Consequentialism

Ethical egoism View that people should only act in self-interest In ethical philosophy, ethical egoism is the normative position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest.[1] Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer are ethical.[2] Ethical egoism is often used as the philosophical basis for support of right-libertarianism and individualist anarchism.[5] These are political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action. Forms[edit] Ethical egoism can be broadly divided into three categories: individual, personal, and universal. History[edit] Ethical egoism was introduced by the philosopher Henry Sidgwick in his book The Methods of Ethics, written in 1874.

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is influential in political philosophy. Bentham and Mill believed that a utilitarian government was achievable through democracy. Mill thought that despotism was also justifiable through utilitarianism as a transitional phase towards more democratic forms of governance. As an advocate of liberalism, Mill stressed the relationship between utilitarianism and individualism.[10] Historical background[edit] The importance of happiness as an end for humans has long been recognized. Although utilitarianism is usually thought to start with Jeremy Bentham, there were earlier writers who presented theories that were strikingly similar. Hume says that all determinations of morality, this circumstance of public utility principally important. In the first three editions of the book, Hutcheson included various mathematical algorithms "...to compute the Morality of any Actions." This pursuit of happiness is given a theological basis:[22] …actions are to be estimated by their tendency.

Economics For a topical guide to this subject, see Outline of economics. Economics is the social science that studies the behavior of individuals, households, and organizations (called economic actors, players, or agents), when they manage or use scarce resources, which have alternative uses, to achieve desired ends. Agents are assumed to act rationally, have multiple desirable ends in sight, limited resources to obtain these ends, a set of stable preferences, a definite overall guiding objective, and the capability of making a choice. The traditional concern of economics is to gain an understanding of the processes that govern the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in an exchange economy.[3] An agent may have purposes or ends, such as reducing or protecting individuals from crime, on which he or she wants to spend resources. Definitions There are a variety of modern definitions of economics. J. Economics is a study of man in the ordinary business of life. Microeconomics

Moral relativism Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it. Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", but not that any belief is equally as valid as any other.[1] Variations[edit] Descriptive[edit] [edit] Normative[edit] History[edit] [edit] Scientific views[edit] R.

Altruism Principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others Giving alms to the poor is often considered an altruistic action. Altruism is the principle and moral practice of concern for happiness of other human beings or other animals, resulting in a quality of life both material and spiritual. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures and a core aspect of various religious traditions and secular worldviews, though the concept of "others" toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. In an extreme case, altruism may become a synonym of selflessness, which is the opposite of selfishness. The word "altruism" was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte in French, as altruisme, for an antonym of egoism.[1][2] He derived it from the Italian altrui, which in turn was derived from Latin alteri, meaning "other people" or "somebody else".[3] The notion of altruism[edit] The concept has a long history in philosophical and ethical thought. Anthropology[edit]

Is–ought problem The is–ought problem in meta-ethics as articulated by Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711–76) is that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how one can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's law and Hume's Guillotine. A similar though distinct view is defended by G. E. Overview[edit] Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739): Hume asks, given knowledge of the way the universe is, in what sense can we say it ought to be different? Hume calls for caution against such inferences in the absence of any explanation of how the ought-statements follow from the is-statements. Implications[edit] Responses[edit]

Utility Economic definitions[edit] In economics, utility is a representation of preferences over some set of goods and services. Preferences have a (continuous) utility representation so long as they are transitive, complete, and continuous. Utility is usually applied by economists in such constructs as the indifference curve, which plot the combination of commodities that an individual or a society would accept to maintain a given level of satisfaction. In finance, utility is applied to generate an individual's price for an asset called the indifference price. Quantifying utility[edit] It was recognized that utility could not be measured or observed directly, so instead economists devised a way to infer underlying relative utilities from observed choice. Utility is taken to be correlative to Desire or Want. Cardinal and ordinal utility[edit] Economists distinguish between cardinal utility and ordinal utility. Utility functions of both sorts assign a ranking to members of a choice set. implies .

