PHIS250 Felician University Philosophy and Immigration Paper Instructions the paper must have the following distinct sections 1. Introduction and Justifi

PHIS250 Felician University Philosophy and Immigration Paper Instructions

the paper must have the following distinct sections

1. Introduction and Justification of Topic

the topic I picked

Topic: Immigration

2. Theory 1->Pro Arguments 1 and 2

Theory 2->Against Arguments 1 and 2

(please note: the two theories you only have to use)

the For argument: utilitarian theory
the Against Argument: Rule utilitarian

verified it on the essay

3. Your Positionality

(Use the term-emotive, subjective)

4. Conclusion

– Please look to the powerpoint this is the final paper to understand the theories and use the outline I attach below .

– Minimum of 3 refs on work cited pg (primary or secondary sources, peer reviewed articles, .org, .gov, .edu, are acceptable)

– Plagiarism score must be below 10% Phis 250 A
Jun 17 .2019
•
Topic: Immigration
•
The theories used
o For argument: utilitarian theory
o Against Argument: Rule utilitarian
•
Brief Arguments
o For Arguments
?
America is a nation of immigrants. Therefore, that helps the majority
to find a new, better life.
?
Immigration expanded economic opportunity and enhanced its
influence in the world.
o Against Arguments
?
From the lens of a rule utilitarian that Undocumented immigration
increase violent crime.
?
•
Immigration’s take citizens Jobs.
My positionality
o
In my perspective, I am more Subjective relativism; in this case,
immigration can open new ways for the individual to create a modern
living that provided to have a better life.
•
References
o Crystal Ayres 2019 VITTANA.org/21-big-pros-and-cons-ofimmigration
o MICHAEL T. LIGHT1 and TY MILLER2
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6241529
o 2019 National Academy of Sciences. All rights
reserved/nap.edu/read/5779/chapter/6
Consequentialist Ethics-Rule
Utilitarianism
LEWIS, VAUGHN
Background
? Rules and practices have consequences
?
We have a moral duty to obey rules identified by principles
? Consequences have moral importance
? Ex: making promises, contracts
Rule Utilitarianism
? Principle of Rules:
? The morally right rule or practice is one which if widely
followed would promote greater overall utility than if the rule
or practice did not exist.
? Principle of Acts:
? A morally right act is one that follows a morally right rule.
? Rule utilitarianism tells us what kinds of actions are
morally right regardless of specific situation.
Comparing Act and Rule Utilitarianism
? Similarities
? It bases its rules on objective empirical consequences
? Approaches consequences impartially
? Simplicity
? Inclusive
? Better than act because
? Addresses the calculation problem
? Addresses moral saints problem
? Addresses moral permissiveness objection
? Address justice/human objections
Problems with Rule Utilitarianism
? The dilemma objection.
? What if 2 rules conflict with each other?
? Ex: keeping promises
?
Follow that that will bring about the greatest utility
? The inconsistency objection
? Act may be judged immoral if it violates a rule, even though
the act may be moral
? Fine tuning
? “Never kill” may be fine tuned to “do not kill except when
forced in self defense”
? Ex: “never torture” to “…”
The Issue of Justice
? Alternate dilemma principle
? When rule utilitarianism encounters a moral dilemma, that
rule that generates the greatest overall utility should take
precedence over all conflicting rules.
? Establish justice and rights.
?
May depend on settings.
Natural Law Theory
CHAPTER 9
BURNOR & RALEY
Points on consequentialism, deontology, and
natural law theory
? Natural law theory aims to achieve certain goods
? Natural law pays attention to outcomes concrete goods, and
duty
? Natural law normally (but not always – the Stoics and certain
positions in evolutionary theory are exceptions) draws from
another resource, religion.
? This resource is different from the character of both
consequentialism or deontology
?
neither of which require a religious commitment
Some basic aspects of natural law theory
? The idea of ‘natural function’
? Natural functions expose ‘natural values’
? Promote natural values toward which nature aims.
? Three fundamental natural values, according to
natural law theory:
?
?
?
Life (including health and procreation)
Friendship (in a broad sense, including community, sociality in
general, and beneficence toward others)
Knowledge (in a broad sense)
? Reason is particularly important (nature and human
nature)
Some basic aspects of natural law theory (2)
? Good consequences in natural law theory – these are
important
? The role of duty and rule-following in natural law
theory (deontological aspect) – is also important
? Do not pursue good ends regardless of duties and
principles; do not support fulfilling of duties and the
following of rules and principles in an absolutist
sense (there can be justified exceptions)
?
Examples: self-defense and just war
Natural law theory and moral conflicts
