Samenvatting
Summary Philosophy and Ethics (X_400433) - all lessons and chapters from the book
Summary of all the lessons and chapters of the book you need to learn
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 25 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 25 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Week 1CAREER CHOICE
- Kantian ethics:
Basic advice: don’t do what you want others not to do.
Example: You don’t want to suffer from weapon violence yourself, and for that reason you don’t want
anyone to work in the arms industry. If this is so, then following the Kantian advise you should not
work in it yourself.
- Utilitarianism:
Basic advice: produce the best consequences for the most people.
Example: Assume that, with the money you would make on the basis of (D), you could finance two
extra jobs in the sector of (C) (for, you would make €150k, which allows you to donate 2/3 and still
keep €50k, the amount that you would have earned with (C)). Also assume that enough people want
such jobs. So, if you don’t take (C), others will take it. Given these assumptions, (D) would produce
the best consequences for the most people, and, following the utilitarian advise, you should take this
job.
According to MacAskill (2014): A graduate could donate enough from a lucrative but morally neutral
job to fund two charity workers. Each charity worker’s impact is significantly greater than what the
graduate’s direct charity work would have achieved. Even with conservative estimates, a graduate’s
indirect impact through donations could be 40 times greater than direct charity work.
MacAskill argues: You should choose a lucrative career and donate the earnings, even if the career is
controversial. The exception includes only morally reprehensible careers (e.g., hitman, child
trafficker). Controversial careers could include roles in the petrochemical, arms industries, or certain
financial jobs that might have negative impacts.
Effective Altruism: This movement, known as effective altruism, focuses on choosing careers and
actions that maximize positive impact. It evaluates the most effective ways to benefit others, often
through donations earned from high-paying jobs rather than direct charity work.
Utilitarianism, in the context of effective altruism, suggests that taking a high-paying job (even if it's
controversial) and donating a significant portion of the earnings can produce better overall outcomes
than directly working in charity. This approach emphasizes the importance of considering the broader
impact of one's actions to maximize benefits for the most people.
- Ethical egoism:
Basic advice: produce the best consequences for yourself.
Choose (D) for personal financial gain, although this perspective raises questions about the morality
of focusing solely on self-interest.
CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Cultural relativism is the view that moral standards are not universal and are instead relative to the
norms and values of a particular culture. According to cultural relativism, an action is morally right if it
aligns with the cultural norms of the society in which it occurs. This means that practices like
exploitation or discrimination would only be considered wrong if they are wrong according to the
cultural standards of that society.
The World Cup 2022 in Qatar faced criticism for the exploitation of immigrant workers who built the
facilities under harsh and inhumane conditions. When Ajax's CEO, Van der Sar, defended the team's
training camp in Qatar by stating, "In Qatar they have different norms," he implicitly referenced
cultural relativism.
,According to cultural relativism, if Qatari culture does not view the exploitation of immigrant workers
as wrong, then, by their standards, it is not morally wrong.
Other ways Van der Sar could have responded:
Denial of Exploitation (“There is no exploitation”), Blaming Others (“We care about exploitation, we
didn’t exploit them”), Partial Boycott (“We’ll boycott certain facilities”), Indifference (“This is soccer,
we don’t think about these things”), Accusation of Arrogance (““You’re arrogant, trying to be
superior, and intolerant towards Qatar”)
Why Cultural Relativism is Problematic:
- Moral Infallibility: If cultural relativism is true, then no culture can be morally wrong about its
practices. This means that even egregious practices like slavery would be justified if culturally
accepted, which conflicts with universal human rights principles.
- Moral Progress: Cultural relativism implies that societies cannot progress morally because
there is no objective standard by which to judge improvement. Practices like the abolition of
slavery or the recognition of women's rights would not be considered progress.
- Moral Disagreement: Cultural relativism undermines the possibility of moral disagreement
between cultures. If each culture's norms are correct for them, then criticizing another
culture's practices is meaningless.
We should take away from this that we should not just justify actions simply because a culture
accepts them, develop sound ethical arguments for your decisions, and recognize the limitation of
cultural relativism especially regarding human rights.
Conclusion: Cultural relativism presents significant ethical challenges. While it promotes tolerance
and understanding of different cultural practices, it falls short when addressing universal human
rights violations. Ethical decisions, especially in complex scenarios like Van der Sar’s, require careful
consideration of broader moral principles beyond cultural norms.
NATURE OF MORALITY
Ethics and Moral Standards: Ethics is the study of moral standards, which are principles that guide our
behaviour and judgments about what is right or wrong. However, understanding the nature and basis
of these standards is complex.
