philosophy make up exam
Explain the spinach test. Why is Korsgaard's joke funny? Why is an analogous joke about believing that the earth revolves around the sun not funny? Finally, explain what this shows about the objectivity of morality, according to Enoch.
" 'I am glad I do not like spinach' To which I ask why, ' Because if I did like spinach I would have to eat it and it tastes gross.'" This is an example of the Spinach test. This is considered "funny" and to make sense. If you put a different topic in the joke and it is funny or makes sense it is considered subjective. If it is not so funny or does not really make sense it is considered more objective.
What is the Euthyphro question and why is it important?
"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" The Euthyphro question is important because it raises fundamental questions about the nature of morality and its relationship to religion. It challenges the idea that morality is simply a matter of following divine commands and raises the possibility that there is a moral order that exists independently of the gods.
State the Euthyphro question, and explain the two possible answers to it.
-"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" -1. God approves of the right actions just because they are right and disapproves of wrong actions just because they are wrong. -2.Right actions are right because God approves them and wrong actions are wrong just because God disapproves them. ( Divine command theory- An act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it)
Explain Hobbes's conception of the "state of nature" and where he thinks that moral obligations come from
-State of nature refers to a state in which the world has no laws. ( which makes lying, murder stealing okay) Living in a state of nature means you are prone to living a shorter life. In order to prevent that one must create a social contract theory to ultimately protect oneself. ( A social contract theory is when a group of people come together to limit their freedoms in order to create a better outcome.) -Moral obligations come from self-interest. He believes if we live in a world where everyone only care about their self interest then we live in a scary place. Hobbes believes you should never break a law!
What is the Fool's objection to always behaving justly, and how does Hobbes respond?
-The fool is someone who breaks ones social contract theory but tries to rationalize in his or her head or looks for exceptions to breaking the law or committing an action. -Contradicts what Hobbes believes a rational and just person should be. Hobbes doesn't care about the reason or if it benefits a lot of people or just oneself but believes everyone needs to follow the rules regardless.
Explain the concept of a prima facie duty, and describe how it differs from a duty proper. Why does Ross think that the duties he mentions are only prima facie duties?
-The prima Facie ( Non-permanent) duties are: 1. Fidelity ( keeping promises) 2. Reparations (repairing harms we've done) 3. Gratitude ( acknowledging others) 4. Justice (ensure virtue is rewarded) 5. Beneficence (enhancing the intelligence, virtue, nor pleasures of others) 6. Self improvement 7. Non-Maleficence ( preventing harm to others). -These duties differ from proper duty because prima facie duties are non permanent and allows you to break the rule in a certain situation. Duty proper is absolute. There can be more than one rule but they can not be broken no matter what. -Ross believes the duties he mentioned are only prima facie duties because you can add to them if need be and it is not a permanent list.
Explain Mill's model of moral decision-making.
.Mill's model of moral decision-making involves four steps: Determine the available options: The first step is to identify all the available options for a given situation. This involves considering all the possible actions that could be taken, as well as their potential consequences. Evaluate the consequences: The second step is to evaluate the consequences of each available option. This involves assessing the impact that each option would have on overall happiness or pleasure and overall pain or suffering. Choose the option with the greatest overall utility: The third step is to choose the option that has the greatest overall utility. This means choosing the option that produces the most happiness or pleasure and the least pain or suffering. Act on the chosen option: The final step is to act on the option that was chosen in step three. This involves taking action to bring about the consequences that were evaluated in step two.
Explain one of the three prominent skeptical challenges that McGrath discusses in the reading entitled "Moral Knowledge".
.One of the three prominent skeptical challenges that McGrath discusses in "Moral Knowledge" is the challenge of moral disagreement. This challenge is based on the observation that there is a great deal of moral disagreement among people, both within and across cultures. This disagreement seems to indicate that there is no objective or universal moral truth that can be discovered. According to this challenge, if moral knowledge were possible, then we would expect to see greater agreement among people about moral issues. However, the fact that there is so much disagreement suggests that there is no objective or universal moral truth that can be discovered.
Why does Midgely say moral relativism must be abandoned?
According to moral relativism, moral judgments are relative to individual or cultural perspectives, and there are no objective or universal moral standards that apply to everyone. Midgley argues that this view is problematic because it prevents us from engaging in critical reflection and moral reasoning. Without objective moral standards, we would be unable to compare our own moral beliefs and practices with those of others, and to evaluate whether our own beliefs and practices are reasonable or justifiable.