? What should we do when we realize that any given
act we are considering will produce both good effects
and bad effects?
?
This generates a moral conflict.
? Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE): describes a set of
conditions about the act and the effects, the
consideration of which can help make righteous
decisions in cases of moral conflict (see also the DDE
definition on p. 183)
More on the DDE (1)
? DDE: 4 conditions (see p. 183-84)
? Moral principle condition
? Means-end condition
? Right intention condition
? Proportionality condition
? Be sure to examine these conditions closely. Also, be
sure that you are carefully distinguishing the act
from the effects of the act!
More on the DDE (2)
? Independent effects and dependent effects
? See the Aladdin example (p. 184):
The effects are
? (a) Aladdin’s friends get fed
? (b) the baker’s financial loss.
? Independent effects(they do not depend on each other)
? (a) does not depend on (b)
? (b) does not depend on (a)
?
More on the DDE (3)
? Independent effects and dependent effects
? See the bus-station terrorist example as well, also on p. 184 –
this illustrates the idea of dependent effects, and this idea is
usually a bit easier to follow.
? Example 1 and Example 2 (p. 185 – 186)
? the act in these examples are carefully defined and
distinguished from the effects that follow (which are also
carefully described).
Problems with natural law theory (a)
? Foundations problem
? If we define natural goods that we should aim for (for ex. life
and knowledge), then we still have to ask why we are morally
obligated to strive for these goods.
? The classic approach is not to adopt nontheistic natural law
theory, but to adopt a theistic approach to natural law theory
?
a conception of natural law supported by the claim that God exists
and is good, and yet also admits that the world created by God
contains evil.
Problem with Foundations (a.1)
? How to proceed with this position?
? Natural law theists (like Aquinas) generate arguments to prove
that God exists and is good, they show what God’s intentions
are, and to how to discern them.
? If we accept this position of natural law theists, then
we could also say that God, as creator, is at the
‘foundation’ of the universe, and is the foundational
source of natural values.
?
There many classical philosophical issues with this, issues that
take us more deeply into many areas of metaphysics…
Problems with foundations(a.2)
? Take, the well-known ‘argument from design’, (one
of several classic arguments that attempt to show
that God exists).
?
A simplified, compact version of the argument: if we agree that
there is a natural ‘order’/’design’ to how the universe works,
then there must be a master ‘designer’ at the foundation of the
universe – and this is God.
So, we would have to consider the apparent ‘natural design’ of the
universe: how extensive and/or perfect is this design?
? How should we conceive of this design?
? Is it so clear that there need be a designer?
? Can we see or discern God’s plan and/or intentions?
?
Problems with natural law theory (b)
? Vagueness problem
? How do we distinguish between what is natural and what is
not natural?
? Natural law theory makes some classic, conventional
assumptions about the difference between what is natural and
what is non-natural, but can we still agree to these
assumptions today?
Problems with natural law theory (c)
? Problems with the DDE
? DDE can occasionally lead to results that make little sense –
and so the DDE occasionally has difficulty with moral
confirmation.
? For ex. the craniotomy example of p. 188 –
?
?
Problem of redescription
?
?
DDE would normally not approve of the craniotomy in this
particular situation but our moral intuition would likely tell us that
the craniotomy is morally justified.
in certain cases, depending on how we describe things, the same
act can appear as both morally right and morally wrong.
Problem with evolutionary theory
?
if this theory is correct, then does it allow room for natural law
theory?
Personal Autonomy and Moral
Agency
CHAPTER 3
BURNOR & RALEY
Autonomy
? In making choices, individuals are self determining
autonomous agents
?
Morally responsible for choices
? Those that lack autonomy not normally responsible
for choices
? Consider the following examples:
?
See p. 46-47
Personal autonomy
? To be autonomous 4 conditions must be satisfied
? Independence condition: capacity to make choices without
external constraint or inner compulsion
?
?
Competency condition: Capacity necessary to rationally
deliberate upon choices.
?
?
ex: hypnosis, threat (external constraints), obsessive/compulsive
behaviors, addictions(internal)
Understand facts, consequences, relevant values, rationally
supported conclusions (ex. P. 48)
Authenticity condition: capacity to discern and evaluate
values, goals, commitments.
Other issues with autonomy
? But, what about those who temporarily lose autonomy?
?
?
Lack moral capacity
(Alzheimer’s patients, children..etc.)
? Autonomy in certain situations not others.
?