Subjectivism vs. Objectivism
Since moral standards are neither purely cultural nor physical, their status can be understood through
two broad views:
Subjectivism: Morality is based on individual feelings and preferences. When someone says, "Ajax
shouldn’t do business in Qatar," they mean, "I disapprove of it" or "I feel bad about it."
- Subjectivism is about morality, not non-moral facts. Subjectivists acknowledge objective facts
(e.g., there was exploitation) but deny that there are objective moral truths about the
wrongness of such exploitation.
- Disagreement in subjectivism is like differing tastes in music or food. People don't really
disagree; they just have different preferences.
Problems with Subjectivism:
- It fails to account for genuine moral disagreements. If moral statements only express personal
feelings, then saying "I disapprove of exploitation" and "I approve of exploitation" are just
expressions of personal preferences, not true disagreements.
- Subjectivists try to address this by suggesting that conflicts in attitudes still matter, but this
response is inadequate for objectivists who believe moral disagreements are about reasons,
not just feelings.
, Objectivism: Morality is based on reasons and objective standards.
When someone disagrees about a moral issue, they believe there are good reasons to adopt a
different attitude or behaviour.
Example: If someone approves of exploitation, an objectivist argues that there are good reasons why
this approval is mistaken, beyond just personal disapproval.
Explaining Ethical Theories in Career Choice:
- Cultural Relativism: Career choices are judged based on cultural standards. A career is
considered better or worse depending on the norms and values of one's culture.
- Subjectivism: Career choices are subjective and based on personal preferences. There are no
objective criteria to determine whether one career is better than another.
- Objectivism: Certain careers can be judged as better based on objective reasons, such as their
impact on society or adherence to ethical principles like those proposed by utilitarianism
(maximizing overall happiness) or Kantian ethics (acting according to universal moral laws).
Examples of moral dilemmas:
1. Scenario: Frank is a passenger on a trolley with failed brakes. Ahead are five people on the
track, and Frank can turn the trolley onto a spur with one person. Permitted to intervene?:
Yes. Justification: Turning the trolley minimizes harm, saving five lives at the cost of one. This
aligns with utilitarian principles.
2. Scenario: Frank is a passenger on a trolley with failed brakes. Five track workmen are ahead,
who are warned of job dangers and are earning high salaries. Frank can turn the trolley onto
the spur with one convalescent, who is invited by the Mayor with a safety guarantee.
Permitted to intervene?: No. Justification: The convalescent was assured safety, making it
morally problematic to sacrifice him. The workmen accepted the risk as part of their job.
3. Scenario: George can stop an out-of-control trolley by shoving a fat man from a footbridge
onto the track, killing him but saving five people. Permitted to intervene?: No. Justification:
Actively pushing the man constitutes direct harm, violating his rights. This is different from
diverting an existing threat.
4. Scenario: Dr. David can kill a healthy person to harvest organs and save five patients needing
transplants. Permitted to intervene?: No. Justification: Killing an innocent person for organ
harvesting violates their rights and is ethically unacceptable.
5. Scenario: President Harry can deflect a Russian atom bomb heading to New York to
Worcester, which kills everyone in Worcester but saves a lot more people in New York.
Permitted to intervene?: Yes. Justification: Although tragic, redirecting the bomb sacrifices
fewer lives (Worcester) compared to letting it hit New York, saving more people.
6. Scenario: President Irving can stop a Russian bomb heading to New York by dropping an
American bomb on Worcester, killing everyone there. Permitted to intervene?: No.
Justification: Actively using a bomb to kill people in Worcester is an aggressive act, different
from redirecting an existing threat.
7. Scenario: An avalanche threatens a large city, which accepted the risk to live there knowing it
is a high risk avalanche city, bit the avalanche can be deflected to a small city that did not
accept such risk. It would save all the people in the large city, but all people in the small city
would die. Permitted to intervene?: No. Justification: The inhabitants of the small city did not
accept the risk of an avalanche, making it unfair to sacrifice them.
8. Scenario: Six people are dying. Five are standing in one clump on the beach, one is standing
further along. A health-pebble is drifting towards the one person which will save him, or can
be redirected to save the five people. Permitted to intervene?: Yes. Justification: Redirecting
the pebble to save more lives follows utilitarian principles, maximizing overall well-being.
9. Scenario: The health-pebble belongs to the one person it is floating towards. Permitted to
intervene?: No. Justification: Ownership rights complicate the moral calculus, making it
unjust to take the pebble from its rightful owner.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper malounanninga. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €7,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 53068 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen