Exam 1 Flashcards
(78 cards)
1
Q
Metaphysics
A
The theory of the nature of things.
2
Q
Epistemology
A
The theory of knowledge.
3
Q
Axiology
A
The theory of value.
Ethics: What should we do?
4
Q
Logic
A
The theory of good arguments/reasoning.
5
Q
What things?
A
Metaphysics
6
Q
What exists?
A
Metaphysics
7
Q
What is the world made of?
A
Metaphysics
8
Q
Does the world contain only one basic type of substance (e.g. matter), or are there other types (e.g. mind)?
A
Metaphysics
9
Q
What is the mind?
A
Metaphysics
10
Q
How is the mind related to the body?
A
Metaphysics
11
Q
Can the mind survive the death of the body?
A
Metaphysics
12
Q
Do we have free will, or is every action determined by prior causes?
A
Metaphysics
13
Q
What is a person?
A
Metaphysics
14
Q
Under what conditions is a person at one time identical with a person at another time?
A
Metaphysics
15
Q
Is there a God?
A
Metaphysics
16
Q
What is knowledge?
A
Epistemology
17
Q
What are the sources of knowledge?
A
Epistemology
18
Q
What is truth?
A
Epistemology
19
Q
Can we acquire knowledge of the external world?
A
Epistemology
20
Q
Under what conditions are we justified in believing something?
A
Epistemology
21
Q
What is value?
A
Axiology
22
Q
What are the sources of value?
A
Axiology
23
Q
What makes an action right or wrong?
A
Axiology
24
Q
What makes a person good or bad?
A
Axiology
25
What makes a work of art beautiful?
Axiology
26
Are value judgments objective or subjective?
Axiology
27
Does morality require God?
Axiology
28
Are there universal human rights?
Axiology
29
What is the best form of government?
Axiology
30
Is civil disobedience ever justified?
Axiology
31
What is an argument?
Logic
32
What kinds of arguments are there?
Logic
33
What distinguishes a good argument from a bad one?
Logic
34
What are we justified in believing the conclusion of an argument?
Logic
35
Socratic Method of Conceptual Analysis
1. Pose a question (what is it to be X?)
2. Propose hypothesis (to be X, it is necessary and sufficient to be...)
3. Derive a test implication (the hypothesis implies...)
4. Perform the test (is the implication correct?)
5. Accept or reject the hypothesis
36
Necessary condition
Required
Something X is a necessary condition for something Y if and only if it's impossible for Y to exist without X.
Something that is ________ but not _______
normal; right
37
Sufficient condition
Enough
Something X is a sufficient condition for something Y if and only if it's impossible for X to exist without Y.
Something that is _________ but not _______
right; normal
38
Logical impossibility
Something is logically impossible if and only if it violates a law of logic.
example: A round square
39
Causal impossibility
Something is causally impossible if and only if it violates a law of nature.
example: A cow jumping over the moon
40
Logical vs. Causal impossibility
Something can be logically possible even though it is causally impossible.
41
Validity
- The conclusion follows from the premises.
- If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
- Impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.
42
Soundness
-Valid *and* premises are true.
43
How does Singer argue that we ought to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care?
1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.
2. We can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance.
3. If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.
4. Therefore, we ought to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.
44
Case #1: You receive an envelope and a request for $50 from UNICEF. If you send money, it is likely that 30 impoverished children will be spared disease, suffering, and death. Like most relatively well-off Americans, you toss the envelope in the trash.
- How would most Americans react to your behavior?
- What might be the source of these reactions?
- What method should we use to determine whether the reactions are justified?
- Most Americans would not react badly to this.
- They don't see the suffering happening. It is not right in front of them. The reward is not immediate.
- You should use experiments to examine if there is any moral difference.
45
Case #2: You are driving in a rural area in your new BMW. You come across an injured woman. She was once a medical student and is knowledgeable about her injury. She tells you, in honesty, that while trespassing she cut her leg badly on some barbed wire and that her leg will need to be amputated unless you drive her to the nearest hospital. You realize that her bloody leg will cause about $480 of damage to your leather seats. You wish her good luck and drive off without her.
- How would most Americans react to your behavior?
- What might be the source of these reactions?
- What method should we use to determine whether the reactions are justified?
- Most Americans would be appalled and think you were an awful person for not helping her.
- You are able to stop someones suffering immediately with your actions and see the difference that you make.
- You should use experiments to examine if there is any moral difference.
46
Subjective Relativism
- To say that an act is right is to say that one approves of the act.
- It is relative to who says it.
47
Cultural Relativism
- To say that an act is right is to say that one's culture approves of the act.
- It is relative to which culture the person is in.
