AP Lang Semester 2 Moral Ethics Midtern

What is ethical relativism?

The view that morality is culturally dependent and varies from society to society, rather than being universal.

What is Benedict’s main argument in A Defense of Ethical Relativism?

That moral norms are culturally defined, and what is considered "normal" or "moral" in one society might be viewed as "abnormal" or "immoral" in another.

What is Benedict’s stance on normality and abnormality?

Normality is defined by cultural norms, and what is seen as abnormal in one culture may be completely acceptable in another.

Why does Benedict compare cultures?

To demonstrate that moral values and norms are relative and shaped by cultural history rather than universal truths.

How does Benedict use trance and catalepsy to support her argument?

In Western cultures, trance states are seen as abnormal, while in other cultures, such as some religious traditions, they are signs of spiritual enlightenment or sainthood.

What does Benedict say about homosexuality in different cultures?

In some societies, homosexuality is accepted and even honored, while in others it is stigmatized. She uses Plato’s Republic and American Indian tribes as examples.

How does the Dobu culture illustrate moral relativism?

They have a society built on paranoia, suspicion, and black magic. What is considered delusional in Western culture is a normal and even expected trait there.

What does Benedict say about the Kwakiutl tribe and revenge?

They viewed any death. whether from illness or murder, as an insult requiring revenge, illustrating a cultural norm that would be considered extreme in other societies.

How does Benedict use economic exchanges in different societies to support moral relativism?

She explains that in some cultures, communal sharing is the norm, while in others, individual ownership is strictly enforced.

What is Benedict’s response to the idea that some cultures are more "advanced" than others?

She rejects this view, arguing that every culture is simply one way of organizing human behavior, and no culture is inherently superior.

How does Benedict challenge the notion of a universal moral standard?

She argues that what we consider "moral" is simply habitual within our society, and other cultures may have different but equally valid moral systems.

How might a critic of moral relativism respond to Benedict?

Might argue that some moral principles (e.g., human rights, justice) should be universal, rather than entirely culture-dependent.

What is the connection between language phonetics and morality that Benedict draws?

Just as each culture selects a small subset of possible phonetic sounds to create a language, each culture selects a subset of possible behaviors to form its moral code.

What would Benedict say about modern Western morality?

She would argue that Western morality is just one of many possible moral systems and should not be viewed as the correct system.

How does Benedict’s argument relate to social conditioning?

She suggests that morality is learned through cultural conditioning, and people accept what they are taught as "normal."

How does Benedict's view compare to absolutist ethics (e.g., Kantian or utilitarian ethics)?

She rejects then, which claim there are objective moral truths, and instead argues that morality depends on cultural context.

According to Benedict, why do societies develop different moral systems?

Historical, environmental, and cultural influences.

What is the central argument of Pojman in Who's to Judge?

Critiques moral relativism and argues for moral objectivism, claiming that some moral principles are universal and can be judged as better or worse.

What is subjective ethical relativism (subjectivism), according to Pojman?

The view that morality is relative to the individual, meaning that each person determines their own moral principles.

What is conventional ethical relativism (conventionalism), according to Pojman?

The belief that morality is defined by the customs and beliefs of a specific culture or society, meaning each society determines what is morally right for its members.

What is ethical objectivism, which Pojman defends?

The view that some moral principles apply universally, regardless of culture or individual belief.

Why does Pojman reject subjective ethical relativism?

If morality is purely personal, then moral disagreements become meaningless because every person's moral judgment is equally valid, making ethical discourse impossible.

What example does Pojman give to show the problem with subjectivism?

If Hitler believed genocide was morally right, subjective relativism would say his belief is just as valid as someone who condemns it.

How does subjective relativism undermine moral responsibility?

If everyone determines their own morality, no one can be held accountable for their actions, since they could claim their actions are moral according to their personal beliefs.

What is the Cultural Differences Argument, and how does Pojman critique it?

The argument claims that different cultures have different moral codes, therefore morality is relative. Pojman argues that just because societies disagree doesn’t mean there is no objective moral truth.

How does Pojman use Nazi Germany as a critique of cultural relativism?

If morality is defined by culture, then we would have to say Nazi Germany’s policies were morally right for them, which contradicts the idea of universal human rights.

What does Pojman say about the Reformer’s Dilemma?

If cultural relativism is true, then moral reformers like Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi were actually wrong, because they went against their society’s accepted morals.

How does Pojman critique the idea that cultural relativism promotes tolerance?

If all cultures are equally valid, then we cannot criticize intolerant cultures, meaning relativism does not necessarily promote tolerance.

What is Pojman’s argument for core universal moral principles?

While some moral rules vary, fundamental principles like prohibiting murder, lying, and theft appear in all cultures, suggesting moral universals exist.

What is moral progress, and why is it a problem for relativism?

If relativism is true, then societies never improve morally, but history shows moral progress (e.g., abolition of slavery, civil rights movements), implying objective moral standards exist.

How does Pojman argue that human nature supports moral objectivism?

