RS Philosophy And Ethics Planned Exam Questions Flashcards
(23 cards)
Examine Anselm’s ontological argument of the existence of God
P1- define argument- no other being greater than God can be conceived- it is better for something to exist in reality and the mind than just the mind alone- if God only existed int he mind it would be possible to conceive of something greater, therefore God must exist in reality
P2- Gaunilo’s critique- perfect island- followed Anselm’s structure, substituting a lost island for God- no greater than the lost isla be conceived, it s greater to exist in reality than only in the mind, then a greater being can be conceived, so the lost island exists in the mind and reality- just cause one can conceive of the greatest island doesn’t mean it exists- flaw in reasoning
P3- kant’s critique- existence is not a predicate- they cannot be defined into existence, doesn’t mean he exists— fact that something could exist ❌🟰 he does , e.g no difference between 100 thalors a concept of it and 100 Thales that exists
Examine Aquina’s cosmological argument for the existence of God
P1- define argument- everything in the universe is contingent, everything that has ever existed cannot be contingent - infinite regression is absurd, must be a necessary being who started this chain of contingency, necessary being is God, therefore God exists
P2- Hume disagrees with concept of necessary being- cannot prove matters of observation, universe could be necessary being, why God?
- logic conforms Occam’s razor- fact most likely it requires favour assumptions, universe could be necessarily existent rather than contingent upon a necessary existent God
P3- Russell- fallacy of composition- assuming what’s true of the parts must be true of the whole- logical errors- just because each part within the universe has a cause doesn’t mean the universe itself needs one
Explain Paley’s version of the design argument
P1- define argument- objects in the world today are complex and purposeful, we can infer they have been designed, the universe exhibits complexity and purpose, the universe was designed,God designed the universe - posteriori, inductive argument
P2- Analogy of the watch- if you see how its parts parts work to get for a purpose, you’d infer a designer- applies even if you’ve never seen a watch, don’t know who made it - applies this analogy to universe- more complex - use have designer too
P3- Features of natural world- purpose of nature, human eye, suggests intentional design,not random chance, the stronger the complex of the object the stronger influence of a designer- Anthropocene principle supports
The cosmological argument does not provide a convincing argument for the existence of God. Evaluate this
P1- Summary of argument- disagrees with concept of a necessary bin- cannot prove matters facts with observation, universe could be necessary, why God? Occam’s razor
CA- supported BB theory- science agrees that universe had grinning, universe has a cause
P2- Russell- universe is a brute factor- exiswithout need of reason- no God
CA- most people seek an explanation for things + this is how science operates
P3- fallacy of composition- assumption that what is true of the parts is true as a whole- logical error, just cause each part within the universe has a cause doesnt mean the universe itself needs one
CA- based on empirical evidence- starts with real observants facts
-Examine divine command theory
P1-God is the source of morality- meta- ethical theory that suggests moral right and wrong are determined by God’s commands - deontological
Strength - Divine Command Theory is based on an object concept – an omnipotent, just God that controls everything. This means it is not subjective (up to each person), Deontological – it is clear what to do in every given situation because rules are absolute (in theory) Purpose to morality – judgement after death
CA- If the Bible has changed over the past ~2000 it cannot be the unaltered word of God – raises questions on the validity of certain commands, e.g. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians
• Applying reason/conscience – some commands are immoral or irrelevant today – e.g. ‘do not lie with a man as you would a woman’, many Christians will feel that discrimination against gay people is wrong regardless of command
• The Euthyphro Dilemma suggests that accepting Divine Command Theory leads us to two bad choices – either a command is right because it is commanded by God, or God commands something because it is right
Examine approaches of libertarianism and hard determinism to free will
P1-libertarianism- view that humans are moral free agents, choices are not random nor- pre determined- not completely free, do not suggest external factors have no impact on an individuals decisions
- choices influenced by genes, environment and society - if we accept determinism- pointless to punish
- free will can not be proven- but correlates with individual experiences that we have free choices, e.g lifelong addicts giving up addictive- genes
- free choice ‘feeling’ is subjective
P2- hard determinism- no free will- our actions and choices are determined by what came before
- we are pre determined, not free agents
- libets experiment- brain act follows dualist theory- e.g Cartesian dualism- mind and body are separate- tap finger- electrical signal in brain several hundred milliseconds before subjects reported finger to move - suggests action was not ‘free’
- behavioural determinism- our behaviour is determined by genes and environment- B.F skinner- due to this- criminals have no real choice
‘VE is not a good way of making moral decisions’ God is love
P1- role models used as an example of asking good moral decisions- key virtues- courage, justice, honesty, compassion- focus on person rather than specific actions- suggests virtuous person will make morally right decision naturally
CA- role models don’t have example to every situation, you need to make moral decisions yourself, e.g Jesus designer babies
P2- Phronesis- practical Wisdom- if you have, it will be clear how to make decisions
CA- circular reasoning- you need experience to make good decisions, in order to make good decisions, you need to have experience
P3- Eudaimonia the function of human life is to become a good person by making morally decisions- linked to hierarchy of souls- human beings are the moral animal- function argument- everything has a function, goodness consists in performing ones function well- everything has a living soul, the nature of the soul determines the function, the uniqueness of the human soul lies in its capacity for rational thought- reasoning is how humans attain goodness and that entails exercising virtue for their entire lives
CA- contradictory- if not relative in all situations, e.g can’t attain eudaimonia if hungry- can you steal?
