Intro To Philosophy (Online) Professor LaMendola Paper Topic

Intro to Philosophy (Online) Professor LaMendola Paper Topics Choose one of the

Consider the scenarios involving the unwilling moral agents of Jim and George in Bernard Williams’ “Utilitarianism & Integrity”. Describe the events that occur in each scenario in detail, and explain how these events relate to the Brain in a Vat scenario in Robert Nozick’s “The Experience Machine”. Additionally, analyze how the thought experiments in each article exemplify objections to consequentialist judgments. Finally, demonstrate how these objections might be unwarranted using the selection from Mill’s “Utilitarianism”. Develop a detailed scenario that illustrates your formulation of the unwarranted objections.

Describe Kant’s reasoning process leading to the Categorical Imperative, discussing what this reasoning implies about access to moral principles. Assess whether this constraint is reasonable for moral decision-making. Include a scenario related to the Case of the Inquiring Murder, showing how following Kantian principles might justify informing the murder about the victim’s location in accordance with laws. Explain how this aligns with the Categorical Imperative.

Examine Thomas Nagel’s concept of moral luck, including the Control Principle, the conditions for moral luck, and his four kinds of moral luck with examples illustrating violations of the Control Principle. Evaluate how Nagel’s critique of Kantian ethics influences the assessment of moral judgments, and explore how moral luck complicates consequentialist evaluations. Present scenarios for each kind of moral luck, analyzing potential resolutions and their impact on Kantian and consequentialist frameworks.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The complexities of morality and ethical judgment have been central themes in philosophical discourse, with several frameworks attempting to clarify how moral decisions are made and evaluated. This paper explores three significant philosophical perspectives: Bernard Williams’ critique of utilitarianism via scenarios involving Jim and George; Kant’s formulation of the Categorical Imperative; and Thomas Nagel’s concept of moral luck. By examining these perspectives, the paper aims to understand the objections raised against consequentialist and deontological ethics, and to assess their implications for moral reasoning. Each section critically evaluates the strengths and limitations of these frameworks and considers their relevance to contemporary ethical dilemmas.

Bernard Williams and the Unwilling Moral Agents

Williams’ scenarios involving Jim and George serve as powerful illustrations of the tension between moral integrity and utilitarian calculations. Jim’s case involves a situation where he is asked to kill an innocent person to maximize overall happiness, while George faces a scenario where he is indifferent to the outcome but unwilling to participate in an act that conflicts with his moral integrity. These detailed scenarios demonstrate how utilitarian reasoning can compel morally uncomfortable actions, raising questions about the legitimacy of consequentialist ethics. The connection to Nozick’s “The Experience Machine” further emphasizes the critique: if individuals prefer authentic living over simulated happiness, then the utilitarian pursuit of happiness may neglect essential aspects of human integrity and authenticity. These thought experiments exemplify objections to consequentialism, suggesting that moral worth cannot be reduced solely to outcomes.

Mill’s Utilitarianism and Unwarranted Objections

Mill’s utilitarian framework emphasizes the quality of pleasures and the importance of individual rights, which can serve to rebut some objections based on integrity. For instance, Mill asserts that higher pleasures—intellectual and moral—are superior and ought to be valued over mere sensory pleasures. This suggests that utilitarianism can accommodate considerations of moral integrity by prioritizing certain qualities of well-being. Moreover, Mill’s harm principle underscores the importance of respecting individual autonomy, which can mitigate objections rooted in the infringement of moral integrity. A detailed scenario illustrating this could involve a decision where sacrificing personal integrity might lead to a greater overall good, but Mill’s emphasis on higher pleasures and individual rights complicates a purely outcome-based critique.

Kant’s Reasoning and the Categorical Imperative

Kant’s reasoning leading to the Categorical Imperative begins with the recognition of rational agency and moral autonomy. Kant argues that moral laws must be universal, applicable to all rational beings, and formulated through reason alone. He posits that moral actions are driven by duty, not consequences, and that moral agents must act according to maxims that can be consistently willed as universal laws. This reasoning implies that all moral agents must have access to reason and moral principles that guide their decisions without reliance on external consequences. Such a universal access ensures moral consistency and fairness across agents.

