philosophy of ethics

Here is your complete and corrected master list of questions and answers, integrating the requested improvements for clarity, accuracy, and depth:

1. What is the difference between a descriptive and a prescriptive approach to ethics? Provide examples of each. 

   - Corrected Answer: Descriptive ethics focuses on describing how people actually behave and what moral beliefs they hold without making judgments. For instance, many societies have norms against theft. Prescriptive ethics, on the other hand, considers how people ought to behave, establishing standards for moral conduct. For example, prescriptive ethics argues that people should not steal because it is unjust and harms others.

2. What are the three main arguments Socrates gives in Plato’s Crito to support his claim that he is morally obligated to drink hemlock and not resist his capital punishment? 

   - Corrected Answer:

     - Public Opinion: Socrates argues that public opinion is unreliable in moral matters; he believes one should act according to reasoned principles rather than popular views.

     - Social Contract: Socrates asserts that by living in Athens and accepting its benefits, he implicitly agrees to follow its laws, even if that leads to his death.

     - Moral Integrity: He fears that escaping would compromise his moral integrity. If everyone disregarded the law, society would collapse into chaos.

3. Describe Plato’s Euthyphro argument, which suggests that ethics need not—and should not—be grounded solely on divine commands. 

   - Corrected Answer: Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma asks whether something is moral because God commands it or if God commands it because it is moral. If morality is based solely on God’s command, it could appear arbitrary. Conversely, if God commands actions because they are inherently good, then morality exists independently of God, making God subject to a standard outside Himself.

4. Compare normative systems of morality, law, religion, and etiquette in terms of evaluative concepts and sanctions. 

   - Corrected Answer:

     - Law: Breaking the law results in legal guilt and punishment.

     - Religion: Non-adherence to religious norms may lead to shame, often accompanied by spiritual or communal consequences.

     - Etiquette: Non-conformance to social norms in etiquette may lead to social disapproval.

     - Morality: Morality is based on personal virtue and self-assessment rather than external enforcement.

5. Identify and explain the various kinds of egoism. 

   - Corrected Answer:

     - Psychological Egoism: Suggests all actions are motivated by self-interest, even seemingly altruistic ones, though critics argue that genuine selfless acts disprove this view.

     - Ethical Egoism: Holds that individuals should act in their self-interest, regardless of others’ welfare. Ethical egoism does not require disregarding others, but suggests they should not be prioritized over oneself.

6. Explain three standard arguments against psychological egoism. 

   - Corrected Answer:

     - Altruism: Genuine acts of selflessness, like anonymous donations, challenge the notion that all actions are self-interested.

     - Diverse Motivations: Scientific studies indicate that humans have motivations beyond self-interest, like empathy and community welfare.

     - Misinterpretation of Self-Interest: Actions can be mistakenly attributed to self-interest when they may stem from other values.

7. Explain two standard arguments against ethical egoism. 

   - Corrected Answer:

     - Conflict of Interests: If everyone acted solely in self-interest, cooperation would be impossible, leading to societal breakdown.

     - Moral Stagnation: Ethical egoism would prevent societal progress, as improvement often requires considering others’ welfare.

8. Why does Glaucon, in Book II of The Republic, argue that we are, and should be, egoists? 

   - Corrected Answer: Glaucon uses the story of the Ring of Gyges to illustrate that people act justly only to avoid punishment, not because it is inherently good. He argues that if people could act immorally without consequence, they would prioritize self-gain over ethical behavior.

9. Explain three major objections to relativism. 

   - Corrected Answer:

     - No Moral Improvement: Relativism denies objective moral standards, making the concept of moral improvement incoherent.

     - Acceptance of Atrocities: Relativism can justify morally reprehensible actions, like genocide, if they align with cultural norms.

     - Universal Morals: Some moral principles, such as prohibitions on murder, are nearly universal, challenging relativism’s validity.

10. Identify and explain the various kinds of relativism. 

    - Corrected Answer:

      - Ethical Relativism: Belief that morality is based on cultural norms.

