philosophy
premise A statement in an argument that serves to provide evidence for the truth of a claim
A statement in an argument that serves to provide evidence for the truth of a claim
deductive argument An argument in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises
An argument in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises
The teleological theory in ethics, also referred to as consequentialism, pertains to any ethical theory that judges the moral rightness or wrongness of an act according to the desirability or undesirability of the action's consequences. Kantian ethics is the theory that we have absolute moral duties that are determined by reason and that is not affected by consequences. Kant's theory is an example of deontological ethics, which pertains to any ethical theory that judges the moral rightness or wrongness of an act in terms of the intrinsic moral value of the act itself. Kant believed that it was our duty, our moral obligation to respect others. According to the Respect for Person Principle, something is special and unique about being human, if something is unique, it should be treated with respect. If someone were facing the death penalty because they committed murder, Kant would support the idea of the death penalty under certain terms. If one were sentencing this man to death out of respect or moral obligation, Kant would agree that it was the right thing to do. He would agree that our duty is to maintain respect for other beings, regardless of the consequences. To sentence this man to death, we regard him as a moral being deserving of respect. Kant supported the idea that we should always act unto others in ways that we want everyone else to act toward us. This man committed murder, therefore the death sentence would be considered a moral obligation in order to maintain this respect.
BRIEFLY EXPLAIN teleological theory in ethics, AND THEN EXPLAIN how Kant's Respect for Person Principle could provide ethical support for the death penalty. The teleological theory in ethics, also referred to as consequentialism, pertains to any ethical theory that judges the moral rightness or wrongness of an act according to the desirability or undesirability of the action's consequences. Kantian ethics is the theory that we have absolute moral duties that are determined by reason and that is not affected by consequences. Kant's theory is an example of deontological ethics, which pertains to any ethical theory that judges the moral rightness or wrongness of an act in terms of the intrinsic moral value of the act itself. Kant believed that it was our duty, our moral obligation to respect others. According to the Respect for Person Principle, something is special and unique about being human, if something is unique, it should be treated with respect. If someone were facing the death penalty because they committed murder, Kant would support the idea of the death penalty under certain terms. If one were sentencing this man to death out of respect or moral obligation, Kant would agree that it was the right thing to do. He would agree that our duty is to maintain respect for other beings, regardless of the consequences. To sentence this man to death, we regard him as a moral being deserving of respect. Kant supported the idea that we should always act unto others in ways that we want everyone else to act toward us. This man committed murder, therefore the death sentence would be considered a moral obligation in order to maintain this respect.
Kant's universal law principle determines that if an action-guiding principle is universalizable if it is possible for everyone to act on it and if we could rationally will that everyone would act upon it. First, one would state the maxim of which you are planning to act on. A maxim being a subjective rule on which an individual actually acts as opposed to an objective principle upon which one should act. Then one would attempt to formulate this maxim in terms of universal law. Finally one would determine if everyone could rationally and consistently follow this universalized maxim. If it can be universalized, then it can be applied. The conflict of duties seems to arise when deliberating on Kantian ethics. We have a duty to tell the truth because being dishonest would be disrespectful to another human. However, what if a lie could have a greater benefit on the situation? Kant would say that we cannot be certain of the consequences, but we can be sure of our moral obligations. Our moral obligations tell us to remain truthful. So if the situation were to arise in which there is a conflict of duties, one should follow their moral duty, regardless of consequences. If we were in a situation where a lie seems as though it could save another's life, Kant would say to tell the truth because one can never be certain of the consequences of our actions. If one were to lie, and that person gets killed regardless, that death would be our responsibility because a lie was told. Even if one's intentions were to save a life, one still has to answer to those consequences.
BRIEFLY EXPLAIN the fundamentals of Kant's Universal Law Principle, AND THEN EXPLAIN ONE AND ONLY ONE of the following problems with this principle: problem of being too cold OR problem of conflict of duties. Kant's universal law principle determines that if an action-guiding principle is universalizable if it is possible for everyone to act on it and if we could rationally will that everyone would act upon it. First, one would state the maxim of which you are planning to act on. A maxim being a subjective rule on which an individual actually acts as opposed to an objective principle upon which one should act. Then one would attempt to formulate this maxim in terms of universal law. Finally one would determine if everyone could rationally and consistently follow this universalized maxim. If it can be universalized, then it can be applied. The conflict of duties seems to arise when deliberating on Kantian ethics. We have a duty to tell the truth because being dishonest would be disrespectful to another human. However, what if a lie could have a greater benefit on the situation? Kant would say that we cannot be certain of the consequences, but we can be sure of our moral obligations. Our moral obligations tell us to remain truthful. So if the situation were to arise in which there is a conflict of duties, one should follow their moral duty, regardless of consequences. If we were in a situation where a lie seems as though it could save another's life, Kant would say to tell the truth because one can never be certain of the consequences of our actions. If one were to lie, and that person gets killed regardless, that death would be our responsibility because a lie was told. Even if one's intentions were to save a life, one still has to answer to those consequences.
