![Teleological (consequentialist)
come from [tellos- end]
Meta-ethics/ ought 1
Means beyond refer to Greek
Example: you should not smoke because it’s bad for you
Deontological (non- consequentialist)
Duty, obligations
Case: If someone own me money, he does not want to pay me
back. And he accidently put those money to wrong packet,
which is mine. It is good for teleological but not deontological.
Ought 2
Example: you should not smoke in China institute because it’s
your obligation not to.
Associate with rule
Ethical Egoism/ Teleological theory
Not selfishness, it’s about make you happy but you have no
actual physical gain
Happiness as the highest good for each person
Right actions as actions bringing about, increasing, deepening,
etc. one’s happiness
Egoism vs. Thrasymachus
Happiness= well-being + self-satisfaction
Hedonism (pleasure)
Perfectionism (excelling at things worth doing)
Psychological Egoism](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/paperrequirementthefinalpaperissimilartotheassignments-221108041700-d27ea22d/85/Paper-requirementThe-final-paper-is-similar-to-the-assignments-docx-30-320.jpg)
Paper requirementThe final paper is similar to the assignments.docx
- 1. Paper requirement The final paper is similar to the assignments insofar as it addresses a particular moral issue through the concepts and notions developed during this class. However, the paper must present a more articulated, sophisticated, and nuanced argument, which draws from multiple sources, views, and theories. In effect, students will write a 2000 words paper discussing a moral issues. The final paper should discuss at least TWO sources (e.g., articles, books, book chapters, etc.) that we did not discuss in class. The Final Paper is worth 250 pt. More on this forthcoming © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin Conflict and Conflict Resolution Chapter 5 © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-2 Nature of Conflict
- 2. crisis © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-3 Hierarchy of Conflict © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-4 Myths About Anger & Conflict in….
- 3. © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-5 “Lerner’s Styles of Dance” n anxious © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-6 “The Dance of Anger” anger and stress and the impact on one’s
- 4. partner—the “dance” of the couple ousework, child work and feelings work underachievers Lerner, 1985 © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-7 Approaches to Conflict Resolution: “Fighting Fairly” and it makes me want to call you names.
- 5. Crosby, 1991 © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-8 Approaches to Conflict Resolution: “Fighting Fairly”
- 6. closure © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-9 Constructive and Destructive Approaches for similarities Constructive approaches Lead to Growth and Intimacy © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
- 7. 5-10 Styles of Conflict Resolution interests © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-11 Competitive Style Kilmann & Thomas, 1975
- 8. © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-12 Collaborative Style Kilmann & Thomas, 1975 © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-13 Compromise Style partner’s interest
- 9. to find best solution Kilmann & Thomas, 1975 © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-14 Avoidance Style characterize style Kilmann & Thomas, 1975 © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
- 10. 5-15 Accommodating Style elf interest for partners cooperative behavior road Kilmann & Thomas, 1975 © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5-16 Resolving Conflict: Six Basic Steps —“this for that”
- 11. —“this for this” the agreements © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin Communication and Intimacy Chapter 4 © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Table 4.1 Communication Strengths of Happy Couples vs. Unhappy Couples STRENGTH Happy Couples Unhappy Couples Very satisfied with how we
- 12. talk 90% 15% Partner understands how I feel 79% 13% Easy to express feelings 96% 30% Partner is very good listener 83% 18% Partner does not put me down 79% 20% Olson & Olson, 2000 © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Top Five Communication Issues for Married Couples—Percent with Problems 1. Wish my partner were more willing to share feelings 2. Have difficulty asking partner for what I want 3. Partner does not understand how I feel
- 13. 4. Partner often refuses to discuss issues/problems 5. Partner makes comments that put me down © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Conversational Style and Gender: LISTENING STYLE Masculine - huh” stions to analyze speaker’s information Feminine contact
- 14. information Source: “ War of the Words: Women Talk About How Men and Women Talk ” by P . Meier , January 6, 1991 , Minneapolis Star/Tribune (First Sunday) , p. 8 . Copyright 1991 by Minneapolis Star/Tribune . Reprinted by permission. © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Conversational Style and Gender: SPEAKING STYLE Masculine previous speaker
