PHIL 1020 - Midterm Study Guide
According to King, what is the difference between just and unjust laws? What is one's moral responsibility when it comes to obeying the law?
"A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God", "Any law that uplifts human personality", "A code that a majority comes a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself" "An unjust law is a human law hat is not rooted in eternal law and natural law", "Any law that degrades human personality", "A code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself" One's moral responsibility when it comes to obeying the law is that "one has a legal and moral responsibility to obey just laws, and a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
Shafer-Landau discusses three ways that morality is often assumed to depend upon religion. What are these?
1. Religious belief is needed to get us to do our duty. 2. Morality must be created by someone, and God is by far the best candidate for the job. 3. Religious wisdom is the key to providing us with moral guidance.
What does it mean to say that a deductive argument is sound?
It is a valid argument whose premises are true
Can a premise be valid or sound?
No
Why are moral nihilism and ethical relativism two forms of moral skepticism?
They both deny that there are objective moral standards; They both believe that morality is wholly a human creation, with nihilism saying that there are no moral truths at all and relativism saying that there are moral truths but that they're not objective
How are ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism alike?
They both regard people as the authors of morality; They are both ways of denying objective moral standards
What is the Divine Perfection Argument against Divine Command Theory?
This argument says that: 1. If the Divine Command Theory is true, then a morally perfect God could have created a flawless morality that requires us to rape, steal, and kill, and forbade us from any acts of kindness and generosity. 2. A morally perfect God could not have issued such commands - anyone who did so would be morally imperfect. 3. Therefore, the Divine Command Theory is false.
According to King, what are the facts that demonstrate that there is injustice in Birmingham?
"Birmingham's ugly record of brutality is widely known; Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts; There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation"
What is cultural relativism?
A claim that the correct moral standards are relative to cultures or societies; An act is morally acceptable just because it's allowed by the guiding ideals of the society in which it is performed
Broadly speaking, what are the two main types of justifications for punishment?
Forward Looking & Backward Looking
What two examples does Hinman provide of creative programs aided at deterrence?
H.O.P.E. Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement, being swift and certain was the base of this program; Also, an operation in High Point North Carolina
Who was Adolf Eichmann?
He was tasked with facilitating and managing the logistics of mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps in German-occupied Eastern Europe during World War 2
King claims that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". What does this mean? Is this compatible with cultural relativism?
I think this means that if injustice is acceptable/allowed in one place, then it becomes a threat to justice everywhere because people may start to think that injustice is okay and may start to partake in that injustice, as King states, "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly".; This is not compatible with cultural relativism because King is saying that there can be something, injustice in this case, that is not/should not be acceptable in any culture or society
What can you say about the soundness and validity of a deductive argument if you know that all of the premises are true?
If the premises were true then we would need to know if the truth of the premises guaranteed the truth of the conclusion, and if it did then it would be valid and sound, but if not then it would be not valid and not sound
How can you check for an argument's validity?
Imagine that both the premises were true and if they were then the conclusion must be true or else the argument is not valid; Come up with a counterexample
Can an argument be true or false?
No
What does it mean to say that a deductive argument is valid?
The premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion
What are three issues that arise in sentencing juvenile offenders?
1. Responsibility and Moral and Cognitive Development: there is increasing evidence from a variety of sources that cognitive and emotion and moral development are still not complete in the tent years, so to what extent does this raise questions about how strictly we want to hold adolescents accountable for their behavior? 2. Hope and the Possibility of Change: the younger a person is the greater the possibility of positive change, it may be difficult to turn around someone who has been living a life of crime for one or two decades, but far less so with someone who is young and a first-time offender 3. Youth and the Cost of Not Changing: if a 17 year old is sentenced to life in prison we can look forward as taxpayers to supporting that person for 50 or more years, sheer economics should caution us against the strict punishment of juveniles
What are the 3 versions of the position against the death penalty motivated by a concern for the sanctity of life?
1. The strong version, such as we find among Quakers and Buddhists, maintains an absolute prohibition on the taking of any human life, if is thus opposed to the death penalty because it involves intentionally killing a human being just as it would be opposed to war and even killing in self-defense 2. The moderate version, which we find in many religious traditions, is opposed to any taking of innocent human life, this version would also be opposed to practices such as active euthanasia and may be opposed to the death penalty insofar as its administration inevitably involves inadvertently executing innocent people occasionally 3. The weak version, maintains that any practice involving the intentional killing of other human beings must have an extremely strong justification, some who support this position would argue that there simply is not a sufficient justification for the death penalty rather than life in prison
What is ethical subjectivism?