The greater goods defense, the free will defense, and the natural order defense. The greater goods defense is the claim that God allows some evil to exist because it is necessary to the achievement of the greater good. This defense accounts for both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is the bad actions and their unfortunate results for which humans are morally responsible. Natural evil accounts for the suffering to humans and animals resulting from natural causes. In this scenario, evil is necessary in achieving the greater good. This good achieved outweighs the evil that occurs, and this good outcome could not have been achieved by any other means that did not include the presence of these evils. The free-will defense is the claim that God could not create creatures who have freedom of will, but are incapable of doing evil. This freedom permits the ability to commit good or bad acts, and therefore accounts for the moral evil that occurs in this world. Prohibiting this evil would not allow for our ultimate freedom. Allowing for these free radicals (humans) to have these freedoms means that people are responsible for their own actions. Therefore people who commit evil are responsible for these actions. This allows for the existence of God as well as the existence of evil. The natural order defense is that in order for there to be free choices, whether these choices are good or evil ones, there has to be a fixed, reliable order of natural causes and effects. To be able to act in a meaningful way and for humans to be free, the physical world must have regular order that we can ll recognize and share.
Both subjective ethical relativists and ethical egoists could claim that actions should be based on self-interest. EXPLAIN if such a claim means the same for a subjective ethical relativist and an ethical egoist. Subjective ethical relativism claims that the doctrine that what is right or wrong is solely a matter of each individual's personal opinion. In this doctrine, a person can act however they see fit. If the individual believes that actions should be based on self-interest, then there is no other standard other than personal belief, that should conflict with their actions. Ethical egoists on the other hand believe that one should always do what is in their own self-interest. No matter the means of getting there, the ethical egoist believes that one should partake in actions that give rise to the greatest consequences for oneself.
Anarchism is the position that there is no conceivable justification for government.
DEFINE anarchism, AND THEN DESCRIBE two answers [MY CHOICE] to the political question regarding what is justice. Anarchism is the position that there is no conceivable justification for government.
Deductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Inductive arguments are arguments in which the premises make the conclusion highly probable In order for an argument to be sound, two things are required: the premises must be true, and the argument must be valid. Validity pertains to the structure, meaning that if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. So a sound deductive argument will always have true premises, because it is impossible to have any sound argument with false premises. However, deductive arguments with true premises are not always sound because they may not be valid. This would mean that the evidence provided did not lead to the following conclusion.
Describe the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments, and then explain why sound deductive arguments always have true premises, but deductive arguments with true premises are not always sound. Deductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Inductive arguments are arguments in which the premises make the conclusion highly probable In order for an argument to be sound, two things are required: the premises must be true, and the argument must be valid. Validity pertains to the structure, meaning that if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. So a sound deductive argument will always have true premises, because it is impossible to have any sound argument with false premises. However, deductive arguments with true premises are not always sound because they may not be valid. This would mean that the evidence provided did not lead to the following conclusion.
The problem of evil is the difficulty in reconciling the existence of suffering and other evils in the world with the existence of a God. The logical argument behind the problem of evil that supports the nonexistence of God is that if there is a good, all-knowing, all-powerful God, then there would be no evil. However, since evil does exist, it disproves the existence of 'said' God. However, the free-will defense argues that God could not create creatures who have freedom of will but are incapable of doing evil. For God cannot create free creatures and restrict them to only performing good deeds. To possess this freedom means that humans have the ability to make good choices along with bad choices. The moral evil that is prevalent within this world is merely the product of the free radicals that are humans. Hence, God does not will or cause evil to occur, but in order to allow free agents such as us to exist, He has to allow us the freedom to commit evil acts. Therefore, the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God.
