Long questions mid-term Flashcards
(13 cards)
Explain the three fields of ethics.
Metaethics
This is the most abstract branch of ethics, dealing with the nature, meaning, and foundations of ethical concepts. It explores questions like:
What does it mean for something to be morally right or wrong?
Are moral values objective (universal truths) or subjective (based on personal or cultural beliefs)?
How can we know what is morally right?
What is the meaning of ethical terms like “good,” “bad,” “duty,” or “justice”?
Example: Debating whether morality is rooted in human emotions, divine commands, or rational thought.
Normative Ethics
This field focuses on establishing moral standards and principles that guide how people should act. It attempts to provide a framework for determining what actions are right or wrong. The major ethical theories in this field include:
Utilitarianism: The greatest good for the greatest number.
Deontology: Following moral rules or duties (associated with Kant).
Virtue Ethics: Focusing on the moral character of individuals rather than specific actions (Aristotle).
Example: Arguing whether lying is always wrong or if it can be justified in certain situations.
Applied Ethics
This is the most practical field, where ethical theories are applied to real-world situations and specific issues. It addresses controversial topics like:
Abortion
Climate change
Animal rights
Business ethics
Medical ethics
Example: Discussing whether euthanasia is morally acceptable based on ethical principles.
Explain the moral system.
moral system is a structured approach to ethical decision-making, built on three key components:
- Moral Rules
Moral rules set the baseline obligations that everyone is expected to follow. They specify actions that are either prohibited or required to avoid causing harm. Breaking these rules is generally seen as morally wrong unless there is a strong justification.
Examples:
Do not lie.
Do not harm others.
Keep promises.
Help those in need (if it is a required obligation).
These rules focus on protecting people from harm and promoting fairness.
- Moral Ideals
Moral ideals go beyond what is strictly required by moral rules. They encourage people to perform good actions or prevent harm, even when they are not obligated to do so.
Key difference: Unlike moral rules, failing to follow moral ideals is not considered morally wrong—just less praiseworthy.
Examples:
Donating to charity (when not required).
Volunteering your time to help others.
Forgiving someone who wronged you.
Moral ideals encourage going above and beyond basic obligations to make the world better.
- Decision Procedure
The decision procedure is the method for determining if violating a moral rule is acceptable in certain situations. This procedure helps answer questions like:
Is it ever okay to lie to protect someone’s life?
Can breaking a promise be justified if it prevents greater harm?
A common approach is to weigh the consequences of following the rule against the consequences of breaking it. If breaking the rule would prevent greater harm or promote greater good, the violation might be allowed.
How They Work Together
Moral rules set the minimum ethical standard.
Moral ideals inspire additional good actions.
The decision procedure guides exceptions when rules conflict or cause harm.
This system balances moral obligations with compassionate encouragement while offering flexibility for tough ethical dilemmas.
What are the moral rules?
It is divided into two categpries, do not harm and do not break trust. The do not harm categorie includes things such as do not kill, do not cause pain, do not deprive of freedom and the do not break trust includes things such as do not deceive, keep your promise, obey to the law
What are the characteristic elements of ethics?
1) Preeminence of Reason
2) Universalist Perspective
3) The Principle of Impartiality
4) The Dominance of Moral Norms
reeminence of Reason
This principle emphasizes that reason and logical thinking should be the primary tools for making moral judgments. Ethical decisions should be based on rational arguments rather than emotions, traditions, or blind beliefs.
Why it matters: Reason helps people critically evaluate different options, justify their beliefs, and avoid bias.
Example: Deciding whether euthanasia is ethical by weighing arguments about human suffering, autonomy, and medical responsibilities instead of relying solely on personal feelings.
2. Universalist Perspective
The universalist perspective holds that moral principles should apply to everyone equally in similar situations, regardless of their background, culture, or personal interests.
Why it matters: This prevents favoritism and encourages fairness.
Example: If lying is considered wrong in one situation, it should also be wrong in a similar situation for anyone else.
3. The Principle of Impartiality
Impartiality means that everyone’s interests should be given equal consideration when making ethical decisions. It rejects discrimination or favoritism based on race, gender, social status, or personal relationships.
Why it matters: Ethical decisions should not prioritize one person’s needs over another’s without good reason.
Example: When distributing medical supplies during a crisis, doctors should treat patients based on medical need, not personal connections.
4. The Dominance of Moral Norms
This principle suggests that moral norms should take priority over other kinds of norms (such as legal, social, or religious norms) when there is a conflict.
Why it matters: Just because something is legal or socially acceptable doesn’t mean it’s morally right.
Example: Slavery was once legal in many countries, but it violated moral norms of human dignity and equality.
How They Work Together
These elements create a framework that helps applied ethics:
Stay objective and rational.
Promote fairness and equality.
Prioritize what is morally right over what is popular or convenient.
Apply ethical principles consistently across different situations.
By following these principles, applied ethics aims to address real-world problems in a way that is both just and thoughtful.
What Do Cultural Differences Imply for Morality?
Cultural differences raise important questions about morality and whether moral values are subjective (relative to each culture) or objective (universal truths). However, the key idea based on the points you provided is that cultural differences in moral beliefs do not automatically mean that there is no universal moral truth. Here’s how this works:
- Lack of Consensus Doesn’t Mean Equal Validity
Just because cultures disagree on certain moral issues doesn’t mean that all opinions are equally correct. Disagreement alone doesn’t prove that there is no objective moral truth—just like people can disagree about scientific facts without those facts becoming relative.