Examine Otto’s understanding of numinous religious experiences
P1- concept of numinous- comes from God) experiences are non-rational- way of knowing that doesn’t involve reasoning, by their nature are subjective and unverifiable- central to all religious experiences
- wholly other’ - suis generis- unlike anything else, true core of religion + take precedence over teaching and holy books
P2- mysterium- the utter indescribable mystery of the experience
- tremendum- the awe and fear of being in the presence of an overwhelmingly superior being
- fascinans- despite that fear, being strangely drawn to the experience
Religious language should be viewed non- cognitively
P1- Wittgenstein language games- must be in the game for it to be meaningful- words don’t indicate object but perform function- can have meaning non- empirically, we should not ask for the meaning of a word but for the use, language games are connected to a ‘form of behaviour’- socially, speaking is an activity in which words gains their sense - language is something that is learned from others- part of learned behaviour, in which tone in which the words are uttered indicates their significance - cannot be claimed true or false
CA- isolates religion from argument- to debate,you must be in the same game otherwise you have no say, e.g atheists
P2- Tillich- non cognitive- religious language is a symbol- signs are a form of communication, a symbol contains in itself what it represents e.g American flag represents freedom despite the fact it tells you nothing about it- symbols can change their meaning and may not be meaningful for everyone
- God is the meaning behind all that exists- cannot be known personally but through symbols- God is ‘being itself’ rather than a being -concept of existence
CA- Hick- its cognitive- will be verified eschatologically after death- therefore subject to verification- parable of celestial city- CA- atheists won’t accept
P3- Hare- its non cognitive as they are non falsifiable bliks- personal view of world based on our experience- subjective - parable of the lunatic, bliks are interpretations oof the world that cannot be falsifiable
CA- most believers consider their views as cognitive - otherwise, they would be worth nothing- reduces value if non cognitive
Examine the logical problem of evil ad how it influences peoples belief in God
P1- logical problem of evil- against God’s existence based on logic: Mackies inconsistent triad
- omnipotent, omnibenevolent, evil exists at the same time?, contradiction
- if God is willing to prevent evil- impotent, if God is able but not willing to prevent evil- malevolent, If God is both able and willing to prevent evil- why is there evil
P2- Augustine- evil is absence of good- same way darkness is absence of light, Aquinas- evil was the lack in something of a good that was natural to it, used the evil of blindness to illustrate his thinking- blindness in a stone would not be an evil, as a stone isn’t meant to see, blindness in a human, however would be an evil
P3- to deny the 2 traditional beliefs about God is not acceptable to most Christian’s- denying God’s omnipotence would suggest for them a God not worthy of worship, denying God’s all loving nature would contradict the teaching of Jesus and destroy the very basis of Christian belief
Examine approach’s to moral decision making taken by NML
Must illustrate answer with reference to capital punishment
P1 - Aquinas believed all humans were by nature disposed to do good, basic guiding principle was to pursue what is good and avoid evil - built upon 5 primary precepts- live in ordered society, educate kids, reproduce, preserve life, worship God, use to make moral decisions in the Catholic Church together with secondary precepts- derived from prim precepts, e.g ‘do not murder’ stems from ‘preserve life’- deontological
P2- Aquinas regarded capital punishment as legitimate if carried out by state - it would become revenue if left to individuals to perform it - supports ‘live in ordered society’ - upholds virtue of justice- fulfils aim of retribution- pope Francis have expressed strong opinions against it and catholic teaching generally opposes it
P3- conflict between precepts- although approach is clear, ‘preserve life’ violates ‘live in an ordered society’- taking life is immoral- human life is sacred
- proportionalism- states that the moral principle arising out of NML should be firmly upheld unless there is a proportionate reason for not doing so - there are no intrinsically evil acts- 2 things must be taken into account: the intention fo the moral agent, the value of the good effect weighed against the disvalue of the bad effect
