PHIL 150 JMU Final Antolic-Piper

Moral beliefs

(moral rules): general measure/standard that prescribes how to do certain things or how to evaluate certain things

Moral theory

justified explanation of different phenomena

Ethics

the principles of right and wrong that guide an individual in making decisions

Morality

Beliefs concerning right and wrong, good and bad; they can include judgments, rules, principles, and theories.

Normative Ethics

The study of the principles, rules, or theories that guide our actions and judgments

Metaethics

the study of the meaning and logical structure of moral beliefs

applied ethics

the application of moral norms to specific moral issues or cases, particularly those in a profession such as medicine or law

Instrumentally (extrinsically) valuable

valuable as a means to something else

intrinsically valuable

valuable in itself, for its own sake

Dominance of Moral Norms

In situations where moral norms may come into conflict with other kinds of norms (e.g., legal norms, conventions, etc.), moral norms supersede these other norms.

Statement

An assertion that something is or is not the case. (page 41)

Argument

A group of statements, one of which is supposed to be supported by the rest. (page 42)

Conclusion

The statement supported in an argument. (page 42)

Premise

A supporting statement in an argument. (page 42)

Ethics (moral philosophy)

The philosophical study of morality. (page 3)

Descriptive Ethics

The scientific (empirical) study of moral beliefs and practices. (page 5); Describes /explains how people actually behave + think when dealing w/ moral issues/concepts

Normative (Moral Theory)

What makes an action right/wrong, what makes a person's character good/bad

In what ways does ethics (moral philosophy) study morality?

Normative ethics, metaethics, applied ethics, moral theory

Are there other non-philosophical ways to study morality?

Descriptive ethics (Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, Economics)

Philosophical Ethics

Study of moral questions through critical reasoning; careful analysis of concepts; systematic evaluation of logical arguments; ultimately to determine what people should do when dealing w/ moral questions

2 categories of philosophy

Theoretical; Practical

Theoretical Philosophy Branches

Metaethics; metaphysics; epistemology (knowledge); logic; philosophy of mind, science, art. NON ACTION GUIDING

Practical Philosophy Branches

Normative ethics; applied ethics; environmental ethics; business ethics; political, social, feminist philosophy. ACTION-GUIDING.

Purpose of normative ethics

To justify moral norms + principles

Normative ethics questions

"What is actually moral and what is not?"

"If lying is sometimes good and sometimes bad, what makes an action right?"

"Can a liar be a good person?"

Applied ethics questions

"Is physician-assisted suicide morally permissible?"

"Is it morally wrong to eat animal meat?"

"Is war every justified?"

Applied ethics sub-branches

Business ethics; bioethics/medical ethics; environmental ethics; computer ethics

Metaethics purpose

To clarify assumptions (concepts, principles) that inform normative ethics

Metaethics questions

"What is morality?"

"Is there such a thing as moral truth?"

"What is moral value?"

"Where do morals come from?"

"Are moral rules + principles valid only relative to a culture, or are there moral standards that are valid objectively?"

Principles of ethical reasoning

Preeminence of reason (ensuring acceptability of moral judgments)

Universal perspective (consistency between judgments)

Principle of impartiality (equality + equity)

Dominance of moral norms (indicates special status of moral norms)

Preeminence of reason

Rational/logical standard of making moral judgments. A moral judgment worthy of acceptance must be supported by GOOD reasons; ETHICAL PRINCIPLE: Try to act Rationally

Universal Perspective

Idea or maxim that a moral statement or reason applying in one situation must apply in ALL other situations that are RELEVANTLY SIMILAR. ETHICAL PRINCIPLES: Act Consistently!

Principle of Impartiality

Morally speaking, all persons are considered equal + should be treated equally; Welfare + interests of each individual should be given the same weight as all others UNLESS THERE ARE GOOD REASONS FOR TREATING SOMEONE DIFFERENTLY

Moral reasoning

Critical reasoning applied to ethical matters

Critical reasoning

Careful + systematic evaluation of statements or claims in order to determine whether they are true + worthy of acceptance

Critical MORAL Reasoning

Careful, systematic evaluation of moral statements or claims in order to assess or demonstrate their acceptability

Moral Claims

Evaluative + normative judgments about particular situation + influenced by our feelings, impression, moral perceptions mixed w moral rules

How do we provide evidence?

Socratic method; logical analysis

Claim

assertion that something either is or is not the case; statement can be T/F

Logical Evaluation

acceptability of moral statements or beliefs depend on: content and logical status (is there an argument in support of it? are there reasons proving claim?