Example: Some cultures may approve of practices like bribery, while others condemn them. However, the disagreement doesn’t automatically make bribery morally acceptable everywhere.
2. Cultural Differences and Universal Truths Can Coexist
It’s possible for two cultures to hold different views on a moral issue without implying that both views are equally correct. One culture might be mistaken, or both might be partly wrong. This means that cultural diversity doesn’t rule out the existence of objective moral truths.
Example: If one culture accepts slavery and another rejects it, that doesn’t mean slavery is morally neutral. An objective moral truth (like human dignity) might still make slavery universally wrong.
3. Objective Moral Values Remain Constant
Even if different cultures interpret or apply moral values differently, some moral principles may still be objectively true. Universal values like fairness, honesty, and respect for human life often appear across many cultures, even if they are practiced in different ways.
Example: Every culture may have different customs for showing hospitality, but the underlying value of kindness to others remains constant.
Explain vulgar relativism.
1) ‘Right’ means … ‘right for a given society.’
2) ‘Right for a given society’ is to be understood in a functionalist sense.
3) …(therefore) it is wrong for people in one society to condemn, interfere with, etc., the values of another society.
(Williams 20)
Vulgar relativism takes moral relativism to an extreme and inconsistent position. It argues:
Moral rules depend entirely on cultural beliefs or personal opinions.
Therefore, no one can criticize the moral practices of other cultures—because every culture’s morality is equally valid.
What are the two main criticism William makes on vulgar relativism?
1st Criticism: Inconsistency of Vulgar Relativism
2nd Criticism: Assumption of Implausible Theory of Functionalism
1) ‘Right’ means one thing early in the argument and another later.
Proposition 1: relative right
‘right’ means right for society X
Proposition 3: nonrelative (or universal) right
‘right’ means right for everyone
e.g. it is right for everyone to accept the values of society X
Vulgar relativism argument is one expression of a more general confusion:
“The central confusion of relativism is to try to conjure out of the fact that societies have different attitudes and values an a priori nonrelative principle to determine the attitude of one society to another; this is impossible” (24).
Relativists advocate a nonrelative principle of respect or tolerance …
But where does this principle come from? And why should any given culture be bound by it?
2) First: what is functionalist social theory?
Interprets society as a system whose parts function together to promote stability, success
A practice is ‘right’ in the functionalist sense if it serves its purpose in an organized whole that benefits the society
Functionalism requires us to identify what counts as a society
This is harder than it looks
Two approaches (extremes):
1) Society is defined by a cultural unit: the “group-with-certain-values”
2) Society is defined by its members and their descendants
EX: Bruce is a functionalist who identifies Jim by his values.
Jim = ‘Jim-who-loves-K-Pop’
On this definition, Jim’s survival depends upon continuing to love K-Pop.
This is true – but ‘trivially true’ and uninformative.
It doesn’t tell us whether the physical person Jim will survive
It doesn’t tell us whether the physical person Jim should continue loving K-Pop
What are the merits of cultural relativism?
1) Stresses role of convention and particular conditions
2) Favours open-minded starting point about other cultures
3) Sees people as rooted in specific cultural horizons of meaning
cultural reform can have unpredictable and destructive consequences
4) May have some unintended beneficial consequences
Discourages chauvinism
Perspective to illuminate ourselves
What is the good life according to Aristotle?
Aims at happiness (eudaimonia)
= blessed life
= action in accordance with the highest virtue, i.e. reason
NOT happiness purely as a conscious state of mind
Hedonistic theories make pleasure the aim
Aristotle rejects this
Pleasure is instead a sign of what kind of character you have:
Pleasure in the wrong things? Bad character
What are the conditions for virtuous actions?
1) Agent has knowledge
2) Agent chooses the action for its own sake
3) Agent has a stable character
For skills, only the first is necessary – because it will produce the right outcome
Ethical action not just about outcomes for Aristotle
1. Agent Has Knowledge
The person performing the action must know what they are doing and understand why it is morally good.
Why it matters: If someone accidentally does the right thing without realizing it, the action isn’t truly virtuous.
Example: Donating money to charity without knowing the cause wouldn’t count as a virtuous action.
2. Agent Chooses the Action for Its Own Sake
The person must choose the action because it is the right thing to do, not for external rewards or personal gain.
Why it matters: If someone helps others only to gain praise or benefits, the action isn’t fully virtuous.
Example: Helping a friend out of genuine kindness vs. helping to look good in front of others.
3. Agent Has a Stable Character
The action must come from a consistent and stable moral character, not from a one-time impulse or temporary motivation.
Why it matters: Virtue is about who you are over time, not just what you do occasionally.
Example: A person who regularly acts with honesty in different situations shows true virtue, while someone who tells the truth only once does not.
Skills vs. Virtuous Actions
For skills (like playing an instrument or building furniture), only the first condition (knowledge) is necessary because what matters is simply getting the right result.
However, in ethics, producing the right outcome isn’t enough—what matters is also the intention and the character behind the action.
How can someone become virtuous?
Become brave by doing brave actions
How can we act bravely if we’re not already brave?
By imitating virtuous people, you acquire a stable disposition to behave that way
Emphasis on habituation and moral education
What are the critiques of virtue ethics?
1) Usefulness?
Deciding when virtues apply
Instances of conflicting virtues?
2) Circularity?
3) Secretly dependent on another ethical framework?
e.g. Why does generosity matter…?
