Ethics Final Exam Review

Prescriptive (or Normative)

The moral theory of Ethical Egoism is what kind of statement?

Modified Divine Command Theory

The term given to Adams's updated approach which says that God's commands establish morality and is the best explanation of morality

Prima Facie

This Latin term describes the position Marquis argues we should take regarding abortion based on the "Future Like Ours" argument

The Principle of Equality

This Principle, introduced by Rachels, also argues that we are justified in punishing people based on the consequences of their actions.

The argument from self-interest

This argument against Euthanasia argues that the action is contrary to what produces individual benefit, even at the expense of a miracle cure (much like McCoy's Father)

Deterrence

This argument, used by both Utilitarians and Pojman, argues that having a system of punishment, such as the death penalty, reduces further crime which results in net safety for society

The Worst Lawyer

This challenge against the Death Penalty, used by Bright, argues that legal representation is underfunded or simply bad

Equal Concern

This challenge asserts that Utilitarianism seems to require we sacrifice our personal relationships and is untenable

Vulnerable Groups

This challenge asserts that due to imbalances in bargaining power, certain members of society are excluded from the benefits of the social contract

The Naturalistic Fallacy (Is/Ought)

This challenge asserts that function does not inherently mean one must act accordingly

Probability-Possibility

This challenge raised against Danaher asserts that we should err on presuming God's commands are legitimate

Logical Inconsistency

This challenge to Egoism asserts that it is impossible for two presumed egoists to achieve their ends as to do so would require conflict or immoral action.

The Always Right challenge

This challenge to Subjectivism asserts that we must accept individual opinion as correct, contrary to universal morality

The veil of ignorance

This concept, presented by Rawls, says that best way to arrive at a fair and just society is to remove ourselves from the idea of social status.

The People Seed Case

This discussion, used by Thomson, argues that abortion is morally permissible in cases where "property rights" have not been granted based on the use of protection against pregnancy

Applied Ethics

This division of ethics deals with the practical use of our theory

Deontology

This moral approach asserts that morally right action is based on inherent right action and acting on duty.

Rational Self-Interest

This position asserts that promotion of the individual is the correct way to approach ethics and moral behavior

Moral Progress/Decline

This term describes when we accept that a society can objectively improve or decline in moral evaluation.

Hopelessly ill

This term is used in the Classical Argument for Euthanasia also presents a challenge for the argument by being ambiguous in application

The problem of relevant descriptions

This term refers to the challenge between conflicts of absolute moral rules

Ontology

This term refers to the fundamental nature of a thing (in this case, moral facts)

Passive Euthanasia

This term refers to when it becomes apparent that curative treatment is no longer beneficial, and we are justified in ending such treatment in favor of pain management

Sentience

This term, central to Singer's argument for animal rights and which Machan finds insufficient for rights, refers to the ability to feel pleasure and pain

The Natural Lottery

This term, from Rawls, refers to when people receive benefit from society for properties such as inherent beauty as opposed to merit

Emotivism

This type of Subjectivism asserts that moral disagreement exits, but seems to lack distinction between what action is morally right or morally wrong

Moral Realism

This view assets that moral facts are mind-independent and are true (or false) and hold on agents even if agents have contrary beliefs.

Rationalism

This view claims that knowledge, including moral knowledge, can be arrived at by use of reasoning

Moral Relativism

This view of ethics asserts that moral facts are in someway dependent, such as individual beliefs or cultural views.

Rule Utilitarianism

This view states that when we evaluate morality, we should do so by a general principle of similar actions and their outcomes

Selfish/Egoist

Thomas Hobbes's view of humanity is inherently would be considered this

Ethics

the study of what is considered morally right and morally wrong

The second horn

"God commands right conduce because it is right." Independent Standard: In this horn of the Dilemma, we are challenging the grounding of DCT, saying that God's commands do not ground commands - something external to God. Humans can supply reasons for why an action is morally right or wrong, and presumably God's reasons for recognizing right actions are consistent with those external standards. This, however, makes God's commands redundant or even unnecessary. Potential Response: Like the "wrong reasons" of the first horn, the response is to recognize that humans are fallible. We may not be able to recognize what is right or wrong, let alone the reasons. Thus, God is required to inform us of morality by way of a Command. The concern with this response is that it still assumes the justifications are independent of God meaning morality is not dependent on God in the same way the first horn asserts. Modified Divine Command Theory: Presented by Robert Adams, this theory asserts that an objective morality makes the most rational sense with a loving God as moral authority. This doesn't fully address the issue of God being the grounds for morality, but it is a strong defense of theistic morality.

Valid Forms: By way of example, explain the difference between the Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens argument forms.

"Mode That Affirms" Line 1: Antecedent à Consequent Line 2: Antecedent Line 3: Consequent In a Modus Ponens argument, we begin with a Conditional Statement, If A, then C, as our first premise. Premise two is where we affirm our "If" statement (assert it is true). We then derive the affirmative Consequent. Modus Ponens is a proper affirmation form. Sufficient Condition: In logic, a Sufficient Condition is a Modus Ponens argument where a True A guarantees a true C. Modus Tollens Mode That Denies" Line 1: Antecedent à Consequent Line 2: Negated Consequent Line 3: Negated Antecedent In a Modus Tollens argument, we begin with a Conditional Statement in Premise 1. Premise two, we Deny (negate) the Consequent. We then derive the denial (negated) antecedent. Modus Tollens is a proper negation form. Necessary Condition: In logic, a Necessary Condition is a Modus Tollens argument where a False (negated) C guarantees a False (negated) A.

The first Horn - DCT

"Right Conduct is Right because God commands it." This is the position of the Divine Command Theorist - that it is God's commands that explain morality. If one accepts this horn of the dilemma, one must respond to three key challenges raised against the position. Morality is Mysterious: why are God's commands necessary to morality? If we can provide reasons for our moral actions, then God's commands seem redundant or even unnecessary. Potential Response: God's commands are what create morality. The reasons we might give for or against an action can show that action to be supererogatory, but that does not make them moral. Morality is Arbitrary: Even if God's commands are needed to create morality, we have not answered why God commands what he does. This makes morality arbitrary, up to the whim of God, especially troubling if God were to command something otherwise viewed as immoral. Potential Response: The Euthyphro Dilemma is often called a False Dilemma, meaning one can respond to both parts. A popular defense of this is to say that God is inherently Good, and thus only commands what is right (thus not arbitrary). Philosopher's William Lane Craig and William Alston take this view. This "goodness" view is challenged by Jeremy Koons, however, who says that to assert God as inherently good removes any way to evaluate good, leaving goodness (and the defense based on goodness) featureless. Wrong Reasons: If you accept DCT, especially in its strongest form, then you reject any reason beyond "God said so." Any reason we offer do not matter if there is not a command issued. Potential Response: God, being all-knowing, does know reason for morality, and we as fallible humans might not know those reasons. We would then require God to give us those reasons by way of Commands. This, however, leads into the second horn of the dilemma.