EXPLAIN HOW the logical argument for the problem of evil sets out to prove the nonexistence of God, AND THEN EMPLOY the free-will defense as a criticism of this argument. The problem of evil is the difficulty in reconciling the existence of suffering and other evils in the world with the existence of a God. The logical argument behind the problem of evil that supports the nonexistence of God is that if there is a good, all-knowing, all-powerful God, then there would be no evil. However, since evil does exist, it disproves the existence of 'said' God. However, the free-will defense argues that God could not create creatures who have freedom of will but are incapable of doing evil. For God cannot create free creatures and restrict them to only performing good deeds. To possess this freedom means that humans have the ability to make good choices along with bad choices. The moral evil that is prevalent within this world is merely the product of the free radicals that are humans. Hence, God does not will or cause evil to occur, but in order to allow free agents such as us to exist, He has to allow us the freedom to commit evil acts. Therefore, the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God.
Kant believes that people have intrinsic or absolute value. He believed that there was something special or unique about being human. As for things, these are the objects that people have placed value on. Things have conditional value because if people stop desiring these objects, they would be worthless. Kant believes that people place value on animals, therefore they hold conditional value. He believes that animals are things. For a moral rule or principle to be absolute, then this rule must be followed at all times, in all circumstances, with no exceptions. It does not allow for hypocrisy or exception, but merely the consistency or moral obligation.
EXPLAIN Kant's moral view of an animal (say, a cow) as a thing, AND THEN EXPLAIN what it means for a moral rule or principle to be absolute. Kant believes that people have intrinsic or absolute value. He believed that there was something special or unique about being human. As for things, these are the objects that people have placed value on. Things have conditional value because if people stop desiring these objects, they would be worthless. Kant believes that people place value on animals, therefore they hold conditional value. He believes that animals are things. For a moral rule or principle to be absolute, then this rule must be followed at all times, in all circumstances, with no exceptions. It does not allow for hypocrisy or exception, but merely the consistency or moral obligation.
Moral evil pertains to the bad actions and their unfortunate results for which humans (or other moral agents) are morally responsible Natural evil pertains to the suffering of humans and animals resulting from natural causes such as genetic defects, diseases, earthquakes, and tornadoes The problem of evil is the difficulty in reconciling the existence of suffering and other evils in the world with the existence of a God. Atheists argue that there cannot be a loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God because there is so much evil and suffering in the world. Therefore, atheists argue that God does not exist due to there being such evils in the world.
EXPLAIN the difference between moral evil and natural evil, AND THEN EXPLAIN HOW the existential argument for the problem of evil sets out to prove the nonexistence of God. Moral evil pertains to the bad actions and their unfortunate results for which humans (or other moral agents) are morally responsible Natural evil pertains to the suffering of humans and animals resulting from natural causes such as genetic defects, diseases, earthquakes, and tornadoes The problem of evil is the difficulty in reconciling the existence of suffering and other evils in the world with the existence of a God. Atheists argue that there cannot be a loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God because there is so much evil and suffering in the world. Therefore, atheists argue that God does not exist due to there being such evils in the world.
The greater goods defense, the free will defense, and the natural order defense. The greater goods defense is the claim that God allows some evil to exist because it is necessary to the achievement of the greater good. This defense accounts for both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is the bad actions and their unfortunate results for which humans are morally responsible. Natural evil accounts for the suffering to humans and animals resulting from natural causes. In this scenario, evil is necessary in achieving the greater good. This good achieved outweighs the evil that occurs, and this good outcome could not have been achieved by any other means that did not include the presence of these evils. The free-will defense is the claim that God could not create creatures who have freedom of will, but are incapable of doing evil. This freedom permits the ability to commit good or bad acts, and therefore accounts for the moral evil that occurs in this world. Prohibiting this evil would not allow for our ultimate freedom. Allowing for these free radicals (humans) to have these freedoms means that people are responsible for their own actions. Therefore people who commit evil are responsible for these actions. This allows for the existence of God as well as the existence of evil. The natural order defense is that in order for there to be free choices, whether these choices are good or evil ones, there has to be a fixed, reliable order of natural causes and effects. To be able to act in a meaningful way and for humans to be free, the physical world must have regular order that we can ll recognize and share.