utilitarianism provides a correct meaning of right and wrong
P1- Bentham’s act utilitarianism- best action maximises overall happiness for greatest number of people, happiness is the one intrinsic good- hedonic calculus- pain can be measured- intensity, duration, certainty, proximately, people are motivated by the desire to achieve happiness
CA- naturalistic fallacy- mistake of trying to define what is ‘good’ by describing how things work naturally, Moore- just because something results in pleasure doesn’t mean that’s the way it ought to be, stealing is wrong- until the situation is taken into consideration
P2- consequentialist— takes different situations into account, based on principle of utility- right way is to seek greater happiness or pleasure for greatest number, everyone has the right to happiness
CA- pleasure and happiness is too subjective to define it- some may find pleasure in causing pain on others, not good, unclear
P3- based on mind- independent principle- truth/ rule exists whether or not any one believes- no opinion- gives factual basis- built on something observation, e.g 2+2=4
CA- people may favour kants deontological way of making moral decisions because it’s clearer to follow - deontological approach
Examine the role of conscience in making moral decisions with reference to adultery
p1- Fletcher- conscience is a verb not a noun, it’s what humans do when they are using the agapeic calculus to decide how love is most affirmed in each particular situation- situations where adultery could produce loving outcome, e.g woman asks guard to impregnate her
P3- Durkheim- conscience is sociological- refers to social conscience- values society agreed on- adultery is bad because society disapproves of it- in western society changed views on the nature of marriage have made it more socially acceptable- other societies see it as a threat to the stability of society
P3- Aquinas- conscience is God given faculty of reason- not voice of God, Adultery conflicts synderesis principle and violates primary precept ‘live in ordered society’, it is contrary to divine law’s teaching on marriage and adultery
Examine both realist and anti-realist understandings of miracles
P1- realist view- miracles understood as events or occurrences that actually happen in the world as real objective events, world is mind independent- it exists regardless of what we believe, probability of people being mistaken is higher than miracle being true, e.g Julian Koepcke- extraordinary coincidence
- miracles occur as exceptions to the natural laws of universe
- hume- empiricist- miracles is an event that violates the natural law
P2- anti-realist view- miracles are about interpretation or personal feelings- transforms people/ creates positive change, rejects concept of miracles being activity of supernatural- humanity has no knowledge of transcendent God- therefore a miracle cannot be brought about God
- Tillich- miracles as ‘sign events’ subjective experience- others may observe the same thing but not see as mistake, a symbol within religious experience points to a mystery of being that is at heart of individuals experiences, e.g R.F Holland
Falsification principle shows that religious language is meaningless
P1- FP- meaningless language must be falsifiable in principle, flew argued RL is meaningless because it can’t be proven false- if statement cannot do this, it lacks empirical evidence, thus is meaningless
-‘parable of the gardener’- each test carried out fails to give an
CA- Hare- bliks (personal belief)- cannot be proven true/false- argued religious beliefs are like bliks- shape how people understand life and make decisions. Not cognitive statements- religious language can be meaningful without empirical evidence, Hare- its non cognitive as they are non falsifiable bliks- personal view of world based on our experience- subjective - parable of the lunatic, bliks are interpretations of the world that cannot be falsifiable
P2- parable of the gardener’- each test carried out fails to give any empirical evidence of a gardener, but one of the explorers insist the is one - ‘how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from non at all?’
CA- death of 1000 qualifications- A statement is meaningful only if there is some possible evidence that could prove it false. Instead of admitting a belief might be false, they keep adding explanations that dilute the original claim.
