Study Guide Chapter 8 Part 21 What Is A Maxim According To K
Study Guide Chapter 8 Part 21 What Is A Maxim According To Kant
Study Guide: Chapter 8 Part 2 1. What is a “maxim,†according to Kant? Section G 2. What is the “happiness calculus,’, and by whom is it used? Section H 3. What is a categorical imperative? What is a hypothetical imperative? Section G 4. How has mothering been seen in history of moral theory? Section J 5. What view of women has dominated the history of moral theory? Section J 6. According to Mill, what end do virtues promote? Section H 7. What are higher and lower pleasures for Mill? Section H 8. What is Kant’s imperative that relates to how we should treat others? Section G 9. According to Kant, how does one determine the moral validity of a maxim? Section G 10. What kind of theory is utilitarianism? Section H 11. What were some objections to Bentham’s type of utilitarianism? Section H 12. Who created the principle of utility? Section H 13. Theories that focus on pleasure are called what? Section H 14. According to utilitarianism, what is the highest good? Section H 15. How do utilitarians defend their claim that pleasure is an important human good? Section H 16. Which philosophers objected to the idea that morality should be based on feelings? Section G 17. According to Bentham how might we characterize pain and pleasure? Section H 18. Who changed the direction of ethics by claiming that women think differently than men about moral issues? Section J 197 Study Guide: Chapter 8: Part 1 1. Who was a famous advocate of ethical egoism? Section C 2. What claim does cultural relativism make about the fact that moralities differ? Section B 3. To whom should a moral code apply? Section B 4. How is morality defined? Beginning of chapter . What are some important characteristics of inner judgments? Section B 6. What does psychological egoism claim about the possibility of morality? Section C 7. What does Tara Smith argue about egoism and relationships to others? Section C 8. What did Aristotle think about the innateness of virtue? Section E 9. With regard to validity, what is the status of arguments against homosexuality? Section B 10. How does altruism relate to ethical egoism? Section C 11. What are the moral rules by which we live with other people? Beginning of chapter . What is happiness, according to Aristotle? Section E 13. What does psychological egoism claim about human actions? Section C 197 Essay #2: Assignment Topics and Instructions NB: Before starting your essay, you should read this entire document as well as the information in the ‘Essay Assignments: Grading Criteria and Helpful Information’ folder. Choose one of the topics below. Topic #1: The Problem of Knowledge Chapter 3 of our text focuses on epistemology: “the study of knowledge, its nature, its sources, and its justification.†As you know at this point in the course, much philosophical thinking and theorizing is related to a quest for ‘the truth’ using our reason. But some information about how our minds actually deal with ‘the truth’, with facts, presents significant problems for how we understand our relationship to knowledge, to reality. Read this article from The New Yorker and write an essay that discusses the article in relation to the assigned sections of Chapter 3. Your essay must include specific reference to chapter 3 of our text as well as at least one reference to an article/entry in either The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, through quotation and/or paraphrase. The focus of your essay should be a philosophical discussion of our quest for and relationship to truth/reality. NB: If you are unable to access the article with the link above, a pdf file of the article is attached to this assignment. Topic #2: The Problem of Free Will Chapter 7 of our text deals with the problem of free will. Read this article about philosopher Sam Harris’ position on free will (make sure to watch/listen to the short video) and write an essay that discusses the article in relation to the arguments/problems related to free will in Chapter 7. Your essay must include specific reference to chapter 7 of our text as well as at least one reference to an article/entry in either The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, through quotation and/or paraphrase. Rather than your opinion on the problem of free will, your essay should be a discussion of the philosophical problem of free will. In other words, think of your essay as a research paper that discusses your findings, not as a paper expressing your own views. NB: you may want to also read this short piece by Harris, as it gives a concrete example that is helpful to understanding his position on free will. In addition to what is described above, your essay must include the following: • A heading done according to MLA • An original title • An introductory paragraph that contains your thesis (see this VERY helpful advice on how to write your intro/begin your essay, and if you are unsure of how to write a thesis, read this advice on developing a thesis) • A summary of the article given above with the topic you chose (If you are unsure of how to write a summary, read this helpful advice on how to correctly summarize a text) • Body paragraphs that discuss philosophical approaches to knowledge and truth or the problem of free will, depending on your topic, through reference to the article, chapter 3 or 7 of our text, depending on your topic, and at least one of the sources mentioned above (here is some excellent advice on how to structure body paragraphs) • A minimum of 3 full pages (your works cited page doesn’t count as a • A conclusion (see this VERY helpful advice on how to conclude your essay) Your essay should be double-spaced, in Times New Roman 12 point font; your paper should be written in Standard English and done in MLA format. You must include a MLA works cited page that includes all sources used in your essay, including the article I provided. To submit your paper, click on ‘Essay 2.’ You should attach a file that can be opened with Microsoft Word (doc or docx); do not submit a pdf or type in the submission box. Any instance of plagiarism will be punished by a minimum of an F on the assignment and a report to the associate dean of the humanities division. Further punishment could include failure in the course, suspension, or expulsion.
