PHIL 2100 Terms

Ethics or moral philosophy

 the philosophical study of morality, addresses the question “How ought we live.” 

\

Morality

Beliefs concerning right and wrong good and bad; they can include judgements, rules, values, principles, and theories. These beliefs help guide our actions, define our values and give us reasons for being the persons we are.

Descriptive ethics-

The scientific study of moral belief and practices. Its aim is to describe and explain how people actually behave and think when dealing with moral issues and concepts.

Normative ethics-

The study of the principles, rules, or theories that guide our actions and judgements. The purpose of normative ethics is to try to establish the soundness of moral norms, especially the norms embodied in a comprehensive moral system or theory.

Meta ethics-

The study of the meaning and logical structure of moral beliefs. It asks not whether an action is right or whether a person’s character is good. It asks what does it mean for an action to be right?

Applied ethics-

the application of moral norms to specific moral issues or cases, particularly those in a profession such as medicine or law. Other names for applied ethics are: Medical ethics, journalistic ethics, and business ethics. In applied ethics we study the results derived from applying a moral principle or theory to specific situations. 

**NOTE:** In every division of ethics one must be careful in distinguishing between values and obligations.

Instrumentally valuable

They are valuable as means to something else, for example: pen to write a letter, gas to power a car. Many things have value to us but they value in different ways. 

Intrinsically valuable

 They are valuable in themselves, they are valuable simply because they are what they are. For example: beauty, pleasure, virtue, happiness

Objectivism

The theory that moral truths exist and that they do so independently of what individuals and society think of them. In other words, moral facts, and they are not human inventions, fictions, or preferences. But objective principles are not rigid rules that have no exceptions or that they must be applied in the same way in every situation and culture. For example if you think honor killing is morally wrong no matter the circumstances or where it's done or who does it. 

\n

Cultural Relativism-

 is the view that an action is morally right if one's culture approves of it. Moral rightness and wrongness are then relative to cultures. In one culture and action may be right, but in another, wrong.

Subject Relativism-

 is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. An action can be right for you but wrong for another. Each of us is morally infallible.

Emotivism-

The view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but you instead are expressing your emotions and or attitudes. One may say “I abhor the practice of honor killing”- but you believe that in uttering these words you are saying nothing that is true or false

Statement

\- is an assertion that something is or is not the case; it is either true or false. For example: the ship sailed on the wind tossed sea, I feel tired and listless. Five +Five= ten. These statements assert that something is or is not the case whether or not you accept them or reject them. 

Argument

 is a group of statements, one of which is supposed to be supported by the rest. Reasons supporting statements are themselves statements. They provide reasons to believe that a statement is true.

\n

Premise-

Supporting statements

Conclusion

The statement being supported by the premise is the conclusion. EX. Capital punishment is morally permissible {Premise} because it helps deter crime {conclusion}.

Deductive arguments-

are supposed to give logically conclusive support to their conclusions. A deductive argument is deductive when the support offered for the conclusion is absolutely unshakable, making the argument valid. EX. All men are mortal. 

Inductive arguments

 are supposed to offer only probable support for their conclusions. 

Valid

When a deductive argument is said to be valid. In a valid argument if the premises are true then the conclusion absolutely has to be true.

Invalid

It is not the case that if the premises are true the conclusion must be true. 

Sound

 if the premises are true the conclusion is probably true and the conclusion is false. An inductive argument that manages to actually give probable support to the conclusion. 

\n

Inductive argument-

An argument that is supposed to offer probable support to its conclusion.

Strong

In a strong argument if the premises are true the conclusion is probably more likely true than not.

Cogent

A strong argument with true premises is said to be cogent

Weak

An inductor that does not give probable support to the conclusion is said to be weak. In a weak argument if the premises are true the conclusion is not probable, not more likely to be true than not.

Fallacies

Common bad arguments, though flawed, fallacies are often persuasive and are frequently employed to mislead the unwary- even in moral reasoning. To avoid using fallacies the best way is to study them. 