P3- ‘God is love’ ‘God exists’ cannot be falsified
- Wittgenstein- language games- must be in game for it to be meaningful, religious language can have meaning in non- empirical game- words don’t indicate object but perform function
CA-CA- flews explanation is too rigid- not open to perspectives- not true believes allow nothing to falsify claims- e.g POE questions and causes people to lose faith
SE cannot justify the use of animals in blood sports
P1- unethical- animal suffers involves human entertainment as results of animal suffering, similar to humans- from God, we have duty to look after and take care for them
CA- comparisons to other animals- used for other purposes, e.g food and medical research,e.g ONCO mouse- if justified blood sports could be
P2- Relativsm- considers situations inividually- overall harm caused by blood sports may outweigh potential benefits- even if seen as cultural norm- suffering seen as morally unacceptable
Compatibilism solves issues of moral responsibility
P1- agree, solves debate: external and internal causation. Asses factors of universal causation and free will
CA- determinism occurs such as phineas gage- his personality as determined, he couldn’t control external or internal- doesn’t solve it
P2- agree, principle of alternate possibilities. Solves the issues of moral responsibility despite external factors (such as genetics) as make internal choices (e.g, life long addicts choosing to quit)
CA- behavioural determinism- depends on how you’re raised, reduces the amount of possibilities there are not fair to be punished for that, compatibilism doesn’t explain that - doesn’t solves it.
P3- does solve it theologically, Bible talks about predestination but also includes human free will Supports Gods nature as an omniscient being while solving problem of evil/moral responsibility as without this it is a ‘toy world’ (Swinburne)
CA- problems of predestination- if God knew Adam and Eve would sin then he could’ve prevented it- allowed evil and suffering: not an omnibenevolent God. Instead all choices must be entirely free (libertarianism)- doesn’t solve
Examine approach to moral decision making taken by situation ethics, natural moral law and virtue ethics
- must reference to issue of theft
- Fletcher would consider the teaching of the church and biblical laws on theft but would not feel bound by them, agapeic calculus would be applied to ensure justice
decisions are made situationally- actions based on agape, if stealing results in most loving outcome- it’s right- teleological
1 of the 4 presumptions- personalism- people should be at the centre of making rational choices, uses book to illustrate approach to theft, student stealing textbook to pass exam- ignores end results of love- deprives other students from using book, love is justice distributed- you cannot be just, because it deprives other students of the possibility of using the stolen book - NML- theft breaches ‘ live in an ordered society’- contrary to primary precept do not steal- reinforced in divine law, Aquinas made an exception in the case of desperate need, a starving man might steal food from someone who had plenty, in this case, primary precept ‘life’ would take priority over that relating to an ordered society
- proportionalism- would agree with Aquina’s exception, since: the intention behind t would be goood, i.e to save a life, the value of saving a life would be proportionately greater than the is value of injustice to the victim of the theft and the possible ill effects on society if others did the same thing for less urgent reasons
- VE- denounced theft as base (morally low), it’s always the action of an unjust person, can never be the ct of a virtuous person, there is no extreme of excess or deficiency- if applied to the situation of a starving child, his approach is harsh, but 2 things might be considered: his teaching addressed to his own social class, i.e o the ruling class of an adult, free males where starvation or some other urgent need would not be an issue, he might therefore have seen taking what was needed to prevent starvation of justice and not theft
Examine approach to moral decision making taken by situation ethics, natural moral law and virtue ethics
- must reference to issue of lying
- NML- breaches the primary precept to live in an ordered society- contradicts the secondary precept to to tell lies, Aquinas viewed all forms of lying as wrong, even those to save life, however, he did view ‘prudently keeping back the truth’ as morally permissible, could be termed a ‘necessary’ lie, e.g to protect someone from danger
- proportionalism would agree that lying in most cases morally wrong, but that there are exceptions, in the case of a ‘necessary’ lie, the intention would be to save life or protect from harm, the value of saving life or protecting from harm would be proportionately greater than the disvalue. Of injustice to the person being told the lie
SE- fletcher believed that lying was neither intrinsically right nor intrinsically wrong, depends on what would affirm love in each situation, if applying the agapeic calculus showed that love would be best served by withholding info, telling a ‘white’ lie would not be the lesser of 2 evils, it would be positively good
VE- would seem to contradict Aristotle’s moral virtues of truthfulness and courage, unlike the issue of theft, truthfulness does have a mean that lies at a variable point between the vices of boastfulness and putting oneself down, truthfulness relates to social interaction between one person ad another- it is about keeping promises and honest dealings, truth is more complex than merely just telling the truth/lie- combines a range of virtues, in some circumstances, friendship and loyalty might require a lie to be told- phronesis enables a virtuous person to know which virtue takes priority in difficult situations
Examine approach to moral decision making taken by situation ethics, natural moral law and virtue ethics