What is the relationship between pleasure and virtue, according to Aristotle? How does it differ from a utilitarian conception of the relationship between pleasure and virtue?
Aristotle believed that we all seek happiness, but he saw happiness as involving more than just pleasure. For him, the good life involved being active, make wise choices, and following worthy pursuits. He thought that virtue was an essential element in a good life and in this way he differed from utilitarians. The utilitarians want to maximize happiness, but Aristotle wants people to lead a good life, which includes balance and virtue
How does Aristotle think that people become virtuous?
Aristotle believes that people become virtuous by practicing virtuous actions repeatedly until they become habits. He argues that virtues are not innate, but rather developed through a process of habituation and cultivation.
What is the difference between description and prescription? In what ways is feminist ethics committed to both? Why does Lindemann claim that the feminist approach to ethics is more descriptive than other approaches?
Description refers to the objective and neutral portrayal of a situation or phenomenon as it is, while prescription refers to the normative or evaluative statement of how things ought to be. In other words, description is concerned with the facts of a situation, while prescription is concerned with what should be done about those facts. Feminist ethics is committed to both description and prescription, as it seeks to understand and critique the gendered and patriarchal aspects of society, while also advocating for change towards a more just and equitable society. Feminist ethics aims to describe the ways in which women and other marginalized groups have been oppressed and marginalized within social, political, and economic structures, while also prescribing changes to these structures to promote greater equality and justice. Lindemann claims that the feminist approach to ethics is more descriptive than other approaches because it seeks to understand and describe the lived experiences of women and other marginalized groups within society. Feminist ethics aims to describe the ways in which power and oppression are gendered, and how this affects the lives of individuals and communities. By highlighting the ways in which women have been marginalized and oppressed within society, feminist ethics seeks to bring about social change that is more equitable and just for all individuals
What does Kant mean by "acting from duty"? How does acting from duty differ from acting in accordance with duty?
For Kant, doing something "in accordance w/ duty" is an action w/out moral content. He believes that only actions done "from duty" have moral worth.
According to Harman, what is the relationship between moral judgments and moral truth?
Harman suggests that moral judgments are not straightforward statements of moral truth, but rather they are expressions of our subjective attitudes and preferences. Harman also believes that there is an objective moral truth that exists independently of our subjective attitudes and beliefs. He suggests that this truth is not directly accessible through our moral judgments, but rather it can be discovered through reflection and critical inquiry.
What role do "projects of worth" play in Wolf's view?
In Susan Wolf's view, "projects of worth" also play a crucial role in creating meaning in life. Wolf suggests that a meaningful life is one in which a person engages in activities or projects that they consider to be worthwhile and valuable. According to Wolf, "projects of worth" are activities or pursuits that are not only valuable in themselves but also contribute to one's sense of purpose and significance. These projects can include personal goals, such as learning a new skill or pursuing a hobby, or broader social or cultural goals, such as contributing to one's community or making a positive impact on society.
What is the humanity formulation of the categorical imperative? How does it apply to moral decision making?
It states that we should always treat humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as an end in itself and never as a means to an end. This principle asserts that all human beings have inherent value and dignity, and that we should respect this value by treating people with kindness, fairness, and respect. In moral decision-making, the humanity formulation of the categorical imperative requires us to consider the moral implications of our actions on the people involved. It requires us to treat others as autonomous individuals who are capable of making their own decisions, and to avoid treating them merely as tools or objects to achieve our own goals.
Explain the relationship between feminist politics and feminist ethics. How does Lindemann see the two as related?
Lindemann believes that feminist ethics and politics are very closely related. If you are a feminist, you believe in feminist ethics, therefore you should be trying to make females equal in the eye of the law.
Why does Mackie refer to his view as an "error theory"? What is the "error" that Mackie takes himself to be pointing out?
Mackie refers to his view as an "error theory" because he argues that there is a fundamental error in the way we think about morality. According to Mackie, moral claims are not objectively true or false, but rather they are expressions of our subjective attitudes and preferences. In other words, when we make moral claims, we are not describing an objective feature of the world, but rather expressing our personal opinions and feelings. The "error" that Mackie takes himself to be pointing out is the belief in objective moral values and duties. Mackie argues that this belief is a result of an error in our thinking, a mistaken assumption that moral properties are objective and can be discovered through reason or intuition. He contends that there are no objective moral properties or facts in the world, and that moral claims are merely expressions of our subjective attitudes and preferences.