- 15. teasing, jokes Feminine ion information delivered discussion teasing or jokes Source: “ War of the Words: Women Talk About How Men and Women Talk ” by P . Meier , January 6, 1991 , Minneapolis Star/Tribune (First Sunday) , p. 8 . Copyright 1991 by Minneapolis Star/Tribune . Reprinted by permission. © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Perspectives on Communication:
- 16. Competition Versus Connection Masculine Solution oriented Feminine Communication involves finding the balance between competing needs for intimacy and independence
- 17. © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Cultural Differences in Communication Cultural differences can affect not only how well a message is understood but also the way in which the messenger is perceived as an individual. – Cross Cultural Differences – Communication Barriers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlcFB0NZHLo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNSaxqEmsPs
- 18. © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. How do groups communicate? What happens if a nonmember uses symbols from another
- 19. group? This does not necessarily just apply to gangs, etc © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Basic Communication Principles received th people
- 20. relationship information communication is problematic © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Nonverbal Communication 65% of communication is nonverbal communication important in successful relationships Communication
- 21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pozqDz7B-sw © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Mixed Messages and Double Binds nonverbal components in questioning relationship or conflict munication © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
- 22. Using Communication to Maintain Intimacy Speaking: The Art of Self-Disclosure to another emotional health of members © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Using Communication to
- 23. Maintain Intimacy Listening: A Difficult Skill covery © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Responsive Styles in Interpersonal Communication
- 24. desires as a right lingness to say what one thinks, feels, or wants © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Table 4.4 Communication Patterns and Intimacy
- 25. Person A Person B Relationship Who Wins Level of Intimacy Passive Passive Devitalized- boring Both lose Low Passive Aggressive Dominated I win, you lose Low Aggressive Aggressive Conflicted Both lose Low Assertive Assertive Vital/growing Both win High
- 26. © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Positive and Negative Communication Cycles or her feelings and desires -confidence: a person’s feelings about self and ability to control things in life issues and a reluctance to deal directly with issues
- 27. is felt to be controlling and dominant © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Positive and Negative Communication Cycles cont.
- 28. © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Positive and Negative Cycles © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Using Communication to Increase Intimacy cont. I-Statements experiences in first person singular
- 29. Psychological egoism, I hungry and I want eat, ignore pure Heurism, rationalizing in the like of empirical thesis Ethical Egoism, we should seek our self-interest, every human naturally have different way to happy Psychological hedonism, the absence of pain Eudaimonism, right action leads good and eventually makes us happy First day The Nature of Ethics and Ethical Egoism Thrdsymachvs First discuss the Justice is the function of power Then the happiness Ethics as the philosophical study of morality Morality A universal idea about what is right and wrong Grounded in reason Particular/universal ethics Reason: a rational motivation or a stronger appealing/convention (habit) Ethical Normative Theories Proposing some principle or principles for distinguishing right actions from wrong actions
- 30. Teleological (consequentialist) come from [tellos- end] Meta-ethics/ ought 1 Means beyond refer to Greek Example: you should not smoke because it’s bad for you Deontological (non- consequentialist) Duty, obligations Case: If someone own me money, he does not want to pay me back. And he accidently put those money to wrong packet, which is mine. It is good for teleological but not deontological. Ought 2 Example: you should not smoke in China institute because it’s your obligation not to. Associate with rule Ethical Egoism/ Teleological theory Not selfishness, it’s about make you happy but you have no actual physical gain Happiness as the highest good for each person Right actions as actions bringing about, increasing, deepening, etc. one’s happiness Egoism vs. Thrasymachus Happiness= well-being + self-satisfaction Hedonism (pleasure) Perfectionism (excelling at things worth doing) Psychological Egoism
- 31. 1Everyone’s motive for each intentional action is the desire to promote one’s interest If the basic motive of every intentional action is the same, then the end provided by that motive is the only ultimate end of every intentional action One’s interest is the only ultimate end of every intentional actions( 1+2) Every right action is an intentional action Happiness is the only ultimate end of right actions Day 3 Empirical thesis (ET) about the human mind: people are, as a matter of fact, so constructed that they behave in self interest All (intentional) actions are motivated by self-interest PE as compatible with “altruistic: actions Explained in terms of one’s interest in seeing others being well Problems with PE 1. PE as an unsound theory (Hume) ET is false Many counterexamples 2. PE as not really a moral theory Not providing principles for restraining one’s actions in order to obtain social harmony 3. PE as ignoring blatant wrongs Failing to deal with issues that need to be related to one’s self- interest