Begging the question

is the fallacy of arguing in a circle– that is trying to use a statement as both a premise in an argument and the conclusion of that argument. This argument says: p is true because p is true, that kind of reasoning proves nothing.

Equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation assigns two different meanings to the same term in an argument. EX. A fetus is an individual that is indisputably human. A human is endowed with rights that cannot be invalidated, including a right to life. Therefore a fetus has a right to life. 

Appeal to unqualified authority-

We make a fallacious appeal to authority when we cite experts who are not experts in the field under discussion, or cite nonexperts as experts. 

Slippery Slope Fallacy

is the use of dubious premises to argue that doing a particular action will inevitably lead to other actions that will result in disaster, so that first action should not be done. This way of arguing is perfectly legitimate if the premises are solid– that is if there are good reasons to believe that the first step really will lead to ruin.

Faulty Analogy-

The fallacy of faulty analogy is argument by an analogy that is weak. In strong arguments by analogy, not only must the degree of similarity be great, but the similarities must also be relevant. Similarities must specifically relate to the conclusion. Irrelevant similarities cannot strengthen an argument. 

Appeal to Ignorance-

Both these arguments appeals to ignorance: No one has proven that the fetus is not a person, so it is in fact a person. It is obviously false that a fetus is a person, because science has not proven that it is a person. Because a statement has not been proven true, it must be false. The problem in both of these is lack of evidence cannot be evidence for anything.

Straw Man fallacy-

amounts to misrepresenting someone's claim or argument so it can be more easily refuted. Ex. You are trying to argue that a code of ethics for your professional group should be secular so that it can be appreciated and used by as many people as possible, regardless of religious views.

Ad hominem (appeal to the person)

is the fallacy that argues that a claim should be rejected solely because of the characteristics of the person who makes it. 

Hasty Generalization

is a fallacy of inductive reasoning= the mistake of drawing a conclusion about an entire group of people or things based on an undersized sample of the group.Ex. In this town three pro-life demonstrators have been arrested for trespassing or assault. I’m telling you pro-lifers are law breakers.

Confirmation bias

 is to pay attention only to evidence that confirms our beliefs while ignoring opposing evidence that opposes our beliefs. Confirmation bias can make beliefs, even false, dubious, or ridiculous beliefs seem reasonable, commonsensical, or irrefutable.

Availability error-

is the tendency to rely on evidence not because it's reliable but because it's vivid or memorable– in other words psychologically available.

Motivated reasoning-

is reasoning for the purpose of supporting a predetermined conclusion, not to uncover the truth. People who use motivated reasoning begin with a preferred conclusion, then set out to collect evidence that supports that conclusion and ignore, dismiss, and downplay any evidence that contradicts that view. 

Dunning-Kruger effect

Least informed on the subject , but they confidently tell others how wrong they are and lecture everyone on fine points; they never doubt their own superior understanding of the subject while disgorging an enormous amount of false information and bad arguments. 

Consequentialist theory

says that what makes an action right is its consequences. Specifically the rightness of an action depends on the amount of good it produces.

Nonconsequentialist theory

says that the rightness of an action does not depend entirely on its consequences. It depends primarily or completely on nature itself. 

Utilitarianism-

Says that the morally right action is the one that produces the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered. That is the right action maximizes the good better than any alternative action, everyone considered.

Act-utilitarianism-

 says that right actions are those that directly produce the greatest overall good, everyone considered. The consequences that flow directly from a particular act are all that matter; rules are irrelevant to this calculation. 

Rule-utilitarianism-

The morally right action is covered by a rule that if generally followed would produce the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered. The consequences of generally following a rule are of supreme importance– not the direct consequence of performing a particular action. 

Ethical egoism

Says that the morally right action is the one that produces the most favorable balance of good over evil for oneself. That is in every situation the right action is the one that advances one's own best interests.

Psychological egoism

 **suggests that all behaviors are motivated by self-interest**. In other words, it suggests that every action or behavior or decision of every person is motivated by self interest. It also suggests that every action must be motivated by self interest.

