Kant

Morality follows from rationality—rules are “mind dependent”.

Categorical Imperative

• universal law formulation: “what if everyone did the same thing”
• humanity as an end in itself: “always treat humanity as an end it itself, and never merely a means”
• king

Lying vs. Reticence

• Lying: saying \(\neg p\) when you think \(p\) is true, in order to get your victim to believe \(\neg p\)
• Reticence: not saying \(p\) when \(p\) is relavent

You are disabling the capacity for someone to make a choice for themselves.

Why could something be right or wrong?

1. god says so (divine command theory)
2. who cares, just do what’s best for you? (egoism)
3. bring about happiness/misery (consequantlaism)
4. respect/disrespect autonomous (Kantian)
5. some representatives would agree to some rules under certain circumstance

Hobbian Contractariasm

Why be moral? It Constricts you from doing certain things you may want to do. They see the representatives as samples of egoistic humans.

This is an alternative to morality, which promotes egoism insofar as its beneficial for the deploying user.

Prichard’s Dilemma

“Why do the right thing?”

• give some extra-moral reason (bad, because you maybe are acting in self-interest)
• give some moral reason (“I do the right thing because its right”, tautology)

Kantian Contractualism

“rules that would be agreed to by people trying to share a world as equals”

scanlon

what no one commuted to sharing a world could reasonably reject as a basis of informed, unforced general agreement

1. substantive (sharing a world, presupposed content to what is a value) rather than formal
2. restricted (moral)
3. proceduralist (its about following a procedure, irrespective of what the output is)

Moral Luck

Control principle: we can only be judged for something to the extend its under our control.

Corollary: two people are not morally judged differently if the only difference is not under their control.

resultant luck

Luck in how your choices turn out.

constructive luck

Luck in who you are and what you are like.

circumstantial luck

Luck on the choices/circumstances that we face.

character

Stable traits and disposition: blameworthyness, etc. doesn’t apply here. There are blameworthy / praiseworthy actions, etc, but characters themselves can’t be.

• It seems to me that once we depart from the notion of TS and TO, the later conversations about consiquentialism, objectivism, and justice ceases to discuss what exactly is “right”/“wrong” and instead how to bring it about; yet, under a notion of command theory, the latter considerations of what “to do” (i.e., whether to be consiquentialist, etc.) can be waved away by sang “people do it/people believe in it”. Therefore, isn’t there an order of operations required or at least an assumption of some kind of objectivism which allows the remaining conversations to proceed?
• How does consiquentialist theories command deliberation? I know it is not a deliberative theory, but how does the consiquentialist ask one to go about having choices? That is, surely, as the readings mention, one mustn’t over-think aspects which require spontaneity?
• This is a higher level question: especially for more “extreme” arguments like Singer, how is it supposed to be taken? What Singer advocates directly is practically impossible to implement, even in a weaker version. Doesn’t this show the absurdity of globally moral thinking? If it doesn’t, how is it supposed to be implemented?