48
Moral Relativism
Whether A PARTICULAR ACT is right is relative to a person or culture
49
Contextual Relativism
Whether A KIND OF ACT is right is relative to a context
50
Belief Relativism
Whether a claim is believed to be true is relative to a person
51
Appearance Relativism
Whether a claim appears to be true is relative to a person
52
Legal Relativism
Whether a kind of act is illegal is relative to a set of laws
53
Three objections to moral relativism
(1) Internal criticism is impossible
- Uncle Sam example
(2) Genuine disputes are impossible
- Pope vs. Feisty Woman on Abortion example
(3) Not what I mean by 'right'
- Lisa and Bart bludgeoning example
54
Emotivism
The doctrine that moral utterances are expressions of emotion.
55
Divine Command Theory
The doctrine that what makes an action right is that God commands it to be done.
56
Applied Ethics
- Applying ethics to what is going on in the actual world
- Given how the world is, should we:
- Outlaw abortion
- Legalize pot?
- Outlaw the death penalty?
- Give money to UNICEF?
- Cheat on the next exam?
- Become vegetarians?
57
Normative Ethics
- The general theory that tells you what it is to be a right action
- To be a right action, it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be...
58
Metaethics
Step back and looking at ethics.
```
The metaphysics and epistemology of ethics:
What is the subject matter of ethics?
Are there moral truths?
Are moral truths absolute or relative?
How can we know moral truths?
The five senses?
A special faculty?
Socratic Method of Conceptual Analysis?
```
59
Psychology vs. Ethics
Psychology studies the question of how we do or would act (how humans behave)
Ethics studies the question of how we should act (what we ought to do)
60
Moral Agent
Someone or something who's behavior counts as right or wrong (can perform morally right or wrong actions)
Necessary to: have free will and be rational
61
Moral Subject
Something who's interests the moral agents need to consider when they are considering how to act
Necessary and sufficient to: have interests that are morally relevant
62
Why is this false:
| To be a right action, it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be legal.
-stone a woman in Middle east
63
Why is this false:
| To be a right action, it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be dictated by the Bible.
- show that the bible says to do something but it isn't right (sufficient--it isn't enough):
- --killing your neighbor when he is working on the Sabbath
- show an action that is right but not dictated by the bible (necessary--it isn't required):
- --deciding which metal to get when having a knee replacement
64
Why is this false:
| To be a right action, it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be normal.
- show that just because it is normal doesn't mean it is right (sufficient--enough):
- --owning slaves in the 1900's
- show an action that is right but not normal (necessary--it isn't required):
- --giving a homeless person a jacket
65
Consequentialism
To be a right action, it is necessary and sufficient for an action to have the best consequences.
66
Act-utilitarianism
Says that what makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness, everyone considered.
67
Rule-utilitarianism
Says that what makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that, if generally followed, would maximize happiness, everyone considered.
68
Deontology
The rightness of an action is determined by the kind of action it is, and not merely by its consequences.
69
What are the first two formulations of Kant's Categorical Imperative?
Formulation I:
- To be a right action, it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be based on a principle that: (i) everyone could act on (ii) you would be willing to have everyone act on
Formulation II:
- To be a right action, it is necessary and sufficient for an action to treat people as ends in themselves and not merely as means to an end.
70
Contractarianism
To be a right action, it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be dictated by our social contract.
- Hobbes: actual contract
- Rawls: hypothetical contract (whatever contract would be agreed upon by purely selfish and rational thinkers who are ignorant of their positions in society)
71
In class we considered the idea that, to appreciate a negatively stereotyped joke, one must endorse the stereotype. How did I object to this idea?
The only thing you have to do is recognize the stereotype and not endorse it.
72
In class we considered the idea that, to act immorally, it is sufficient to tell a joke that is offensive to some group or individual. How did I object to this idea?
-The Arusian People joke
73
What proposal did I defend for addressing the question of when it is immoral to tell a joke?
To act immorally, it is sufficient to tell a joke whose harm is not outweighed by its benefit.
74
Speciesism
The assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals.
75
In arguing against Speciesism in class, was I defending the claim that all animals are equal? Was I defending the claim that all suffering is equal? What claim was I defending?
All animals are equal? False
All suffering is equal? False
Equal amounts of suffering have equal moral significance? True
76
What is Singer's Challenge? What attempts did we employ?
Find a difference between human animals and non-human animals that justifies counting the suffering of non-human animals for less than that of humans.
1. Humanness
2. Naturalness
3. Intelligence
77
Determinism
- Every event is determined by previous events + laws of nature
- Your actions are determined by deterministic processes over which you have no control
78
Indeterminism
- Not every event is determined by previous events + laws of nature
- Your actions are determined by statistical processes over which you have no control.
