about Evicted: poverty and profit in the American city.

PHI 112: Ethics/PHIL 103: Moral and Social Problems

Social Contract Theory in One Page

Statement of Moral Criteria:”if an action would be permitted by a set of moral principles that agents

would agree to under ideal conditions, then the action is right.”

”ideal conditions” is short for “at the original position, under the veil of ignorance.” In other

words, if an action meets the values and restrictions we would agree to under the veil of

ignorance (promotes freedom, fairness, equality, and social cohesion), then the act is right.

Assumes that individuals are rational, autonomous, self-interested beings capable of making

their own choices. Assumes individuals are always trying to advance their own interests and

advantages; always trying to further their goals over those of anyone else.

Crucial Terms:

Original Position: a hypothetical scenario in which people come together to determine the laws

of a potential society, without any previous history or advantage (i.e. under a veil of ignorance),

by imposing limitations and obligations upon each other.

Veil of Ignorance: the idea that fairness and impartiality can be reached if moral agents assume

that their decisions must be made without knowledge of who they are, what their status is, their

history or any inherent advantages or disadvantages they might have.

Reflective Equilibrium: an ongoing balance of rights and restrictions achieved by continually

applying reason and moral intuition (and the principles of the original position) to correct any

injustices in the system.

Principles to Apply:

Principle of Greatest Liberty: the idea that everyone should have as much freedom and as many

rights as possible, to the extent that those freedoms and rights do not infringe upon the freedoms

and rights of others.

In other words, free to do anything which does not infringe on other’s rights.

Difference Principle: the idea that any inequalities in the system must be open to all, and to

everyone’s advantage.

In other words, advantages cannot privilege only a few, or be open only to the elite.

Questions to guide your application of Rawls’s Social Contract Theory:

1-Would the act infringe on a right of others that an ideal agent would say all people should

have? If so, what is that right and why should we have it?

2-If the act was allowed by a rule or law, would that rule or law unfairly exclude others, give

them lesser status, or work against their ability to live freely, happily, and successfully?

3-Would an ideal agent agree to allow such an act in a society, if she did not know her own

advantages or disadvantages? (Would it work against her under the veil of ignorance?)

Note: remember that the issue is not whether the act IS allowed, but whether it SHOULD be allowed

PHI 112: Ethics/PHIL 103: Moral and Social Problems

Utilitarianism in One Page

Statement of Moral Criteria:“if the consequences of an action, overall, would produce greater

pleasure (happiness) or less pain (unhappiness) than any alternative actions, then the action is right.”

another way to put this is “if the action maximizes utility for the community of interests better

than any alternatives, as measured by the calculus of felicity, then the action is right” (see below)

Crucial Terms:

Principle of Utility: “that principle which approves or disapproves of every action according to

the action’s tendency to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness, OR,

equivalently, to prevent mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness in the affected persons.”

Community of Interests: the collective interests of all people affected by an action measured by:

Impartiality: everyone counts as one, thus everyone’s interests count equally

Comparing Alternatives: one must always consider alternative actions and measure the

consequences of as many possible actions as one can, impartially and fully

Maximizing Value: one must look to serve as many people’s interests as possible, and,

so, choose the action which best promotes as many people’s interests as possible

Principles to Apply:

The Calculus of Felicity: Bentham and Mill think there is a sort of math to measuring the

consequences. In this math one must consider:

the scope of the consequences (its extent (how many people it affects)), the nature of the

consequences (the intensity, duration, certainty, and purity), as well as any aftereffects

(further recurrences), and then sum the total for each alternative

In other words, one cannot just say “it’s for the greater good.” One actually

must measure the effects, even of alternatives they do not wish to take

Perceived Consequences: one must always act on the best information available to them and

cannot be held accountable for actual, unknown consequences—within rational limits. One must

also not ignore known things in order to favor the outcomes, or causes, one wants

In other words, one cannot claim ignorance of known, or easily knowable, information.

But, neither can one be blamed for unknowable consequences.

Questions to guide your application of Utilitarianism:

1-Who is affected by the action? How are they affected by the action? How severely positively or

negatively are they affected? How does that effect intersect with how others are affected?

2-What options are present? How might those options minimize pain and increase happiness?

Which option is viable and would best maximize the consequences?

Note: remember that in order to apply Utilitarianism, at all, one MUST compare the alternatives using the

Calculus of Felicity. If one only weighs the consequences of doing, or not doing, a single action, then one

is not applying Utilitarianism properly.

PHI 112: Ethics/PHIL 103: Moral and Social Problems

Kantian Ethics in One Page

Statement of Moral Criteria: There are 2 of these for Kant. When applying, PICK ONE.

Formula of Universal Law (SMC #1): “if the maxim guiding one’s action could safely be

willed a universal law, then the action is right.”