- 32. 4. PE as trivially true Rationalizing everything in the light of ET HOBBES’ PROJECT Three empirical claims 1. Scarcity 2. Equality 3. Predomination self-love 1+2+3= standards for maximizing well-being Altruism as a mean to self-interest Addressing counterexamples Ethical principles for regulating one’s actions PE as an ethical theory PSYCHOLOGICAL HEDONISM (PH) Substituting ET with ET1 ET1: maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain as the ultimate motive for action Room for “psychological” pleasure and pain (troubles of the soul) Not Debauched hedonism EPICURUS’ HEDONISM Materiality of the human soul Mortality of the soul (happiness as “mundane”) Impressions on the soul from external objects (sensations) or bodily movements (including “mental states”) Happiness: Freedom of the body from the pain and of the soul
- 33. from confusion Simple and inexpensive habits 1. Perfecting health 2. Avoiding mental confusion BUTLER’S CRITICISM Object of desire vs. pleasure Desire is different than object of desire and is different than pleasure As long as you don’t really need it or you can’t live without it, you feel pleasure. Ultimate desire – Instrument Desire- Object Desire-Happiness Ultimate desire leading to Happiness OTHER PROBLEMS WITH PE AND PH Instrumental view of friendship Instrumental conception of justice The “free rider” The exceptional individual (why should Superman behave ethically?) Making friend to solve problems Day 4 EUDAIMONISM: BETWEEN HEDONISM AND MORAL PERFECTIONIS Something ethically significant in developing one’s talent Perfecting one’s talent as important for one’s “happiness” Living a life of unexpressed potential as wasting one’s life
- 34. Perfecting one’s talent as intrinsically good actions (and action good for its own sake) Intrinsically good: for its own sake Instrumental good: outcome Hedonism: pleasure as the aim (belong to instrumental good) Moral actions directed at obtaining pleasure Free rider: obtaining pleasure in the absence of acting morally 1. Being passive 2. Acting unjustly 3. Example Subject- action (nothing to do with it or do something morally wrong)- happiness PERFECTIONISM AS AN ANSWER TO FRP (Morally) right actions as a constitutive aspect of the highest good (“happiness” or “well-being) Right action: action worth doing for its own sake Free riders cannot achieve the highest good Acting in a certain way as a necessary condition for happiness Perfectionism is to solve achieve egoism and hedonism in same time PLATO AND RIGHT ACTIONS Crucial problem for perfectionism How to identify right actions? What are those dispositions (“talents”) one should perfect? Plato’s answer You should practice and perfect your virtues!
- 35. PLAYO’S THEORY OF MIND Human mind Human society Rational soul wisdom Rulers (Thinking) (Wise decisions) Spirited soul courage Soldiers (Will) (Courageous actions) Appetitive soul moderation Farmers, merchants, etc. (Desire) (Moderate desires) JUSTICE AS HUMAMONY Harmony as a “second order” virtue A virtue of a system of faculties rather than of a specific faculty Identifying a proper balance (harmony) among the parts of the soul Community’s parts each playing its proper role in harmony with the others Constituent parts of the soul each playing its proper role in harmony with the others
- 36. ETHICALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS OF A JUST MIND A just mind acting in morally good ways The virtues proper of a just mind promoting moral actions DARTH SIDIOUS’ OBJECTION Even just person can act immorally Harmony in the mind not equal “harmony” with others Local politics vs foreign politics The city’s analogy as misleading Day 5 Rationalism VS. Naturalism Rationalist theory of mind Mind as a separate “entity” Problematic metaphysical consequences (soul as “immaterial” Naturalist theory of mind Mind as the product of a biological function Human thinking as naturalized like other functions (breathing, etc.) MOTIVATION IN NATURALIST ACCOUNTS Conditioning appetites in order to follow what reason suggests Even if we have wisdom, we do not always follow it ARISTOTLE’S NATURALISM Human well-being (eudaimonia) = living a complete and fulfilling life (see Plato) Knowledge of such a life and the nature of our humanity
- 37. Sort of distinctive of our species “Biological” considerations REASON AND HUMAN NATURE Reason as the distinctive power of human beings Exercising reason as always possible Eudaimonia as not depending on luck SLIPPIN’ JIMMY’S OBJECTION: THE CONARTIST Some immoral actions requiring rationality No easy way to exclude these types of activity from rational ones Difficulty in deriving ethical norms and criteria from Aristotle’s naturalism Day 6 PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY Acting in order to produce the UTILITARIANISM VS. EGOISM Both concerned with maximizing “good” Utilitarians seeing the overall “good” of the community as the criterion for good actions BENTHAM’S “HEDONIC CALCULUS” Pleasure and pain as mere sensations “hedonic” calculus” for evaluating pleasure and pain Quantitative differences (especially intensity and duration) Objective determination of the morality of anyone’s conduct, individual or collective, on any occasion