The Requirement of Consistency

As presented by Kant, this concept says that when we provide reasons for our claims, we must apply them in instances of similar claims

Ayn Rand: Egoism Respects the Individual

- "Objectivism" - we should focus on promotion of the individual, as we only have one life to live and being selfish is a virtue. -Rational Self-Interest says we should accept Egoism over Altruism because altruism does not respect the individual, while egoism does. Thus, if we accept that we accept the individual as the most important principle, we should reject Altruism for Egoism

Statement Types: Using an example for each, explain the difference between a Descriptive and Prescriptive Statement

- Descriptive Statements: state how things are - Prescriptive Statements: state how things ought to be

Features of Egoism

- Grounded in the Individual -Asserts that what is morally right is what benefits the individual. -Egoism does not inherently mean we don't account for others, or that others cannot benefit. The individual must also benefit. -Egoism also does not mean we always satisfy our immediate desires. We can forego short-term goals in favor of long-term goals. -Example: Working on a Group Project

Adam Smith: Egoism is Practical

- If people pursue their own interest, this is practical, as it leads to individual benefit and to the benefit of others (such as in a Sports Game or Company). - The individual is best fitted to care for themselves. This connects to Altruism is Self-Defeating, because if we accept Altruism, we risk harm, violation of privacy, and degradation of the individual. - We can recognize the needs of others, so long as we are also benefitting.

Hobbes's Social Contract Theory

- State of Nature: we assume that our interactions are rooted in self-interest, people trying to achieve their own maximal (or most amount of) benefit. - Social Contract: a set of rules moral agents agree to, led by an authority (Government or Governing Body). These rules allow for benefit of members of a society. Morality: consists of a set of rules, governing behavior, that rational people will accept, on the condition that others accept them as well.

Ethical Egoism: Explain one argument in favor of and one argument against Ethical Egoism

- prescriptive the directive of our moral action in favor of egoism Smith: egoism is Practical If people pursue their own interest, this is practical, as it leads to individual benefit and to the benefit of others (such as in a Sports Game or Company). The individual is best fitted to care for themselves. This connects to Altruism is Self-Defeating, because if we accept Altruism, we risk harm, violation of privacy, and degradation of the individual. We can recognize the needs of others, so long as we are also benefitting. Ayn Rand: Egoism Respects the Individual "Objectivism" - we should focus on promotion of the individual, as we only have one life to live and being selfish is a virtue. Rational Self-Interest says we should accept Egoism over Altruism because altruism does not respect the individual, while egoism does. Thus, if we accept that we accept the individual as the most important principle, we should reject Altruism for Egoism From Rachels: Egoism appeals to common sense Morality, in Egoism, is about promoting the benefit of the individual. Our common sense says that if we want to avoid harm from others, we should avoid harming others ourselves. The goal is to prevent harm to the individual.

The Five Points of (Accepting) Relativism

1. Different cultures have different moral standards 2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society 3. There is no objective standard to morality, no universal truth. 4. The moral codes of one society is not superior nor inferior compared to another. 5. We should adopt a view of tolerance for difference between cultures

The Five Points of (Accepting) Relativism: Responding to the Five Points

1. While this may be true, those differences are based in practices but not moral principles 2. There is a distinction between the beliefs of a culture and what is actually true. Cultural codes may be held but could be morally wrong when evaluated. 3. If we are to evaluate a practice, then one way to do so is to ask if the practice helps or hinders a society and its members. 4. We can accept that cultures are different, but that does not mean all moral facts are the same - we can state some practices are right and wrong. 5. Adopting tolerance by accepting differences in codes, but this does not mean we must accept those practices as morally right.

A Fallacy

A mistake in reasoning, whether structurally or contextually

moral theory

A moral theory gives us the essence of moral rightness and moral wrongness

An Argument

A set of statements, one of which is the conclusion, which is claimed to follow from (is supported by) other statements called Premises

Sound

A sound argument is the highest attainment of truth in an argument we can achieve. A Sound argument is one that is both Valid and Obtains (its content is true).

Genuinely relevant

A statement that is part of a situation, and contributes to your argument is considered what type of fact (two words)?

A Sufficient Condition

A statement where an affirmative Antecedent guarantees a truthful Consequent is what kind of Condition?

Social Contract Theory

A theory of ethics that aims to account for Egoist views while recognizing other moral agents and a function of society.

Act vs Rule Approach

Act: The immediate action to be taken is to flip the switch (or to push/sacrifice one person) to save five. Rule: The sacrifice of one (or a few) people for the many may or may not work - and some have raised the contention that bodily autonomy is a moral rule, and thus you can't sacrifice one person just to save five.

Act Utilitarianism

Act: We evaluate the outcomes of individual actions. While we may have multiple actions available to us, the one that produces the most gain would be the right choice.

Types of Utilitarianism: Explain the types of Utilitarianism, including Actual, Foreseeable, Actual, and Rule Utilitarianism

Actual Consequences: These are the outcomes we can readily see as a result of our actions. Foreseeable Consequences: Outcomes that we cannot immediately see (but perhaps are working for) or even those we cannot anticipate. Text Example: The Drowning Child (and the potential Post Hoc Fallacy)

Valid, Unsound

An argument that is structurally correct, but contextually false, would be labeled as (two words)

Terminology. When applied to logical reasoning, what do the terms argument, statement, premise, and conclusion refer to?

Argument→ an argument is a set of statements that includes conclusion and premises. The argument also provides reasons in support of a claim. Statement: a statement is a sentence that is either true or false Ex: Today is Friday Conclusion: the statement that is trying to be proven Premises: statements that will provide support for the conclusion (can and may be multiple lines)

Backwards-Looking Reasons

Because Utilitarianism is forward-looking, what are the outcomes of the actions we take, then it seems to dismiss the promises and obligations we make prior to those action

Reasons to give Humans (but not animals) rights

Because we are capable of reasoning, including the ability to understand and be held responsible for our moral actions

Noble Intentions (Praiseworthy Motives)

Beyond simple benefit, this term applies to motives that not only promote personal happiness, but general welfare.