In addition to atheism, there are three alternative methods to overcome the problem of evil. LIST AND BRIEFLY DESCRIBE these three methods. The greater goods defense, the free will defense, and the natural order defense. The greater goods defense is the claim that God allows some evil to exist because it is necessary to the achievement of the greater good. This defense accounts for both moral and natural evil. Moral evil is the bad actions and their unfortunate results for which humans are morally responsible. Natural evil accounts for the suffering to humans and animals resulting from natural causes. In this scenario, evil is necessary in achieving the greater good. This good achieved outweighs the evil that occurs, and this good outcome could not have been achieved by any other means that did not include the presence of these evils. The free-will defense is the claim that God could not create creatures who have freedom of will, but are incapable of doing evil. This freedom permits the ability to commit good or bad acts, and therefore accounts for the moral evil that occurs in this world. Prohibiting this evil would not allow for our ultimate freedom. Allowing for these free radicals (humans) to have these freedoms means that people are responsible for their own actions. Therefore people who commit evil are responsible for these actions. This allows for the existence of God as well as the existence of evil. The natural order defense is that in order for there to be free choices, whether these choices are good or evil ones, there has to be a fixed, reliable order of natural causes and effects. To be able to act in a meaningful way and for humans to be free, the physical world must have regular order that we can ll recognize and share.
individualism believes that the best society is the one in which individual liberty is at a maximum and the government's intrusion in our lives is kept to what is minimally necessary. An example would be classical liberalism, which emphasizes the freedom of the individual. In this example, the government tends to step in if it prevents the harm of others. A police officer might arrest an individual who attempts to assault another. Another condition in which the government might interfere is if it is essential that you help society or another person. Jury duty is an example of one helping society, or saving someone from drowning. Collectivism claims that the collective, or common good, or the state (the government) should have the final authority over individual preferences. An example would be communism in which the state takes over means of production that were previously in the hands of individual owners.
In terms of the four questions concerning political philosophy, BRIEFLY EXPLAIN the fundamental distinction between individualism and collectivism. Give specific examples of each to support your answer individualism believes that the best society is the one in which individual liberty is at a maximum and the government's intrusion in our lives is kept to what is minimally necessary. An example would be classical liberalism, which emphasizes the freedom of the individual. In this example, the government tends to step in if it prevents the harm of others. A police officer might arrest an individual who attempts to assault another. Another condition in which the government might interfere is if it is essential that you help society or another person. Jury duty is an example of one helping society, or saving someone from drowning. Collectivism claims that the collective, or common good, or the state (the government) should have the final authority over individual preferences. An example would be communism in which the state takes over means of production that were previously in the hands of individual owners.
conclusion indicators Terms that usually indicate that a conclusion will follow
Terms that usually indicate that a conclusion will follow
Premise Indicators Terms that usually indicate that a premise will follow.
Terms that usually indicate that a premise will follow.
Conclusion The statement in an argument that the premises are claimed to support or imply
The statement in an argument that the premises are claimed to support or imply
logical inconsistency Two assertions that could not both be true under any possible circumstances.
Two assertions that could not both be true under any possible circumstances.
prima facie duty a duty that is morally binding unless it conflicts with a more important
a duty that is morally binding unless it conflicts with a more important
actual duties a duty that we are morally obligated to perform in a particular situation after we have taken all the circumstances into account
a duty that we are morally obligated to perform in a particular situation after we have taken all the circumstances into account
inference to the best explanation a form of reasoning that tries to show that a particular theory is superior to all its competitors and that it is therefore the one most likely to be true; sometimes called abduction.
a form of reasoning that tries to show that a particular theory is superior to all its competitors and that it is therefore the one most likely to be true; sometimes called abduction.
right a justified claim to something, usually implying that other people have certain duties with respect to the possessor of the right
a justified claim to something, usually implying that other people have certain duties with respect to the possessor of the right
hypothetical imperative a rule that tells us only what means to use to achieve a desired end
a rule that tells us only what means to use to achieve a desired end
argument a set of statements in which one or more of the statements attempt to provide reasons or evidence for the truth of another statement
a set of statements in which one or more of the statements attempt to provide reasons or evidence for the truth of another statement
cogent argument a strong argument that has true premises
a strong argument that has true premises
sound argument a valid argument with true premises
a valid argument with true premises
inductive argument an argument in which it is claimed that the premises make the conclusion highly probable
an argument in which it is claimed that the premises make the conclusion highly probable
valid argument an argument in which it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false
an argument in which it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false
invalid argument an argument in which the truth of the conclusion fails to logically follow from the premises
an argument in which the truth of the conclusion fails to logically follow from the premises
self-referential inconsistency an assertion that implies that it itself cannot be true, cannot be known to be true, or should not be believed
an assertion that implies that it itself cannot be true, cannot be known to be true, or should not be believed
strong argument an inductive argument in which true premises would make the conclusion highly probable
an inductive argument in which true premises would make the conclusion highly probable
virtue ethics any theory that sees the primary focus of ethics to be the character of the person rather than that person's actions or duties.