\n

Categorical imperative

An imperative that we should follow regardless of our particular wants and needs; also the principle that defines Kant's theory. Kants wants to establish as the foundation of his theory a single principle from which all additional maxims can be derived. Act only on the maxims through which you can at the same time that it should become a universal law. 

Hypothetical imperative-

in the ethics of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, **a rule of conduct that is understood to apply to an individual only if he or she desires a certain end and has chosen (willed) to act on that desire**

Means to end principle-

The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that **rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else**. The fact that we are human has value in itself.

\n

Kant’s theory

 A theory asserting that the morally right action is the one done in accordance with the categorical imperative

Natural Law theory

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

\n

Divine Command Theory

A theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that God commands.

\n

Prima facie principle

Principles that apply in a situation unless exceptions are justified. Exceptions are justified when two rules conflict and one is considered weightier than the other. Viewing the duties in the mother- son case as prima facie would require us to decide which duty was more important and therefore which should be performed. At least seven prima facie duties: duties of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, benefiance, self improvement, and non- maleficence.

Principlism

A moral theory consisting of multiple moral principles that must be weighted and balanced against one another to determine right actions. 

\n

Negative right-

 Obligate others not to interfere with our obtaining something. Respect. The guiding of Kant's principles and other nonconsequentialist theories. Kant made this point by insisting that we must always always treat persons as ends in themselves and not use people for another purpose. Another way to express this is that we have rights, specifically negative rights.

\n

Positive rights-

 the rights that obligate others to help us obtain something- fall under the principle of beneficence. Persons have the right not to be treated in certain ways: not to be used or regarded as if they were mere instruments, and not have their autonomous actions and free choices thwarted or constrained.

The principle of Justice-

requires that persons be treated fairly and that they get what is due to them. 

\

Retributive justice

concerns the fair use of punishment for wrongdoing. 

Distributive Justice-

is about the fair distribution of society's benefits and costs. The essence of this principle is that equals must be treated equally

Self-evident statement-

is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its

 meaning without proof, and/or by ordinary human reason. Some epistemologists deny 

that any proposition can be self-evident.

Social Contract Theory of contractarianism-

says that morality arises from a social contact self 

interested and rational people abide by in order to secure a degree of peace, prosperity, and safety.

Without such an agreement, life would be nearly unlivable with each person competing with everyone

 else to promote his or her own personal interests, to grab as much wealth as possible. 

\n

\
\n Principle of utility-

 Bentham's principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency which appears to have augment or diminish the happiness of the party’s whose interest is in question.

Perfect duty

Are those that absolutely must be followed without fail; they have no exceptions, 

imperfect duties, these duties must be followed without fail; they have no exceptions.

Imperfect duty-

Are not always to be followed ; they do have exceptions.

\n

Doctrine of double effect

The principle that performing a good action may be permissible even if

 it has bad effects, but performing a bad action for the purpose of achieving good effects is never 

permissible; any bad effects must be unintended. 

Virtue ethics-

A Theory of morality that makes virtue the central concern. Virtue ethicists ask 

“What should i be instead of what should i do

Eudaimonia

happiness or flourishing and refers to the full realization of the good life. Aristotle

 argues that the true goal of human is to obtain eudaimonia

\n

Virtue

 a stable disposition to act and feel according to some ideal or model of excellence.

 It is a deeply embedded character trait that can affect actions in countless situations.

Golden Mean

Aristotle's notion of virtue as a balance between two behavioral extremes.

Feminist ethics-

 not a moral theory so much as an alternative way of looking at the concepts

 and concerns of moral life. It is an approach focused on women's interests and experiences and devoted

To supporting the moral equality of women and men correcting the biases against women

 found in traditional moral thinking

Ethics of care-

A good example of feminist ethics. It is a perspective on moral issues

 that emphasizes close personal relationship and moral virtues such as compassion, 

faithfulness, kindness, love, and sympathy. 

\n