Categorical Imperative: Explain the categorical imperative, ensuring to discuss all three formulations

Categorical Imperative: These imperatives create oughts out of our will, or rational faculty. These oughts create moral obligations our of universal principles. There are three formulations: - Formulation 1: Maxims as Universal Law - Formulation 2: Treating People as Ends, instead of Means - Formulation 3: The Autonomy and Kingdom of Ends

Normative

Contrary to Hobbes, Locke believed that the Laws of Nature gave us morality, making Locke's position this type of statement

Kant's Core Ideas and Moral Insight

Core Ideas: - Human Rationality - Humans are intrinsically valuable. - Kant is not a subjectivist, as his principle is based in universal morality - Autonomy (self-rule); we act in accordance with reason, and actions are morally right or morally wrong based on reason alone. - Actions should be based on will and not desires. Moral Insights: Requirement of Consistency - So moral agent is superior or inferior - The punishment fits the crime - Minimum Concept: Reason and Impartial Consideration

Moral Theories: By way of example, explain what Consequentialism and Deontology are as moral theories. Additionally, provide and explain one example of each.

Deontology: Consequences are not all that mater. While we can account for outcomes of actions, they are not the only thing that matter. If we have a duty to act a certain way, then we should do so regardless of the outcomes.

Defining Relativism: Define the types of relativism including Descriptive, Metaethical, and Normative Relativism.

Descriptive Relativism: Morality is based in the moral codes of a culture. "Different Cultures have different moral codes." If true, then this provides evidence against an objective morality. Five Points of (Accepting) Relativism: different cultures have different codes, those codes determine the morality of the culture, there is no objective moral standard, No moral code is superior or inferior to another, and we should adopt a view of tolerance. Metaethical Relativism: Metaethics is the groundings of a moral theory. The codes or principles of a culture are what ground moral action. Thus, if different cultures have different principles, then we would expect different moral behavior between cultures. Normative Relativism: Normative ethics directs our moral behavior. Relativism, as a normative theory, says that it is morally right to follow the codes of the culture that one is in. That is, we should or (ought) follow the codes of the culture.

Humanely

Despite lacking rational faculties, the Kantian position does recognize that we should treat non-human animals in this way

The five points of accepting Relativism

Different codes, codes determine morality, no objective morality, no superior or inferior codes, adopting a view of tolerance.

DCT Foundations: Provide and explain the core foundations of Divine Command Theory

Divine Command Theory is generally summarized as "What God commands is what is morally correct, and what God forbids is morally wrong." This is often short-handed to "what God commands is right," but the implication is that God commanding in the negative (forbidding) is assumed. Rachels: "God is the ultimate authority on what is morally right and what is morally wrong. What God commands is right, and what he forbids is wrong. All other actions are permissible or merely morally neutral." Murphy: DCT is "a family of metaethical theories, each of which is concerned with accounting for, explaining, or grounding the existence of one or more moral facts by reference to God's commands."

Types of Egoism: Explain the core aspects of the two types of Egoism; Psychological and Ethical

Egoism is a moral theory grounded in the individual, there are two types: Psychological- The part of Egoism that aims to explain Motivation of our actions Ethical- The part of Egoism that aims to Direct moral behavior

Emotive Challenge: Explain the key challenge remains against Emotivism

Emotivism: One can agree on certain (non-moral) facts. Beliefs about a situation might even be similar the difference is in individual attitudes and feelings about those facts and beliefs. Moral conflicts still exist on this theory Key Challenge to Emotivism: Moral disagreement or conflict does not satisfy the problem with a lack of ought, or moral directive

Error Theory Challenge: Explain the key challenge against Error Theory

Error Theory: Rejects objective moral facts. Morality is dependent on the individual. The way we talk about morality is incorrect. We do not have some sort of independent standard telling us how to act. Instead, our active participation in something informs us whether or not we consider something to be moral or not. Challenge to Error Theory: While Mackie rejects such an assertion, the key challenge to error theory is that even if we accept that participation can influence our acceptance or rejection of something, it does not allow us to explain how we can evaluate morality across agents. Without an objective standard, then we cannot say one person is right or wrong.

Normative Ethics

Establishes a framework in understanding the nature of ethics and addresses the three areas

Thomson uses the case of the Famous Violinist to prove abortion is morally permissible? Select one: True False

F

Certain people or groups, such as outreach missionaries, are often considered moral reformers. That is, they move a culture towards moral progression (or sometimes decline). If we accept this concept as true, this implies that Relativism is? Select one: True False

False

The Is/Ought Fallacy

Formal Fallacies (structural errors) compared to Informal Fallacies (errors of content). The Is/Ought Fallacy is an Informal Fallacy, where one begins with a Descriptive Statement and asserts a Prescriptive Statement exclusively from the descriptive assertion Relativism makes the same assertion.

Formulation 1: Universal Laws Formulation 2: Treating People as Ends Formulation 3: Autonomy and Kingdom of Ends

Formulation 1: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. This is how we create moral rules. If an action can be universal (applied by all moral agents without contradiction) then we have a duty to act accordingly. If we cannot universalize an action, then the action impermissible. Example: Lending Money Formulation 2: Act so that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, and never merely as a means. - This formulation informs us how we should act towards other moral agents. That is, we recognize they are agents and do not use them as means but respect them as ends in themselves. Example: Hiring a Plumber Formulation 3: (1) Autonomy - act such that through your maxims you could be the legislator of universal laws, (2) Kingdome of Ends - act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for merely possible kingdom of ends. This formulation is about how we go about giving of moral rules, by following the principles established by rational faculties. We are not creating moral rules, per se, but instead realizing the rationally correct way to act. We must also do so autonomously, that is, we must follow moral reason and duty to behave morally, as opposed to some desired outcome.

State of Nature: Explain Hobbes's concept of the State of Nature, including what assertions Hobbes makes, what is accounted for, and why this implies the need for a Social Contract Theory

Foundations of Hobbes's Theory: - Left on our own, we exist in the State of Nature - There is no God, and by extension, no natural purpose in the world - Morality comes from cooperative order and is a practical problem to be solved - We must create rules that moral agents follow for a functional society Facts about Human Nature: - Equality of Need: we all need sustenance (ex) to survive, and while there are some variants, we are all essentially the same. - Scarcity: Resources are scarce, those with more resources are better equip - Essential Equality of Power: the strongest tend to survive, but smaller collective actions can balance out this "strongest" - Limited Altruism: In the State of Nature, altruism is limited, if even existent at all. - No Normative Law: There is no normative law in the state of nature beyond "every person for themselves," thus we require some sort of cooperative order to behave morally.

