1.

[Consequentialism] [1C]
I. Discuss utilitarianism. Your answer should include
all of the followings:
1. Explanations about what consequentialism is;
What determines that an act is morally right:
(1) the consequences of the act
(2) the motive behind the act
(3) the intrinsic nature of the act
(4) a general rule requiring acts of the same kind
ims (1) that the normative
value of an act depends only on its consequences.
2.Explanations about what hedonism is;
The doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or
chief good in life
What is valuable? Some philosophers like Bentham
and Mill claim that the only thing that is good in itself
is some specific type of state, for example, pleasure
or happiness.
3. Explanations about the notion of utility;
is and what its characteristics are, especially about
the following notions: total value, maximizing
happiness, and universal and equal consideration;
Note: The notion of utility is not what is useful or
practical. The notion of utility means pleasure and
the absence of pain here.
4. Explanations about what classic utilitarianism is
and what its characteristics are, especially about the
following notions: total value, maximizing
happiness, and universal and equal consideration;
Classic Utilitarianism = The consequential principle +
the utility principle (the hedonistic aspect)
We should act so as to bring about the maximum
total amount of happiness in the long run: The
greatest happiness for the greatest number.
1. Total Value
The moral value in the consequence of an act should
be the total net value of happiness and unhappiness
in it.
An act is morally right if that act has a consequence
as follows: Total amount of happiness for all by the
act total amount of unhappiness for all by the act >
the net amount of incompatible act available to the
agent on that occasion.
2. Maximizing happiness
We need to choose an act to bring about the
maximal amount of the net value by the act.
5. Explanations about the questionable issues of the
following features: maximizing happiness and
universal and equal consideration.
Maximizing happiness
We need to choose an act to bring about the
maximal amount of the net value by the act.
[3C] 3. Explanations about the feature of moral rules
made by Smart;
(2) Rules of Thumb
According to Smart, the fundamental feature of our
moral rules is that they can be changed or overridden
at any time in order to produce the greatest
happiness. That is, our moral rules are rules of
thumb.
a. Rule Worship or Rational Decision
Suppose that in most cases, it is good to act in
accordance with a certain rule R, and that at some
time, we have perfect faith in the impartiality/non-
bias of our calculations, and we have worked out the
consequences, and we know that to break R will have
better results than to keep it. Do we need to keep R
in this case? If so, we idolize or worship the rule. It is
not a rational decision.
should be overridden to produce the greatest
happiness.
b. Exceptions to the rules
Suppose that I have a garden. There is a rule that no
water must be used of watering gardens. I calculated
that no harm will be done if (secretly) use water and
that my neighbors can get a benefit of having lovely
flowers. Then, isnt it better to break the rule?
exceptions are justified based on the utility in the
consequences of a particular individual action.
4. Explanations about Smarts two criticisms against
rule utilitarianism;(1) Concerning Rules of Thumb:
Having some exceptions of rules is used to support
the characterization of moral rules as rules of thumb.
However, even a scientific rule can fail to hold in an
abnormal or unfamiliar circumstance. For example, if
a billiard ball hits another billiard ball, then the
second ball will move only when the gravity force
onto the second ball is not radically strong, etc. We
just ignore these conditions to lead the expected
result not to happen. What is the difference between
Smarts rule of thumb and rules in science under
some (normal) condition?
(2) Concerning Sidgwicks Distinction: This distinction
seems to separate the reward for an act from the
value of the act. We ordinarily believe that the value
of an act determines what rewards the agent can get
from it. If not, what determines the praise/condemn
of an act?
5. Explanations about Hookers questions to act
utilitarianism.
(1) Impartiality -We morally allow an impartial
treatment to a certain kind of group, such as a
minority group or my intimate group like my family.




