contemporary moral problems exam #2

short-answer #1: moral objectivism

a.      Moral objectivists believe that there are _______, which are ________.

objective moral standards

applicable to everyone

Does moral objectivism, by itself, imply that we should not tolerate moral beliefs we judge to be wrong? Why or why not?

No, it does not imply that we should not tolerate moral beliefs we judge to be wrong because we are fallible and may not fully understand what is right. Our knowledge of truth may be influenced by culture.

A moral objectivist travels to another country and encounters a practice they consider seriously evil. How might the objectivist respond to this practice? Give your answer and a one- sentence explanation.

An objectivist may not tolerate the practice because they believe that it is objectively wrong, and therefore they may try to intervene and stop the evil act.

Why do moral nihilists reject both moral objectivism and moral relativism? Explain in one or two sentences.

Moral nihilists think that there are no moral standards, so they disagree with both moral objectivism and moral relativism because they both think that there are moral standards people should abide by.

How would a moral nihilist understand moral disagreements? Explain in one or two sentences.

They would say that neither side is correct or incorrect because there are no moral truths. They see them more as just regular disagreements.

short-answer #2: moral relativism

Define moral subjectivism

personal conviction is the ultimate measure of morality.

Define cultural relativism

an act is morally acceptable because it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the society in which it is performed and immoral if it is forbidden by those ideals.

Provide two reasons why moral relativism is problematic. (One sentence for each, and your reasons must include a brief explanation of the underlying logic, rather than just stating a term.)

Moral relativism is problematic because it implies that there are no moral truths, just moral opinions held by an individual or a society stating people are infallible. It is also problematic because it does not allow for moral progress because if everyone has their own moral stances, we cannot have moral debates and learn from them.

Anthropologists find that different cultures hold different moral values. What implications does this finding have for cultural relativism?

This implies that people practice cultural relativism in their societies and that different cultural practices are generally accepted as moral.

short-answer #3: speech acts

Define the performative sentence

an utterance that performs an action and is not true or false.

Give an example of a speech act in a specific context, and identify its type (e.g., a command, promise, or apology).

An example of a speech act is saying “I do” which is a promise that causes you to be married.

Explain two conditions that must be met for the speech act in your example to be successful.

One condition that must be met is that the context of the speech act is a bride or groom saying “I do” during their wedding. Another condition that must be met is that the bride or groom must be sincere in saying “I do” to make their promise real.

A child psychologist posts on social media: “In a good family, children should obtain their parents’ permission every time they leave the house.” Several families who deeply trust the psychologist read the post and act accordingly. Identify the locutionary and perlocutionary act here. Identify the illocutionary act. Does the psychologist successfully perform it? Why or why not?

The locutionary act is the words that are being said actually mean that in a good family, children should get their parents’ permission to leave the house. The perlocutionary act is that children’s behavior and words before leaving the house may be affected if they heard what the psychologist said. The illocutionary act is that the psychologist is trying to set a standard for communication between children and parents in good families. It is difficult to determine whether the psychologist was able to be successful because we do not know what his definition of a “good family” is, and we do not know if his social media post reached his intended audience.

short-answer #4: virtue ethics

Virtue Ethics theorists argue that previous normative theories (such as Deontology and Utilitarianism) fail to adequately address the problem of _________. Why? Identify one specific concern and explain it in one sentence.

moral character

A specific concern is the problem of uncodifiability because deontology and utilitarianism try to make a firm set of rules about what is moral and what is not, but it is impossible to make a set of rules that apply to all situations.

In response, virtue ethicists propose that: An action is right if and only if…

it is what a virtuous agent would characteristically do in the circumstances.

In one or two sentences, explain how focusing on the agent's character, rather than just rules or consequences, helps address the problem you identified.

Focusing on the character of a person and whether they are virtuous is a lot more achievable than trying to create a set of rules about the morality of everything. Determining whether a person is virtuous and acting virtuously is easier to do.

Can a person act virtuously without explicitly intending to do something good? Explain your answer in one sentence.

