PHIL 2020 Exam 1 Chris Blakely

Three types of ethics

meta ethics, normative ethics, applied ethics

What is meta ethics?

Discusses the nature of value, where the rules of ethics came from, and how we can learn about the rules.

What is normative ethics?

What we ought to do. Prescriptive. What moral rules, principles, or doctrines should we accept. Attempts to specify conditions under which an action is morally right or wrong.

What is applied ethics?

Issues of real life. Common to look at different arguments from different points of view.

Prescriptive and descriptive

what we ought to do vs how the world is

What is an argument?

a way of lending support for a particular conclusion by reasoning from other claims

When is an argument logically valid?

When the conclusion logically follows the premises. The argument is invalid if the conclusion of the argument cannot be deduced from the premises, even if the conclusion is true.

What is a premise?

statements arguments are made of

What is abduction?

Inference to the best explanation

What is utilitarianism?

The right thing to do to bring about as much happiness as possible (Godwin)

What is normative?

What ought to happen. Norms.

Fact/value distinction

Distinction between facts of life and science, and the values dealt with in moral philosophy

Cultural/moral relativism

The belief that right and wrong change from culture to culture. Opposite of universalism

Universalism

Concept that some ideas have universal applicability

Objectivism

moral values are universal and reflect facts about the world independent of human nature

Moral realism

Values exist in the world independent of what humans think of them. Humans discover values

Moral anti-realism

Morality is not discovered, but invented. Different varieties like nihilism and subjectivism

Nihilism

Morality is fiction/there is no morality (nil) so you don't have to follow any rules. Nothing is right or wrong. Any moral rules we have are traditions like folklore. (Nietzsche)

Subjectivism

Knowledge is merely relative, denying the possibility of objective knowledge.

Individual subjectivism

No general truth about morality and each individual's code of ethics is specific to them. Talks about the concept of applying values to objects. Dissolves arguments but doesn't solve them

Ideal knowledge subjectivism

What "right" would be to a person if they knew everything relevant to the case and didn't make any mistakes in their reasoning

Expressivism

Moral judgements express attitudes without stating that one has them. Moral disagreements are concerns of background info not judgement itself (AJ Ayer)

Ethical subjectivism

An act is morally right only if the person judging the act approves of it.

Normative subjectivism

Allows that moral judgements can be true or false.

Meta ethical subjectivism

Claim that normative ethical theories and moral judgements cannot be true or false because they don't describe anything. The point is to express one's feelings Ex: Spinach? Blech! = Spinach should not be served to children

Egoism

directed toward self-interest; doing things that pursue pleasure not pain

Mackie's error theory

Because there are no "objective values" our ordinary moral judgements are false

Argument from queerness

objective values are just too strange to exist

Metaphysics

study of what there is in the world

Epistemology

question about how we know things

Thick ethical concepts

richer descriptive content and can render moral judgements false given the circumstances (ex kindness or bravery)

Thin ethical concepts

express personal approval or disapproval (ex good or bad)

Ethical naturalists

Moral facts are natural, scientific facts. Whether someone is right or wrong can be verified in the same way as a scientific hypothesis

Ethical non-naturalists

No true natural analyses of moral terms. Moral judgements cannot be empirically verified

Evolutionary debunking argument

It would be too much of a coincidence if the moral practices we have evolved happen to converge on what, independently, is true, and therefore we have no reason to believe in objective values

True or false: You can't make statements about what ought to be from what is. An evaluative claim cannot be derived from a factual claim (Hume)

True

Hume's Guillotine

moral judgements are based in sentiments

Deductive reasoning

reasoning from a statement to make a logical conclusion, and if all premises are true then the conclusion is too. ex: If the sun rose yesterday, and the day before, it will rise again tomorrow

Inductive reasoning

if the reasoning of the premises are true then the conclusion could probably be true

Fallacy

an error in reasoning

Appeal to emotion

Attempt to support a conclusion by manipulating audience's emotions and but not presenting impartial reasons or evidence

Ad Hominen

attacking person or character, not the argument

straw man

distorts opponent's position so it's easier to attack

Red herring

arguer distracts audience by changing subject to something closely related and then drawing conclusion from that

appeal to false authority

arguer appeals to or cites authority figure as justification for argument but that person isn't relevant to argument

Hasty Generalization

stereotyping

slippery slope

A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented

false dichotomy

Arguer presents two alternatives as if they are the only two. Ridiculous either/ors with a third logical option