Philosophy Exam 1 Study Guide

Question 1

Philosophy

Answer 1

A largely (but not exclusively) non-empirical inquiry that attempts to identify and answer fundamental questions about the world

Question 2

Ethics

Answer 2

also known as moral philosophy— is the branch of knowledge concerned with answering questions that experts will never answer

Question 3

Argument

Answer 3

a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong

Question 4

Valid Argument

Answer 4

an argument with a form that requires the conclusion to be true if the premises are true

Question 5

Invalid

Answer 5

an argument with a form that allows the conclusion to be false even if the premises are true

Question 6

Sound

Answer 6

an argument with valid form and true premises—the best type of argument that one can make

Question 7

Premises

Answer 7

statements that offer support for the conclusion

Question 8

explicit premises

Answer 8

the premises that are stated clearly in the text) of the argument

Question 9

implicit premises

Answer 9

the premises that are implied but not stated) of the argument

Question 10

Conclusion

Answer 10

the claim that the argument’s proponent is trying to establish

Question 11

Consequentialism

Answer 11

do good; avoid bad
-a moral theory that evaluates actions solely in terms of their consequences

Question 12

Rule Consequentialism

Answer 12

we should not simply perform the individual action that will produce good consequences. Instead, we should follow rules that, when followed, lead to good consequences

Question 13

Deontology

Answer 13

a type of moral theory that denies that morality is solely about consequences
-do your duty (or follow the rules)
ex: trolley problems

Question 14

Categorical Imperative

Answer 14

we must follow it, even if we don’t want to.

Question 15

one Categorical Imperative that can be expressed in three different formulations, although the first two are, by far, the most important.

Answer 15

Maxim: principle for acting in a certain way to achieve a certain goal

Question 16

Maxim

Answer 16

principle for acting in a certain way to achieve a certain goal

Question 17

First Formulation

Answer 17

it’s wrong to make a special exception to some rule for yourself
*Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.

Question 18

Second Formulation

Answer 18

we are never allowed to merely use people; using people as “mere means” involves treating them as mere objects or in ways to which they could not or would not consent, which is to disrespect them
* Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

Question 19

What does the first and second formulation help us as humans do?

Answer 19

helps us differentiate between different decisions we would make in different trolley problems

Question 20

Virtue Ethics

Answer 20

be a good person
-Cultivate virtuous character traits in yourself.
-Act in accordance with those character traits.

Question 21

Virtue

Answer 21

behavior showing high moral standards

Question 22

Cultural Relativism

Answer 22

the view that whether acts are morally right or wrong depends upon the guiding ideals of the society in which they are performed
Example: capital punishment is permissible in a culture that allows it and impermissible in a culture that prohibits it

Question 23

Explain the difference between a good argument and a bad argument.

Answer 23

A good argument has valid form:
-if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true as well.
-Also, the premises are true (or at least acceptable).
A bad argument lacks at least one (and possibly both) of these features

Question 24

What is the “charity principle”? Why is it important to follow this principle when we interpret arguments?

Answer 24

Charity Principle
*Outline the argument (to the best of your ability)

Why?
▪So we don’t waste time and energy
▪So our opponents don’t have easy ways to avoid our criticisms
▪So we show proper respect to the intellects of those we are criticizing

Question 25

Explain the switch case and bridge case variations of the trolley problem. Now suppose that someone thinks it is permissible to sacrifice 1 life to save 5 lives in both of these cases. Broadly speaking, what moral theory captures this judgment? Is that the correct way to evaluate the trolley problem cases? Why or why not?

Answer 25

So, the first trolley problem asked the question —- whether or not I should pull the lever to save 5 people tied to a train track with the consequence that the single person on the other track would die or if I should just not touch the lever and let the 5 people die while the single individual lives. Most people would choose to pull the lever to save the many which are the 5 people and in doing so kill one. Though, the second problem has different results. In the second problem, there is a bypass above the train track and there are 5 people tied to the train track and the train is coming. Though, there is a very overweight man in front of me. The question is do I push him to stop the train demo killing the 5 or do I let the train hit the 5 people. Many people said they would just let it be and they wouldn’t push the man to save the many. Though a consequentialist would say that end justifies the means and would take action in both of the situations. I believe that it is not the correct way to evaluate the trolley problem cases because there are so many factors that have yet to be considered. The one person that is killed to save the other 5 may be a scientist that is close to discovering the cure to cancer which could lead to the saving of thousands of lives. The 5 people could potentially be terminally sick and have only 2 days left to live. I believe that in the case that there is no background knowledge, consequentialism would be a great moral theory to use in making the decision. Though, I don’t believe that there is any 100% correct way to evaluate the cases, it is just solely based on an individual's morals and values.