No, intentions are very important in virtue ethics and a man is judged most greatly by his intentions. Unintentional actions are usually irrelevant to our evaluation of one’s virtues

Suppose a certain character trait can be possessed only by people as intelligent as Einstein. Would this trait qualify as wisdom in virtue ethics? Why or why not? (One or two sentences)

No, in virtue ethics, wisdom is knowledge within reach of any ordinary adult human being.

Raise one potential objection to Virtue ethics, explain. (One sentence)

There may be situations where there is not a morally ideal option to carry out (Sophie’s Choice)

short-answer #5: virtue in Aristotle

What is eudaimonia according to Aristotle? How does it differ from pleasure? (One sentence each.)

According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is living a happy life which is more comprehensive than just one experience. Therefore, it is different from the singular experience of pleasure.

How does eudaimonia relate to our function as human beings? Explain in one or two sentences.

The investigation of happiness is one of the most important things we can do as human beings, and eudaimonia leads us to happiness.

In one or two sentences, explain how the exercise of virtues contributes to achieving a good life.

Virtues act as correctives to tendencies that guide us towards the wrong action. They lead us to a good life by guiding us to the right options.

A moral virtue is a mean between two vices. Explain what this means in one sentence.

Virtues correct us by striking a balance between having too much or too little of something. For example, courage strikes a balance between having no fear and too much fear.   

Do moral virtues arise in us by nature or contrary to nature? Explain your answer in one or two sentences. (You may accept or reject both alternatives.)

Virtues arise in us not by nature nor contrary to nature. They instead are made perfect by our habits.

essay question #1

According to Mill, what are the values of free speech? Select one of his core arguments, explain its reasoning, and evaluate one potential objection to that argument.

Free speech is valuable because restricting it assumes that the people restricting it are infallible. All people are fallible, so it is not right for anyone to limit anyone else’s speech. A potential argument is that some forms of speech are untrue and harmful like hate speech.

How might speech act theory challenge Mill’s account of allowing the expression of views with which we disagree?

Speech act theory shows that speech is not just words but also actions and allowing the expression of views with which we disagree could potentially be harmful.

Do Mill’s arguments for free speech necessarily assume an objective moral standard? Explain your reasoning.

No, Mill’s arguments for free speech do not assume an objective moral standard. They just say that people are infallible and that everyone should be able to express themselves because nobody is perfect. Mill argues that we should be able to have disagreements that help up understand morality. He says that there is living truth, so truth is developing over time.

Could two truly virtuous people disagree about a moral issue? If so, what attitude should they take toward each other’s views, and why? If not, how should we understand a situation in which two people we regard as moral role models disagree?

Yes, two truly virtuous people could disagree on a moral issue because there are not objective moral standards we must follow. They should be respectful of each other’s views and open for discussion because nobody knows the absolute moral truth. When two people we regard as moral disagree on an issue, we should try to understand both sides.

Choose either moral objectivism or moral relativism to answer the following: How would your chosen position argue for free speech? Analyze whether Mill’s arguments align with your chosen position's main claims. Discuss whether the inherent problems of your chosen position pertain to the debate over free speech.

From the perspective of moral relativism, everyone should be able to express themselves freely because there are no objective moral standards. Mill would agree with the main claims of moral relativism because of his belief in free speech and infallibility. Moral relativism does not allow for moral progress which would hinder productive debate over free speech.

essay question #2

Define epistemic bubbles and echo chambers, respectively. What are the distinct mechanisms by which people become trapped in each?

In an epistemic bubble, you cannot hear opinions from the people on the other side, and this can happen because you are only around people with similar views. In echo chambers, people are stuck inside a way of thinking and they do not believe or trust people on the outside. People become stuck in these when they refuse to believe anyone outside their group, and they see contrasting views as confirming their own views. We get into epistemic bubbles when we are surrounded by people with similar opinions or if we avoid differing opinions.

Why does Mill think that truth is valuable? Provide one reason. Then, analyze whether the reason remains applicable in the post-truth era.

Mill thinks that the truth is valuable because it drives progress in society and allows for debate.  Progress in society and debate are still possible in a post-truth era, they are just not as valuable because people do not trust the truth.