The Minimum Concept of Morality

Good Reasons, Impartial Considerations

Hedonism: Explain what Hedonism is and how this presents a problem for Classical Utilitarianism

Hedonism - Happiness is inherently valuable What's Wrong with Hedonism Example 1: Ridiculing Friend While we might gain pleasure from this action, we would otherwise consider this morally wrong. There is more to morality than simple happiness or unhappiness. Example 2: Morale Victory Just because we can have a net gain in happiness, this does not mean the action was necessarily the right one, or at least we wouldn't call the action "good." A purely Hedonist approach to Utilitarianism seems to forego other important principles when evaluating morally right actions.

Modus Tollens

Identify the structure: If you live in Cinci, you live in OH You do not live in OH You do not live in Cinci

The Violation of Human Rights

If there is a greater amount of happiness derived at the expense of another, Utilitarianism seems to endorse such an action, when we would (like Justice above) consider it morally wrong to violate an individual's rights. Tyranny of the Majority

Moral Reform and Progress

If we accept Relativism, then we have to accept that there is no such things a moral progress or decline, as we lack a standard to make such an evaluation. However, if we accept that a culture can morally progress or decline, then we have rejected a core principle of relativism.

The Issue of Tolerance

If we assert tolerance of other cultures, then we have implicitly assumed a universal principle to morality. Even if we accept tolerance as a cultural code, as opposed to universal, we run into the issue of tolerating otherwise intolerable or immoral behavior. We can evaluate a practice without directly challenging the culture as a whole. This also helps us avoid the issues that comes with critiquing differences - first, we can recognize that judging a practice is not the same as acting on a judgment. Second, we recognize that judging a practice is not the same as judging the culture. To do so would be the Hasty Generalization fallacy.

What is a Culture?

If we cannot clearly define a culture, or have a culture within a culture, then how do we determine which cultural code is the one to follow

Some Things Are Just Wrong

If we claim that some things are just wrong, then we are asserting a standard or evaluation that goes beyond the culture. One way which we can make such evaluations is to look at a practice in a culture and ask whether or not that practice helps or hinders the people in society. This gives us an objective standard to appeal to.

Equal Concern

If we must truly consider, and treat, everyone equally, then this is too demanding. It would require too much of the individual and is an impractical approach to morality. It would also seem to disrupt personal relationships, for if we recognize that everyone should be considered equally, then our friends and family are no more important than

Argument Types: Explain the difference between an Inductive and Deductive Argument, by way of example.

In an inductive argument, the Conclusion follows probably from the premises given. That is, if the Premises are true, then the conclusion is improbable to be false (or, stated another way, probably true). Example: Most freshman have part-time jobs on campus. Sara is a college freshman. We can reasonably conclude that Sara has a part-time job (there is room for error). In a deductive argument, the Conclusion follows necessarily from the premises given. That is, if the Premises are in fact True, it would be impossible for the Conclusion to be False. Example: You must be 21 or over to gamble at a casino. Scott is 25 years old. We can conclude that Scott can gamble at the casino. The arguments we will be focusing on are Deductive Arguments - the Conclusion would follow by necessity if the Premises are true.

Defenses of Utilitarianism

Includes points such as "evaluation all the consequences," "accounting for exceptions," and "common sense could be wrong."

The Problems of Justice

Is it morally right to sacrifice the justice of one individual, such as the case of arresting an innocent person, if it leads to civil calm? According to Utilitarianism, this would seem to be the case, yet we would not want to accept that we must harm an individual to do so.

Kantianism: Explain what Kantianism is as a moral theory, including what type of theory it is

Kant: Anti-Consequentialist. Outcomes do not matter at all. Morality is derived from rationality and moral principles. - Anti-Consequentialist, intrinsic right and wrong. - ,Morality is derived from human rationality and good will. This means we must be autonomous. - Based in reasoned moral principles. Rationalism

logic

Logic is the study of correct reasoning and the evaluation of arguments. To have good reasoning is to use the rules of logic in a valid and sound manner. Bad reasoning is when we misuse the rules of logic, or that our arguments are invalid or unsound.

Basic Principle of Consequentialism

Moral actions that promotes or produces benefit is considered morally good. Moral Actions that promotes or produces loss is considered morally bad.

Moral Disagreement

Moral disagreement is not about moral facts, but instead non-moral facts. If this is the case, then there might be moral principles that are universal, which is contrary to relativism. Just because there is disagreement, that does not entail there is no universal standard of morality.

Subjectivism is Anti-Realist

Moral facts are not mind-independent and are thus dependent one something or someone. Contrast with Objectivism, which asserts a universal standard of morality.

Moral Community: Select and expand on, by way of example, one of the aspects of the Moral Community

Morality in Place: While we can be justified in recognizing those closest to us, we must recognize that following the principle of promotion of general welfare expands in place - not just our family, but our community and ultimately, globally . Morality in Time: One of the challenges raised against the Social Contract Theory was that of future generations. Everyone must be considered equally, so issues like climate change are importation - not just for us, but for the next generation(s) Non-Human Animals: For the Utilitarian, we recognize that non-human animals are sentient. Kantians recognize proper treatment of non-human animals (humane treatment), but still in service to human needs. Sentience or Rational Agency - the moral community may expand beyong globally.

From Rachels: Egoism appeals to common sense

Morality, in Egoism, is about promoting the benefit of the individual. Our common sense says that if we want to avoid harm from others, we should avoid harming others ourselves. The goal is to prevent harm to the individual.

Natural Law Theory: Explain the core foundations of Natural Law Theory, including how we arrive at moral knowledge

Natural Law Theory: A deontological theory, as morality and rightness is derived from purpose in the world, instead of the consequences of our actions.

Challenges & Defenses: Select and explain one challenge to Utilitarianism, and how a Utilitarian may defend against this challenge

One challenge against Utilitarianism is that it goes against our gut instincts. This argument is saying that what produces the most benefit may not be what we inherently believe to be the morally correct thing to do, like EXAMPLE. The defense to this is that what our gut tells us to do is simply influenced by what usually happens when these actions, such as lying, occur, which is a modern utilitarian outlook on how morals should be judged. Even if you prefer act utilitarianism, they still have instances where that gut reaction is wrong, like an instance where a white lie is best etc. The other piece to the argument against the challenge is that our gut can be wrong. What your base reaction tells you is moral really could have bad side effects in the future that you are not accounting for right now, and the Utilitarian approach accounts for all consequences, good and bad alike rather than picking and choosing.