      - Individual Relativism: Idea that morality is individually subjective, varying from person to person.

      - Ontological Relativism: Holds that reality itself can be subjective or culturally defined.

11. Do the facts cited by cultural relativists alone justify ethical relativism? 

    - Corrected Answer: Cultural relativists argue that no single moral standard is universally correct. However, cases like Nazi Germany expose limitations, as some acts are condemned broadly despite cultural contexts.

12. Why is an appeal to tolerance not a sound way to defend subjectivism or relativism? 

    - Corrected Answer: Tolerance implies an objective value and cannot defend relativism because if all views are equally valid, tolerating harmful behaviors would be contradictory.

Here’s a master list of your questions with integrated corrections and improvements to create comprehensive responses:

---

### 1. What is the Difference Between Subjectivism and Nihilism?

   - Answer: Subjectivism holds that moral truths exist but are individually determined, meaning moral judgments depend on personal beliefs and perspectives. For example, a subjectivist might believe eating animals is wrong for themselves but accept that others may see it differently. In contrast, nihilism denies the existence of moral truths altogether, asserting that concepts like right and wrong are meaningless. A nihilist would argue there’s no inherent moral value in actions like eating animals, making moral categories irrelevant.

   - Notes for Improvement: Highlight that subjectivism allows for diverse moral perspectives while nihilism rejects all moral categories entirely. This distinction clarifies that subjectivism considers individual moral truths valid, unlike nihilism, which denies the relevance of morality.

### 2. What Are Some of the Problems Facing Subjectivism?

   - Answer: Subjectivism encounters challenges due to its reliance on individual beliefs, which undermines the notion of universal moral standards. If morality is purely subjective, it becomes difficult to explain widespread moral agreements, like opposition to harm or injustice. Additionally, subjectivism struggles to address moral disputes since it lacks an objective standard for resolving conflicts, relying only on personal beliefs.

   - Notes for Improvement: Emphasize how subjectivism’s focus on personal morality can lead to moral relativism, complicating efforts to condemn actions widely considered wrong, such as theft or violence. Including examples of moral disagreements that are difficult to resolve under subjectivism alone would illustrate this challenge more effectively.

### 3. What Are Some of the Problems Facing Nihilism?

   - Answer: Nihilism denies moral truths, but this stance faces issues because humans appear to have a natural sense of right and wrong from a young age. Studies show children often recognize harm as wrong, suggesting an innate moral awareness. Nihilism also fails to account for why societies develop moral codes, which provide order and foster cooperative behavior.

   - Notes for Improvement: Citing psychological studies or evolutionary arguments supporting an innate moral sense would strengthen this answer. Additional critique could address how nihilism struggles to explain human values, justice systems, and ethical behavior across diverse cultures.

### 4. What is the “Cultural Dependency Thesis” and What is the Difference Between Its Strong and Weak Versions?

   - Answer: The Cultural Dependency Thesis proposes that moral values are dependent on cultural context. The strong version suggests that all moral truths are relative to culture, meaning no universal moral standards exist beyond individual societies. The weak version suggests that cultural context influences but doesn’t completely determine morality, allowing for some universal moral principles, such as prohibitions against harm.

   - Notes for Improvement: Expanding on the implications of each version would add depth. For example, the strong version implies that cross-cultural moral criticism is unjustified, while the weak version allows for limited moral judgment across cultures.

### 5. Why Does A.J. Ayer Think That All Moral Claims Are “Non-Cognitive”?

   - Answer: A.J. Ayer argues that moral claims are non-cognitive, meaning they do not convey objective truths or factual content. According to his emotivism, moral statements are expressions of emotional reactions or attitudes rather than statements of fact. For example, saying "Stealing is wrong" simply expresses disapproval of stealing without asserting a factual claim.

   - Notes for Improvement: Adding context on non-cognitive theories and differentiating them from cognitive theories that view moral statements as truth-apt would enhance this answer. Clarifying how emotivism fits within the broader logical positivist framework would provide greater philosophical context.