A claim that the correct moral standards are those endorsed by each individual; An act is morally acceptable just because (a) I approve of it or (B) my commitments allow it
Why does it seem like ethical subjectivism leads to contradiction?
A contradiction occurs when a statement is said to be both true and false; This is exactly what ethical subjectivism is because subjectivists say that both people are true/right, one person says smoking weed is wrong and one person says smoking weed is not wrong so the subjectivist says they are both right, but this can't be true because smoking weed can't be both right and wrong, thats a contradiction
Consider the following question: "Does God command us to do actions because they are morally right, or are actions morally right because God commands them?" How will the Divine Command Theorist answer this question?
A divine command theorist would say that actions are morally right because God commands them
What is an objective moral standard?
A moral standard that applies to everyone, even if people don't believe that they do, even if people are indifferent to them, and even if obeying them fails to satisfy anyone's desires
What might a cultural relativist say about Eichmann?
A relativist would probably say that Eichmann was acting morally because he was going along with orders and what society/culture said was morally right, even though he thought that what he was doing and everything that was going on was immoral
Consider the question: Is it morally permissible to make an example of someone by punishing the person more severely than he or she deserves, if in doing so we could increase the general deterrent effect of the punishment? How would someone who see the justification of punishment as a matter of retribution and someone who sees the justification of punishment as a matter of deterrence differ on their answers to this question?
A retributivist would say that no it would not be good to do this because they believe people should be equally and proportionately to their offense, and if we do follow this question then it would mean that there are others who are not getting as bad of a punishment as they deserve; Those principally concerned with deterrence would say that it would be good to do this because they are for punishing a person in a way that maximized the deterrent effect of the punishment and they always exhibit a greater flexibility in their response
What is an argument?
A series of statements, one of which is singles out as the conclusion, the remaining statement are called the premises, the premises are supposed to provide reasons that speak in favor of adopting or believing the conclusion
How would someone who sees punishment solely as a matter of retribution differ in his or her thinking about the program implemented in North Carolina from someone who sees punishment primarily as a matter of deterrence? How are these differences in opinion linked to their differing views of punishment?
A strict retributivist would want to see all the offenders punished equally and proportionately to the offense, irrespective of the costs incurred to the government and indirectly to the taxpayers; Those principally concerned with deterrence will exhibit a much greater flexibility in their response, always looking for the response that maximizes the deterrent effect of the punishment
What might an ethical subjectivist say about Eichmann?
A subjectivist would probably say that Eichmann was acting immoral because he was going against his own personal moral beliefs, even though/because he was following orders
What is Divine Command Theory?
An act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it.
What is a counterexample? What is the point of a counterexample? How can it be used to criticize and argument?
An argument with (a) exactly the same form which (b) true premises and (c) a false conclusion; It shows that an argument form does not work as intended; It can be used to show that the argument does not make sense/add up because even though the premises are true it doesn't make the conclusion true/the conclusion is not true
What would an ethical subjectivist say about the early Christians on this point? A cultural relativist?
An ethical subjectivist would say that the early Christians were acting morally right because they were going along with what they believed and following the ideas/standards of their own personal beliefs, even though they were going against the beliefs/standards/laws of their culture/society; A cultural relativist would say that the early Christians were acting immoral because they were going against the guiding ideals of the society/culture in which they lived
How does an argument differ from an explanation?
An explanation contains statements/facts that are already agreed upon; "I was not in class because my car ran out of gas on the way to school": It is already agreed upon by the teacher and student that "I was not in class" "My car ran out of gas on the way to school" doesn't give a reason to believe why you weren't in class because teacher already knows, you're just trying to give reason as to why you weren't there
Why does Eichmann think that Becher is corrupt?
Because he didn't take his job seriously and was just always looking for a way to make a lot of money
How could a person consistently reject divine command theory and believe that "An act is morally required if God commands it and is immoral if God forbids it"?