any theory that sees the primary focus of ethics to be the character of the person rather than that person's actions or duties.
moral evil bad actions and their unfortunate results for which humans (or other moral agents) are morally responsible
bad actions and their unfortunate results for which humans (or other moral agents) are morally responsible
categorical imperative in Kant's theory, a moral law that tells us what we ought to do but does not depend on any prior conditions or subjective wants and wishes, and contains no qualifications
in Kant's theory, a moral law that tells us what we ought to do but does not depend on any prior conditions or subjective wants and wishes, and contains no qualifications
feminist ethics the attempt to correct male biases in traditional ethical theory by emphasizing relationships over abstract principles and compassion over analytical reason
the attempt to correct male biases in traditional ethical theory by emphasizing relationships over abstract principles and compassion over analytical reason
theodicy the attempt to justify God's permitting evil to occur in the world
the attempt to justify God's permitting evil to occur in the world
greater goods defense the claim that God allows some evil to exist because it is necessary to the achievement of the greater good
the claim that God allows some evil to exist because it is necessary to the achievement of the greater good
free will defense the claim that God could not create creatures (such as us) who have freedom of the will but who are incapable of doing evil
the claim that God could not create creatures (such as us) who have freedom of the will but who are incapable of doing evil
absolutism the claim that not only are moral principles objective but also they cannot be overridden and their cannot be any exceptions to them
the claim that not only are moral principles objective but also they cannot be overridden and their cannot be any exceptions to them
conventional ethical relativism the claim that what is right or wrong is relative to each particular society; also called ethical conventionalism
the claim that what is right or wrong is relative to each particular society; also called ethical conventionalism
problem of evil the difficulty of reconciling the existence of suffering and other evils in the world with the existence of God
the difficulty of reconciling the existence of suffering and other evils in the world with the existence of God
subjective ethical relativism the doctrine that what is right or wrong is solely a matter of each individual's personal opinion
the doctrine that what is right or wrong is solely a matter of each individual's personal opinion
ethical objectivism the position that certain moral principles are universal (they apply to all persons in all times) and objective (they are not based on the opinions of individuals or cultures)
the position that certain moral principles are universal (they apply to all persons in all times) and objective (they are not based on the opinions of individuals or cultures)
ethical relativism the position that there are no objective or universally valid moral principles, because all moral judgements are simply a matter of human opinion
the position that there are no objective or universally valid moral principles, because all moral judgements are simply a matter of human opinion
anarchism the position that there is no conceivable justification for government
the position that there is no conceivable justification for government
logic the study of methods for evaluating arguments and reasoning
the study of methods for evaluating arguments and reasoning
natural evil the suffering of humans and animals resulting from natural causes such as genetic defects, diseases, earthquakes, and tornados
the suffering of humans and animals resulting from natural causes such as genetic defects, diseases, earthquakes, and tornados
theoretical anarchism the theory that government has no legitimate authority even though we may have to tolerate its existence as a matter or practical necessity
the theory that government has no legitimate authority even though we may have to tolerate its existence as a matter or practical necessity
ethical egoism the theory that people ought always to do only what is in their own self-interest
the theory that people ought always to do only what is in their own self-interest
social contract theory the theory that the justification of a government and its exercise of power is based on an explicit or implicit agreement made between the individuals who live under that government or between the citizens and the government
the theory that the justification of a government and its exercise of power is based on an explicit or implicit agreement made between the individuals who live under that government or between the citizens and the government
utilitarianism the theory that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
the theory that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
divine command theory the theory that the rightness or wrongness of action is intrinsically related to the fact that God either commands it or forbids it
the theory that the rightness or wrongness of action is intrinsically related to the fact that God either commands it or forbids it
Kantian ethics the theory that we have absolute moral duties that are determined by reason and that are not affected by the consequences
the theory that we have absolute moral duties that are determined by reason and that are not affected by the consequences
ethical objectivism the view that there are universal and objectively valid moral principles that are relative neither to the individual nor to society
the view that there are universal and objectively valid moral principles that are relative neither to the individual nor to society