Would the elimination of objective moral standards mitigate or exaggerate the phenomena of epistemic bubbles and echo chambers? Provide your reasoning.

I think that the elimination of objective moral standards would exaggerate the phenomena of epistemic bubbles and echo chambers. I think this elimination would lead people to believe in complete subjectivism which would make them less receptive to outside opinions.

Using speech act theory, explain how an echo chamber can be created. What illocutionary act might contribute to its creation? Under what conditions would that act be successful? What perlocutionary effects might it have?

An echo chamber can be created when a form of speech acts as more than just words and it causes people to distrust those outside of their group. An illocutionary act urges people to think or act a certain way, so an illocutionary act would urge people only to trust the people inside of their group and to cast doubt on any contradictory opinions. The perlocutionary effects may cause people to exist in a cult-like group where they discredit the opinions of any outsiders. To be successful, people must exist in a group that holds certain opinions about the world, and they must trust the people inside of that group. Ppl must be isolated

What virtues could help us escape an echo chamber, and why? Can we cultivate these virtues even when we are already inside an echo chamber? Explain your reasoning. What virtues could help us help others escape an echo chamber, and why?

Having humility and patience could help us to escape an echo chamber because if we are humble and know that we cannot possibly know everything about the world and we are patient with others and open to hearing what they have to say, then we are likely to understand and trust others, not just people inside a group we belong to. If we are already inside an echo chamber, it would be difficult to cultivate these views because we likely would think that we know everything and that we do not need to listen to others. Friendliness and courage could help us help others in echo chambers. If we approach people nicely and do not fear the chance that they may reject us immediately, then we can possibly ration with the people and teach them.

essay question #3

What is the gamer’s dilemma? Lay out the argument, and explain why this is a dilemma (or trilemma).

The gamer’s dilemma argues that virtual depictions of pedophilia and murder are impermissible, but some people believe that virtual depictions of murder are permissible. This is a trilemma because people disagree about what is morally permissible when it comes to video games.

Which specific proposition does Patridge argue against, and what is her core reasoning?

Patridge argues against the idea that all video games including violence are bad, and she proposes instead that games with incorrigible social meanings are bad to enjoy because they have real world implications. She says that if a game has a clear representation of oppression that we also see in the real world, we must recognize that and be sensitive and sympathetic.

Suppose video games fall within the scope of free speech protection. Some people nevertheless argue that games that promote or normalize pedophilia, racism, or sexism should be banned. Using speech act theory, explain a possible rationale for such censorship. Is the concern behind this rationale the same as the concern underlying Rae Langton’s argument about pornography’s silencing of women? First explain how silencing occurs on Langton’s account, then discuss the similarities or differences.

Under the illocutionary act, playing video games with representations of pedophilia, racism, and sexism may urge people to take part in acts like the ones represented in video games. Yes, the concern behind the rationale is the same as the concern underlying Langton’s argument because he fears watching a video of a woman being subjugated may lead people to treat women poorly. Langton argues that pornography silences women by taking away their power to protest or refuse, not allowing their speech to have the effects they want it to. This is similar because they both fear that a representation of an immoral act may lead people to take part in one. Video games are different from pornography, though, because they are not depicting real people, and many people watch them without the intention of learning from them but rather just the intention of completing a game. On the other hand, many young men watch pornography to learn about sex, so it may have more of an effect.

How could virtue ethics challenge the claim, used in discussions of the Gamer’s Dilemma, that a virtual act is morally permissible if it causes no actual harm? Explain the priority problem as an objection to virtue ethics. How, if at all, does this objection undermine the virtue-ethical challenge you described?

Virtue ethics would say that a virtuous person would not commit virtual pedophilia or virtual harm because they would not commit these acts in real life and therefore would not want to take part in representations of these acts. The priority problem in virtue ethics highlights that virtue ethics often give the reasoning by saying a virtuous person would not do this act rather than identifying why the act is wrong. This undermines the argument about video games because it does not identify why an act that does not cause any real harm is wrong.