[4C] (2) Justice - Justice/fairness does not always
come together with well-being. If a group has a large
member, it will be better to give the members as
much as we can to maximize the utility. But this is
not fair to the people in other groups.
1. Explanations about the thesis of rule
consequentialism; Rule Consequentialism - The
moral value (rightness) of an action is determined by
whether or not it falls under a certain rule. Whether
the rule is accepted is to be decided by considering
the consequences of adopting the rule.
- A rule utilitarian calculates the utility in the
consequence of keeping a rule by an action.
2. Explanations about Hookers distinction between
compliance and acceptance, and his corresponding
distinction between compliance-based
consequentialism and acceptance based
consequentialism;
Compliance or Acceptance - There are two kinds of
attitudes to accepting rules, compliance with rules
and acceptance of rules.
Compliance with rules: Conforming rules even
without believing the rule right and intending to keep
it Acceptance of rules: Conforming rules with the
agreement of rules
Ex. A patient in rehab can comply with not drinking
or drugging for a while even when she does not
accept the need to do.
and understanding why the rules need to be.
Compliance-Based Consequentilaism and
Acceptance-Based Consequentialism
An act is permissible if and only if it is allowed by
rules the compliance with which would result in as
much good as would result from any other rules.
An act is permissible if and only if it is allowed by
rules the acceptance with which would result in as
much good as would result from any other rules.
3.Explanations about Hookers three reasons to take
acceptance-based consequentialism;
Hookers Arguments for Acceptance-Based
Consequentialism:
(1) Moral Consideration about taking a rule
People are not just complying a rule but also
considering whether taking this rule is appropriate.
This consideration should be included in our utility
calculation of moral rules. In order to take this
consideration into account, we need to take the
acceptance-based consequentialism.
(2) The consequence of the acceptance of a rule
Someones acceptance of a rule can have an effect
on
[2C] 3. Universal and Equal Consideration
We should care about the happiness and
unhappiness of all the people or sentient beings. And
also their happiness and unhappiness should be
equally considered.
1. Explanations about what act utilitarianism is and
what rule utilitarianism is;
Act Utilitarianism (Extreme Utilitarianism by Smart)
The moral value (rightness) of an action is
determined by whether the actions consequences
are at least as good as that of any alternative action.
Rule Utilitarianism (Restricted Utilitarianism by
Smart)The moral value (rightness) of an action is
determined by whether or not it falls under a certain
rule. Whether the rule is accepted is to be decided by
considering the consequences of adopting the rule.
An act utilitarian calculates the utility in the
consequence of a particular action.
A rule utilitarian calculates the utility in the
consequence of keeping a rule by an action.
2. Explanations about why Smart thinks that moral
rules are useful;
Smarts Argument 1: Rules of Thumb
(1) Moral Rules
Our moral rules are helpful when we have the
following cases of utility calculation:
a. Lack of Time
Imagine that a man seeing a person drowning jumps
in and rescues him. Even when there is no time to
calculate the utility of the consequences of his action,
he internalizes a rule rescue a person in need and
rescues the person, which is morally good.
b. Biased in Ones Favor
Imagine a man unhappily married and deciding to get
divorced. It is possible that he exaggerates his own
unhappiness and underestimates the harm done to
his children and to the general faith in marriage
vows. If the man has a rule keep the promise in
marriage, or consider your childrens pleasure as
much as yours, he can avoid the miscalculation of
utility based on his bias.
c. Issues of Public Morality
Recently we have many issues of public morality
rather than private morality, such as tensions in the
international relations. The issues of public morality
cannot be calculated based on the consequences of a
particular action in a particular occasion. One of the
things we should consider in this case is the promise
between countries, which constitute a diplomatic
rule between the two.
In order to avoid lack of time, bias in utility
calculation and solve the problem of public morality,
we need to adopt some moral rules.




