C

ethics exam 1

Part 1: Misconceptions and Introductory Concepts

Descriptive vs. Normative Claims
  • Descriptive Claims: Statements about how the world is. They describe facts, observations, or experiences. Example: "Many people believe stealing is wrong."
  • Normative Claims: Statements about how the world ought to be. They express values, judgments, or prescriptions. Example: "Stealing is wrong."
    • Specifically Ethical Normative Claims: These are normative claims that pertain to moral rightness or wrongness, good or bad character, and duties or obligations. They are distinct from other normative claims (e.g., aesthetic norms like "That painting is beautiful" or prudential norms like "You ought to save money"). Ethical claims deal with fundamental questions of how we should live and treat others.
The Role of Ethics Experts
  • Ethics experts (e.g., philosophers, ethicists) are generally not seen as moral authorities who tell people what to do. Instead, their role is to clarify ethical concepts, identify logical errors in moral arguments, help people understand the implications of their moral beliefs, and explore the history and complexity of ethical thought. They help improve how we think about ethical issues, rather than dictating specific moral choices.
Particularity vs. Generality
  • This refers to the tension between applying universal ethical principles (generality) and addressing the unique aspects of specific ethical situations or individual cases (particularity). Ethical reasoning often involves finding a balance between these two, using general rules while being sensitive to context.
Cultural Relativism
  • Definition: The view that moral truths are relative to particular cultures. According to cultural relativism, there are no universal moral standards that apply to all people at all times; what is right or wrong is determined by a society's conventions.
  • Pros:
    • Promotes tolerance and understanding of diverse cultural practices.
    • Discourages ethnocentrism (judging other cultures by the standards of one's own).
    • Challenges the idea that any single culture has a monopoly on moral truth.
  • Cons (Negative Implications/Puzzles):
    • Makes moral progress impossible: If all moral codes are equally valid, then a society cannot genuinely improve its moral standards (e.g., ending slavery wouldn't be progress, just a change).
    • Makes criticizing other cultures impossible: It removes any basis for condemning practices in other cultures, no matter how egregious (e.g., human rights abuses).
    • Makes criticizing one's own culture impossible: One cannot argue that one's own society's moral code is flawed if that code is, by definition, correct for that society.
    • Leads to moral uncertainty/incoherence: If an individual belongs to multiple cultures or subcultures, whose moral rules take precedence?
    • Cannot explain fundamental moral disagreements: It struggles to explain how moral values could genuinely conflict across cultures if each culture's values are simply "true" for them.

Part 2: The Trial and Death of Socrates

Difference Between Plato and Socrates
  • Socrates: Ancient Greek philosopher (c. 470–399 BCE) known for his method of inquiry (the Socratic Method). He never wrote anything down; his philosophy is primarily known through the writings of his students, most notably Plato.
  • Plato: Socrates' most famous student (c. 428–348 BCE), who documented Socrates' teachings and trial in his dialogues, such as The Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. Plato also developed his own extensive philosophical system, which often built upon or diverged from Socratic ideas.
The Socratic Method
  • A form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions.
Socratic Irony
  • A rhetorical device used by Socrates, especially in Plato's early dialogues. It involves feigning ignorance or assuming a subordinate role to elicit information from an interlocutor, only to reveal the interlocutor's inconsistencies or lack of knowledge through further questioning.
Divine Command Theory
  • The meta-ethical theory that an action's moral status (e.g., right or wrong) is determined by God's commands. An action is morally right if and only if God commands it, and morally wrong if and only if God forbids it.
Euthyphro Dilemma
  • Problem for Divine Command Theory: Posed by Plato in the dialogue Euthyphro, it asks: "Is the pious (or good) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (Or, more generally: "Is something good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good?")
    • Horn 1: "God wills it because it is good." If this is true, then goodness exists independently of God's will, meaning God is not the ultimate source of morality. Morality becomes something God recognizes, not creates.
    • Horn 2: "Something is good because God wills it." If this is true, then morality becomes arbitrary. God could command anything (e.g., cruelty, murder), and it would become morally good simply because God commanded it. This seems to make morality contingent and lacking in inherent value.
  • Either horn of the dilemma presents a significant challenge to Divine Command Theory, suggesting that morality is either outside of God's ultimate control or arbitrarily defined by it.
What does Socrates mean by being a “Gadfly”
  • Socrates refers to himself as a "gadfly" (or horsefly) to the Athenian state. Just as a gadfly irritates a horse, Socrates believed it was his divinely appointed mission to sting and awaken the complacent, often arrogant, citizens of Athens. He challenged their assumptions, exposed their ignorance, and prodded them to examine their lives and moral beliefs, even if it made them uncomfortable.
What does “Apology” mean in Plato
  • In the context of Plato's Apology, the term "apology" does not mean an expression of regret or remorse. Instead, it comes from the Greek word apologia, which means a defense speech. Plato's Apology is Socrates' eloquent and defiant defense of his life and teachings before the Athenian court, where he was accused of impiety and corrupting the youth.
Socrates on the Oracle's Proclamation
  • Socrates concluded that the Oracle at Delphi, when stating "Socrates is the wisest," did not mean he possessed vast knowledge. Instead, he interpreted it to mean that he was wisest because he alone was aware of his own ignorance. Unlike others who claimed to know, Socrates recognized the limits of his understanding, which motivated him to constantly seek truth and wisdom.
Why Socrates thinks we should NOT fear death
  • Socrates argues that we should not fear death because death is either one of two things:
    1. A dreamless sleep: If death is simply eternal unconsciousness, then it is not something to be feared, as it would be like a perfectly peaceful night's sleep without any troubles.
    2. A migration of the soul: If death is a journey to another place where one can continue to converse with wise individuals and heroes from the past, then it is a great blessing and an opportunity for further wisdom and understanding. Since we cannot know which it is, and neither option is inherently bad, fearing death is illogical.
What does Socrates mean in saying “A good man cannot be harmed”?
  • Socrates believed that true harm could only come to one's soul or character, not to one's body, property, or reputation. External misfortunes or physical suffering, even death, could not corrupt a virtuous person's inner moral state. Therefore, a good man, whose virtue is his greatest possession, cannot be truly harmed by external factors because his goodness remains intact.