Basic building blocks of critical reasoning

statements/claims; arguments; different kinds of arguments; inferential claim (how premises support conclusion)

What makes a moral argument

Conclusion is always a moral statement

Moral Statement

A statement affirming that an action is right or wrong or that a person (or one's motive or character) is good or bad

Nonmoral Statement

A statement that does not affirm that an action is right or wrong or that a person (or one's motive or character) is good or bad. Assert that a state of affairs is actual (T/F) but do not assign a moral value to it

Deductive Argument

give logically conclusive support to their conclusions

Inductive Argument

offer only probable support for their conclusions

Valid

When deductive argument achieves conclusive support

Invalid

When deductive argument does not offer conclusive support

Strong

Inductive argument that manages to actually give probable support to the conclusion

Weak

Inductive argument that does not manage to give probable support

Deductive indicator words

it necessarily follows that, it must be the case that, conclusively, necessarily

Inductive indicator words

probably, likely, odds are, chances are

Valid argument with true premises

Sound

Strong argument with true premises

Cogent

begging the question

the fallacy of arguing in a circle- that is, tying to use a statement as both a premise in an argument and the conclusion of the argument. Such an argument says, in effect, p is true because p is true

Equivocation

the fallacy of assigning two different meanings to the same term in an argument

appeal to authority

the fallacy of relying on the opinion of someone thought to be an expert who is not

slippery slope

the fallacy of using dubious premises to argue that doing a particular action will inevitably lead to other actions that will result in disaster, so you should not do that first action

faulty analogy

the use of a flawed analogy to argue for a conclusion; the things being compared are not sufficiently similar in relevant ways

straw man

the fallacy of misrepresenting someone's claim or argument so it can be more easily refuted

Appeal to the person

the fallacy (also known as ad hominem) of arguing that a claim should be rejected solely because of the characteristics of the person who makes it

hasty generalization

the fallacy of drawing a conclusion about an entire group of people or things based on an undersized sample of the group

bandwagon fallacy

the assumption that the opinion of the majority is always valid (everyone believes it, so you should too)

red herring

an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert attention of listeners from original issue

Inconsistency ad hominem

Arguer 1's claim is inconsistent with something else arguer 1 has said or done; therefore, his/her claim stands refuted.

circumstancial ad hominem

instead of attacking the argument, an attacker substitutes an attack on a person's circumstances

Poisoning the Well/Ad Hominem

when someone poisons your mind about person A by relating unfavorable info about person A, you may be inclined to reject what person A says to you

Personal Attack (Ad Hominem) // direct // abusive

attributing negative features to refute a claim

Tu Quoque

falsely reasoning that someone who is guilty of an offense has no right to instruct others not to do something similar

argument by analogy

because two or more things are similar in several respects, they must be similar in some further respect

appeal to emotion

persuasion of a conclusion is reached solely by arousing a person's feelings (guilt, anger, pity, fear, compassion) rather than presenting relevant reasons (moral principle or rule)

types of appeal to emotion

1) Appeal to pity, 2) apple polishing (flattery), 3) Appeal to fear (scare tactics)

Generalization (inductive)

when we say that if a part of a class of things has a certain property, then the class as a whole has that property

trustworthy generalization

based on a sample that is large enough to be representative of the target population or class

appeal to ignorance

arguing that a lack of evidence proves something. A lack of evidence alone can neither prove or disprove a proposition.

consequentialist theory

a theory asserting that what makes an action right is its consequences

nonconsequentialist theory

a theory asserting that the rightness of an action does not depend on its consequences

Utilitarianism

a theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that produces the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered

Act Utilitarianism

a utilitarian theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that directly produces the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered

Rule Utilitarianism

a utilitarian theory asserting that the morally right action is the one covered by a rule that if generally followed would produce the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered

Ethical Egoism

a theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that produces the most favorable balance of good over evil for oneself

Categorical Imperative

an imperative that we should follow regardless of our particular wants and needs; also, the principle that defines Kant's ethical system; unconditional, absolute; regardless of our wants/needs. Ex: do not steal

Kant's theory

a theory asserting that the morally right action is the one done in accordance with the categorical imperative; 1) What is the right thing to do? The course of action commmanded by the moral law. 2) What constitues moral rightness? A good will.

natural law theory

a theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that follows the dictates of nature

Divine Command Theory

a theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that God commands

Realism (as applied to warfare)

the view that moral standards are not applicable to war, and that war instead must be judged on how well it serves state interests

pacifism

the view that war is never morally permissible

Just War Theory

the doctrine that war may be morally permissible under stipulated conditions

Jus ad bellum

the justification for resorting to war; the justice of war

jus in bello

the moral permissibility of acts in war; justice in war

noncombatant immunity

the status of a person who should not be intentionally attacked in war

Terrorism (as defined in this chapter)

violence against noncombatants for political, religious, or ideological ends

Terrorism (the definition preferred by the U.S. State Department)

premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience

nonstate actors

individuals or groups that are not sovereign states

torture

the intentional inflicting of severe pain or suffering on people to punish or intimidate them or extract information from them

Humanitarian Intervention

the act of a state (or states) going to war to defend people of another state against the murderous aggression of their own regime.,,

Moral theories of obligation

Rightness/Wrongness of actions (Consequentialist/Nonconsequentialist)

- Evidence-based, rational explanation of the very nature of rightness of actions

Moral theories of value

What makes persons or things good

Kant's Categorical Imperative

an act is only ethical if it would be acceptable for everyone to do the same thing