[5C] our motivation. Peoples acceptance of a rule
should be taken into account in calculating the utility
of the rule. Ex. You accept a rule prescribing that you
retaliate against attackers.
People know your acceptance of this rule.
Then, people wont attack you because people know
s/he will pay for it.
Compliance of a rule cannot explain the influence of
someones taking a rule into our motivation of
action. (3) A cost-benefit analysis of internalization
and compliance
To consider the cost-benefit of internalizing a rule,
rather than the cost-benefit of compliance of a rule,
gives a richer explanation about the consequences of
keeping the rule.
If a rule is very complicated, e.g., a rule with lots of
exceptions, Dont lie, except when no one gets hurt
from it, when you can get a great benefit from the
lie, when.., it is hard for people to learn, retain,
and teach the rule. In short, it is hard to internalize
the rule. The cost of internalizing this rule is so high
that this rule will not be optimal. This explains why
we dont have a complicated rule.
4. Explanations about the following five problems
against consequentialism and Hookers answer to
them based on his version of rule consequentialism:
exceptions of rules, impartiality, sacrifice, justice,
conflicts of rules.
1. Exceptions of rules - Some philosophers such as
Smart criticize the rule consequentialism in that the
theory cannot justify the exceptions of rules. But
given Hookers analysis of internalization, we can
answer to the criticisms. Rule itself includes
exceptions in it, and we internalize it. For example,
we can internalize a rule Dont lie except when you
are talking to a dangerous person, .. rather than
just Dont lie. But usually we dont have this kind of
complicated rules because if a rule is too complicated
then it requires too much cost for internalizing a rule
to have many rules. Sometimes we internalize a rule
with exceptions if internalizing the rule with
exceptions does not cost much.
2. Impartiality
Consequentialism, act and rule consequentialism, is
criticized in that it does not explain our partial
consideration about ourselves and our loved ones.
Hooker says that if the cost of trying to be an
impartial saint is too high, taking impartiality is not
optimal.
3. Sacrifice
It has been argued that consequentialist, especially
act consequentialism, requires self-sacrifice if it
produces a better benefit to the whole society.
[1K] [Kantian Deontology]
1. Explanations about Kants criticism against
happiness as intrinsic goodness;
Happiness and Pleasure:
Happiness and pleasure are not intrinsically good
because our intuition says (i) it is bad that the
happiness of a bad person, and (ii) happiness and
pleasure should be the reward of moral goodness.
Therefore, a good person should be defined first and
happiness and pleasure do not define it.
2. Specifications about the three characteristics of
Kantian notion of willing;
Willing:
Whenever we do some act, we will something
(1) Willing a state of affairs as well as willing an act
a world peace, everyones kindness, everyones
keeping promises
(2) Willing an inconsistent things to happen
(3) Only in human beings
3. Explanations about what maxim is and the
features of it;
Maxim:
(1) Everyone acts on principles (maxim) the
condition of voluntary actions
(2) Subjective principles
Whenever I am ____, I will (wont) ____; Whenever
anyone is ___, she will (wont) _____.
(3) No need to be conscious (until asked)
(4) Two kinds of maxims
(i) my maxim made by my inclination to have
something; (ii) my maxim by my respect of some
moral obligation (duty).
intuition says that (i) is just an inclination to have
happiness or pleasure, and (ii) is morally good.
e
sake of duty is a good will.
4. Explanations about what a good will is;
One is doing stuff because you want something
the other is because it is following a moral rule. You do
the second type because you have the intuition to to
follow a duty
This is a good will because you are doing to follow a duty.
5. Explanations about what duty is;
A duty is a moral law to describe how people ought
to act in a certain circumstance.
(1) Moral laws express necessity like a scientific law.
(2) Moral laws are universal (anyone, any place, any
time)
Sometimes your maxim = a universal law (duty) and
sometimes not.







[2K] 6.Explanations about the relation between
maxims and universal laws;
A duty is a moral law to describe how people ought
to act in a certain circumstance.
(1) Moral laws express necessity like a scientific law.
(2) Moral laws are universal (anyone, any place, any
time)
Sometimes your maxim = a universal law (duty) and
sometimes not.
7. Explanations about the distinction between
hypothetical imperatives and categorical
imperatives;
Hypothetical Imperatives and Categorical Imperatives
(1) Hypothetical Imperatives: conditional (if you want
., do x (dont x))
(2) Categorical Imperatives: no condition, no end (do
x (dont x))
l imperatives are categorical.
The Categorical Imperative: one supreme categorical
imperative of morality
CI: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become
through your will a universal a law of nature
CI: An act is morally right if and only if the agent can
will that the generalized form of her maxim be a law
of nature.
8. Explanations about what the supreme categorical
imperative (the CI) of morality, which is called the
categorical imperative, is;
The Categorical Imperative: one supreme categorical
imperative of morality
CI: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become
through your will a universal a law of nature
CI: An act is morally right if and only if the agent can
will that the generalized form of her maxim be a law
of nature.
9. Explanations about the categorical imperative
test (the CI test) and two kinds of contraction in the
test with example cases;
CI test:
(i) Check a maxim; (ii) Generalize the maxim (shared
by everyone); (iii) Consider whether you can WILL
that the generalized maxim be a universal law.
Two Contradictions
(i) Contradiction of Will: Impossible to will the
is flourishing does not help others
(ii) Formal Contradiction: Impossible to imagine ones
need can make a promise even though she cannot
make it.