- must reference to issue embryo research, cloning, and designer babies
NML- rejects, creation of embryo through IVF breaches 3 primary precepts: worship God- those responsible for the IVF process are ‘playing God’, God alone is the creator of life, which is essentially his gift
Reproduction: NML states that it is wrong to separate the sexual act from the procreative act, the procreative purpose is fulfilled without the unitive (couple has achieved reproduction but without genuine emotional union)
Living in an ordered society: separating the unitive from the procreative may pose a threat to marriage and family harmony, which together form the basis of a harmonious society
Designer babies- breaches ‘worship God’- God is taken out of the equation, it breaches living in an ordered society- may lead to race of super humans, discrimination based on wealth
SE- for fletcher- personhood was what conferred rights, the embryo is only a potential person since it does not possess those characteristics, therefore they do not pose oral concern
-supported all techniques providing proper controls in place, viewed humans as in control of their own reproduction, rejected traditional belief that humanity is created imago dei- agapeic calculus showed too be most loving action in any situation was the right thing to do
VE- impossible to know what Aristotle would have thought, key virtue to be considered- compassion, would seem likely that a compassionate person would focus on those whose lives are being ruined by infertility by illnesses, might seem callous not to use PGD to prevent a brith of a child with a painful/ life threatening genetic order, an important virtue is justice- and the skill of practical wisdom would be needed to enable individuals to know when the babies for non mendical reasons would demonstrate that virtue and when it would not
Examine approach to moral decision making taken by situation ethics, natural moral law and virtue ethics
- must reference to issue of abortion
NML- breaches ‘worship God’- he alone is the creator of of life, ‘preserve life’, ‘live in an ordered society’- threatens stability of a stable society, Uk law permits abortion if the mother life is in danger- Catholic Church permits it only if the 4 criteria of the principle of double effect are fulfilled, e.g removal of a pregnant woman’s cancerous uterus in order to save her life- action must be morally neutral (not good/bad), must be proportionality between the good/bad effects- indirect abortion
SE- the interests of an actual person should always take priority over those of a potential person, agape is the sole intrinsic good and only binding law- sixth working principle- loves decisions are made according to the situation and not according to the rules, agapeic calculus entails considering the desired outcome, the means of achieving that, motive for desiring the outcome, consequences of an action
VE- no clear answer- Aristotle, abortion ‘before sense and life have begun’ should take place if there were too many children- referred to early pregnancy, social rathe than moral judgement, showing concern for both society and the family- hurthouse- it is never a trivial action (unimportant), its rightness/ wrongness is unrelated to the status of the embryo/ law, it is about whether a person is acting virtuously or not - negative traits of self-centerdness/ irresponsibility should be avoided
What does VE say about euthanasia, capital punishment, animal issues
Euthanasia- murder is always wrong - opposed suicide, based on a cowardly act going against virtue of courage/ justice, since it deprived society of a useful citizen - some people would place compassion/ charity above justice, since it deprived society of a useful citizen, at level of gov, there could be competing virtues seen in the politicians responsible for deciding on whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalised
Capitalism punishment- viewed the death penalty as the most appropriate way of resorting the balance required by justice- might have taken into account the motivation behind particular acts of murder- might have seen those committed callously and motivated by greed and restoration through ultimate punishment
Animals- hierarchy of souls, their final end was to serve human needs,did not view animals as having rights- using modern practices of intensive farming might seem incompatible with being a virtuous person- ethos of making large profits is the easiest way to encourage the vice of greed- conditions animals are kept in are not compassionate , focus on meat production for meat eaters of the west intensifies the problem of globs hunger- clearly unjust
- would have seen an animal cloning/testing as compatible with being virtuous- directed animals in his won research, viewed using intelligence to discover more about the nature of the world as the highest use of reason , using them for treating human disease could improve health could be Justified as reflecting compassion
What Moores intuitionsim?
Non naturalism- cognitive- cannot be observed, not natural feature of the world
- good is an irrecuducible term- it is a quality that cannot be broken down/analsysed- can be recognised and understood
- compared to colour yellow- we cannot break it down to explain it further, yet once yellow objects have been pointed out to us , we understand what it is and can immediately recognise yellowness in other objects - human knowledge of right and wrong comes not through logical deductions from the world around us and human experiences- our moral sense tells us that something is right/wrong
CA- people cannot agree what is right/wrong - Ross- 6 prima face duties, e.g not injuring others, keeping promises- in some situations there might be conflicting duties- not obvious which should take priority, intuitionism is how they chose
- culturally relative- disagreement
