slides laeled Wisos
Citiue of Peise 2?
• The Shallow Pond analogy is about a child who is drowning in a pond and we have the choice to
save him because it is within our power or to not care about it.
• The Shallow Pond: There is no complexity, clearly a matter of saving a life. Global Poverty: is
highly complex and this affects the best way to give, Often a matter of improving a life, There is
reason to think that wealthy nations are (at least partially) responsible for global poverty.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Who are the Sympathetic/Sorrowful Philanthropist? Who is morally better according to Kant (and why)?
Who is morally better according to Aristotle (and why)? Be prepared to compare/contrast the answer
these philosophers give.
• The Sympathetic Philanthropist: this person gives away her money because she finds an inner
pleasure in spreading happiness. The Sorrowful Philanthropist: this peso is oelouded
soos of his o ad so just eall doest ae aout othe people at all. He theefoe gets
no joy out of giving away money, and in fact, it is rather painful for him to do so. YET HE STILL
DOES IT because it is his duty, because it is required of him.
• Kant argues that only The Sorrowful Philanthropist's action is good, because only this action is
done for the sake of duty
• Aristotle argues that the Sympathetic Philanthropist is the better one since he talks about the
good human life and the virtuous people, in here we can see that the sympathetic one gives
away money to spread happiness, so this philanthropist is the virtuous one
What is Kats fist stateg fo figuig out the oal rules? Be able use this strategy to figure out
whether you are following the moral rules in specific ethical situations.
• To do this, we have to look to our intentions. We have to look to our maxims. Maxim: a reason
fo atio. E: I goig to tell fied he looks good ee if he doest so as ot to hut his
feelings
• We should ask whether or maxims are universalizable. In other words, would we be rationally
okay with everyone at all places and at all times acting for the reasons we are acting? Can my
maxims be universalized? If they can, then we are following the moral rules. If not, we are
breaking them.
What are some objections to deontology?
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Be p(cid:396)epa(cid:396)ed to (cid:272)o(cid:373)pa(cid:396)e/(cid:272)o(cid:374)t(cid:396)ast these defi(cid:374)itio(cid:374)s, a(cid:374)d their implications: mill: the (cid:858)g(cid:396)eatest happi(cid:374)ess p(cid:396)i(cid:374)(cid:272)iple(cid:859) holds that a(cid:272)tio(cid:374)s a(cid:396)e (cid:396)ight i(cid:374) p(cid:396)opo(cid:396)tio(cid:374) as the(cid:455) te(cid:374)d to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure: a(cid:396)istotle: a(cid:396)istotle(cid:859)s app(cid:396)oa(cid:272)h is (cid:374)ot i(cid:373)(cid:373)ediatel(cid:455) (cid:272)o(cid:374)(cid:272)e(cid:396)(cid:374)ed (cid:449)ith (cid:396)ight a(cid:272)tio(cid:374). A good human life must be one in which the human actively excels at using rationality. He defines it as living a good life, developing the good virtuous and deliver those to virtuous people. What are some lessons we can learn from it: relativism claims that there is no objective truth in morality, and that right and wrong are therefore only matters of opinion. Put another way, relativism claims that ethics are relative to so(cid:373)ethi(cid:374)g: pe(cid:396)haps the(cid:455) a(cid:396)e (cid:396)elati(cid:448)e to a pe(cid:396)so(cid:374)(cid:859)s opi(cid:374)io(cid:374)s o(cid:396) pe(cid:396)haps the(cid:455) a(cid:396)e (cid:396)elati(cid:448)e to a (cid:272)ultu(cid:396)e(cid:859)s opi(cid:374)io(cid:374)s.
