Moral Philosophy Flashcards

Question

arthur

Answer 1

famine relief and the ideal moral code

Answer 2

perspectives on world hunger

Answer 3

moral saints

Answer 4

thinks that Camus is right that our lives are just like Sisyphus's, but he thinks that we can imagine Sisyphus being reconciled to his life if we imagine him having an intense desire to roll rocks up hills, something he then gets to do over and over. As Taylor sees things, this wouldn't make give Sisyphus's life a point—he still wouldn't be achieving anything of value—but it would mean he could live his life with enthusiasm, as he'd be doing something he really wants to do. Taylor's optimistic thought is that our lives could be more like Sisyphus's life as he imagines it. All that that would be required is that we do what we most want to do.

Answer 5

moral skeptic argument from relativity (radical diffs b/t people's firth order judg make it hard to treat as objective their moral sense) argument from queerness (metaphysical peculiarity of values, and how do we know of them?)

Answer 6

euthrypho dilemma, with its two horns

Answer 7

how ethics could depend on god motivational link? epistemic link? conceptual link? no, moral atheists there's no proof which would convince a nontheist of any link b/t religion and morality

Answer 8

psychological egoism is incorrect; why? nonempirical character of arguments dissatisfaction attends fulfillment of desires disinterested benevolence happens - lincoln so does disinterested malevolenece pleasure is ambiguous paradox of hedonism challenges psychological egoists to explain how happiness happens people think egoism is true b/c tautology, association of good feeling w. desire satisfaction; self-deception possibility, moral education's structure

Answer 9

civil peace and social unity best achieved by social contract every aspect of human nature deducible from amterialism state of nature is inherently violent, full of fear the good is that which is the object of one's appetites sovreign and sovreign's role in social contract Hobbes tried to provide such an explanation. He argued that we must all have an instrumental desire to cooperate with others because cooperation with others is a means to our getting what we intrinsically desire, pretty much no matter what we intrinsically desire

Answer 10

to obtain the stable voluntary compliance of rational individuals, they must be the objects of an appropriate hypothetical agreement farmer example deliberative justification vs moral justification dilemma morals by agreement; morality as justified constraint constrained vs unconstrained maximizers

Answer 11

Hume argued that not everyone has a reason to act in the way that morality demands, and that that doesn't matter, because when we say that morality demands that people act in certain ways, we aren't saying anything true or false, but are rather just expressing our feelings of approval or disapproval towards people for acting in those ways instrumental desires are criticizable intrinsic ones arent

Answer 12

logical positivism

Answer 13

moral claims are expressions of belief about what there is reason for us to do. These are beliefs about what will realize our intrinsic desires. Not everyone has those, though, so moral claims are not really objective, or prescriptive. Still no way to rationally persaude people w/ diff intrinsic desires. backed by methodological naturalism his argument is that if an action isn't due to some failure to think, reason, observe, it's not irrational

Answer 14

moral judgments aren't based on categorical, but hypothetical imperatives (moree) categorical imperatives sense: 1) apply to all, 2) when violated, one is being irrational - kant is claiming both, foot think's second is wrong morals are like claims of etiquette; we don't withdraw them for people without the right desires, but we don't think them irrational for ignoring them same as harmon - not what irrational means, kant

Answer 15

kantian university test grounds ethical theory in notions of consistency and rationality other than desire/preference demonstrates inconsistency involved in violations of categorical imperative

Answer 16

we act according to some maxim and freely adopt them - and are not pushed around by desires hypothetical imperatives - must desire to do what you believe will promote a goal you have categorical imperatives - desires because you're a rational agent, presupposes no ends formula of universal law, formula of humanity, formula of autonomy in virtue of free autonomous agents, we ourselves will the categorical imperative shopkeeper on moral intention

Answer 17

consequtialism; happiness/pleasure is the good; suffering sucks higher and lower pleasures - better to be Socrates unsatisfied than a pig joyful inference to the best conclusion - utility can justify some cases; it can be pressed to justify right action in all cases

Answer 18

george and jim examples utilitarianism's committed to strong conception of negative responsibility utilitarian's are attacking george's integrity with their answer - my projects are treated as just one of many concerns

Answer 19

political justice has priority in normative ethical theorizing; it is the backdrop fairness and autonomy are important original position as heuristic to maintain these; veil of ignorance people are controlled by restricting party's from imposing own desires/beliefs first principle, prior: equal basic liberties principle: everyone has equal right to extensive set of personal/political liberties as is compatible with others also having it second: difference principle: all other primary goods are to be distributed equally, unless an unequal distribution is to advantage of worst off

Answer 20

no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia; we must either like both or neither our reasons for letting die also justify active killing moral weight given to irrelevant considerations between active and inactive behavior. Smit and Jones's cousins - one is allowed to drown, other is drowned.

Answer 21

diff between negative and positive duties; our duty to not interfere vs duties to give assistance - eg Trolley problem

Answer 22

even if fetus has right to life, woman's right wins ex. violinist and me; growing baby; two cold people who need a coat to stay alive, but where the coat is owned by one of them; needing the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on her fevered brow in order to stay alive - even when life's not a stake; right to life is a right not to be killed unjustly good samaritan vs minimally decent samaritan

Answer 23

clearly wrong to kill those with lives like ours so long as we would continue to have positive experiences, its wrong to deprive us of this sort of life in the future same thing has to do with propoerty that gives us a right to life considered judgment argument - fits with our considered judgment about misfortune of death appeals to cases argument - yields correct answer to main life and death cases worst of crimes argument - my being killed deprives me of more than my being stolen from, etc.

Answer 24

not that bad to deprive things of great value - consider a race between two friends. Neither friend has a right to victory.

Answer 25

principled difference between zygote and egg, sperm, etc - genetic completeness, unification, self-integration human organismness;

Answer 26

1. If it's in our power to prevent something bad without sacrificing something comparably important, we should do it. 2. Since we have money, we can donate it to charity to fight poverty without equal loss. 3. We should give money to efficient charities working to fight poverty. issues of distance and others being around doing nothing is stupid

Answer 27

moral sainthood sucks loving saint vs rational saint sometimes its rational to not do the saintly thing when are moral reasons decisive?? "what do i have most reason to do?"

Answer 28

singer ignores way entitlements weight aginst reasont we have to prevent suffering singer is justified by principle of equal consideration of equal interests however, people have rights (kidney donation example, coat example, fruit of farm labor example vs lazy farmer) people in first world are breadwinners!

Answer 29

fair shares principle - we are only required to contribute our fair share to the problem two people standing next to a pond - your fair share is getting the boat. But in an unideal world, do you ride it too? issues dealt with privately vs publicly; poverty might be latter

Moral Philosophy Flashcards

(54 cards)