1 / 33

Philosophy 2018-2019 Jelle de Boer

Philosophy 2018-2019 Jelle de Boer. Lecture 1. This lecture , today. Practical matters Introduction Values Wellbeing , happiness Subjectivism Relativism. Grade components. Multiple Choice Exam : 60% Duo Essay: 40%

vsaavedra
Download Presentation

Philosophy 2018-2019 Jelle de Boer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Philosophy2018-2019Jelle de Boer Lecture 1

  2. Thislecture, today • Practical matters • Introduction • Values • Wellbeing, happiness • Subjectivism • Relativism

  3. Grade components • Multiple ChoiceExam: 60% • Duo Essay: 40% • Multiple ChoiceExam is abouttheprescribedliteratureandthelecture slides. • Duo essay, 1000-1500 words: ethicalreflection on a suitable subject fromyour bachelor thesis or on somethingelse.

  4. Literature • The Elements of MoralPhilosophy, Rachels – book, tobebuyed • An IntroductiontoDecisionTheory, Peterson – Canvas • SocialCost Benefit Analysis - Canvas • The Distribution of Responsibility, Van de Poel & Royakkers – Canvas • Values in Science, Staley - Canvas

  5. Programme – 6 lectures • Introduction, Values, Wellbeing; SubjectivismandRelativism • DecisionTheoryand Game Theory • ConsequentialismandUtilitarianism • Deontology; Social Contract Theory • AppliedEthics: SocialCost-Benefit Analysis; Distribution of Responsibility; TBA • Values in Science, ScientificIntegrity

  6. What is ethics? • Discipline in philosophythat studies morality - ethics = moralphilosophy • Moralitycanbestudied in different ways: • Descriptively (psychology, sociology, anthropology, history): how do peoplebehave, whatcausestheirbehavior, what are themechanisms? • Normatively: howoughtpeoplebehave, howtojustifytheirbehavior? • Meta-ethically: what kind of statements are moral statements, do they have truthvalues; what are moralproperties?

  7. Somemoral issuesSelfdrivingcars • Whatifan accident happens, andtheonly options are: steertotheleftandkillonepedestrian or steertothe right and crash, therebykillingthetwopeople in thecar? • Whatif a fatal accident happensbecausethecar does notrecognizesome vehicle forwhatit is? Who is responsible? The carowner, themanufacturer, the designer?

  8. Protest againstonline censorship • Europe: Techplatforms like Facebook,Youtube must restrictsharing ofmusic, art, journalistic content, illegaldownloading • Block illegal content by uploadfilters  That is censorship!  protest in thestreets, March 23 • Axel Voss, German Euro parliament: “Google and Facebook spread disinformation anduseyoungpeople as a mere means.” • What does Vossmeanwiththis? Andwhatexactly is so bad aboutthis?

  9. Machine learning • Predictcriminalbehavior; prevent terrorist attacks; hirethe best workers; diagnose illnesses; legal analysis • Amplifybiasesagainstblacks, muslims, women; enhancediscrimination • Whatvalues are at stake? How tounderstand these values? How toweighthem?

  10. Scientificconduct • How touse data? • Canyouleave out certain data? E.g. outliers? • Must yourstudybereplicable? • Whatto do if a senior collegueasksyoutocommitscientificfraud?

  11. Values How do these valuesrelatetoeachother? • Monism: the different valuesreducetoonefundamentalintrinsicvalue. E.g. happiness or wellbeing; theothervalues are onlyinstrumental. • Pluralism: the different values are irreducible; they are allintrinsic. Freedom Knowledge Friendship Love Beauty Equality Happiness, wellbeing …

  12. Focus on Wellbeing/happiness • E.g. how do social media affect people’slives? • Somebodylikesyourmessage or photo dopamine. Isn’tthatnice? • Or is itharmful? In what sense? • Todetermineanswers tot these questions one must first have a concept of wellbeing/happiness

  13. Theories of wellbeing/happiness • Hedonism: wellbeing = sum of pleasure – pain • Preferencesatisfaction: wellbeing = satisfaction of preferences • Objective list: wellbeing = items on an objectieve lijst

  14. Hedonism • Hedonism: wellbeing = sum of pleasure – pain feeling, psychological state • Epicurus (341 v.C. – 270 v. C.), Bentham (1748 - 1832) , Mill (1806 - 1873) • Source of wellbeing is irrelevant

  15. Hedonism – objections • Wellbeing does notalwayscome down toaninner feeling. E.g. whenyou look at a beautifulpainting, or whenyoutryto master somethingdifficult. • The experience machine of Robert Nozick: do you go in? According toNozick: Surelynot! Sincepeople want: • to live a real life (compare Charles de Bovary) • tobe a person (instead of a mereheap of organic matter) • todothings (instead of merelyexperiencingthem)

  16. Wellbeing has distinctforms. Wellbeing [dancing] ≠ Wellbeing [write a book] ≠ Wellbeing [bewithfriends] John Stuart Mill: some of these are better: It is bettertobe Socrates unhappythanpig happy. Jeremy Benthamdisagreed: Pushpin (a simple board game) is just as good as poetry.