### 6. Explain Why Many Contemporary Philosophers Reject Emotivism.

   - Answer: Many contemporary philosophers reject emotivism because it oversimplifies moral language. They argue that moral statements are not merely emotional expressions but involve reasoning about ethical principles. Critics also contend that emotivism fails to explain why moral discussions can lead to agreement, suggesting moral statements have more substance than simple expressions of emotion.

   - Notes for Improvement: Strengthening this answer could include discussing how emotivism struggles with moral reasoning and persuasion, which imply cognitive content in moral claims. Philosophers like Philippa Foot, who advocate moral realism, provide arguments against the idea that moral language lacks truth value.

### 7. What Does ‘Teleology’ Mean and Why is This Concept Important for Aristotle?

   - Answer: Teleology refers to the study of purpose or end goals within nature. For Aristotle, teleology is central to understanding why things exist and function as they do. He believed everything has a purpose (or telos), and understanding this purpose is essential for achieving a virtuous life. Aristotle held that humans, like all things, have a purpose—specifically, to cultivate rational and virtuous living to reach eudaimonia, or flourishing.

   - Notes for Improvement: Expanding on how teleology connects to Aristotle’s broader philosophy, particularly how living according to one’s purpose aligns with virtue ethics, would add nuance. Aristotle’s view that humans reach their highest potential through virtuous actions consistent with their purpose would strengthen this explanation.

### 8. How Does Aristotle Define ‘Virtue’?

   - Answer: Aristotle defines virtue as a mean between extremes of excess and deficiency, achieved through rational moderation. Virtue, for Aristotle, involves exercising practical wisdom (or phronesis) to find balanced responses to situations. By aiming for the “golden mean” in character traits—such as courage, which lies between recklessness and cowardice—one lives in harmony with reason, which Aristotle considers essential for a fulfilling life.

   - Notes for Improvement: This answer could be more complete by emphasizing that virtue for Aristotle is not only moderation but a state that fulfills human nature. Including Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia (human flourishing) as a goal of virtuous living would provide a more comprehensive understanding.

---

This list provides clear and structured responses to each question, with integrated corrections and improvements for enhanced clarity, depth, and comprehensiveness.

1. Here is a combined master list of your questions with both your original answers and the corrected responses integrated for a complete answer set:

2.  

3. ---

4.  

5. ### 1. What is the Difference Between Subjectivism and Nihilism?

6.    - Integrated Answer: Subjectivism holds that moral truths exist but are individually determined, meaning moral judgments depend on personal beliefs and perspectives. For example, a subjectivist might believe eating animals is wrong for themselves but accept that others may see it differently. In contrast, nihilism denies the existence of moral truths altogether, asserting that concepts like right and wrong are meaningless. A nihilist would argue that there’s no inherent moral value in actions like eating animals, making moral categories irrelevant. While subjectivists believe in morally correct and incorrect ways to behave based on personal views, nihilists view morality as obsolete and irrelevant. This distinction clarifies that subjectivism allows for individual moral truths, while nihilism rejects morality entirely.

7.  

8. ### 2. What Are Some of the Problems Facing Subjectivism?

9.    - Integrated Answer: Subjectivism faces challenges because it bases morality solely on individual beliefs, which undermines the idea of universal moral standards. For example, if morality is purely subjective, it’s hard to explain widespread moral agreements, like opposition to harm or injustice. Subjectivism also struggles to address moral disputes since it lacks an objective standard for resolving conflicts and instead relies on personal beliefs. This focus on personal morality can lead to moral relativism, making it difficult to universally condemn actions widely considered wrong, such as theft or violence. Including examples of moral disagreements that are hard to resolve through subjectivism alone illustrates this limitation further.

10.  

11. ### 3. What Are Some of the Problems Facing Nihilism?