"Common Sense" Morality

Our Values The Challenge: some things are just wrong, upon instinct. Lying is wrong, for example. We don't need to wait to see what happens to know that lying is wrong. We value truthfulness. The Response: The reason we value certain things is because we have experienced the consequences of those actions. Lying, on the whole, is harmful. Truth telling, on the whole, is beneficial. Our values are derived from the consequences of acting a certain way. Gut Reactions The Challenge: like in Section 3, exceptional circumstances often arise, which we instinctively react to. Our instincts often conflict with established moral principles, because something seems right in the moment. The Response: Noting that moral rules are supposed to guide our moral behavior, then instead of "acting on instinct" we should instead appeal to our rules. What would produce the most benefit in this situation, based on our moral rules? We should follow reasoned principles instead of gut reactions. All Consequences The Challenge: The examples that challenged Utilitarianism were often framed as "bad actions produced a good outcome." When looking at immediate outcomes, this does appear to be the case - that bad things can allow good outcomes. The Response: In the moment, or in the immediate outcomes, yes, this might seem to be the case. In the long run, however, the net loss that stems from such individual actions does not outweigh the temporary gain. Instead, we create principles that account for all outcomes (at least, those that we can reasonable observe) and act in accordance to the principles or rules of those consequences.

Parts of an Argument: By way of example, label the different parts of an argument including the premise(s), conclusion, antecedent, consequent, conclusion, and compound statement

P1, compound sentence - If Emily lives in Los Angeles (Antecedent) , then she lives in California (consequent) P2- Emily lives in Los Angeles Conclusion- Therefore, she lives in California

For Relativism

Premise 1: If Relativism is true, then there is no such thing as moral progress or decline (only change) Premise 2: Relativism is true (asserted by the Relativist) Conclusion: There is no such thing as moral progress or decline (implied by Relativism) Modus Ponens Both arguments might be valid, but not sound.

Against Relativism

Premise 1: If Relativism is true, then there is no such thing as moral progress or decline. Premise 2: We reject that there is no such thing as moral progress or decline. Conclusion: By accepting moral progress and decline, we reject Relativism. Modus Tollens Moral Reformers

Ethical Egoism

Promotes the benefit of the individual. Committing an otherwise considered morally wrong act, such as the inheritance example in your text, would be considered morally right if it benefits the individual. Even though Ethical Egoism seems to fail, this does not mean that Consequentialism as a whole fails.

Psychological Egoism: Explain one argument in favor of and one argument against Psychological Egoism

Psychological Egoism: The part of Egoism that aims to explain Motivation of our actions (descriptive) Favoring Psychological Egoism: If we accept Psych. Ego. as true, then we would reject Altruism as a theory of motivation. Any action that we take is in service to a personal desire or interest, even if we think our motivation is external to the agent. This concept is known as Reinterpretation of Motives. The "we do what we want" and "we do what makes us feel good" arguments. All of our actions are rooted in fulfilling our desires to an outcome, or for the fact that we feel good from personal benefit. Our Benefit (primary) -> Benefit of others (byproduct) Challenging Psychological Egoism: "Non-Falsifiable Theory," There is no way to verify our motivations, and we should default assume we are acting for our interests. Psych. Ego. Does not reflect our standard understanding of Ethics, which includes a recognition of other moral agents. Desire as motivation. Some people really are motivated by Altruism, which acts as an objection to non-falsifiability. Benefit of others (primary) - > benefit of self (byproduct)

The Problem of Exceptions

Rachels is making the case for Rule Utilitarianism, that we should assess the outcomes of similar actions and create a moral rule or principle that permits or forbids similar actions. But what happens when we come across exceptions to these rules? How does Rule Utilitarianism account for such a challenge? Responding to Exceptions 1. In creating Exceptions, you are inherently creating an Act evaluation, not Rule 2. If you try to reformulate rules to account for exceptions, then you are no longer creating general rules or principles, but specific principles. 3. Even when we don't break (or alter) rules, we must still focus on the outcomes of the actions, and not the creation of the rules. To create a rule without looking at the outcome misses the point of Utilitarianism. The challenge, then, might work for Act Utilitarianism, but Rule Utilitarianism still holds for similar actions.

Multiple-Strategies Utilitarianism

Rachels present this updated version of Utilitarianism which adopts the "Best Plan" approach for promoting general welfare

Views of Ethics: Discuss the different views of Ethics, including Realism vs Anti-Realism, as well as Objectivism, Subjectivism, and Relativism

Realism vs Anti-Realism We've already touched on these at the start of the Unit: Realism asserts that mind-independent moral facts exists, while Anti-Realism asserts the contrary position. Views of Ethics Objectivist, which says morality is independent of the agent. Subjectivist, which asserts morality is dependent on the individual. Relativism, morality is dependent on the group or culture the individual is in. Types of Theories Consequentialist: morality is determined by the outcome of actions Deontological: morality is based on whether or not something is right or wrong in and of itself.

Evaluating a Theory: By way of example, explain what the generalization test does and how this contributes to reflective equilibrium

Reflective Equilibrium: the view that reasonable moral beliefs are those that survive the process of reflection on all of one's beliefs and balancing beliefs about moral theory against beliefs about moral particulars. In brief, we apply our theory and if it holds up, we continue using it. If it fails, then we either update it or abandon it. In the case of the unfair exam, if we find a text that doesn't quite match up our criteria, that doesn't necessarily mean the test isn't unfair or that our theory is bad - it could be that the exam gave us a criteria we haven't yet considered and need to account for.

Subjectivism is based on the Individual

Rejects an objective standard of morality It is true that different people have different views (moral or otherwise) "Perhaps moral subjectivism is the correct form of relativism, and morality comes down to the judgments of individuals with each individual subject being enough to form a moral community with an ethical code."

Subjectivism is based on the Individual.

Rejects an objective standard of morality It is true that different people have different views (moral or otherwise) "Perhaps moral subjectivism is the correct form of relativism, and morality comes down to the judgments of individuals with each individual subject being enough to form a moral community with an ethical code."

Rule Utilitarianism

Rule: Morality is evaluated on types of actions. The outcomes of similar types of actions are evaluated to create a general rule about that action.