Formula of Humanity (SMC #2): “if an action treats humanity, in oneself and others, as an end,

and never merely as a means, then the action is right.”

Crucial Terms:

Categorical Imperative—“Always act such that the principle (maxim) guiding your action

would hold as an inviolable law governing you, and everyone else.”

in other words, the intentions of an action matter more than the consequences, and acts

that are guided by good intentions (a good will) are ones that are universalizable—when

we take them, we would will that everyone should be obligated to follow the same

principle we are following.

Maxim: a statement which expresses the principle which guides one’s action (why you do it). For

sake of ease, a maxim can usually be expressed as: in order to achieve X (the end), one should Y

(the means).

Though Kant acknowledges that we often act without knowledge of our own maxims,

when applying Kant one MUST begin by formulating the maxim—as his theory is about

judging principles that justify acts (maxims), not the acts themselves.

Means vs Ends: ends are purposes and goals, means are the steps we take to get there. So, using

someone as a means implies using them as a step to something else.

Principles to Apply: depends on the SMC chosen. If one chooses SMC #1, one must apply conceptual

consistency and consistency of will to the maxim (see below). If one chooses SMC #2, one must show

how the maxim respects OR violates the dignity and autonomy of oneself and others.

Questions to guide your application of Kant:

1-is the maxim conceptually consistent? In other words, is it self-undermining? Does it lead to a

contradiction? Could everyone possibly follow the maxim?

2-would the maxim be consistently willed? In other words, is one being a hypocrite? Is one

suggesting that one rule should govern themselves and a different rule should govern others?

Would one will a different rule be followed in different circumstances?

3-would the maxim respect the dignity and autonomy of oneself and others? Would it use

others ONLY as a means to an end? Would it use them, but in a way that also respects them?

If the maxim is not conceptually consistent OR would not be consistently willed, OR would not respect the

dignity and autonomy of oneself or others then the action is not moral, because it is irrational, and one must

not follow irrational rules—even if this means disobeying the authority that gave the rule.

Note: remember 1-Kant is NOT asking you to apply the Golden Rule (he does not care what you “would

want” done to you or anyone else), and 2-when applying Kant, we are always judging maxims, not acts

themselves (because the same act may be immoral if not done for the right reasons)

PHI 112: Ethics/PHIL 103: Moral and Social Problems

Feminist Ethics in One Page

Statement of Moral Criteria: none

There is, technically, no agreed upon, set, objective criteria for applying Feminist Ethics. Usually,

it builds upon the criteria in use from other moral theories and expands them to include the more

inclusive, subjective aspects of the Ethics of Care.

Crucial Terms:

Moral Sensibility: Moral sensibility is the capacity of a person to perceive or detect

the moral issues and aspects within a particular idea, opinion, action, situation, context, etc.

Ethics of Care: the idea that moral actions center on interpersonal relationships, care, and

benevolence as traits of character for a moral agent who is properly oriented to a moral situation,

rather than standards of impartiality and “idealized” rationality.

In other words, a virtuous person is one who has developed moral sensibilities to the

point that they detect the moral dimensions of a situation and, more importantly, how to

respond appropriately within those dimensions, rather than (or sometimes in addition to)

simply applying a generalized rule derived from traditional moral theories. In this way,

intuition, reason, motivation, and emotion all play a role in moral decision-making.

Principles to Apply:

Non-Idealism and Moral Agency: as stated above (in the Ethics of Care), Feminist Ethics is

about how one is oriented within a moral situation. In this sense, it understands moral agency

from within the contexts of the situation, not from an “idealized” distance.

In other words, Feminist Ethics does not see a proper moral agent (or humans in general)

as one who is “detached,” “impartial,” or always rational—i.e. as an “ideal agent”—but

as one who is partial, involved, and motivated to act out of compassion and moral

sensibility.

Implicit Bias: the evaluations inherent in our attitudes, stereotypes, cultural value systems,

hierarchies, social institutions, and relationships which unconsciously attribute particular qualities

(whether desirable or undesirable) to members of a social group.

Questions to guide your application of Feminist Ethics:

1-Is the agent (the person taking the action) properly oriented to the situation? What are the

contexts of the action? Are there subjective motivations and relationships that should be taken

into account? Are there social forces, factors, and expectations restricting certain options?

2-Are our intuitions about the action and the context overly idealized? Would we, practically,

expect someone to act differently than the ideal, given their role in the situation?

3-Is implicit bias, oppression, or lack of equality in rights and privileges a current or historical

factor affecting the agent, the situation, and the values involved?

Note: remember that Feminist Ethics is not anti-men or only about women’s issues; it is about equality,

fairness, justice, discrimination, rights, and proper moral orientation for anyone.