The Case of the Inquiring Murder

In the context of Kantian ethics, informing a murderer about the victim’s whereabouts might seem forbidden due to the imperative to tell the truth. However, if lying is considered universally impermissible because it cannot be willed as a law, then adhering to honesty aligns with the Categorical Imperative. A scenario where it would be lawful to inform the murderer involves the application of a moral rule that prioritizes safety over strict honesty—such as a situation where the law explicitly permits withholding information to prevent imminent harm. This illustrates that Kantian ethics can, under certain conditions, justify actions that prioritize practical rationality and moral duties.

Thomas Nagel and the Problem of Moral Luck

Nagel’s concept of moral luck challenges the assumption that moral responsibility is solely determined by factors within an individual’s control. The Control Principle states that moral judgments should depend only on factors the agent can influence. Nagel identifies four kinds of moral luck: resultant luck (who you are responsible for), circumstantial luck (the circumstances you face), constitutive luck (your character), and causal luck (the chain of events leading to an action). For example, a driver who accidentally hits a pedestrian due to circumstances beyond their control illustrates resultant luck, which can unjustly influence moral blame.

Evaluating Nagel’s critique reveals that moral judgments are often affected by factors outside control, complicating Kantian and consequentialist evaluations. For instance, in a scenario where two individuals commit identical acts but one has a character shaped by circumstances outside their control, Nagel suggests that moral appraisal should consider these factors, even if they challenge traditional notions of moral responsibility.

Implications for Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics

When viewed through Nagel’s lens, moral judgments must incorporate an understanding of moral luck, which can undermine strict deontological principles based solely on duty and universal maxims. Conversely, consequentialist evaluations may also be affected, as the outcomes are influenced by luck rather than solely by deliberate choices. Scenarios where moral luck complicates judgments include a conscientious individual who unintentionally causes harm due to circumstances beyond their influence, raising questions about justice and accountability. These reflections highlight the need for a nuanced approach to moral evaluation, recognizing the role of luck in shaping moral responsibility.

Conclusion

This exploration of Williams’ critique of utilitarianism, Kant’s moral philosophy, and Nagel’s analysis of moral luck reveals the intricate interplay of factors that influence moral judgments. While utilitarian objections based on integrity must be balanced with considerations of higher pleasures and individual rights, Kantian ethics emphasize universal reason and duty—yet face challenges from the reality of moral luck. Nagel’s insights further complicate traditional views by illustrating how factors outside control can impact moral responsibility. Overall, these perspectives underscore the importance of integrating considerations of human psychology, societal context, and rational principles in developing a comprehensive understanding of morality. As ethical debates evolve, recognizing the limitations and strengths of each framework can promote more nuanced and just moral decision-making.

References

• Bernard Williams, “Utilitarianism & Integrity,” in Utilitarianism: For and Against, edited by J.J.C. Smart and Bernard Williams, Cambridge University Press, 1973.
• Robert Nozick, “The Experience Machine,” in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books, 1974.
• John Stuart Mill, “Utilitarianism,” in Utilitarianism and Other Essays, Oxford University Press, 1998.
• Immanuel Kant, “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,” translated by Mary Gregor, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
• Thomas Nagel, “Moral Luck,” in Mortal Questions, Cambridge University Press, 1979.
• Christine M. Korsgaard, “The Categorical Imperative,” in Creating the Kingdom of Ends, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• T.M. Scanlon, “The Truth About Trust,” Harvard University Press, 2005.
• Onora O’Neill, “Towards Justice and Virtue,” Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• Sharon Byrd, “Evaluating Moral Responsibility,” in The Routledge Companion to Ethics, Routledge, 2014.
• David Wiggins, “Sameness and Substance,” in Sameness and Substance, Cambridge University Press, 2015.