12.    - Integrated Answer: Nihilism denies moral truths, yet this position is challenging because humans appear to have a natural sense of right and wrong, even from a young age. Studies show that children often recognize harm as wrong, suggesting some innate moral awareness. For example, even young children react when they hurt someone and make them cry, showing an internal awareness of wrongdoing despite lacking a complete understanding of why it’s wrong. Nihilism also fails to account for why societies develop moral codes that provide order and foster cooperation. Referencing psychological studies or evolutionary arguments supporting an innate moral sense strengthens this critique, as does discussing how nihilism struggles to explain universal human values and justice systems.

13.  

14. ### 4. What is the “Cultural Dependency Thesis” and What is the Difference Between Its Strong and Weak Versions?

15.    - Integrated Answer: The Cultural Dependency Thesis suggests that moral values depend on cultural context. The strong version argues that all moral truths are relative to culture, meaning no universal moral standards exist beyond individual societies. In contrast, the weak version suggests that while cultural context heavily influences morality, it does not entirely determine it, allowing for some universal moral principles, such as prohibitions against harm. The strong version implies that moral criticism between cultures is unjustified, whereas the weak version allows for limited cross-cultural moral judgment. Expanding on these implications provides further insight into the thesis's impact on moral understanding.

16.  

17. ### 5. Why Does A.J. Ayer Think That All Moral Claims Are “Non-Cognitive”?

18.    - Integrated Answer: A.J. Ayer argues that moral claims are non-cognitive, meaning they do not convey objective truths or factual content. According to his theory of emotivism, moral statements are expressions of emotional reactions or attitudes rather than factual claims. For example, when someone says, "Stealing is wrong," they’re merely expressing disapproval of stealing without making a truth-apt statement. Non-cognitive theories differ from cognitive theories, which view moral statements as potentially true or false. Understanding Ayer’s perspective within the broader framework of logical positivism, which seeks empirical verifiability in meaningful statements, helps contextualize his view of moral language.

19.  

20. ### 6. Explain Why Many Contemporary Philosophers Reject Emotivism.

21.    - Integrated Answer: Many contemporary philosophers reject emotivism because they believe it oversimplifies moral language. Emotivism claims that moral statements are merely expressions of emotion, but critics argue that moral language involves reasoning and ethical principles, not just emotional responses. Additionally, emotivism fails to account for why moral discussions can lead to agreement, suggesting that moral statements possess more substance than just emotional expression. Philosophers like Philippa Foot argue against the idea that moral language lacks truth value, as they view moral reasoning as essential for forming ethical judgments. Emotivism’s limitations in explaining moral reasoning, discussion, and persuasion support the argument for moral realism.

22.  

23. ### 7. What Does ‘Teleology’ Mean and Why is This Concept Important for Aristotle?

24.    - Integrated Answer: Teleology is the study of purpose or end goals within nature, focusing on the intended purpose behind things. For Aristotle, teleology is central to understanding why things exist and function as they do. He believed everything has a purpose (or telos), and understanding this purpose is essential for achieving a virtuous life. Aristotle held that humans, like all things, have a purpose—specifically, to cultivate rational and virtuous living to reach eudaimonia, or flourishing. Connecting teleology to Aristotle’s broader philosophy shows that for humans to live according to their purpose, they must pursue virtue, aligning with his concept of virtue ethics.

25.  

26. ### 8. How Does Aristotle Define ‘Virtue’?

27.    - Integrated Answer: Aristotle defines virtue as a mean between extremes of excess and deficiency, achieved through rational moderation. Virtue involves exercising practical wisdom (or phronesis) to find balanced responses to various situations. For instance, courage is the mean between recklessness and cowardice. By seeking this “golden mean” in character traits, one lives in harmony with reason, which Aristotle considers essential for a fulfilling life. Virtue for Aristotle is not merely moderation but a state fulfilling human nature, leading to eudaimonia (human flourishing) when lived in alignment with reason. This concept of virtue as both moderation and alignment with purpose forms the foundation of Aristotle’s ethics.

Here's a set of 50 multiple-choice questions based on the material you provided. Each question includes one correct answer and three distractors.

---