  17. Hedonistictredmill: • Habituation: same stimuli providelesspleasure (recallthe dopamine) • Seeking of stronger stimuli

  18. Measurementproblem i): howtomeasureone’shedonic state?  Important drive for development of preferencesatisfaction approach. (But currentlythere are revivals: thehappiness indicator industry) • Measurementproblem ii): howtocomparehedonisticstatesbetweenpeople?

  19. Preferencesatisfaction Wellbeing = preferencesatisfaction n.b.: do notinterpretthishedonistically! Satifying as in satisfyingrequirements. → modern theory: preferencesatisfaction = utility (Decisiontheory, Lecture 2). howtodeterminethis: ordinalscale, Von Neumann Morgenstern interval scale

  20. Criticismanddiscussion • Uninformedpreferences. E.g. you take a medicineunaware of the side effects. Youuse Facebook unaware of itspossiblyaddictive effect. • Adaptivepreferences. Preferencesthatadapttothecircumstances. • Happy slaves. • Tred mill, as forhedonism. • Modification: onlyrationalandinformedpreferencescount. (tendstowardsobjective list).

  21. Malevolentpreferences. Shouldsadisticpreferencescountforsomeone’swellbeing? • Experiencematters. E.g. stranger in the train. • Are all types of preferencesatisfaction on equalfooting? preferencesatisfaction [dancing] ≠ preferencesatisfaction [mathematicalproof] ≠ preferencesatisfaction [play tennis] ≠ preferencesatisfaction [collectingbottle caps] • Measurementproblemhowtocompareutility/wellbeingamongpeople?

  22. Objective list • Objectieve list of Basic Needs, e.g. • food • drink • income • shelter • social relations • Objective list of thingsthat make peopleFlorish, e.g.: • education • culture • sport • freedom • have a voice • clubs

  23. Objective list of Capabilities = whatpeoplecan do – Sen, Nussbaum • Physical health • Bodilyintegrity • Making use of senses • Imaginationandthought • Express emotions • Practical reasoning • Social relations andself respect • Live in nature andamonganimals • Laughingandplaying • Politicalandmaterial control over environment

  24. Illustratedifference • Basic needs – income: everybodysameamount • Capabilities – making use of senses: someonewith bad eyesgets extra money tobuyglasses Objectivelists - in general: • No intrapersonal, no interpersonalmeasurementproblem • Relatively easy tousefor policy makers

  25. Objections • Are the items on the list the correct items? • How tojustifythe items? • Bysayingthatpeople want them? = preferencesatisfactiontheory • The items do notconstitutewellbeing, they are sources of wellbeing. • People have authority over theirwellbeing. • Notsensitivetodifferencesbetweenpeople.

  26. Subjectivism • Moral statements are mereexpressions of personal opinion or taste. • They do notconveymatters of fact. • They do not have truthvalues: theycannotbetrue or false. In Meta ethics, thepositionthatmoral statements do not have truthvalues is more commonlyknown as: non-cognitivism Early (andsimple) version: emotivism

  27. Emotivism • Moral statements are expressions of emotions: approval & disapproval • “This is morallygood” = hooray! • “This is morally bad” = booh! • These statements do not have truthvalues. • Moraldisagreement is a conflict of attitudes. • Explainswhysomedisagreements run deep, hard toreconcile. • Difference in moraljudgementsexplainedbyvariety of attitudes. • Moralitymotivates: difficultyforcognitivists, notforemotivists

  28. Emotivism - objections 1. Moralreasoningbetweenpeople is an exchange of arguments, not attitudes. Moralreasoning does not look like a combination of expressions of emotions, e.g. • Murder is morally wrong • Ifmurder is morally wrong, theneuthanasia is morally wrong • Therefore, euthanasia is morally wrong Because, howto construct this in anemotivist way? • Booh! [murder] • Hooray! [booh! (murder) & booh! (euthanasia)] • Booh [euthanasia] The “conclusion” does notnecessarily follow. Does notreflectthelogicalstucture. (Frege-Geachproblem)

  29. 2. How todistinguishmoral statements fromotherevaluative statements, e.g. estheticones? In a non circular way? Modern non-cognitivism • More sophisticated • Norm expressivism (Alan Gibbard) • Quasi realism (Simon Blackburn)

  30. Relativism • Culturalrelativism: different cultures vary in systems of moralnorms • Does it follow thatthere is no culture independent universalmorality? • No, notnecessarily: • Perhapsthere is andsomehow no culture has dicoveredthis system of universalnorms • Or varying cultures andtheir systems of norms are somehowrooted in a more (fundamental?) system of universalnorms

  31. Moralrelativism • Variant of cognitivism. • Moral statements have truthvalues, they are true or false. • They are true or falserelativeto a specific culture.

  32. Moralrelativism - objections • Certainvaluesandnormsare common toall cultures. • No objectivestandpointtocriticizethemorality of a specific culture. Or todecide a moraldiscussionbetween members from different cultures. • The idea of moralprogressstillpossible?

  33. Normativerelativism? • “each culture should have itsownmorality” • “oneshouldbe tolerant of different cultures” • These are universal claims. • And do not follow frommoralrelativism. A moralrelativistcanalso say thatoneshouldnotbe tolerant.

More Related