Because it can be seen that the reasons, and not God's commands, are what makes actions right or wrong; Lets say that God forbid us from torturing others, and that he had very good reasons for doing so which were that torture is extremely painful, humiliating, and an attack on a defenseless person, assuming there are the relevant reasons, then these reasons, and not God's say-so, are what makes torture immoral
Why do some argue that long-term solitary confinement is torture?
Because we are by nature social animals and the long-term deprivation of human contact is devastating, it leaves creatures unable to relate to others, constantly angry and hallucinating, vacillating between periods of stupor and both of hyperactive aggression, it is said that solitary confinement loses its effectiveness when it lasts more than 10 days and after that the punishment does more harm than good
How is retribution somewhat like revenge? What are three ways that some claim that retribution is different from revenge?
Both are forms of punishment or to basically get back at the person who did wrong; 1. Revenge is typically carried out by families, whereas Retribution is (a) carried out by the state, and is (b) done in everyone's name 2. Revenge is inextricably personal, whereas Retribution is impersonal, there are procedural guarantees in Retribution that are not present in Revenge: the accused party is first accused, then there is a trial to determine guilt, then if guilty a sentence is carried out in the name of the state 3. Revenge typically results in a back-and-forth escalation, a feud that steadily escalates over time and eventually its original cause is lost in the mists of memory, whereas Retribution seeks a balancing of the scales in which the offender ultimately admits the wrongness of his acts and sees the punishment as fitting, in other words the offender comes to realize that he deserves to be punished but this rarely happens in revenge
Know about a counterexample; know how to figure out which argument (a, b, c, or d) would be a counterexample to a given argument
Counterexample must be: exactly the same form, true premises, and a false conclusion
Is cultural relativism compatible with the idea that there are certain universal human rights that should never be violated?
Cultural relativism is not compatible with this idea since relativists believe that the correct moral standards are those endorsed by each society
How does cultural relativism differ from the view that different societies have different views about morality?
Cultural relativism is saying that a moral standard is correct, or not correct, if it is allowed, or not allowed, by the ideals of the society/culture in which it is performed; NOT different cultures have different moral views
What is deterrence? What's the difference between general and specific deterrence?
Deterrence: a way to keep someone from doing something; General Deterrence: preventing other people in in society from committing the same crime or similar crime as someone else did; Specific Deterrence: preventing the criminal from committing that crime again in the future, stop them from doing wrong again
I Bryan Stevenson's TED talk, he suggests another question that we should be asking ourselves in addition to the question, "Do people deserve to die for the crimes they've committed?" What is this other question, and what answer does he suggest for us Americans?
Do we deserve to kill?
On pg. 147, Arndt explains "When Himmler's order to stop the evacuation of Hungarian Jews arrived in Budapest, Eichmann threatened...'to seek a new decision from the Führer'". Arendt claims that this doesn't prove his fanaticism, his "boundless hatred of Jews" (pg. 146) but has another explanation. What is her alternative explanation?
Eichmann had great confidence and this confidence was ascribed to his great need for authority; Eichmann had mistaken humanity for softness; It was Eichmann's conscience that prompted him to adopt his uncompromising attitude during the last year of the war, as it had prompted him to move in the opposite direction for a short time three years before
Why might open-mindedness be more compatible with moral objectivism than with ethical subjectivism?
Ethical objectivism is not committed to saying that moral wisdom is easy to get but it actually makes wisdom harder to come by than its competitors do (like ethical subjectivism) because ethical objectivism denies that individuals or societies get to have the final word about what is right and wrong, and so objectivism does not license dogmatism
How does ethical subjectivism differ from the claim that each person has her own ethical views?
Ethical subjectivism is claiming that there is no superior moral code, each person's moral standards are equally correct, and that they agree that the person they are disagreeing with is correct, everyone's moral views/beliefs are right; NOT saying that each person has her own ethical/moral views
Is ethical subjectivism compatible with the idea that there are certain universal human rights that should never be violated?
Ethical subjectivism is not compatible with this idea since subjectivists believe that everyone's basic moral views are just as plausible as everyone else's, and that the correct moral standards are those endorsed by each individual
What is a general principle of proportionality and how does it differ from the principle of equivalent proportionality? What are some problem cases even for a general principle of proportionality?