- 38. Rejection of any distinctions if not quantitative MILL’S INTELLECTUAL PLEASURES Human beings having elevated faculties Higher kinds of pleasure Higher value than those of mere physical sensation Mill’s utility principle taking into consideration the relative quality of different pleasures and pains Not just their intensity and duration HAPPINESS and PAIN When deciding whether an action is moral, we must consider unhappiness or pain both SUMMATION OF PLEASURES Actions affecting people in dirrerent ways Principle of utility vs. Majority Rule SHORT TERM VS. LONG TERM Maximizing happiness not simply immediately but in the long run PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES Future as uncertain Consequences of our actions as sometimes difficult to guess .. ONE’S OWN PLEASURE One’s pleasure as relevant No special value or consideration Impartiality
- 39. CONSEQUESCES AND MORALITY Evaluating actions according to their consequences Actions producing different results in different circumstances In principle, almost anything as possibly morally right (In some particular situation) Breaking a promise Saul’s Objection Unjust actions as increasing overall happiness Day 7 Act Utilitarianism One and only one moral obligation (PoU) Every action is to be judged according to PoU Rule Utilitarianism PoU applied not to individual actions but to moral codes What moral rules a society should adopt to maximize happiness? Moral rules as the basis for distinguishing between right and wrong actions The optimal moral code Not rules simply doing the most good if always obeyed Rules reasonably learned and obeyed Costs of inculcating those rules in people “Utility should be the test if our conduct, ultimately but not immediately our rules should be fashioned on utility our conduct, on our rules.” John Austin
- 40. Rule Utilitarianism’s Advantage People making mistakes if calculating consequences of every act Act utilitarianism encouraging telling les and breaking promises Act utilitarianism as too demanding Day 8 Actions as inherently right or wrong apart from any particular circumstances Moral good = consequences Right and wrong as a function of obeying rules Rules not depending on considerations of action’s outcomes Knowledge of the rules = knowledge of higher good Moral rules as found through the application of the (practical) reason Will uniquely human capacity ti act from principle as good or bad Moral rules as determined through the application the Categorical Imperative Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics).
- 41. Two features of right moral action Coherent Universally acceptable Day 9 Autonomy Personal Choice and Existentialism Kant’s Autonomy Moral principles as determined by (practical) reason Reason as a universal human faculty Reason= will Will as self- legislating Human beings acting one reason as autonomous Heteronomy Being obedient to an externally imposed law or religious precept Autonomy Being obedient to one’s own self-imposed law Acting as guided by maxims Subjective principles by which we might personally choose to abide CIs not rooted in any individual’s particular contingent experience Each moral agent as a lawgiver in a community where others are also lawgivers in their own right Kant calls this community the kingdom of ends Autonomy and Political Freedom
- 42. A state is free when its citizens are bound only by laws in some sense of their won making Selected by vote or by elected representatives The laws of that state then express the will of the citizens who are bound by them Legitimize political authority is not external to its citizens, but internal to them, internal to the will of the people An autonomous state = authority of its laws is in the will of the people in that state, rather than in the will of a people external to that state When one state imposes laws on another during occupation or colonization In the letter case, the laws have no legitimate authority over those citizens Existentialist Ethics: Autonomy with No Principles Freedom =capacity for personal autonomy Freedom as the sole criterion of morally evaluation Freedom vs/ bad faith Failing to Sidestepping Ethical Theories Case of Sartre’s student Choosing a theory as an autonomous ethics Diffculy in assessing as practical not theoretical Important First person Euthanasia
- 43. Explain How to determine the value of life? Religious position Should doctor have the power of making decision? Case study Cancer and coma Different perspective Ethical egoism ought to act in self-interest Psychological egoism- only act in self-interest Hedonism-Happiness as the freedom from pain Trying to achieve perfect health Act utilitarianism- Moral actions as judged according to the Principle of utility Rule Utilitarianism- Rules as the basis of morality, learned and obeyed Deontology- Morality based on rules found through the application reason Death is not accepted Sources Second person Different position of each moral idea s