Question 26

Explain the bridge case and switch case variations of the trolley problem. How does Andrew Chapman think that Kantian ethics would assess what the right thing to do is in these cases? Do you agree with this judgment about what to do in these trolley problem scenarios? Why or why not?

Answer 26

Kant states, “persons are, essentially, rational creatures who are deserving of respect.[5] This rationality grounds what Kant calls The Categorical Imperative, the fundamental ethical rule from which all particular ethical rules derive. This imperative is categorical in that we must follow it, even if we don’t want to” ^first and second formulation I agree that Kantian ethics really does help assess what the right thing is to do in the trolley problem scenarios. I say this because it serves as kind of like a multiple-choice instruction menu on how to make the “morally correct” choice.

Question 27

According to Shane Gronholz, what is the main problem with Rule Consequentialism?

Answer 27

“If what you care about are indeed the consequences, and you realize you could bring about better consequences by breaking the rule, why would you continue to abide by the rule? This view seems to undercut its very motivation.”

Question 28

Rule Consequentialism

Answer 28

we should not simply perform the individual action that will produce good consequences. Instead, we should follow rules that, when followed, lead to good consequences.

Question 29

In “When to Break a Rule,” Steven Nadler recalls an instance in which a 16-year-old Muslim cross-country runner in Ohio was disqualified for wearing a hijab during her race because her coach failed to file a religious waiver. How does Nadler evaluate the enforcement of the rule in this case? In your view, should the rules have been enforced in this situation? Why or why not?

Answer 29

A person with good judgment recognises what is both typical and distinctive about the particular case at hand, and notes whether what is distinctive is relevant” “The teenage runner was indeed wearing a hijab for which her coach had not sought a waiver; what mattered was not the headscarf’s brand or colour, but whether the hijab gave her a competitive advantage (as well as whether the coach’s failure was an honest mistake or ill-intentioned). Circumstances are everything.” I believe that the rules should have not been enforced in this situation because the teenage runner was unaware that her coach did not file a waiver. It was an unfair situation. The coach did not suffer for that choice in which he made but instead the teenage runner did. She had more to lose. Also, saying that a hijab would make her run faster is like saying that a hair net or tied scarf would make her run faster.

Question 30

Consider the claim that moral principles are relative to cultural norms. Explain two objections that could be raised to this claim.

Answer 30

We would not be allowed to condemn other societies merely because they are "different." -We would determine whether an action is right or wrong solely by looking at what is seen as right or wrong within our society

Question 31

In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” how did Martin Luther King Jr. justify his behavior of defending some laws while disobeying others?

Answer 31

Because one has a moral (as well as legal) responsibility to obey just laws, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, for an unjust law is no law at all.

Question 32

List five of Russ Shafer-Landau’s “Ethical Starting Points.”

Answer 32

• Friendship is valuable. • Children bear less moral responsibility than adults. • Justice is a very important moral good. • Deliberately hurting other people requires justification • Agony is bad.

Question 33

-Value theory:

Answer 33

What is a good life? What is worth pursuing for its own sake? How do we improve our lot in life?

Question 34

Normative ethics:

Answer 34

What are our fundamental moral duties? Which character traits count as virtues, which as vices, and why? Who should our role models be? Do the ends always justify the means, or are there certain types of action that should never be done under any circumstances? ex: the golden rule

Question 35

Metaethics

Answer 35

What is the status of moral claims and advice? Can ethical theories, moral principles, or specific moral verdicts be true? If so, what makes them true? Can we gain moral wisdom? If so, how? Do we always have good reason to do our moral duty?