PHIL Exam 3

Reading: Shafer-Landau - Ethical Relativism


What is morality? (ethics = morality)


  • Definition

    • Principles of what’s right and wrong

    • How to live your life

    • How you assign value to an action

      • *all the above are in the context of how your actions harm/benefit/respect/ etc. people, in the context of justice, equality, etc.

  • Examples

    • Murder, kidnapping, not brushing your teeth, and speeding are wrong

    • Helping people is right

      • Legality is not morality

  • Morally “right” can sometimes mean morally permissible and can sometimes mean morally obligatory


Q1. What is the view/definition of Ethical Objectivism?


  • Moral truths are objectively true (their truths do not depend on what any person or culture believes)


Q2. What is the view/definition of Moral Nihilism?


  • Morality is not a real thing, so there is no moral truth


Q3. What is the view/definition of Ethical Subjectivism (i.e. Individual Relativism)?


  • Moral truth is based on individual belief


Q4. What is the view/definition of Cultural Relativism?


  • Moral truth is based on cultural belief


Consider the following scenario. Jack and Jill are married and are both members of culture X. Culture X believes it is morally obligatory for husbands to beat and torture their wives. Jack agrees with this cultural belief, but Jill does not. Jack beats and tortures Jill.


Q5. How would Ethical Objectivism morally evaluate Jack's action? Make sure to thoroughly justify your answer.


  • Ethical objectivism – wrong because…, (you can not say anything subjective or any opinions or beliefs, you have to give a good, logical reason why it is bad)

Q6. According to Moral Nihilism, is it morally wrong for Jack to beat and torture Jill? Make sure to thoroughly justify your answer.


  • Moral Nihilism – it's not wrong because “wrong” is not a thing, and nothing is wrong (but nothing is right either)


Q7. According to Ethical Subjectivism (i.e. Individual Relativism), is it morally wrong for Jack to beat and torture Jill? Make sure to thoroughly justify your answer.


  • Ethical Subjectivism – wrong, not wrong, just depends on the individual


Q8. According to Cultural Relativism, is it morally wrong for Jack to beat and torture Jill? Make sure to thoroughly justify your answer.


  • Cultural Relativism – they are obligatory (very good) because that’s what the culture believes


The main difference between Ethical Objectivism and Ethical Relativism is that Ethical Objectivism believes that when it comes to morality, truth is objective. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism believes that when it comes to morality, truth is subjective. Here are the definitions of “objective truth” and “subjective truth”.


  • Objective truth = truth is independent of whether anyone believes it is true or false

    • X is objectively true = X is true regardless of whether anyone believes X is true

    • X is objectively false = X is false regardless of whether anyone believes X is false

  • Subjective truth = truth depends on whether people believe it is true or false

    • X is subjectively true = X is true if a person, or a group of people, believes X is true

    • X is subjectively false = X is false if a person, or a group of people, believes X is false


Q9. When it comes to morality, which of the four views above do you think is correct and why?


Cultural Relativism – although I don’t agree with any of the four to a full extent, as some cultural norms can be looked down upon by other cultures, labeling them as wrong, I feel that it's the best one. In any culture, especially in the American context, we can create laws based on our morals. However, in a specific geographic area, there are prevailing morals that apply to everyone, and your objective reality may not align with the perceptions of those around you and their notions of right and wrong. We get taught our morals when growing up, and in that same culture, whether changing or unchanging, you have to continue to not make wrong decisions and live your life having good morals, and that will most likely lead to more success and happiness.

Reading: Our Brains are Wired for Morality

Q1. The authors write, “We think that morality evolved to support our helpful social interactions with others and control our somewhat selfish tendencies.” Come up with your own concrete example of a morally good behavior that is not used in the reading. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain how this moral behavior could have evolved based on the above quote.


  • Donating to a canned food drive 

  • Helping an injured stranger could have evolved because cooperation increased group survival chances.

  • Whatever your example is, you should be able to explain how that behavior is evolutionarily advantageous in terms of the propagation of continued generations of the group


Q2. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain how behavior in non-human species supports the idea that morality is a product of evolution. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.