Paper For Above instruction
Immanuel Kant’s concept of a maxim plays a foundational role in deontological ethics, shaping how moral actions are evaluated based on underlying principles rather than solely on consequences. According to Kant, a maxim is a subjective rule or principle that an individual uses to guide their actions, formulated through personal intentions and motivations. These maxims are central to Kant’s moral philosophy because they serve as the basis for assessing the moral worth of actions through the categorical imperative. To determine whether a maxim is morally valid, Kant proposes a test of universality: whether the maxim can be consistently willed as a universal law without contradiction. This process involves imagining the maxim’s application to everyone and assessing if the action remains coherent and morally acceptable when universalized. Thus, Kant’s focus on maxims emphasizes the importance of moral duty rooted in rational consistency, rather than contingent outcomes.
The happiness calculus is a utilitarian concept associated with evaluating the value of actions based on their contribution to overall happiness, as promoted by thinkers like Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism, as a consequentialist ethical theory, assesses actions by their outcomes, aiming to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. The happiness calculus involves quantifying pleasure and pain, often through a cost-benefit analysis, to determine the morally right action. Bentham’s principle of utility guides this process, suggesting that an act is morally correct if it results in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The calculus serves as a practical tool for decision-making in utilitarian ethics, emphasizing empirical assessment of consequences rather than strict adherence to duty or rules.
The distinction between categorical and hypothetical imperatives is fundamental to Kantian ethics. A categorical imperative is an unconditional moral obligation that applies universally, regardless of personal desires or circumstances. In contrast, a hypothetical imperative depends on specific conditions or goals—if you desire a particular outcome, then you ought to perform a certain action to achieve it. Kant believed that moral duties are expressed through categorical imperatives, which encode principles that must be followed for their own sake. For example, acting morally involves treating others as ends in themselves, adhering to principles that could be universally willed without contradiction. This distinction highlights Kant’s emphasis on moral absolutes versus conditional rules based on personal preferences.
Historically, the role of mothering in moral theory has evolved from being viewed as a natural and private activity to being recognized as an essential element of moral development and social morality. In the Enlightenment and subsequent periods, feminist philosophers and moral theorists have examined how maternal virtues and caregiving responsibilities influence moral concepts such as compassion, empathy, and nurturing. The traditional view often marginalized women as moral agents solely within the private sphere, emphasizing virtues like obedience and submissiveness. However, contemporary moral philosophy critiques this perspective, highlighting the importance of maternal virtues in fostering moral development and social ethics, promoting gender equality and recognition of caregiving as a moral virtue in its own right.
The dominant view of women in the history of moral theory has often been shaped by philosophical patriarchy, portraying women as morally inferior, passive, or primarily care-focused beings. Classical philosophers like Aristotle or Kant typically associated women with virtues of nurturing and emotional sensitivity, often positioning male rationality as the standard of moral agency. Feminist critiques have challenged these stereotypes, arguing that such views perpetuate gender inequality and suppress women’s moral capacity. Modern ethical discussions increasingly emphasize gender equality and the recognition of women’s diverse moral contributions, moving away from traditional stereotypes to include women’s voices in the moral sphere.
John Stuart Mill promoted the idea that virtues, as well as actions, serve to promote human happiness and well-being. For Mill, virtues are qualities that enable individuals to achieve higher pleasures and contribute to societal progress. Virtues like courage, temperance, and intellectual curiosity are seen as instrumental in cultivating personal and collective happiness. Mill’s utilitarian framework considers certain pleasures—particularly intellectual and moral pleasures—as higher, more desirable than base or sensual pleasures. These higher pleasures are associated with pursuits that enrich the mind and spirit, reflecting a hierarchy within pleasures that aligns with the overall goal of maximizing human happiness.
