Ethics Exam 1 Study Guide

What kinds of premises must a moral argument have?

A moral argument must have a combination of moral and immoral premises. One premise must be a moral statement affirming a moral principle and one premise must be a nonmoral statement about a specific action.

Can a valid deductive argument ever have false premises? Why or why not?

A valid deductive argument can have false premises if the conclusion of the argument is also false and could also have a false premise and a true conclusion. This is because validity is about form and not content Are the premises of a cogent argument always true? Explain.

According to emotivism, how do reasons function in moral discourse?

According to emotivism, reasons function in moral disclosure by not intending to support statements but instead influence the attitudes of others.

According to moral subjectivism, are moral disagreements possible? Why or why not?

According to moral subjectivism, moral disagreements are not possible because attitudes on moral topics differ from person to person.

What does cultural relativism imply about the moral status of social reformers?

Cultural relativism implies that the moral status of social reformers will always be wrong. Their culture is the ultimate authority on moral matters so if social reformers disagreed then they had to be in the wrong.

What is emotivism? How does emotivism differ from objectivism?

Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are an expression of emotions and attitudes and they aren't true or false. Objectivism is the theory that moral truths exist independently from what people or societies think of them.

Know Jean Bethke Elshtain's point, and how she argues for it, in the box "Judge Not?"

Her point is that we can not avoid judging, we can judge fairly which is what we expect others to do.

What is the difference between normative ethics and metaethics

In normative, we ASSUME certain things about moral terms and logical relations. In metaethics, we QUESTION those assumptions to see if they make sense.

What is the unfortunate result of accepting moral beliefs without questioning them?

It undermines your personal freedom, responses to moral dilemmas will be incomplete, confused, or mistaken, and no it will affect your intellectual moral growth.

What is the main point of Mary Midgley's article (the handout Trying Out One's New Sword) and how does she argue for it?

Midgley argues that not only is moral isolationism - the view that one ought to respect other cultures but not judge them - incorrect, it is logically incoherent.

Can our feelings be our sole guide to morality? Why or why not?

No, because you have to critically examine your feelings to see if there are good reasonings for choosing it.

. Are all persuasive arguments valid? Recount a situation in which you tried to persuade someone of a view by using an argument.

Not all persuasive arguments are valid because not all persuasive arguments use reason or true premises.

Does objectivism entail intolerance? Why or why not.

Objectivism does entail intolerance because objective principles are set rules with no exceptions and must be applied to every situation and culture in the exact same way.

Does objectivism requires absolutism? Why or why not?

Objectivism does require absolution because there are no exceptions to them.

What is the main point of Ruth Benedict's article (p.33), and how does she argue for it?

She believes in cultural relativism.

What are some questions asked in normative ethics.

Should the rightness of actions be judged on their consequences? Is happiness the greatest good in life? Is utilitarianism a good moral theory?

How does subjective relativism differ from cultural relativism?

Subjective realism is a view that an action is morally right to one person specifically whereas cultural relativism is a view that an action is morally right because that specific culture thinks it is.

How does subjective relativism imply moral infallibility?

Subjective relativism implies moral infallibility because each person is incapable of being wrong. If someone approves of an action and are serious and sincere in that approval, then that action is morally right to them.

What is the argument for cultural relativism? Is the argument sound? Why or why not?

The argument for cultural relativism is inferences of differences in moral beliefs of cultures and that cultures make morality. This argument is sound because the logic is solid, the argument is valid, and the conclusion follows the premises.

Is the following argument form valid or invalid? Why or why not? "If p, then q. p. Therefore, q"

The argument form is valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true and will be valid regardless of the content.

Is the following argument form valid or invalid? Why or why not? If p, then q. If q, then r. Therefore, if p, then r.

The argument form is valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true regardless of the content.

What is the best method for evaluating moral premises?

The best method for evaluating moral premises is to use counterexamples. Counterexamples are instances that prove the generalization to be false.

What is the counterexample method?

The counterexample method states that it is impossible for a valid argument to have true premises and a false conclusion.

According to the text, how is it possible for people in different cultures to disagree about moral judgments and still embrace the same fundamental moral principles?

The diversity of moral outlooks in cultures does not show that right and wrong are determined by culture because since there is clearly disagreements among cultures of what is right and wrong. So, right and wrong are not determined by culture because moral outlooks are not universal.

Does the diversity of moral outlooks in cultures show that right and wrong are determined by culture? Why or why not?

The diversity of moral outlooks in cultures does not show that right and wrong are determined by culture because since there is clearly disagreements among cultures of what is right and wrong. So, right and wrong are not determined by culture because moral outlooks are not universal.

What is the emotivist view of moral disagreements?

The emotivist view of moral disagreement is that they are not conflicts of belief but actually disagreements in attitudes

What is the term designating a valid argument with true premises? a strong argument with true premises?

The term designating a valid argument with true premises is sound. And the term designating a strong argument with true premises is cogent.

Is there a necessary connection between cultural relativism and tolerance? Why or why not?

There is no connection between cultural relativism and tolerance because cultural relativism cannot consistently advocate tolerance and intolerance could be just as easily justified.

In what way are we forced to do ethics? What is at stake in these deliberations?

We are forced to do ethics when we deal with the world Everything we hold dear is at stake (ex: moral values)

When can it be said that your moral beliefs are not really yours?

When you refuse to "do ethics" by using ethics passed down from your culture, family, etc. You are not thinking about your own moral beliefs, you are just using ones given to you

Are the premises of a cogent argument always true? Is the conclusion always true? Explain.

Yes, the premises of a cogent argument are always true because, by definition, a cogent argument is a strong argument. Strong arguments have probable support to their conclusion. So, for a cogent argument, they will always have true premises that gives probable reason to accept the conclusion they are supporting, but the conclusion does not always have to be true.