[6C] (1) Emergency Room Thought Experiment
(2) Self-Sacrifice
Money devotion: Suppose that it is maximally
beneficial to contribute a considerable amount of my
salary to aid agencies rather than use it to myself.
Then, I should move to the better paying job so that I
will have a bigger salary and give an even larger
percentage of my earnings to aid agencies.
Hooker says that this requirement of sacrifice comes
from the requirement of impartiality. But his version
of rule consequentialism can allow that the innocent
healthy person values his life more than the others
and people care more of oneself than others if being
impartial costs too high to internalize.
4. Justice
Consequentialism is criticized because it does not
care about justice like redistribution. For example, if
we can get a better result to educate people over IQ
140, we should spend our government education
budget only to this kind of people. But Hooker can
answer to this. We already have some fairly general
rules about redistribution. For example, Try to give
everyone equal chance for education. If internalizing
the redistribution rules requires too high cost, then it
is not allowed. But if the cost of internalizing
redistribution rules is not high, we can have the
redistribution rule.
5. Conflicts of rules
Our moral rules sometimes conflict. For example,
suppose that you have two rules, keep promises
and shield others from hardships of certain
magnitudes. What if you can save a person from
considerable inconvenience only by breaking a
promise to meet another person at the same time?
As a normative ethics theory, rule consequentialism
should give us which action is morally right. Rule
consequentialism has been criticized because it
cannot resolve the conflicts and our question of how
we should do in this case remains unanswered.
According to Hooker, rule utilitarianism allows
exceptions in rules if the cost of this allowance is not
high. So we can build some exceptions into the rules
so as to keep them from conflicting. For example, the
rule about promise-keeping could have an exception
such that no one is required to keep a promise made
to anyone who obtained the promise by lying.






[3K] 10. Explanations about the distinction between
the CI and the Golden Rule.
Golden Rule (GR)
An act is morally right if and only if in performing it,
the agent refrains from treating others in ways in
which he would not want the others to treat him.
The GR has restriction of the relation with others
(consideration about how the agents treat others and
what if others treat the agents in the same way) but
the CI does not have this restriction.
Example 1: Suicide allowed by the GR but not by
the CI.Example 2: Flourishing Persons not helping
others allowed by the GR but not by the CI.
1. Explanations about the problems of Kantian
Deontology discussed in class:
Problems of Kantian Deontology
(1) It disallows the following intuitively accepted
behaviors: the case of helping others (any actions
considered to be good) just for happiness; the case of
bank run
(2) Mill: Disguised Consequentialism
(i) Formal contradiction is not plausible because
there are permissible but logically impossible cases: a
maxim to be the smartest/the first/the president in
order to (something considered as good)
(ii) the contradiction of willing is based on the utility
calculus of the consequences of the action in
question: Ex. Helping others is not better than not
helping others because not helping others will bring
about a bad consequence that we cannot get some
help when we need it.
2.two unintuitive conclusions by Kantian
Deontology and Mills criticism;
Problems of Kantian Deontology
(1) It disallows the following intuitively accepted
behaviors: the case of helping others (any actions
considered to be good) just for happiness; the case of
bank run
(2) Mill: Disguised Consequentialism
(i) Formal contradiction is not plausible because
there are permissible but logically impossible cases: a
maxim to be the smartest/the first/the president in
order to (something considered as good)
(ii) the contradiction of willing is based on the utility
calculus of the consequences of the action in
question: Ex. Helping others is not better than not
helping others because not helping others will bring
about a bad consequence that we cannot get some
help when we need it.




[1A] [The Ethics of Abortion]
1. Explanations about the personhood argument for
anti-abortion;
The problem of personhood argument:
It is wrong to kill a new born baby.
If it is wrong to kill a new born baby, then it is wrong
to kill a 10 month 1 day fetus.
If it is wrong to kill a 10 month -1 day fetus, then it is
wrong to kill a 10 month 2 day fetus
If it is wrong to kill a 2 day embryo, then it is wrong
to kill an 1 day embryo.
Therefore, it is wrong to kill any fetus or embryos.
2. Explanations about the classic argument for anti-
abortion with its problem;
Classic Anti-Abortion Argument
Premise 1: it is wrong to kill an innocent person
Premise 2: Fetuses are innocent persons
Conclusion: it is wrong to kill fetuses
clear extension of personhood.
3. Explanations about the modified classic argument
for anti-abortion with its problems;
Premise 1: it is wrong to kill a potential human being.
Premise 2: Fetuses are potential human beings.
Conclusion: it is wrong to kill fetuses.
potential x always has the same value or right with x.
(Ex. A potential king does not have the right or duty
of a king.) Then we cannot infer that fetuses as
potential human beings can have the right to life as
human beings have.
4. Explanations about Don Marquiss reason of why
killing is bad, including his application of this reason
to the following cases: the removal of medical
treatment for comatose patience, euthanasia and
killing non-humans;
Marquiss Argument based on Future-Like-Ours
(1) Future-Like-Ours: A premature death is bad
because it deprives future good of conscious life, the
future like ours (FLO). Many things have the FLO:
human beings, human children, fetuses, ova, sperms,
some animals like pigs, dogs, cats, aliens, etc. Killing
the things in above is bad for the deprival of their
FLOs.
5. Explanations about Don Marquiss argument for
anti-abortion;
Premise 1: it is wrong to deprive an individual of a
FLO. Premise 2: Abortion deprives a fetus of a FLO.
Conclusion: Abortion is morally wrong.
Application to controversial cases
(i) Removal of the medical treatment for a comatose






[2A] patient: the patient is not conscious, and then
she does not have a FLO. It is permissible to kill this
person.
(ii) Euthanasia: If a patient is and will be suffering too
much pain to have a future good, she does not have
a FLO. It is permissible to kill this person.
(iii) Killing animals: Some animals have FLOs. It is
wrong to kill them.
6. Explanations about the problems against Don
Marquiss argument, including what the argument
cannot explain, what kind of unintuitive cases it
implies, and how it answers to the controversial
problems like pregnancy from rape and the health
problem of a pregnant woman.
Problems
(i) missing cases: wrongness to the dead; a backup
assassin
(ii) Unintuitive implications: the FLO of a sperm in an
experiment; the FLO of a sperm naturally deprived
(iii) Exclude well established intuitions: pregnancy
from rape; the health problem of the pregnant
woman
VII. Discuss the Doctrine of Double Effect. Your
answer should include all of the followings:
1. Explanations about what the doctrine of double
effect (DDE) is;
The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE): An act is
permissible even when it causes a serious harm if the
serious harm is a side effect (double effect) of
promoting some good end.
2. Explanations about the distinction between
foreseeing and intending;
Foreseeing and intending
The distinction between intending to do something
and foreseeing something to happen in the course of
events The side effect is something not intended but
just foreseen.
3. Explanations about the conditions to apply the
DDE; (i) Good aim; (ii) Good effect is intended; (iii) No
evil means; (iv) Sufficiently good effect intended.
4. Explanations about the application of DDE to the
following cases:
(1) Self-defense; (2) The terror bomber and the
tactical bomber; (3) Hysterectomy and abortion; (4)
the trolley case and the emergency room case;
Applications (i) Self-defense: the saving of ones life is
the intended effect and the slaying of the aggressor is
just foreseen. Therefore, this is permissible by the
DDE. (ii) The Terror Bomber and the Tactical Bomber:
In the case of terror bomber, the harming of civilians
is included as means in his direct intention. In the
tactical bomber, the civilian casualties are not
intended but

[4K] 3. Explanations about Rosss criticism
against Kantian Deontology and his criticism against
Utilitarianism;
Against Utilitarianism:
An utilitarians limited understanding of the relation
between people: giving or having benefits(or harm)
with others: the relationship of spouses (duty of
fidelity), the relationship of parents to children (duty
to nurture), the relationship of promisor to promisee
(duty to keep promises), etc.
Explanations about Rosss Pluralism;
Pluralism
We can have more than one source of morality.
Promoting happiness and avoiding unhappiness +
Our actions to keep duties like keeping promises,
justice, fairness, etc.
= Considering and balancing the net value of all the
duties we can keep by each action.