Simple Challenge: Explain the Moral Disagreement and Always Right Challenge to (Simple) Subjectivism

Simple Subjectivism: "X is right" or "X is wrong" is a statement of agreement or disagreement. What is "morally correct" differs from person to person Challenge with Simple Subjectivism: Loss of "Moral Facts" Moral Disagreement would be lost because we have given up any sort of independent standard by which we can evaluate contrary moral claims We would have to accept that the individual is Always Right in their moral opinions, which is contrary to our typical understanding that there is a right (and wrong) way for the individual to behave

Personhood: Explain the Utilitarian view of Personhood/Sentience

The Argument Against Abortion: P1: It is wrong to kill innocent human beings P2: Fetuses are innocent human beings Con: It is wrong to kill fetuses The Definition of "Human": Moral Definition - Member of the Moral Community Genetic Definition - Member of the Human Species Fallacies in the Above Argument: Equivocation - using the same term differently Begging the Question - asserting the same information without added justification (circular) Moral Human (Person): Conscious, Reasoning, Self-Motivation, Capability to Communicate, Self-Awareness. A fetus, according to Warren, lacks these qualities, and is therefore not part of the moral community, and thus it is not immoral to "kill" a fetus. This might also imply that there are other "humans" that are not persons, or that there are persons that are not "human." Example: brain-dead patients, or perhaps Lt. Cmdr. Data from Star Trek: TNG (S2, E8 Measure of a Man).

Aristotle

The Greek philosopher that most influenced the concept that understanding the function of a thing informs our understanding of its purpose

The Prisoner's Dilemma

The Prisoner's Dilemma: Developed in the 1950's, the thought experiment aims to show how working cooperatively yields a better result than individuals acting for themselves (State of Nature) Individuals may not get maximal benefit, but instead can achieve the best available outcome. The Dilemma (Simplified): You are arrested and charged with treason (which you did not commit). You apparently acted with a man named "Smith," who is also innocent. While you both maintain your innocence, the police want to arrest someone. Both you and Smith are given the deal to confess or not, with imprisonment based on who talks and who doesn't. - If Smith is silent, but you confess against him, you go free and Smith gets 10 years - Smith confesses, but you do not. Smith is free and you get 10 Years - Both of you confess, and get 5 Years - No one confesses. Due to lack of evidence, you are both freed after 1 Year. - If you want to avoid as much time in prison as possible, what should you do (knowing you and Smith cannot discuss during deliberation and must decide what to do independently)?

Autonomy

The ability for an individual to act and decide for themselves

The Slippery Slope

The assertion that one action directly leads to another, worse action, implying that we should forbid the original action.

Net Utility

The concept that we should promote positive outcomes while reducing negative outcomes

Reasonable Non-Believers

The group that Danaher utilizes to exemplify moral agents that behave appropriately despite lacking God's Commands

Hypothetical Imperative: Explain the Hypothetical Imperative, including what its foundations are and how we go about approach or removing moral oughts

The hypothetical Imperative comes from our discussion on Kant, who holds strongly to his categorical imperative. The key difference between the two being that the hypothetical imperative only applies to those who want a certain goal. That is, the categorical is an ought while the hypothetical is simply needed, not obligated. A hypothetical imperative is a necessary condition to achieve a goal or a desire, for example you must get a medical PhD to become a practicing surgeon. To get out of this imperative, the only requirement is that you do not want or follow that end goal. If you only want to work in a library for the rest of your life, a PhD in medicine is no longer required of you.

The Euthyphro Dilemma

The idea that if we accept God's commands as the foundation of morality, we risk both the arbitrary and independent standard challenges

the Euthyphro Dilemma: Explain one challenge of the Euthyphro Dilemma against Divine Command Theory, as well as how a DCT proponent would respond to this challenge

The most common challenge to Divine Command Theory is the Euthyphro Dilemma.: "Is right conduct right because it is commanded by God, or does God command right conduct because it is right?" The Dilemma: Logical Disjunction: where one is presented with two options of an "or" statement. If an "or" statement to be true, one or both disjuncts must be true. The Dilemma is that by accepting or rejecting either option (called "horns of the dilemma"), one must accept the problems presented against Divine Command Theory. Since both horns present a challenge, we have a good reason to reject DCT

Arthur Schopenhaur

The name of the thinker that Kant responded to when discussing the difference between acing in conformity with and in accordance with moral duty

The Prisoner's Dilemma

The name of the thought experiment that argues that cooperative behavior is better than acting individually

Warren's Criteria for Personhood

The properties of Consciousness, Reasoning, Self-Motivation, Communication, and Self-Awareness

Ethics

The study of morality, that which is morally correct and morally incorrect

Reflective Equilibrium

The term (two words) for when we develop, apply, and update our moral theory

Divisions of Ethics. By way of example, discuss the three divisions of Ethics.

The three divisions of ethics are Metaethics, Normative Ethics, and Applied Ethics. Metaethics explores the assumptions and foundations of all moral theories. Normative ethics are moral theories that we actually develop to direct, guide, or explain our moral behavior. Applied ethics is when we apply our moral theories.

Hypothetical

The type of imperative that informs us our moral oughts derive from our desires.

Hedonism

The view that happiness is the only inherently good virtue, and pain is inherently bad.

The Question of Morality. Socrates presents the question "What is it to live honorably or rightly?" Discuss the three ways in which we look at and respond to this question.

To live honorably or rightly, according to the Greeks, is to be a virtuous person. Three ways in which we look at and respond to this question are asking what the assumptions are behind the question, upon accepting those assumptions, how do we go about and make theories from them, and rather than generalize, we can look at what it means to live well in a variety of cases.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist theory, evaluating what is morally right based on the outcomes produced.

Utilitarianism: Explain what Utilitarianism is as a moral theory, including what type of moral theory it is

Utilitarianism: -Consequentialist, focuses on outcomes -Morality is derived from happiness (classical) or benefit (modern) -Based in experience, we recognize the outcomes of our actions, or by our experience of them, to determine similar actions. Empiricism.

Bentham's Principle of Utility

We should produce the most happiness for the most amount of people

Modern Utilitarianism

What Rules can we make that that produce the most benefit (not necessarily happiness) for those affected by our actions? The outcomes of similar actions leads us to creating rules that apply to future similar instances.

Labeling The Argument: When we label an entire argument, we use the terms Valid, Invalid, Sound and Unsound. Define each of these labels.

When using the terms valid/invalid, think if it is logic or not. Also recall the Rule of Validity states:"if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true." This should indicate whether there is a form of structure or not. If the statement is invalid, the conclusion does not follow the premises. If the statement is valid, the conclusion does follow the premises. An argument cannot be valid and invalid at the same time. If the argument is valid, that does not mean the argument is also sound, there is a possibility that the argument is unsound. When using the terms sound and unsound, keep two terms in mind. Validity and truthfulness. Sound and unsound evaluate the validity of the argument and again the truthfulness. If the argument is not, both valid and truth, then it is unsound. If an argument is sound, then the argument is valid and truthful. To be proven unsound, the argument must either be false, invalid or both. *the word obtain also means true

The Is/Ought Fallacy

When we have an assertion about how things are and attempt to derive how they should work exclusively from this initial assertion

Preliminary Moral Theories

When we make a claim, or develop a theory, we provide arguments and reasons in support of that claim or theory. Preliminary theories are found to be unsatisfactory, because the arguments against them are stronger - have more points in favor of the contrary position - than in favor of these theories.

