Doing philosophy with chatGPT

Read the following essay and assess it for both accuracy and thoroughness

This is the exam question:

Read the following: ‘Late one night a parent discovers that their child has a very severe headache and decides to take the child to hospital by car. They come to a junction where the traffic lights are at red. Seeing that there are no other cars at the junction, the parent decides to cross the red light. This is seen by police officers who stop the parent, question and breathalyse them. This is standard procedure for any driver stopped for committing a traffic offence. After issuing the parent with a fine for crossing the red light, they allow them to go on their way to hospital. Because they were stopped, they arrived later than they would have done if they had waited for the lights to change.’

Analyse and evaluate how utilitarians might respond to the parent’s decision to cross the red light.

In your answer you should make clear the difference between act and rule utilitarianism.

This is the student's essay:

[Here I pasted in a copy of the essay]

*** chatGPT says ***
The essay describes the concept of utilitarianism and the differences between act and rule utilitarianism. The author provides a brief history of the two schools of thought, with quotes from Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The author then attempts to apply the principles of utilitarianism to the scenario given and provides their own evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of both act and rule utilitarianism.

The essay accurately describes the basic principles of utilitarianism and the difference between act and rule utilitarianism, but it lacks thoroughness in its analysis of the scenario. The author mentions the use of the hedonic calculus but does not explain it in depth and does not provide any supporting evidence for their claims. Additionally, the conclusion is not well-supported and does not provide a clear evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism in response to the scenario.

In terms of accuracy, the essay provides a basic understanding of utilitarianism, but it could be improved with further explanation and supporting evidence. The essay is not thorough in its analysis of the scenario, and the conclusion is not well-supported.

Can you give any examples of things the answer gets wrong?

Yes, there are several inaccuracies in the answer.

1. The definition of utilitarianism is incorrect. Utilitarianism is not just based on happiness, but rather the maximizing of overall well-being or utility.
2. The explanation of act and rule utilitarianism is misleading. Act utilitarianism is not a "free variation" of utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism is not simply utilitarianism with a set of rules added. Both theories have different approaches and criteria for determining the moral value of an action.
3. The explanation of the hedonic calculus is incorrect. Hedonic calculus is not used by all act utilitarians, and it is not a method for measuring happiness or unhappiness, but rather a tool for weighing the various factors that contribute to overall pleasure or happiness.
4. The description of rule utilitarianism is incomplete and oversimplified. Rule utilitarianism is not just about valuing the quality of happiness over quantity, and it is not as straightforward as saying that breaking rules is always wrong. Rule utilitarianism involves considering the social consequences of actions and the general rules that promote overall well-being in society.
5. The conclusion that both act and rule utilitarianism are only partially successful in answering the scenario is too broad and unsubstantiated. A more in-depth analysis of the situation and the specific implications of both theories would be necessary to reach a more accurate conclusion.

Read the following essay and assess it for both accuracy and thoroughness

This is the exam question:

Read the following quotation and answer the question that follows.

‘Kant’s moral theory is cold and detached from real life.’
To what extent do you consider this criticism to be fair?
In your answer you could include the following

• a description of Kant’s theory
• an explanation of how Kant says we should make moral decisions
• discussion of how the criticism applies to Kantian ethics
• evaluation of Kantian ethics in relation to this criticism.

This is the student's essay:

[Here I pasted in a copy of the essay]

*** chatGPT says ***
The student's essay provides a generally accurate and thorough assessment of Kant's moral theory in response to the criticism that it is "cold and detached from real life." The essay provides a clear description of Kant's theory, including the idea that it is deontological and focuses on the good will as the foundation of morality, and the importance of people being autonomous rational actors. The essay also includes an explanation of how Kant says we should make moral decisions, including the idea of the categorical imperative and the importance of checking for a contradiction in conception.

The essay also discusses the criticism that Kant's theory is detached from real life and argues against it by providing examples and addressing potential objections. The student presents the idea that the objection is based on emotive reactions rather than criticisms of the arguments presented by Kant. The essay addresses the common objection that Kant's theory disregards consequences by presenting an example of how relying on consequences can be problematic.

The essay also addresses the objection that Kant's theory is too abstract and impractical by emphasizing that it is rooted purely in our will and logical consistency, rather than hypothetical outcomes or consequences. The student concludes with a defense of Kant's theory, arguing that the theory is substantive and relevant to real life because it provides a clear and consistent framework for making moral decisions.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of Kant's moral theory and presents a thoughtful response to the criticism that it is detached from real life. The student presents clear examples and arguments in support of their analysis, making the essay both accurate and thorough.

Can you give any examples of things the answer gets wrong?

Overall, the essay provides a generally accurate and thorough explanation of Kant's moral theory and his key concepts, including deontology, the good will, the categorical imperative, and autonomous rational actors.

However, there are a few areas where the essay could be improved or corrected:

1. The essay says that Kant's theory "disregarded consequences as something that was worthy of moral significance." While it is true that Kant believed that the moral worth of an action was not determined by its consequences, he did not disregard consequences entirely. In fact, Kant believed that we have a moral duty to promote the happiness and well-being of others as an end in itself, although this duty is subordinate to our duty to respect the moral law.
2. The essay uses an example of two individuals planning to commit a mass killing to argue that counting consequences in moral decision-making is problematic. While this example is effective in demonstrating that actions should not be judged solely on the basis of their consequences, it is an extreme and unrealistic scenario that may not be representative of the kinds of moral dilemmas that people actually face in everyday life.
3. The essay suggests that Kant's theory is not concerned with the real world, and that criticisms of his theory as cold and detached are based on emotional reactions rather than substantive arguments. While it is true that Kant's theory is highly abstract and conceptual, it is also true that his ethical framework is intended to be applicable to real-world situations. Moreover, criticisms of Kant's theory as cold or detached from reality are not necessarily based on emotional reactions, but may reflect legitimate concerns about the practicality or comprehensiveness of his moral system.
4. Finally, the essay asserts that Kant's theory is purely rooted in our will, and how logically consistent our will is. While it is true that Kant believed that moral decisions should be based on the categorical imperative, which requires us to will that our actions become universal laws, it is also true that Kant believed that our moral decisions should be motivated by a sense of duty and respect for the moral law, rather than mere self-interest or preference.