4. Explanations about prima facie duties and seven
sources of them;
Prima facie duties and all-things-considered duties
Prima facie duties: duties we know at first glimpse
(Seven prima facie duties: fidelity, reparation,
gratitude, justice/fairness, beneficence, self-
improvement, non-malfeasance)
All-things-considered duties: duties we know after
balancing all the conflicting prima facie duties we
have.
5. Explanations about Rosss thesis in determining
what we ought to do.
Duty balancing
When we decide what we should do, we need to
consider the followings:
a. Consider all the prima facie duties that are
relevant,
b. Weigh and balance all of them.
Rosss thesis:
An act x performed by person P at time T is morally
right if and only if it is the act that best balances the
seven possible kinds of prima facie duties that may
apply to person P at time T.





[1V] [The Aristotelian Virtue Ethics]
1.Explanation about Aristotles argument with four
premises to conclude that the human should be the
one who live according to the golden mean;
Aristotles argument:
Premise 1: All the things have an end or goal.
Premise 2: It is the virtue to achieve the goal
excellently.
Premise 3: The goal of human life is to be rational.
Premise 4: The Golden Mean is concluded through
our rationality. Conclusion: The human should be the
one who live according to the golden mean.
2.Explanations about Aristotles metaphysics about
four causes;
On premise 1: Four causes
The material cause: the stuff a thing is made of; The
efficient cause: the force that has brought a thing
into being; The formal cause: the shape or idea of a
thing; The final cause: the purpose or function of a
thing
3.Explanations about Aristotles notion of
happiness;
On premise 2: Happiness
Aristotle says that the goal of ethics is to describe the
good life, human flourishing or happiness.
According to Aristotle, happiness is tied to the final
cause of a thing.
Ex. Good hammer = it functions well at hammering
Explanations about the purpose of human life;
On premise 3: Rationality
What is the purpose of the human in life? In order to
know this, we need to find the essence or the unique
character of the human. Aristotle thinks that
rationality is the essence of human beings.
4. Explanations about the golden mean;
On premise 4: the Golden Mean
Virtue is the mean between the two extremes a
middle way. (called the Golden Mean)
Ex. An excellent appetite is the mean between greed
and crazed dieting.
By rationality, we can find this middle way.
Finding this middle way is the key to leading a moral
life. Ex. Rash Courage Cowardice
5 .Explanations about Consequentialists and
Deontologists possible response to the virtue
ethics. The nature of the virtues can only be derived
from right actions or good consequences.
The character traits of truthfulness - a virtue because
telling the truth, in general, is a moral duty (or a rule
maximizing utility)
1. Explanations about the distinction between
normative laws and descriptive laws and about the

[3A] foreseen. Therefore, the tactical bomber is
permissible but the terror bomber is not permissible
by the DDE.
(iii) Hysterectomy and Abortion of pregnant women:
In the case of hysterectomy, the intended effect is to
save the pregnant womans life and the death of the
fetus is just foreseen. In the case of abortion, the
death of the fetus is included as means into her
direct intention. The death of fetus by hysterectomy
is permissible but abortion is not permissible by the
DDE.
(iv) The Trolley Case and the Emergency Room Case:
In the trolley case, the direct intention is to save five,
and the sacrifice of one life is just foreseen. In the
emergency room case, the death of a healthy guy is
just used as means to save five. The trolley case is
permissible and the emergency room case is not
permissible by the DDE.
Explanations about the two problems of the DDE
discussed in class.
(1) It is hard to make a distinction between intended
means and foreseen side effects? If we need to
consider counterfactual situations to figure out the
intention of an agent, the decision will be more
complicated. Ex. a terror bomber does not need to
kill the civilians if she can deceive the opponent
government to believe that the civilians are death.
(2) There are many descriptions about an event. The
decision about whether an event is an intended
effect or just a foreseen side effect is arbitrarily made
by our choice of description about the effect.
1.Explanations about the pair of two cases, the
wicked merchants and the gravediggers discussed in
class, and what the result is if we apply the DDE to
the cases, and what our general intuitions about the
pair of cases are. The cases of wicked merchants and
gravediggers DDE: The gravediggers necessarily
intends to kill people to achieve the goal. Therefore,
they take the peoples death as means to achieve
their direct intention. But the merchants do not need
to kill people to earn money. The death is just
foreseen. The gravedigger is not permissible but the
merchant is permissible. Intuition: they are both bad
(even though not equally bad).
enough to explain our moral judgments.
2. Explanations about Foots distinction between
allowing and doing, with the definitions of these
two. The distinction between doing and allowing
- An agent does or brings about a consequence if and
only if her behavior is part of the sequence leanding
to the consequence. An agent allows a consequence
if her behavior is relevant to, but not part of, the
sequence of events


