PHI2630 Final exam

argument

a group of statements, one of which is supposed o be supported by the rest

premise

a supporting statement in an argument

conclusion

the statement supported in an argument

difference between an argument and an assertion

an argument is a group of statements that supports another statement, while an assertion just presents a fact or opinion without support

difference between an argument and an explanation

an argument is a group of statements that supports another statement, while an explanation gives reason to support a statement without including the actual statement

deductive argument

an argument that is supposed to give logically conclusive support to its conclusion

inductive argument

an argument that is supposed to offer probable support to its conclusion

valid argument

a deductie argument that does in fact profile logically conclusive support for its conclusion

sound argument

a valid argument with true premises

descriptive ethics

the scientific study of moral beliefs and practices

normative ethics

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

moral argument

consists of premises and a conclusion; the conclusion is a moral statement and the premises are a combination of moral and nonmoral

-at least one premise must be a moral statement affirming a moral principle/rule

-at least one premise must be a nonmoral statement about a state of affairs (type of action)

two main ways to criticize an argument

(1) prove that at least one premise is false (2) prove that even if all the premises are true, the conclusion does not follow

moral objectivism

the doctrine that some moral norms/ principles are valid for everyone

absolutism

objective principles are rigid rules that have no exceptions

subjective relativism

the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it

cultural relativism

the view that an action is morally right if one's culture approves of it

main argument for cultural relativism

(1) people's judgements about right and wrong differ from culture to culture

(2) if people's judgements about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, then right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles

(3) therefore, right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles

critique of cultural relativism

premise 2 is false

-just because people in different cultures have different views about morality, their disagreement does not prove that no view can be objectively correct

-people can differ in their moral judgements not just bc they accept different moral principles, but also bc they have divergent nonmoral beliefs

five arguments against cultural relativism

(1) implies moral infallibility

-bc culture determines what is morally permissible, a culture cannot be wrong about its own accepted values

(2) no genuine moral disagreement

-what is right for some cultures might not be right for others

(3) cultures can't be legitimately criticized from outside

-if you are not part of a certain culture, you cannot say it is wrong, bc it doesn't apply to you

(4) moral progress is not possible

- there can never be any improvement/innovation bc culture never finds that its morals are wrong... there never NEEDS to be any progress

(5) cannot decide which culture is right

-each culture has different values, and each says that it cannot be wrong

instrumental (extrinsic) value

valuable as a means to something else

intrinsic value

valuable in themselves

considered moral judgements

carefully made moral judgements about cases and issues that are generally reliable data that we should take very seriously

three criteria of adequacy for moral theories

(1) consistency with considered judgements

-a moral theory must be consistent with the date it was introduced to explain

(2) consistency with moral experiences

-a moral theory should be consistent with what we take to be fundamental facts of our moral experience

(3) usefulness in moral problem solving

-a moral theory helps us to solve moral problems in real-life situations

what makes actions right/wrong according to consequentialism

the consequences of the action

how is impartiality both a strength and a weakness to consequentialism

impartiality is exemplified in utilitarianism, because it treats everyone equally, and takes into account the happiness of all; however, ethical egoism fails to treat equals equally rendering the theory seriously defective

what makes actions right/wrong according to utilitarianism

the amount of happiness of evoked by everyone overall

act utilitarianism

the theory that right actions are those that directly produce the greatest overall good, everyone considered

rule utilitarianism

the theory 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

what is "the good" according to utilitarianism

happiness

principle of utility

"that principle that approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question"

a principle to compute the amount of happiness that different scenarios would bring about and to choose the one that generates the most happiness

greatest happiness principle

"the principle that holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness"

a principle to explain that promoting happiness tends to be right while promoting the opposite of happiness tends to be wrong

hedonic calculus

quantifies happiness and handles the necessary calculations (utilitarianism)

what are some objections to utilitarianism*******

conflicts with commonsense views about justice (equal treatment)

according to utilitarianism, who should be taken into consideration when making moral judgments

everyone

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

deontology

nonconsequentialism

what makes actions right/wrong according to deontology

the nature of the action

what makes actions right/wrong to Kant

whether or not they are done in good will

hypothetical imperative

tells us what we should do if we have certain desires

categorical imperative

tells us that we should something in all situations regardless of our wants and needs

explain Kant's first categorical imperative in your own words

live by one rule, as long as it can reasonably be universal without chaos breaking loose

explain Kant's second categorical imperative in your own words

treat people as an end, not as a means

maxim

a general rule

what does it mean to say that a maxim is universal

to say that everyone could act on that maxim

perfect duties

those that absolutely must be followed without fail

ex: not to break a promise

imperfect duties

those that are not always to be followed

ex: to develop a talent

explain a possible example of a moral principle that could give rise to conflicting duties

what would Kant say about this

Kant says that two imperfect duties are (1) not to lie and (2) not to commit suicide. there would be a conflict in duties if the only way to prevent another from committing suicide was to lie to them

bc Kant believes that not lying is a perfect duty, he would say that you should not lie to your friend

divine command theory

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

what makes actions right/wrong according to divine command theory

what God says

why is it claimed that divine command theory entails that God's commands are arbitrary

if the rightness of an action depended on God's will alone, he could not have reasons for willing who he wills. no reasons would be available and none required. therefore, if God commanded an action, the command would be without reason.

why is it claimed that divine command theory entails that God could make it morally right to torture babies

whatever God wills is what morally right, so if God willed the torturing of babies, then it would be morally right to torture babies

why is it claimed that divine command theory entails that it cannot be asserted that God is good in any meaningful sense

"if we accept the idea that good and bad are defined by reference to God's will, this notion is deprived of any meaning"

ex: if x is good means x is willed by God and God's commands are good, then this would mean that God's commands are commanded by God which is an empty truism

what makes actions right/wrong according to virtue ethics

whether a person is virtuous and his/her actions stem from virtuous character

eudaimonia

the full realization of the good life

"happiness" or "flourishing"

virtue

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

intellectual ex: wisdom, rationality

moral: fairness, honesty

According to Aristotle, what is the difference between intellectual and moral values

intellectual virtues can be taught, moral virtues are learned through practice

the "Golden Mean"

a balance between two behavioral extremes

ex: courage is the midpoint between foolhardiness (excess) and cowardice (deficit)

legalization

the making of the production and sale of drugs legal

decriminalization

allows people to use drugs legally, without being liable to criminal prosecution/ punishment

Drugs; Utilitarian viewpoint

would judge the moral permissibility of using illicit drugs by how well that choice maximizes happiness, everyone considered

three principles people appeal to when trying to explain their reasons for advocation a "war on drugs"

(1) harm principle (2) paternalism principle (3) legal moralism principle

harm principle

authorities are justified in restricting some ppl's freedom to prevent harm to others

prob: most of the harms that accompany drug use are not a direct result of drug use but of antidrug laws/ policies

Drugs; Kantian viewpoint

would likely condemn the use of illicit drugs on the grounds that when we use illicit drugs, we use ourselves as merely a means to the end of a drug-induced pleasure

paternalism principle

authorities are sometimes justified in limiting ppl's freedom to prevent them from harming themselves

prob: laws that are put in place still unacceptably assault on individual liberty even if they are intended to somehow protect autonomy

legal moralism principle

government is justified in curbing ppl's freedom in order to force them to obey moral rules