  • Lions sharing food in the wild amongst their pride shows morality evolved to increase group cooperation and trust, and also increases their population while they are at it.

  • When similar behaviors are found between humans and non-humans, the behavior is likely evolved in both cases.

  • So, morality is a product of evolution.


Q3. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain how moral behavior in babies supports the idea that morality is a product of evolution. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.


  • Babies showing a preference for kind people suggest morality is natural and evolved for social bonding.

  • Identify good vs. bad at some level, and be pro-good and anti-bad.

  • Babies haven't had much time to be influenced by their environment yet, so these behaviors are likely genetic. (which is, of course, the result of evolution)

  • So, morality is a product of evolution.


Q4. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain how studies on the brain support the idea that morality is a product of evolution. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.


  • Brain areas like the prefrontal cortex or other certain regions activate during moral decisions, showing that morality evolved as part of human social thinking. If this gets damaged, it will impact the way you think and act in front of others.

  • Brain chemicals can affect moral behavior

  • Brain structure and function are a product of evolution

  • So, morality is a product of evolution.


Q5. According to the reading, the belief that “murder is wrong” is the product of evolution. But we want to know if it’s true that murder is wrong. Some people think that it is true BECAUSE it is the product of evolution. In other words, they make the following argument:

1. “Murder is wrong” is the product of evolution.

2. So, it is true that murder is wrong.

This argument is making an assumption. In other words, to logically get from the premise (line 1) to the conclusion (line 2), you actually need to add another premise (that logically connects line 1 to the conclusion). Try to figure out what this assumption is.



  • The assumption is that whatever evolved through evolution must be morally true or right.


Example:


  • The belief that “murder is wrong” is the product of evolution.

  • Beliefs that are the product of evolution are true. (i.e. evolutionary advantageous beliefs are always true)

  • So, it is true that murder is wrong.


Q6. Is this assumption true or false? Make sure to justify your answer.


  • This assumption is false because evolution explains behavior, not whether it’s morally right or wrong.

    Reading: Science can answer moral questions

    Q1. According to Sam Harris, values are a certain kind of fact. What kinds of facts are these? Come up with your own concrete examples of such facts.


    • Sam Harris – Science can answer our moral questions

    • They are facts about the well-being of conscious beings

      • Education is good for human well-being

      • Healthcare is good for human well-being

      • Insects feel less pain than dogs


    Q2. Come up with a concrete example of a moral question/issue that is not in the TED Talk video. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly describe how Harris thinks that science can answer that question (or solve that issue).


    • You can scientifically determine what maximizes/optimizes well-being. That’s the morally correct thing to do.


    Q3. One objection to Harris’s view is that there is not an objective definition of “well-being”. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain Harris’s 2 responses to this objection. Come up with your own concrete examples to use in your explanation.


    • 1st response:

      • You don’t need a perfect definition; it’s perfectly fine if there is a gray area

      • There is still clearly a difference in many cases of good/bad well-being

    • 2nd response:

      • It’s fine if multiple versions of well-being vary person-to-person; you can still scientifically figure out the optimal choice


    Q4. Another objection to Harris’s view is that it would require universal moral rules that don’t have any exceptions. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain Harris’s response to this objection.

    • i. Harris uses a non-moral example as an analogy (chess) to make his point. Clearly and thoroughly explain the point he is trying to make using your own non-moral example (don’t use chess as your example).

    • ii. Harris did not explain how the chess example applies to morality. Clearly and thoroughly explain how to apply your non-moral example to a moral example.


    • No universal rules do not mean no objective truth.

    • Objective truth can be context-dependent.


    Q5. Another objection to Harris’s view is that it does not account for cultural differences. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain Harris’s 2 responses to this objection. Come up with your own concrete examples to use in your explanation.


    • Even if well-being varies from culture to culture, Harris’s view can accommodate that (same way as in Q3)

    • Some cultures are just wrong.


    Q6. Another objection to Harris’s view is that when it comes to morality, everyone has their own opinion. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain Harris’s response to this objection. Come up with your own concrete examples to use in your explanation.


    • Some people’s opinions are just wrong, they don’t matter.