Kant's moral theory entails (select all that apply)? Select one or more: a. Actions should follow autonomous self-rule b. Outcomes that produce maximal benefit are the morally right action to take c. Reasons in one situation are reasons in all situations d. One cannot consider one moral agent as superior or inferior to another

a,c,d

In a good moral theory, we recognize treating people as they deserve. For the Utilitarian, this is based on __________, and for the Kantian, this is based on __________ Select one: a. Consequences of Action, Retributive Punishment b. Consequences of Action, Principle of Equality c. Categorical Imperative, Retributive Punishment d. Categorical Imperative, Principle of Equality

a

Select the answer that correctly labels the argument, as well as gives the correct justification for the label. If the lamp is on, then there is power in the outlet There is power in the outlet The lamp is on Select one: a. Invalid, uses the FAC form, Unsound b. Invalid, uses FDA Form, Sound c. Valid, uses FAC Form, Unsound d. Valid, uses MT Form, Sound

a

egoism

a moral theory grounded in the individual

Valid

a valid argument is one that is in proper structure, or form. The Rule of Validity states "if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true." That is, we expect the Conclusion to follow from the Premises given.

Natural Law Theory entails (select all that apply)? Select one or more: a. God is the authority of morality b. Our moral actions should adhere to what is metaphysically natural c. God's commands create moral obligation d. That which is physically natural does not entail that which is metaphysically natural

a,b

Select all of the following that are challenges to Utilitarianism Select one or more: a. Hedonism dismisses other viable moral principles b. Utilitarianism demands too much of a moral agent c. Relevant Descriptions leads to moral conflict d. We are unable to account for non-rational agents

a,b

Select all that are defenses of Kantianism Select one or more: a. Autonomous agents are responsible for their own actions b. Misuse of non-moral agents is immoral because it harms rational agents c. Moral actions should be in accordance with action types, not individual actions d. Morally correct actions are those that satisfy the oughts of desire

a,b

According to John Rawls, which of the following would be considered winning the "natural lottery" (select all that apply)? Select one or more: a. Being born with the proverbial silver spoon in your mouth b. Having an equality in liberty in a rights in a society c. Approaching fairness on the original position of equality d. Having more aesthetically pleasing features

a,d

Which of these are challenges presented in the Euthyphro Dilemma (select all that apply)? Select one or more: a. God could command something we would value as immoral, but would still be obligatory b. Not all moral agents receive commands which establish moral oughts c. Goodness, in relation to God, is considered featureless d. The explanations of our moral actions are grounded in independent reasons

a,d

Why is Bentham's Principle of Utility considered a radical theory (select all that apply)? Select one or more: a. There is no reference to divine moral law b. It denies the existence of moral rightness and moral wrongness c. If focuses solely on the individual's happiness over everything else d. It requires we do whatever is necessary to promote happiness (or reduce unhappiness)

a,d

Invalid Forms: By way of example, explain the difference between Affirming the Consequent and Denying the Antecedent

affirming the consequent Modus Ponens is a Valid Affirmation and reads from A to C. if we reverse this order, then we get an Invalid Affirmation form. This is known as the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent Line 1: Antecedent à Consequent Line 2: Consequent Line 3: Antecedent In an FAC form, we begin with a Conditional Statement, and we affirm the Consequent. From there, we aim to derive the affirmative Antecedent. However, as we will see, this is invalid because the conclusion would not follow from the premises given. Denying the Antecedent Modus Tollens is a Valid Denial form, and reads form C to A. If we reverse the order we deny, then we get an Invalid Denial. Form. This is known as Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. Line 1: Antecedent à Consequent Line 2: (Negated) Antecedent Line 3: (Negated) Consequent In the FDA form, we begin again with a Conditional Statement, and we assert the negated Antecedent, and attempt to derive the negated Consequent. However, as we will see, this is invalid because the conclusion would not follow from the given premises.

Unsound

an argument is unsound if it is Invalid, False, or both.

Kant's Categorical Imperative states that? Select one: a. We ought to act in a certain way, provided we have the desire to do so b. We ought to act in such a way that would be accepted as universal law c. We ought to act such that we treat people as means for our personal goals d. We ought to act such that we produce the most benefit for all considered

b

Select the answer that correctly fills in the blank: Subjectivism that asserts that moral agents can agree on the basic facts of a situation, while still differing on the correct action regarding those facts is __________ Subjectivism. Select one: a. Simple b. Emotive c. Error d. Relative

b

Select the correct answer: the process by which we develop, apply, and update our moral theories in response to new information or challenges is called? Select one: a. Metaethics b. Reflective Equilibrium c. Moral Philosophy d. Applied Ethics

b

The thought experiment that implied that the ends can justify the means is called? Select one: a. The Euthyphro Dilemma b. The Trolley Problem c. The Epistemic Challenge d. The Inquiring Murderer

b

Williams argues in the __________ that euthanasia is inherently wrong, whereas the argument from __________ presents a slippery slope argument that warrants concern. Select one: a. Self-Interest argument, Practical Effects b. Argument from Nature, Practical Effects c. Argument from Nature, Self-Interest d. Practical Effects Argument, Hopelessly ill

b

ojman Appeals to both __________ Arguments for the death penalty, saying the criminal has earned that punishment, as well as __________, which says punishing criminals reduces further crime. Select one: a. Retributivism, Revenge b. Retributivism, Deterrence c. Revenge, Deterrence d. Deterrence, Retributivism

b

Select all of the following that are defenses of utilitarianism Select one or more: a. Rational agents appeal to the same universal maxims b. Our moral values are derived from the outcomes we experience c. Actions should follow rules of similar actions, instead of individual actions d. Morality derives from agent self-rule

b,c

Select all that are challenges to Kantianism Select one or more: a. Kantianism is inconsistent with the concepts of Rights and Justice b. Relevant Descriptions leads to moral conflict c. Our actions may be justified contrary to absolute moral rules d. Individual actions might be permissible in some instances, but not in types of actions

b,c

Which of the following are true about Marquis's position on abortion (select all that apply)? Select one or more: a. Abortion is wrong because a fetus is a person from the moment of conception b. Abortion is wrong because killing a fetus is the same as killing a human adult c. Abortion should be considered prima facie immoral d. Abortion is permissible because a fetus is not a person

b,c

According to James Rachels, the minimum concept of morality requires two criteria: (1) Moral Judgments must be backed by good reasons and (2) Morality requires an impartial consideration of each individual's interest affected by an action. When considering these criteria, Rachels asserts (select all that apply)? Select one or more: a. Every Ethical Theory accepts these minimums. b. One can accept these minimums while disagreeing about how they are applied c. Application of these minimums permits treating people arbitrarily d. Rejection of these minimums tends to lead to difficulties in developing a theory.