Part 3: Four Ways, Truth

Pluralistic Approach to Ethical Theories (Richard Kyte)
  • Richard Kyte advocates for a pluralistic approach to ethics, meaning that instead of relying on a single ethical theory (e.g., utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics) to solve all moral problems, we should recognize that different theories offer valuable insights and perspectives. There is no one-size-fits-all solution; complex ethical issues often require drawing upon multiple ethical frameworks to arrive at a comprehensive understanding and decision.
Talking Past Each Other (Richard Kyte)
  • Meaning: "Talking past each other" occurs in ethical discussions when individuals use different ethical frameworks, assumptions, or definitions without realizing it. They might be using the same words but mean different things, leading to unproductive arguments where neither side truly understands the other's perspective. For example, one person argues from a perspective of duty, while another argues from consequences, without acknowledging their differing starting points.
  • Reduction: Kyte suggests that this can be reduced by explicitly identifying and articulating the ethical frameworks, principles, and assumptions one is using. By making these underlying foundations transparent, participants in a discussion can better understand where disagreements originate and engage more effectively.
Three Features of Our Relationship to Truth (Kyte)
  • Responsibility: We have a moral responsibility to seek truth, to be open to evidence, and to critically evaluate our own beliefs rather than clinging to falsehoods or convenient untruths. This includes being responsible for the information we consume and share.
  • Acknowledgement: We must acknowledge when we are wrong, when evidence contradicts our beliefs, or when others present valid points that challenge our views. It's about respecting reality and the perspectives of others, even if they differ from our own.
  • Discernment: We need to cultivate the ability to distinguish between credible sources and misinformation, between well-reasoned arguments and fallacious ones, and between objective facts and subjective opinions. This involves critical thinking and intellectual humility.
Why Read OLD Stuff?
  • Reading "old stuff" (classical texts, historical philosophy, literature) is valuable because:
    • It provides historical context for contemporary ideas and problems.
    • It exposes us to different ways of thinking and fundamental questions that transcend time.
    • It helps us understand the roots of our current culture and ethical systems.
    • It offers developed arguments and wisdom from thinkers who grappled with universal human experiences, often with profound insight.
    • It can challenge our modern assumptions and broaden our intellectual horizons.
Kyte's Warning: Ethical Reasoning Increasing Disrespect
  • Kyte warns that "the use of ethical reasoning may actually increase the level of disrespect among people" when individuals use ethical arguments not to seek truth or understanding, but to dominate others, prove themselves superior, or condemn those with differing views. If ethical reasoning becomes a weapon to dismiss or belittle others rather than a tool for shared inquiry, it can deepen divisions and erode mutual respect.
Goal of the Four Way Method
  • While not explicitly detailed as a "Four Way Method" in typical ethical texts, if Kyte is referring to a structured approach, its goal is generally to facilitate comprehensive ethical decision-making and dialogue. This often involves:
    1. Fact-gathering: Understanding the situation.
    2. Stakeholder analysis: Identifying those affected.
    3. Ethical framework application: Applying relevant theories (pluralistically).
    4. Action/Reflection: Deciding on a course and reviewing the outcome. The overall goal is to move beyond superficial disagreements to deeper understanding, foster reasoned judgment, and improve ethical outcomes by considering multiple dimensions.
Moral Responsibility for Perceptions and Beliefs (Kyte)
  • Kyte argues that we can be morally responsible for our perceptions and beliefs because they are not entirely passive or involuntary. While some beliefs are formed unconsciously, we often have agency over what information we seek out, how critically we evaluate it, and how willing we are to revise our views in light of new evidence. To uncritically accept perceptions or beliefs that are harmful, prejudiced, or based on misinformation, especially when one has the capacity to inquire further, can be a moral failing.
  • Example: Believing a harmful stereotype about a group of people without ever questioning its origin or validity, despite having access to information that contradicts it. Kyte would say one is morally responsible for such a belief if one negligently or intentionally maintains it when better, more accurate information is available or easily accessible through reasonable effort.