Reading: Earp – Science cannot determine human values

Video: Critical Thinking #7: Justification & Explanation


Q1. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain the is-ought problem. Come up with your own concrete examples to use in your explanation.


  • You can’t move from what is (facts) to what ought to be (values) without adding a moral belief.

  • Example: “People lie sometimes” (is) doesn’t mean “People should lie” (ought).


You can't prove something is supposed to be based on the way it is.


Q2. The Earp reading talks about how “natural” doesn’t entail “right” and “unnatural” doesn’t entail wrong. Come up with your own examples (1 for each) that make the same point.


  • Natural things can still be bad (like disease). Unnatural things can be good (like medicine).

  • Example: It’s “natural” to get sick, but it’s not right; vaccines are “unnatural,” but good.


Q3. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain Earp’s objection to Harris’s view. Come up with your own concrete examples to use in your explanation. Try to integrate the is-ought problem into your explanation.


  • Harris says science can decide morals; Earp says science gives facts, not values.

  • Example: Science can measure happiness, but can’t prove we ought to maximize it.


  1. Universal healthcare maximizes human well-being. (is/descriptive statement, science can tell us whether it is true or not)

  2. Morally, we should maximize well-being. (ought/prescriptive/evaluative/moral statement)

  3. So, we should implement universal healthcare. (ought/prescriptive/evaluative/moral statement)


Q4. In your own words, clearly and thoroughly explain how explanation is different from justification. Come up with your own concrete example to use in your explanation.


  • Explanation = why something happens; Justification = why something’s right or wrong or it had to be done.

  • Example: “People steal because they’re poor” (explain) ≠ “Stealing is okay” (justify).


Q5. Earlier we talked about the idea that morality is the product of evolution. Even if this is true, use the explanation vs. justification distinction to clearly and thoroughly explain why this doesn’t tell us what is true when it comes to morality. Make sure to use concrete examples as part of your explanation.


  • Evolution explains how morals developed or why we might have them, but it doesn't justify whether they’re true or right.

  • Example: We evolved empathy to survive, but that doesn’t prove empathy is always moral.


Q6. Earlier, we also talked about how morality is the product of culture. Even if this is true, use the explanation vs. justification distinction to clearly and thoroughly explain why this doesn’t tell us what is true when it comes to morality. Make sure to use concrete examples as part of your explanation.

  • Culture explains why people believe things, but it doesn't justify whether they are true or not.

  • Example: Some cultures arranged marriages — explanation, not proof it’s moral.


Q7. If science cannot tell us what is objectively true when it comes to morality, then maybe morality can’t be objective. Consider the following argument.


1. It is impossible to scientifically prove moral truths.

2. So, moral truths are not objective.

This argument is making an assumption. In other words, to logically get from the premise (line 1) to the conclusion (line 2), you actually need to add another premise (that logically connects line 1 to the conclusion). Try to figure out what this assumption is. Then, determine whether the assumption is true or false.


  • Hidden premise: “If it can’t be proven by science, it’s not objective.”

  • That’s false — some truths (like logic or morals) might be objective without science.

Example: You can’t scientifically prove “killing for fun is wrong,” but most people agree it’s objectively wrong — showing morals can be objective even without science.

Reading: Craig - The Kalam Cosmological Argument


The Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. So, the universe has a cause to its beginning.


Q1. Thoroughly and clearly explain Craig’s rationale for Premise 1 (line 1). Make sure to use your own concrete examples.


  • Something cannot come from nothing; it can't just pop into existence: common sense, experience, science.

  • Science: the law of conservation of Mass-Energy (one of the laws of thermodynamics)


Q2. Thoroughly and clearly explain both of Craig’s science-based rationales for Premise 2 (line 2).


  • 1st science rationale

    • Big Bang Theory

  • 2nd science rationale

    • Law of thermodynamics (entropy increases over time, everything moves towards thermal equilibrium)

    • Are we currently experiencing the heat death of the universe?


Q3. Assuming that this is a good argument, do you think it successfully proves that God exists? Why or why not?


  • The argument shows the universe has a cause, so it can’t have come from nothing.