General Principle of Proportionality: the worst crimes deserve the worst punishments; This differs from the Principle of Equivalent Proportionality in that the perpetrator does not receive punishment that is the same thing that they did to someone, but they receive a punishment that is proportional to the crime that they committed; Some problem cases for this though are that some crimes are so terrible that it is difficult to imagine what would be proportional, some crimes far exceed anything that can be imposed on the perpetrators, like if an individual who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks had survived we would have to kill and torture that individual many times over, and probably in the process kill his family members as well so that he would experience a bit of he pain of loss that survivors of the 9/11 attacks feel everyday, but this would be cruel and unusual and shouldn't be done
What were the sins that Eichmann confessed to his superiors? How did his viewing them as sins and confessing them prove that he "had always acted against 'his inclinations', whether they were sentimental or inspired by interest, that he had always done his 'duty'"? What did he see as his duty?
He had helped a half-Jewish cousin and a Jewish couple in Vienna; He saw his duty as obeying orders and the law
What is Reiman's objection to the death penalty?
He says that there are certainly criminals whose crimes deserve the death penalty as a matter of justice and in fact they may even deserve worse, however torturing them or even painlessly killing criminals diminishes us; He says that we ought to move the line over so that the death penalty falls on the side of unacceptable cruel punishments even if they are deserved
How is Gelernter's argument for the death penalty motivated by a concern for the sanctity of life?
If we take human life really seriously, then we will simply not permit the presence of murderers in our midst, capital punishment is the only way to rid ourselves of them with certitude so capital punishment is justified in this perspective in terms of the value of human life; He advocates a position roughly along these lines, although does not depend on any explicit religious foundation for valuing human life; He was a target of the Unabomber and lost an eye, use of one hand, and suffered much other damage; This he says should not be tolerated in a civilized society and the death penalty is the expression of our affirmation of the value of human life
Why do ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism make moral progress impossible? Why is this a problem?
Individuals and societies can make moral progress when our actions become morally better than they used to be; But progress in turn of our moral beliefs occurs when more of them are true and our most fundamental beliefs change for the better; The problem for relativism and subjectivism is that it can't make sense of the most basic kind of moral progress; If a person's or a society's deepest beliefs are true by definition, then they cannot change for the better, they can change but no such change would mark a moral improvement; To measure moral progress, you need the ultimate moral rule standard; Ex: If a society gradually eases out of its deeply sexist attitudes, that cannot be moral progress but only a change to a different moral code. And if relativism is correct, different moral codes are not better or worse than one another, they are morally equivalent
Share-Landau writes that, "God is perfectly wise, perfectly moral, and perfect in His love for us. Being infinitely wise, He knows all that is good and evil . Being morally perfect, He flawlessly measures up to the highest moral ideals. Caring for His human creatures, He passes along some of that wisdom to us, to better guide our lives...God bases His commands on the best possible reasons". (Shafer-Landau, 68) What does this mean, and does it speak for or against Divine Command Theory?
It speaks against Divine Command Theory because it is saying that if we abandon the Divine Command Theory then it preserves God's perfection and allows us to say all these things (that are in the quote) about God
What does King say he would do if he had lived in Hitler's Germany or a Communist country? What might an ethical subjectivist say about these claims? What about a cultural relativist?
It was illegal to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany, but King says he would have aided and comforted his Jewish brothers if he had lived in Germany at the time; In a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, King says he would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws; An ethical subjectivist may say that it would be morally right for King to do those things if he lived in those places at that time because they believe that the correct moral standards are those endorsed by each individual, and that is what he would be doing, he would be following the moral standards that he believes are correct; A cultural relativist may say that it would be morally wrong for King to do those things if he lived in those places at that time because they believe that the correct moral standards are those relative to cultures or societies and an act is morally acceptable just because it's allowed by the guiding ideals of the society in which it is performed, and King would be going against the beliefs/standards of the society so therefore he would be acting immoral in a cultural relativist's eyes
What point does King make about prophets in the eighth century B.C. and the Apostle Paul? Is this point compatible with cultural relativism?
King says that he is acting in the same way that the prophets in the eighth century B.C. and the Apostle Paul did; The prophets in the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns; The Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world; King, like them, says he is compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond his own home town, like Paul, he must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid; This point is not compatible with cultural relativism because in all 3 situations the main person/people (the prophets, Paul, and King) are taking a stand for what is wrong in society and for what they believe in/what they believe should be changed, they are saying that what the society/culture they live in is wrong and has the wrong moral standards which goes against cultural relativism because relativism says that an act is morally acceptable just because it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the society in which it is performed
How does cultural relativism entail that societies are morally infallible? Why is this a problem?
Morally infallible means incapable of error; Cultural relativists make societies morally infallible with regard to their foundational principles; This is a problem because the ultimate moral principles can be based on prejudice, ignorance, superficial thinking, or brainwashing, and still be correct
How does ethical subjectivism entail that individuals are morally infallible? Why is this a problem?
Morally infallible means incapable of error; Ethical subjectivists make each person's basic commitments morally infallible, subjectivism does allow that people can make moral mistakes, but only if they fail to realize what follows from their own commitments, and when it comes to the basic commitments themselves, subjectivism denies that these can ever be false or immoral; This is a problem because the ultimate moral principles can be based on prejudice, ignorance, superficial thinking, or brainwashing, and still be correct
How did the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa attempt to find a middle ground between backward-looking and forward-looking concerns with punishment?
Nelson Mandela se the tone of forgiveness and reconciliation for all of South Africa by inviting his jailer to his inauguration and making him a distinguished guest of honor; This commission: Allowed victims and the families of victims to come forward and testify about their experiences and thereby honor the memories of those who had been killed or tortured, Perpetrators could come forward, confess their offenses, and receive amnesty for their offenses
Does cultural relativism provide support for the idea that everyone ought to be tolerant?
No because being tolerant means you accept that other people have different views and beliefs, but you don't have to accept as true what other people say to be tolerant, if you do accept as true what the other person says then you can't exercise tolerance, it is just agreement; And cultural relativism is saying that it is true that what people are doing is morally right or wrong as long it is going along with the beliefs/views of the society in which it is performed
Does ethical subjectivism provide support for the idea that everyone ought to be tolerant?
No because being tolerant means you accept that other people have different views and beliefs, but you don't have to accept as true what other people say to be tolerant, if you do accept as true what the other person says then you can't exercise tolerance, it is just agreement; And ethical subjectivism is saying that what other people think is morally right or wrong is true, that everybody is right
What are two other forward-looking justifications for punishment besides deterrence?
Rehabilitation and Reconciliation & Healing
What are some problem cases for implementing the Principle of Equivalent Proportionality?
Sometimes you can't do the thing back to the perpetrator, like credit card fraud, there are many offenses for which there is no obvious one-to-one correlation between offense and punishment; Some equivalent retribution would be cruel and unusual
How are ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism different?
The difference between these two views is whether each person, or each society, gets to have the final say in ethics
According to King, what did the early Christians do with respect to gladiatorial contests and infanticide? How does that relate to his claims about segregation?
The early Christians brought an end to infanticide and gladiatorial contests; King says that during this time the church was very powerful, the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worth to suffer for what they believed, the church was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society, whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators", but the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven" called o obey God rather than man, they were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated"; This related to his claims about segregation because he states that things are different now, that so often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound, it is an archdefender of the status quo, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent (and often even vocal) sanction of things as they are and is far from being disturbed by the presence of the church; So, King is saying that in order to stop segregation, like the early Christians stopped infanticide and gladiatorial contests, then the church needs to turn to the ways, and recapture the sacrificial spirit, of the early church; If the church does not do this, then it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century
What is lex talionis? What two questions does it answer and how does it answer them?
The law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"; 2 Questions lex talionis answers: 1. Why do we punish? 2. How much do we punish? It answers the 1st question with the Principle of Retribution: we punish in order to pay back the offender for the harm he or she caused; It answers the 2nd question with the Principle of Equivalent Proportionality: the severity of the punishment ought to be equivalent to the severity of the crime
According to Rawls, what are the burdens of reason? What do these explain?
The sources, or causes, of disagreement between reasonable persons; They explain 4 general facts of political sociology and human psychology, but especially the 2 facts that a diversity of comprehensive doctrines is a permanent feature of a society with free institutions, and that this diversity can be overcome only by the oppressive use of state power
What is moral skepticism?
The view that ethical objectivism is false, and thus that there are no objective moral rules, no objective moral truths, and no objective moral standards
What is ethical relativism?
The view that there are ethical truths, but they're not objective; These standards are correct only relative to cultures or relative to individuals
What is moral nihilism?
The view that there are no moral truths at all; Statements are disguised ways of venting feelings so they are neither true nor false, there's no claim
What is ethical objectivism?
The view that there is at least one objective moral standard; Some moral claims are objectively true
What is the Euthyphro Argument against Divine Command Theory?
This argument says that: 1. Either God has reasons that support His commands, or God lacks reasons for His commands. 2. If God lacks reasons for His commands, then God's commands are arbitrary - and that renders God imperfect, undermining His moral authority. 3. If God has reasons that support His commands, then these reasons, rather than the divine commands, are what make action right or wrong - thereby refuting the Divine Command Theory. 4. Therefore, either God is imperfect, or the Divine Command Theory is false. 5. God is not imperfect. 6. Therefore, the Divine Command Theory is false.
What is the Argument for God's Creation of Morality?
This argument says that: 1. Every law requires a lawmaker. 2. Therefore, the moral law requires a lawmaker. 3. Humans cannot be the author of the moral law (since we are imperfect in so many ways). 4. If humans cannot be the author of the moral law, then God is its author. 5. Therefore, God is the author of the moral law.
What is the Argument from Cultural Differences? How can the moral objectivist plausibly reject the first premise?
This argument says that: 1. If ethical objectivism is true, then all moral standards apply universally - to everyone, in every society. 2. Some moral standards do not apply universally, but only in certain cultural or social contexts and not in others. 3. Therefore, ethical objectivism is false. The first premise can be rejected by ethical objectivists because they will insist that some moral standards apply universally but others do not; The basic moral principles apply to everyone, everywhere, but when we apply these principles to different living situations, they can generate more specific moral standards that can allow for some degree of cultural variation; Customs and traditions can help to shape our specific moral duties, but these differences will ultimately be explained by reference to moral principles that apply to everyone, everywhere; These universal moral rules may well be objectively correct, even if they sometimes support different specific moral duties for those in different cultures or societies
What is the Equal Rights Imply Equal Plausibility argument against moral objectivity? What is one strong objection Shafer-Landau discusses to this argument?
This argument says that: 1. If everyone has an equal right to an opinion, then all opinions are equally plausible. 2. Everyone has an equal right to his or her moral opinions. 3. Therefore, all moral opinions are equally plausible. 4. If all moral opinions are equally plausible, then ethical objectivism is false. 5. Therefore, ethical objectivism is false. Premise 4 and 2 are true; Premise 1 is false: (and these are reasons why): Premise 1 confuses two entirely separate matters: whether a person has a right to an opinion, and whether that opinion has any merit; We each have a right to our opinions, but nothing at all follows about their plausibility; Everyone has an equal right to an opinion (that is, an equal right not to be forced to change their mind) even though their views may be mistaken; Some historical claims are true and others false, even though we each have an equal right to our historical opinions; The same thing can be said of our opinions concerning economics, trigonometry, basketball strategy, or beer brewing, most people know more than I do about each of these things and so my views/opinions on these subjects are far less plausible than theirs, and yet my right to hold the views I do is just as strong as anyone else's
What is the Objectivity Requires Absolutism argument? Why is premise 1 false? What is the difference between status and the stringency of moral claims?
This argument says that: 1. If moral claims are objectively true, then moral rules are absolute. 2. No moral rule is absolute. 3. Therefore, moral claims are not objectively true. An absolute moral rule is one that is always wrong to break, not exceptions; An objective moral rule is one that accurately tells us what these moral standards are or tell us about what these standards require or allow us to do; Premise 1 is false because it is telling us that when it comes to morality, being objective and absolute go hand in hand, but that isn't true; Lying could be an objective moral rule but not an absolute moral rule because it can be considered okay to lie sometimes; Objectivity of moral rules has to do with their status: with whether they are correct independently of our opinion of them; Absoluteness of moral rules has to do with their stringency: with whether it is ever okay to break them; There is no direct connection between matters of status and stringency; All of this does not show that moral rules are objective, but it does support the view that even if they are they don't have to be absolute, making premise 1 false
What is the Argument from the Scientific Test of Reality? According to Shafer-Landau the claim that "A claim is true only if science can verify it" must be false. Why? How does this undermine the argument?
This argument says that: 1. If science cannot verify the existence of X, then the best evidence tells us that X does not exist. 2. Science cannot verify the existence of objective moral values. 3. Therefore, the best evidence tells us that objective moral values do not exist. The claim "A claim is true only if science can verify it" is false because science cannot verify that claim and it it not a scientific statement, we cannot test its truth by analyzing what we see, hear, taste, feel, or smell, we cannot mathematically test it, there are no lab experiments that will confirm it; Since that claim is false, then it follows that there are some truths that science cannot confirm, and perhaps moral ones are among them; This undermines the argument because it shows that premise 1 is false because science cannot have the final say about everything, this means that at least some nonscientific claims are true, and perhaps highly credible, and moral claims may be among them
What is the Moral Objectivity Supports Dogmatism argument against moral objectivity? What is one strong objection Shafer-Landau discusses to this argument?
This argument says that: 1. If there are objective moral standards, then this makes dogmatism acceptable. 2. Dogmatism is unacceptable. 3. Therefore, there are no objective moral standards. Dogmatism is the character trait of being closed-minded and unreasonably confident in one's own opinions; Premise 2 looks good; Premise 1 is false because ethical objectivism does not encourage a dogmatic attitude; The claim that there are objective moral standards is neutral about how broad-minded we should be; Ethical objectivism is a view about the status of moral claims, it does not tell us what is and is not morally acceptable, all it says is that the correct moral code, whatever it happens to be, is objectively true; If moral truth is not of our own making, then it will not always be easy to discover, and that fact should encourage us to be humble rather than arrogant and closed-minded; The worst fanatics among us are always ethical objectivists, but this is not a strike against the theory, but rather a strike against the individuals who misapply it
What is the Moral Disagreement Undermines Moral Objectivity argument against moral objectivity? What are two strong reasons for holding that the first premise is false?
This argument says that: 1. If well-informed, open-minded, rational people persistently disagree about some claim, then that claim is not objectively true. 2. Well-informed, open-minded, rational people persistently disagree about all moral claims. 3. Therefore, no moral claim is objectively true. Premise 1 is false; Brilliant physicists disagree about whether the fundamental elements of matter are subatomic strings, eminent archaeologists disagree about how to interpret the remains discovered at ancient sites, the finest philosophers continue to debate whether God exists, and yet there are objective truths in each area; Gaining knowledge of these truths can be hard and in some cases impossible, but our beliefs on these matters must answer to an objective reality; Our views don't make physical, archaeological, or philosophical claims true, the facts are what they are, independently of what we think of them; Second reason premise 1 is false: This premise is itself the subject of deep disagreement; Really smart people still argue about whether it is true, and so if such disagreement is enough to undermine objective truth, then the premise, by its own lights, can't be objectively true, and it certainly isn't "relatively" true - true just because I, or my society, believe in it; The many disagreements we see in ethics are perfectly compatible with its objectivity
What is the Moral Objectivity Supports Intolerance argument against moral objectivity? What is one strong objection Shafer-Landau makes against this argument?
This argument says: 1. Tolerance is valuable only if the moral views of different people are equally plausible. 2. If ethical objectivism is true, then the moral views of different people are not equally plausible. 3. Therefore, if ethical objectivism is true, then tolerance is not valuable. 2nd premise is true, ethical objectivism rejects the idea of moral equivalence, some moral views are better than others; 1st premise is false (and is also the strong objection he makes), If all moral views are equivalent, then a tolerant outlook is not better than an intolerant one - the outlook of a committed bigot would be as plausible as yours or mine
How could one argue that the value of tolerance supports moral objectivity?
Those who think of tolerance as very valuable will want to say that tolerance is morally required even for those people and those societies that despise it, and such a view is perfectly compatible with ethical objectivism
What strategy can an ethical subjectivist use to avoid the problem of contradiction? What is the problem for this strategy?
To prevent contradiction, subjectivists say that we don't mean what we say in our moral debates, we don't mean what we think we mean; We may say abortion is wrong, but subjectivists would say that what we actually meant was that I disapprove of abortion; The problem for this strategy is that (1) subjectivists have to accuse nearly everyone of misunderstanding their own moral claims/distorts what people think they mean and (2) this sort of view eliminates the possibility of moral disagreement/unable to explain the existence of moral disagreement
If an argument is valid and some of its premises are false, what do we know about the truth or falsity of the conclusion?
We know that the conclusion is false because some of the premises are false