He claims human beings share common needs and values (e.g., survival, well-being), leading to common moral principles across cultures.

What does Pojman say about conflicts within moral relativism?

If morality is purely cultural, then individuals must follow their society’s norms, which contradicts the idea of personal moral autonomy.

What is Harris’s central argument in Science Can Answer Moral Questions?

Argues that science can and should play a role in determining moral values by focusing on human well-being and facts about conscious experience.

What does Harris say about the traditional separation of science and morality?

He rejects the idea that science deals only with facts while morality deals with values, arguing that values are themselves facts about human and animal well-being.

What is Harris’s "moral landscape" concept?

A metaphor for thinking about morality as a scientific space, with peaks representing states of maximum well-being and valleys representing human suffering.

How does Harris redefine values?

Factual claims about the well-being of conscious creatures, meaning morality is not purely subjective.

How does Harris argue that morality is rooted in conscious experience?

States that all moral concerns, whether religious or secular, ultimately relate to the experience of happiness or suffering.

Why does Harris argue that right and wrong answers exist in morality?

Just as there are facts about health, nutrition, and safety, there are objective facts about how human societies flourish.

How does Harris compare morality to science?

He compares moral truth to physical health. While definitions may evolve, there are still clear distinctions between better and worse states of well-being.

How does Harris connect morality to neuroscience?

Since moral experiences are processed in the brain, studying the brain scientifically can help us understand what promotes well-being.

Why does Harris reject moral relativism?

Argues that not all cultural practices are morally equal, and that some societies objectively promote greater human flourishing than others.

How does Harris use the treatment of women as an example?

Criticizes societies that force women into full-body coverings and those that punish rape victims with death, arguing these practices clearly do not promote well-being.

What does Harris say about cultural norms and moral truth?

Just because a practice is traditional or widely accepted does not mean it is morally correct.

What analogy does Harris use to show why multiple moral truths can exist?

He compares morality to food and that there is no single "best food," but there is a clear distinction between food and poison.

How does Harris challenge religion’s role in morality?

Argues that religious morality often distracts from real moral issues, focusing on matters like gay marriage instead of poverty or genocide.

How does Harris critique religious justifications for corporal punishment?

Highlights that in 21 U.S. states, teachers are legally allowed to beat children, often justified by religious beliefs.

What example does Harris use to criticize blind religious obedience?

He points out that some people justify "honor killings" of raped daughters, which clearly contradicts human well-being.

How does Harris respond to religious people who claim morality comes from God?

He argues that even religious morality depends on conscious experience (e.g., heaven and hell) and is therefore subject to scientific investigation.

How does Harris argue that moral expertise exists?

He compares morality to physics. Just as there are better and worse physicists, some people are better at understanding moral truths.

What does Harris say about objective moral truths?

He argues that just as we don’t accept ignorance in physics, we shouldn’t accept ignorance in morality.

How does Harris compare morality to chess?

He says that in chess, "Don’t lose your queen" is a good principle, but has exceptions. Similarly, moral truths can have exceptions without being invalid.

What is Harris’s ultimate conclusion?

Humanity must converge on moral truths, just as it has converged on scientific truths, because some ways of living are objectively better than others.

What is the Greatest Happiness Principle?

The moral principle that actions are right if they promote happiness (pleasure and absence of pain) and wrong if they produce unhappiness (pain and deprivation of pleasure).

How does Mill define happiness?

Consists of pleasure and the absence of pain, while unhappiness is pain and deprivation of pleasure.

What is utilitarianism?

A moral theory stating that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness for the greatest number of people.

How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?

Higher pleasures involve the intellect, imagination, and moral sentiments, while lower pleasures are bodily and sensory pleasures.

How does Mill defend utilitarianism against the criticism that it is a "doctrine worthy only of swine"?

He argues that humans have higher faculties than animals, so their happiness includes intellectual and moral pleasures, not just physical ones.

How does Mill determine which pleasures are superior?

He states that people who have experienced both types (higher and lower) will naturally prefer higher pleasures over lower ones.

What is Mill’s famous quote about Socrates and the fool?

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

What does Mill argue about the competent judges of pleasure?

People who have experienced both higher and lower pleasures are the best judges of which are superior.

What role does dignity play in Mill’s utilitarianism?

Mill argues that humans have a sense of dignity, which makes them prefer higher pleasures even if they bring more suffering.

What is a common criticism of utilitarianism regarding individual rights?

Critics argue that utilitarianism could justify harming individuals if it results in greater overall happiness.

How does Mill address concerns about justice and individual rights?

He argues that justice is essential for long-term happiness, so violating rights would ultimately be self-defeating.

What is the objection that happiness is unattainable, and how does Mill respond?

Some claim that happiness is impossible, but Mill argues that happiness does not mean constant pleasure, but rather a life with more pleasure than pain.

How does Mill respond to the claim that people often choose lower pleasures?

He acknowledges that people sometimes choose inferior pleasures, but this is often due to lack of opportunity or a weakened moral sense.

What does Mill say about people who lose their taste for higher pleasures?