Ex: fear of heights
? Oppressive social structures
?
Ex: poor, ethnic groups, religious groups, immigrants
Implications for Autonomy
? Anyone with autonomy has moral responsibility
? Persons with inner compulsions or external
constraints have little or no moral responsibility.
? Persons choices must be respected without
interference (moral deference)
?
?
People lacking capacity not owed moral deference
Sometimes person’s choices are overruled for their own good
(paternalism)
Moral Agents
? Moral agent-An autonomous person exercising their
capacity to make moral choices
?
Different levels of agency depending on capacity
Independent choice: exercise capacity to choose without constraint
or compulsion
? Competent choice: make an independent choice and exercise
capability to engage in rational deliberation
? Authentic choice: make a choice that is both independent and
competent, and be abele to authentically assess his/her values.
?
? Note: End at p.56.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral
philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good
consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: “Act as a virtuous
person would act in your situation.” In brief, a virtuous person will do virtuous acts.
Ross’s Ethics
According to W. D. Ross (1877-1971), there are several prima facie duties that we can use to
determine what, concretely, we ought to do. A prima facie duty is a duty that is binding
(obligatory) other things equal, that is, unless it is overridden or trumped by another duty or
duties. Another way of putting it is that where there is a prima facie duty to do something, there
is at least a fairly strong presumption in favor of doing it. An example of a prima facie duty is the
duty to keep promises. “Unless stronger moral considerations override, one ought to keep a
promise made.” In brief, an individual must act in accordance with the prima facie duty,
regardless of consequences.
Natural Law theory
According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in
some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world.
Morality relates to what is right and wrong and what is good and bad. Natural law theorists
believe that human laws are defined by morality, and not by an authority figure, like a king or a
government. Therefore, we humans are guided by our human nature to figure out what the laws
are, and to act in conformity with those laws. In brief, an individual must act in accordance with
human nature and reason.
Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is the prescriptive doctrine that all persons ought to act from their own selfinterest. Personal ethical egoism is the belief that only I should act from the motive of selfinterest, nothing is stated about what motives others should act from. (i). Personal ethical egoism
is not a theory because it is not generalized to others. (ii). I cannot recommend personal ethical
egoism to others because such a recommendation would be against my own self-interest.
Act-Utilitarianism
“According to act-utilitarianism, it is the value of the consequences of the particular act that
counts when determining whether the act is right. One objection to act-utilitarianism is that it
seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally
obligatory, if only the value of the particular consequences of the particular act is great enough.
Another objection is that act-utilitarianism seems better in theory than in practice, since we
hardly ever have the time and the knowledge to predict the consequences of an act, assess their
value, and make comparisons with possible alternative acts. In brief the morally right act will
bring about the most favorable consequences for everyone considered.
Rule Utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that says an action is right as it conforms to a rule
that leads to the greatest good, or that “the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a
function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance”. Philosophers Richard Brandt
and Brad Hooker are major proponents of such approach. For rule utilitarian’s, the correctness of
a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed. The morally right act
is one that falls under a rule and bringing about favorable consequences for everyone considered.
Moral Relativism
Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong
are culturally based (cultural relativism) and therefore subject to a person’s individual choice. We
can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what’s right for you, and I’ll decide what’s
right for me. (Subjective relativism)
Kantian Ethics
Kant’s ethics state that human beings must follow a categorical imperative, which is an absolute
moral standard that does not vary based on individual circumstances. Kant stated that a behavior
is only ethical when it would remain beneficial if performed universally by everyone. In brief, a
morally right action is one that is done out of good will and duty.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment