Philosophy Midterm

descriptive

no explicit value judgements, descriptive statements "the door is closed"

normative

give explicit value judgements right/wrong, good/bad

normative egoism as a potential unifying principle

-"everything you think is right is because it helps you in the long run" -this would clash dramatically with someone's system of moral beliefs

biconditionals

if and only if if x then y if y then x

Validity

if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true (structure), the premises and conclusion do not actually need to be true

reasons why people think atheism leads to moral anti-realism

"dust in the wind" (less promising) - everything ultimately means nothing, everything will crumble eventually - nothing lasts forever, nothing is objectively good or bad - assumption: things have to last forever in order to be good or bad - basically says anything that doesn't currently exist isn't real more promising argument - when you lose God from the picture, you lose a potentially important reason to trust moral intuition -if God created us, there is reason to trust moral intuition

making sense of systems of moral beliefs

-clarity: having precise, well thought out definitions -consistency: having no logical contradictions (x and not x) -coherence (unifying principle): beliefs have something to tie them together (reflective equilibrium: no inconsistencies or randomness)

challenges to reflective equilibrium

-cultural relativism -egoism

cultural relativism

-descriptive: there is a lot of deep variation of moral codes in different cultures -normative: you should follow the moral code of your culture (and descriptive claim)

potential bases of arguments against moral antirealism

-practical inconsistency (almost impossible to actually live as a moral anti-realist, would have no reason to get out of bed or eat) -self-refuting -religion (any belief in religion automatically disproves/contradicts moral antirealism) -"err on the side of caution" (better to do good and have it mean nothing than do bad and have it mean something)

potential problems with normative cultural relativism

-you can't criticize other cultures moral codes (or your own) -excessively important what culture someone belongs to -moral progress is out of the question -can't criticize anyone who follows their moral code

Pope's theory

-you should try to benefit society as best as you can -the most effective way to do this is to look out for your own self-interest -ultimate goal is to benefit society, not yourself

IBE Principles

1. imagine each hypothesis is true (one at a time) - ask: what evidence would I expect? - assess the match between expected and real evidence 2. simpler hypothesis and fit better with background info

problems with distinguishing between normative and descriptive on the basis of controversy

1. not true - descriptive statements can be controversial (ex. aliens exist) and normative statements and be uncontroversial (ex. people should eat sometimes) 2. not the heart of the distinction, doesn't capture the difference

egoism

1. psychological egoism (descriptive) - human beings are always selfishly motivated 2. ethical egoism (normative) - human beings should act purely in their own self interest (only things that benefit in the long term tho!)

natural law theory

Aristotle - did not create the divine command theory but was the basis of it -"everything has a purpose and a goal; it is good for things to achieve their goals" - how do we know it is good? Thomas Aquinas - combined Aristotle's theory with Christianity, created the natural law theory -"God creates the goals/purposes, therefore they are good" natural law theory: "natural things have goals and purposes, because God creates everything to work together, it is good for them to achieve their goals"

problem with descriptive cultural relativism

can lead to moral anti-realism if moral codes differ among cultures, how are there any moral truths?

applied ethics

consider specific issues (ex. abortion) and what is the right course of action and why - real-life scenarios

divine command theory and its converse(?)

divine command theory -something is right/wrong because God commands it -reality is arbitrary -God creates moral facts not divine command theory -God commands us to do things because they are right/wrong -God's nature is the basis for morality, bases his commands on his nature

2 types of normative claims

prescriptive - "should/should not", prescribe actions evaluative - "right/wrong", evaluate actions

metaethics

the study of the meaning and logical structure of moral beliefs is there such thing as good/bad, right/wrong what makes our statements about morality true "is there right vs wrong" - broad

potential problems with natural law

thick metaphysics - set of beliefs about what fundamentally exists that are controversial - have to accept that God exists - have to accept that we have goals/purposes - jump from descriptive to normative (not a good argument against it but worth mentioning) - purposes of body parts vs. purposes of the whole organism - ex. feet have the goal of walking, therefore it is wrong to use them to drive - have to look at the goal of the whole person/organism

normative ethics

what makes things right/wrong - more specific

soundness

when a deductive argument is valid and all the premises are actually true

sufficient conditions

x is sufficient for y ex. square is sufficient for shape if it is a square, then it is a shape

necessary conditions

y is necessary for x ex. animal is necessary for giraffe if it is a giraffe, then it is an animal