He argues that neglect or lack of practice can make people lose their capacity for higher pleasures, but this does not mean they are not superior.

How does Mill refine Bentham’s version of utilitarianism?

Bentham focused on quantitative pleasure (more pleasure = better), while Mill adds a qualitative distinction (some pleasures are inherently superior).

What does Mill say about the role of virtue in happiness?

He argues that virtues like courage and justice contribute to happiness and can even become ends in themselves.

How does Mill view self-sacrifice in utilitarianism?

Self-sacrifice is only moral if it increases overall happiness because suffering for its own sake is not inherently good.

What does Mill say about utilitarianism and morality?

He defines morality as the set of rules that, when followed, will maximize happiness for the greatest number.

How does Mill respond to the criticism that utilitarianism is too demanding?

He argues that most moral decisions do not require calculating happiness but following general moral rules that maximize happiness.

What is the relationship between justice and utility, according to Mill?

Justice is deeply connected to utility because a just society promotes overall happiness.

How does Mill’s utilitarianism relate to political philosophy?

He argues for individual liberty because allowing people to make their own choices maximizes happiness.

How does Mill address the objection that utilitarianism is impractical?

He claims that moral principles develop over time and we don’t always have to calculate happiness. Societal norms help guide moral choices.

What is Mill’s view on punishment in a utilitarian society?

Punishment is only justified if it prevents harm and promotes overall happiness.

What is one of the main difficulties in relying on utilitarianism for moral decision-making?

It requires assigning values to benefits and harms, which can be difficult or impossible to measure and compare (e.g., life vs. money, dignity vs. time).

Why is predicting the consequences of our actions a problem for utilitarianism?

Our ability to accurately measure and predict all the consequences of an action is dubious, meaning utilitarianism relies on uncertain calculations.

How does utilitarianism struggle with considerations of justice?

It could justify clearly unjust actions if they produce the greatest overall happiness (e.g., a government oppressing a minority if it benefits the majority).

What historical example does Velasquez use to critique utilitarianism?

Apartheid in South Africa – Some white South Africans argued that white rule benefited all South Africans, but this justification ignored the injustice of apartheid.

Why does Velasquez argue that utilitarianism cannot be the sole principle in moral decision-making?

Because it fails to account for justice, meaning moral decisions must consider more than just utility.

Despite its flaws, what important moral insight does utilitarianism provide?

It encourages considering the consequences of actions and looking beyond self-interest to the well-being of all people.

What does John Stuart Mill say about impartiality in utilitarianism?

Morality requires a person to act as an "impartial and benevolent spectator," considering the happiness of all, not just themselves.

How does Velasquez connect utilitarianism to modern self-interest?

In an era called “the age of self-interest,” utilitarianism serves as a reminder to prioritize the good of all rather than only personal benefit.

How does Velasquez illustrate the importance of rights?

Through the American Cyanamid case, where women were forced to choose between sterilization and keeping their jobs, showing a conflict between workers' rights and fetal rights.

What is a right, according to Velasquez?

A justified claim on others, meaning others have a duty or responsibility to honor that claim.

How do rights function in moral controversies?

Often the basis of moral debates (e.g., gay rights, prisoners’ rights, animal rights, employee rights).

How does Velasquez connect historical documents to rights?

He cites the Declaration of Independence (unalienable rights to life, liberty, and happiness) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (property, work, fair wages, leisure).

What is a negative right?

A right that protects individual freedom by imposing a negative duty on others—not to interfere. (e.g., right to privacy, free speech, not being killed).

Why are negative rights called “negative”?

Because they require others NOT to interfere with a person's freedom.

What is a positive right?

A right that requires the active assistance of others to secure well-being (e.g., right to education, healthcare, housing, employment).

Why are positive rights called “positive”?

Because they impose a duty to help others obtain essential resources for well-being.

How does Velasquez connect Kant’s philosophy to rights?

Kant argued that humans have dignity and should be treated as ends, not mere means, which supports both negative and positive rights.

What moral dilemma does Velasquez use to show rights conflicts?

The conflict between freedom of association (e.g., a private club choosing members) vs. right not to be discriminated against (e.g., equal treatment for women).

How should conflicts between rights be resolved?

By weighing the freedoms or interests at stake and deciding which protects human dignity more.

What principle does Velasquez emphasize for moral decision-making?

Actions are wrong if they violate the rights of individuals.

Why does Velasquez argue that rights should not be the sole basis of morality?

Because an exclusive focus on rights ignores social costs, injustice, and community values.

What does Velasquez say about limiting rights?

Sometimes rights must be restricted if the social costs or injustices are too great.

How does a rights-based approach affect moral thinking?

It focuses on individual autonomy but can overlook community values, care, and shared moral responsibility.

How does Velasquez contrast rights-based ethics with an ethics of care?

Rights focus on individual dignity, while ethics of care emphasizes community, compassion, and concern for others.

What real-life case does Velasquez use to introduce paternalism?

The California helmet law, where motorcyclists were required to wear helmets, leading to protests about freedom of choice vs. public safety.