[4A] leading to the consequence.
However, this distinction does not explain the
following judgment.
It is wrong to allow ones own child to die of
starvation.
It is not (that much) wrong to allow people to die of
starvation in the world.
3. Explanations about Foots example to show that
the distinction between allowing and doing is not
enough to analyze our moral judgments
4. Explanations about Foots distinction between
negative and positive duties
Positive Duties and Negative Duties
A negative duty is to permit or oblige inaction
A positive duty is to permit or oblige action
5. Explanations about why we have different
attitudes toward the following pairs of cases, given
Foots distinction of negative and positive duties:
(1) The pair of the Trolley case and the
emergency room case;
(2) The pair of allowing ones own child to die of
starvation and allowing people to die of starvation in
the world.
When we have a conflict of these duties, we need to
weigh them.
(1) The Trolley Case:
Two negative duties conflict: not to harm five people
and not to harm one person

(2) The emergency room case:
A negative duty (not to kill an innocent person) and a
positive duty (to save the lives) conflict.
is important.
(3) Allowance of ones own child to die of starvation
A negative duty (not to kill a person) is violated.
(4) Allowance of people to die of starvation in the
world
A positive duty (to save people) is violated.



[2V] distinction between persons who already are
virtuous and person who wants to be virtuous;
Normative Laws and Descriptive Laws
Normative laws are about how one should do; the
way of what things ought to be. (failure,
consciousness)
Descriptive laws are about the way of how things are.
(no failure, no consciousness)
If you are not a virtuous person, virtues will work as
normative laws.
If you are a virtuous person, virtues will work as
descriptive laws.
2. Explanations about Aristotles notion of habit;
Habit habits are tools of turning the ought into the is.
The basic idea is that if we repeat the same activity
that a person who already acquired the ought would
do, then we can naturally and automatically do the
virtuous act, without any consciousness and without
any failure.
3. Explanations about the four conditions for
appropriate habitualization;
Four conditions of habitualization
(1) Knowledge: We need to know what the virtue is.
- Coward person Case:
Suppose a coward person MISTAKENLY imitates the
behaviors of brave ones. This person is not virtuous.
(Being vs. Doing) The person needs to know who are
brave one and who are not.
(2) For the sake of virtue: We do virtuous things only
for the sake of virtues.
- Ultimate Self-Interest Case
Suppose that a person does a virtuous thing and does
it knowingly, but she wants to do it for some prize.
This person is not virtuous. (Intention vs. Action)
(3) Consistency: We need to do virtuous acts
regularly. Suppose that a person decides to act brave
this time. Usually the person acts cowardly. This
person is not brave. (States acquired by habit vs.
Particular Actions)
(4) Enjoyment -A virtuous act with enjoyment is a
sign of the fact that the agent is in the virtuous state
and naturally do the virtuous act. If a person does a
brave act with the following pleasure or enjoyment,
then she is brave. But if she feels pain in doing a
brave act, she is not yet in the state of brave.
4. Explanations about the four cases to show the
unintuitiveness of Aristotelian virtue ethics.
Problems
(1) Virtuous excessively
(2) Courageous in a unjust war
(3) Different opportunities to establish virtues
(4) Conflict virtues