Compatibilism Compatibilism (or soft determinism) is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent.[1] Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics. For instance, courts of law make judgments about whether individuals are acting under their own free will under certain circumstances without bringing in metaphysics. Similarly, political liberty is a non-metaphysical concept.[2] Likewise, compatibilists define free will as freedom to act according to one's determined motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions. In contrast, the incompatibilist positions are concerned with a sort of "metaphysically free will", which compatibilists claim has never been coherently defined. History[edit] Defining free will[edit] Alternatives as imaginary[edit] Implications for morality[edit] Criticisms[edit] References[edit]

Ethics The three major areas of study within ethics are:[1] Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determinedNormative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of actionApplied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action[1] Defining ethics[edit] The word "ethics" in English refers to several things.[6] It can refer to philosophical ethics—a project that attempts to use reason in order to answer various kinds of ethical questions. [edit] Main article: Meta-ethics Meta-ethics asks how we understand, know about, and what we mean when we talk about what is right and what is wrong.[8] An ethical question fixed on some particular practical question—such as, "Should I eat this particular piece of chocolate cake?" Meta-ethics has always accompanied philosophical ethics. Normative ethics[edit] Virtue ethics[edit]

Euthyphro dilemma The dilemma has had a major effect on the philosophical theism of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" Ever since Plato's original discussion, this question has presented a problem for some theists, though others have thought it a false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today. The dilemma[edit] Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the nature of piety in Plato's Euthyphro. Euthyphro proposes (6e) that the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) is the same thing as that which is loved by the gods (τὸ θεοφιλές), but Socrates finds a problem with this proposal: the gods may disagree among themselves (7e). At this point the dilemma surfaces. In philosophical theism[edit] Explanation of the dilemma[edit] The first horn[edit] Problems[edit] The second horn[edit] Problems[edit] This horn of the dilemma also faces several problems:

Correspondence theory of truth Theory that truth means correspondence with reality In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.[1] A classic example of correspondence theory is the statement by the medieval philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas: "Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus" ("Truth is the adequation of things and intellect"), which Aquinas attributed to the ninth-century Neoplatonist Isaac Israeli.[3][5][6] Correspondence theory was either explicitly or implicitly embraced by most of the early modern thinkers, including René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant.[2] (However, Spinoza and Kant have also been [mis]interpreted as defenders of the coherence theory of truth.)[7] Correspondence theory has also been attributed to Thomas Reid.[8] J.

Cogito ergo sum Cogito ergo sum[a] (/ˈkoʊɡɨtoʊ ˈɜrɡoʊ ˈsʊm/, also /ˈkɒɡɨtoʊ/, /ˈsʌm/ Classical Latin: [ˈkoːɡitoː ˈɛrɡoː ˈsʊm], "I think, therefore I am") is a philosophical proposition by René Descartes. The simple meaning of the Latin phrase is that thinking about one’s existence proves—in and of itself—that an "I" exists to do the thinking; or, as Descartes explains, "[W]e cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt … ." This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all knowledge. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception or mistake, the very act of doubting one's own existence arguably serves as proof of the reality of one's own existence, or at least of one's thought. The argument is popularly known in the English speaking world as "the cogito ergo sum argument" or, more briefly, as "the cogito". In Descartes' writings[edit] Descartes first wrote the phrase in French in his 1637 Discours De la Méthode.

Direct and indirect realism Debate in the philosophy of mind In the philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, direct or naïve realism, as opposed to indirect or representational realism, are differing models that describe the nature of conscious experiences.[1][2] The debate arises out of the metaphysical question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by our conscious experience. Conversely, direct perceptual realism postulates that conscious subjects view the world directly, treating concepts as a 1:1 correspondence. Aristotle was the first to provide a description of direct realism. In medieval philosophy, direct realism was defended by Thomas Aquinas.[5] Indirect realism was popular with several early modern philosophers, including René Descartes,[6] John Locke,[6] G. Locke categorized qualities as follows:[9] Late modern philosophers, J. Arguments against direct realism [edit] Argument from illusion

Aesthetics Philosophical study of art and beauty Aesthetics tries to find answers to what exactly is art and what makes good art. It considers what happens in our minds when we view visual art, listen to music, read poetry, enjoy delicious food, and engage in large artistic projects like creating and experiencing plays, fashion shows, films, and television programs. It can also focus on how humans regard various forms of beauty in the natural world. Its function is the "critical reflection on art, culture and nature".[4][5] The term was introduced into the English language by Thomas Carlyle in his Life of Friedrich Schiller (1825).[9] History of aesthetics [edit] The history of the philosophy of art as aesthetics covering the visual arts, the literary arts, the musical arts and other artists forms of expression can be dated back at least to Aristotle and the ancient Greeks. The forms also differ in their object of imitation. Aesthetics and the philosophy of art Factors involved in aesthetic judgment