For Mill, higher and lower pleasures are distinguished based on the quality of the pleasure experienced. Higher pleasures, such as intellectual pursuits, aesthetic appreciation, and moral satisfaction, are intellectually and morally superior to lower pleasures like physical sensations or material gratification. This distinction underscores Mill’s belief that the value of pleasures is not solely subjective but also rooted in their intrinsic qualities and the capacity to satisfy human faculties at their best. Mill argues that individuals capable of experiencing higher pleasures tend to prefer them, advocating a form of qualitative utilitarianism that emphasizes the importance of enriching the human experience.
Kant’s imperative regarding how we should treat others is encapsulated in the formulation of the categorical imperative: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, and never merely as a means.” This principle underscores the inherent dignity of rational beings and demands that individuals recognize the moral worth of others. Kant’s deontological ethics thus emphasizes respect for persons, moral autonomy, and the importance of acting according to universal moral laws that uphold the intrinsic value of every individual.
To determine the moral validity of a maxim, Kant proposes a test of universalizability: if, when universalized, the maxim leads to a contradiction or an immoral outcome, then it is not a morally permissible rule. This process involves imagining everyone acting according to the maxim and assessing whether the resulting universal law would be coherent and morally acceptable. If the universal application of a maxim results in a contradiction or undermines the very purpose of moral law, then the maxim fails the test of moral validity. This method emphasizes the importance of moral consistency and rational universality in evaluating maxims.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes, specifically aiming to maximize overall happiness or pleasure and minimize suffering. It holds that the best action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism thus shifts moral focus from intentions or duties to the tangible results of actions. Its normative principle, the greatest happiness principle, guides moral decision-making in various contexts, including social policy, law, and individual conduct.
Some objections to Bentham’s utilitarianism stem from concerns about its demandingness, potential for unjust outcomes, and the difficulty of accurately measuring pleasures and pains. Critics argue that utilitarianism may justify sacrificing individual rights for the collective good or that it cannot reliably compare different kinds of pleasure. Additionally, critics worry that utilitarian calculations may ignore justice and moral rights, leading to morally unacceptable results. These issues have fueled ongoing debates about the adequacy of classical utilitarianism as a comprehensive moral theory.
The principle of utility was primarily developed by Jeremy Bentham, who articulated it as the foundational guideline for moral evaluation. Bentham’s utilitarianism emphasizes calculating the sum of pleasure over pain and acting in ways that maximize net happiness, making the principle of utility central to consequentialist reasoning.
Theories that focus on pleasure are often called hedonistic utilitarianism, as they define the highest good in terms of pleasure and absence of pain. Classical utilitarianism aligns with this view, equating the good with pleasure and proposing that moral actions are those that produce the maximum pleasure for the majority.
Utilitarianism holds that the highest good is happiness or pleasure, considering it the ultimate end of moral action. This is grounded in the belief that humans naturally seek pleasure and aim to avoid pain, aligning ethical behavior with the pursuit of well-being.
Utilitarians defend their focus on pleasure by arguing that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that all other values are derivative. Philosophers like Mill contend that pleasure and happiness are universally desirable, and that empirical evidence suggests individuals consistently prefer higher pleasures, justifying their central role in moral evaluation.
Several philosophers, including Immanuel Kant and other deontologists, have objected to the idea that morality should be based solely on feelings or pleasure, emphasizing the importance of rational principles and moral duties. Critics argue that morality grounded in feelings lacks universality and objectivity, risking subjectivity and personal biases in moral judgments.
According to Bentham, pain and pleasure can be characterized as sensations that influence human behavior. Pain is viewed as an unpleasant sensation that individuals seek to avoid, while pleasure is a pleasant sensation that individuals seek to attain. Bentham proposed a quantitative approach, suggesting that these sensations can be measured to guide moral decision-making.
Famous philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft challenged traditional views on gender and ethics, advocating for women's moral equality and emphasizing that women also reason and possess moral capacities. Her work marked a significant shift in the feminist critique of moral philosophy, asserting that gender bias has historically shaped philosophical views on morality and that women's voices must be included in ethical discussions.