  • Craig claims this cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and immensely powerful.

  • Because such traits match the concept of God, Craig concludes the cause is God.


Reading: Morriston – New Kalam Critique


The Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. So, the universe has a cause to its beginning.


Q1. Thoroughly and clearly explain Morriston’s objection to each of Craig’s science-based rationales for Premise 2 (line 2).


  • 1st rationale: Morriston: “observable universe” vs. THE UNIVERSE (the big bang only represents the beginning of what we can observe)

  • 2nd rationale: Morriston: All we know is that entropy (or this law) had a starting point


  • The Big Bang only marks the beginning of our current universe, not necessarily the beginning of all reality.

  • Physics before the Big Bang is unknown, so claiming a definite beginning goes beyond evidence.

  • The thermodynamic argument assumes the universe is a closed system, which may not be true.


Q2. Thoroughly and clearly explain Morriston’s objection to Craig’s rationale for Premise 1 (line 1).


  • The idea that “everything that begins to exist has a cause” comes only from experience within the universe.

  • We can’t assume causation works the same way if time and space themselves began.

  • The concept of a “cause” may not even make sense without time already existing.

Video: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

Reading: Craig - The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

Reading: Scoles - Here’s Why We Might Live in a Multiverse


Q1. Clearly and thoroughly explain in your own words what it means for the universe to be fine-tuned for life. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.


The Fine-Tuning Argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.


  • Physical consultants in our equations

  • Quantities of stuff

  • For example, if gravity were just slightly stronger, stars would burn out too fast for planets or life to form.

  • It’s when its physical constants (like gravity or the strong nuclear force) are within an extremely narrow range that allows life to exist.


Q2. For Premise 1 of The Fine-Tuning Argument.


1. Clearly and thoroughly explain what it means for the universe to be fine-tuned due to physical necessity. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.

2. Clearly and thoroughly explain what it means for the universe to be fine-tuned due to chance. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.

3. Clearly and thoroughly explain what it means for the universe to be fine-tuned due to design. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.


  • The universe is fine-tuned due to physical necessity.

    • Physical necessity – what is required by the natural laws of the universe

    • Chance – it was pure random chance that the values of constants, quantities of stuff, etc., are what they are.

    • Design – some being (the designer) designed in the universe to permit life


Q3. For Premise 2 of The Fine-Tuning Argument.


1. Clearly and thoroughly explain the rationale for why the universe is not fine-tuned due to physical necessity. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.

2. Clearly and thoroughly explain the rationale for why the universe is not fine-tuned due to chance. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.


  • It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

    • Physical necessity – Constants and qualities are independent of the laws of nature

      • F = G*m1*m2 / r^2

      • G = 6.67*10^-11

    • Chance – the odds are insanely unlikely.

    • So, it is due to design


Q4. Do you think The Fine-Tuning Argument successfully proves that God exists? Why or why not?


  • Some believe fine-tuning supports God’s existence because it points to purpose and design.

  • Others argue it doesn’t prove God, since alternative explanations like chance or the multiverse exist.



Q5. Clearly and thoroughly explain what the quantum multiverse is. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.


  • The quantum multiverse says every quantum event creates multiple universes with different outcomes.

  • Example: Each coin flip creates universes where every possible result happens.


Q6. Clearly and thoroughly explain what the cosmological multiverse is. Make sure to use a concrete example as part of your explanation.


  • The cosmological multiverse suggests there are many universes, each with different physical constants.

  • Example: Our universe is one “bubble” in a larger cosmic foam, each bubble having unique laws.


Q7. Clearly and thoroughly explain how the theory of the multiverse can be used to argue that Premise 2 of The Fine-Tuning Argument is false.


  • If we live in a multiverse, then it is not statistically unlikely that at least 1 of those universes is life-permitting

  • That means our universe might not need a designer—it’s just one of the lucky ones.


Q8. Do you think the theory of the multiverse is pseudoscience? Why or why not?


  • Some see the multiverse as pseudoscience because it can’t currently be tested or observed.

  • Others see it as a valid scientific hypothesis since it fits with modern physics and cosmology.