b,d

According to Warren, for one to be part of the moral community, one must be considered ______? Select one: a. A sentient being b. A genetic human c. A moral person d. A rational agent

c

According to the Modern Argument, Euthanasia is morally permissible if the action __________ and __________ Select one: a. Decreases unhappiness, allows for individual freedom b. Produces net benefit, allows for individual freedoms c. Produces net benefit, does not violate individual rights d. Decreases unhappiness, does not violate individual rights

c

Determine, by selecting the correct option and justification, whether the following statement is a Sufficient Condition, Necessary Condition, or Neither. Statement: If you are a Christian, then you are a Protestant Select one: a. Sufficient, because if it is true you are Christian, then it is true you are also a Protestant b. Necessary Condition, because if you not a Protestant, then you are not a Christian c. Neither condition, because even if you are a Christian, it does not mean you are a Protestant d. Sufficient Condition, because if you are a Protestant, then you are also a Christian e. Necessary Condition, because if you are not a Christian, then you are not a Protestant

c

James Rachels ultimately adopted and defended the moral theory of __________? Select one: a. Retributivism b. Theistic Natural Law Theory c. Utilitarianism d. Ethical Egoism

c

Select the answer that correctly fills in the blanks to the following statement. Facts that matter to the argument you are making are __________ relevant, whereas facts that are part of the situation but do not directly contribute to your argument are __________ relevant. Select one: a. Genuinely, Morally b. Apparently, Genuinely c. Genuinely, Apparently d. Morally, Apparently

c

Select the correct answer: According to Danaher, Divine Command Theory fails because? Select one: a. God is unable to issue commands b. God's commands are arbitrary c. God's commands cannot account for the morality of certain moral agents d. God's commands are the required epistemic and ontological source of morality

c

Select the correct answer: According to Relativism, one ought to act in accordance with the codes of the culture that one is in. Presented as such, this assertion is a __________ Statement Select one: a. Descriptive b. Prescriptive c. Normative

c

Select the correct answer: The concept behind "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" echoes the principle behind what moral theory? Select one: a. Retributivism b. Egoism c. Utilitarianism d. Stoicism

c

The Hypothetical Imperative is based in? Select one: a. Autonomous self-rule of agents b. Actions in accordance with good will c. Actions adhere to agent desires d. Autonomous agents act according to their wills

c

The __________ exemplifies that there are situations where rational self-interested people do worse by acting on those independent interests contrary to cooperative order. Select one: a. Trolley Problem b. Inquiring Murderer c. Prisoner's Dilemma d. Euthyphro Dilemma

c

The key principle behind Singer's assertion that Speciesism is morally wrong is that? Select one: a. God has forbidden speciesism b. All animals are rational agents c. Non-human animals are sentient d. Rights are granted in accordance with responsibility

c

Utilitarianism is a moral view that says right action is based on outcomes. In evaluating these outcomes, _____ Utilitarianism focuses on particular moral actions, while _____ Utilitarianism focuses on general principles of moral actions. Select one: a. Moral, Rule b. Act, Moral c. Act, Rule d. Rule, Act

c

elect the correct answer: One of the key metaethical principles of Subjectivism is that? Select one: a. Moral facts are determined by an individual's beliefs b. Moral facts are determined by an individual's culture c. Moral facts do not exits, only difference of opinion d. Moral facts are determined by what is in an individual's best interest

c

For the Utilitarian, a sentient being is one that? Select one: a. Has the ability for rational thought b. Acts towards one's interests c. Is led by self-rule d. Has the ability to feel pleasure and pain

d

John Locke's Law of Nature is __________, derives from __________, and is protected by __________ Select one: a. Descriptive, Government, State of Nature b. Normative, Government, State of Nature c. Descriptive, State of Nature, Government d. Normative, State of Nature, Government

d

Kant is a _____, and asserts that morality is based in _____ Select one: a. Consequentialist, Experience b. Consequentialist, Rationalism c. Anti-Consequentialist, Experience d. Anti-Consequentialist, Rationalism

d

Select the correct answer: Within the theory of Egoism, what is the difference between Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism? Select one: a. Psychological is Prescriptive, Ethical is Normative b. Psychological is Prescriptive, Ethical is Descriptive c. Psychological is Descriptive, Ethical is Descriptive d. Psychological is Descriptive, Ethical is Normative

d

Select the multiple choice answer that correctly fills in the blanks: The position that moral facts are constructed by the individual or culture is called __________, whereas the position that moral facts exist and are true regardless of beliefs to the contrary is called __________. Select one: a. Moral Relativism, Moral Subjectivism b. Moral Subjectivism, Moral Realism c. Moral Realsim, Moral Relativism d. Moral Anti-Realism, Moral Realism

d

Select the option that correctly fills in the blanks to the following: Moral theories that focus on things such as duty and inherently right actions are considered __________, whereas theories that focus on outcomes of moral actions are known as __________ Select one: a. Kantian, Consequentialist b. Consequentialist, Deontological c. Deontological, Utilitarian d. Deontological, Consequentialist

d

Using the same argument from provided above (and reproduced here), label the structure the argument takes. If the lamp is on, then there is power in the outlet There is power in the outlet The lamp is on Select one: a. Modus Ponens b. Modus Tollens c. Denying the Antecedent d. Affirming the Consequent

d

When discussing influences on animal rights, Machan recognizes that animals are __________ and thus ___________ Select one: a. Rational, deserving of rights b. Rational, should be treated humanely c. Sentient, deserving of rights d. Sentient, should be treated humanely

d

Invalid

if an argument can be valid, we would expect that it can also be invalid. This means the argument does not follow the Rule of Validity - the argument is not in a proper form (in other words, the Conclusion does not follow from the Premises given).

Descriptive Statements

state how things are

Prescriptive Statements

state how things ought to be

Metaethics

the groundings of a moral theory