How does Midgley argue for her claim that "moral isolationism would lay a general ban down on moral reasoning"?
Midgley begins by defining moral isolationism as the view that we cannot understand or judge the moral practices of cultures different from our own. According to this view, moral practices are completely relative to each culture and cannot be compared or evaluated from an outside perspective. Midgley then argues that this view is flawed because it would prevent us from engaging in moral reasoning and criticism. She suggests that moral reasoning requires us to compare our own moral beliefs and practices with those of others, and to consider whether our own beliefs and practices are reasonable or justifiable. Without this ability to compare and evaluate different moral practices, we would be unable to engage in moral reasoning at all. Midgley also suggests that moral isolationism would lead to a kind of moral relativism in which we would be unable to criticize or challenge the moral practices of our own culture. This would be a problem because it would prevent us from identifying and correcting moral problems within our own society. Therefore, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is an untenable view because it would prevent us from engaging in the kind of moral reasoning and criticism that is necessary for ethical inquiry and progress.
What is Mill's argument for the claim that happiness is the only thing valuable as an end in itself?
Mill is a hedonist and believes in this idea of happiness and pleasure. Hedonists believe that happiness is the most ultimate thing. His whole thing was you should always strive for happiness for the greatest pleasure. He also stated that you should do the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. He believes happiness is the most important thing, because he feels that everyone's going to want to experience it.
What objections does Ross offer to other ethical theories?
One of Ross's main objections to utilitarianism is that it reduces morality to a single principle of maximizing overall happiness or pleasure, without taking into account the individual rights and duties that people have. He argues that utilitarianism is unable to explain why certain actions are inherently wrong, such as lying or breaking a promise, even if they would result in the greatest overall happiness. Similarly, Ross objects to Kantian ethics by arguing that it places too much emphasis on rules and duties, without taking into account the particular circumstances of a situation. He argues that Kantian ethics fails to recognize that moral decision-making often involves weighing conflicting obligations and considering the context of a situation. Ross also critiques ethical theories that rely on intuition or emotion, arguing that they lack a clear and systematic approach to moral reasoning. He asserts that ethical decision-making requires a careful consideration of the principles of morality and the particular circumstances of a situation, rather than relying solely on instinct or emotion.
Harman compares ethics to science. In what ways does he think that they are similar? In what ways does he think that they are different?
Similarities: Both ethics and science are concerned with discovering the truth about the world. In science, this involves discovering the laws and principles that govern the natural world, while in ethics it involves discovering what is morally right and wrong. Both ethics and science rely on empirical evidence to support their claims. In science, this involves gathering data through experimentation and observation, while in ethics it involves examining moral experiences and intuitions. Differences: Ethics is concerned with normative questions, while science is concerned with descriptive questions. Ethics seeks to determine what we ought to do, while science seeks to describe how the world is. The methods used in ethics are different from those used in science. In science, the methods are often quantitative, involving measurement and statistical analysis. In ethics, the methods are often qualitative, involving interpretation and analysis of moral experiences and values. There is less agreement among ethicists than among scientists. In science, there is generally a high level of consensus on established scientific theories, while in ethics there is often more disagreement and debate.
Explain the counterfactual test of morality. What indicates that a subject matter is objective? What indicates that a subject matter is subjective?
The counterfactual test of morality is a way of testing whether a moral claim is objective or subjective. According to this test, a moral claim is objective if it would be true even if certain circumstances were different, whereas a moral claim is subjective if it depends on individual or cultural perspectives. In general, a subject matter is considered objective if it is independent of individual or cultural perspectives, and would be true regardless of who believes it or how they feel about it. This is typically indicated by the presence of objective standards, criteria, or evidence that can be used to evaluate claims within that subject matter. For example, in science, objective evidence can be used to test and evaluate hypotheses, regardless of individual or cultural perspectives. On the other hand, a subject matter is considered subjective if it is dependent on individual or cultural perspectives, and can vary from person to person or culture to culture. This is typically indicated by the presence of personal preferences, opinions, or experiences that are used to evaluate claims within that subject matter. For example, in art, subjective preferences and experiences are often used to evaluate the aesthetic value of a work, and these can vary greatly from person to person.
What is Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative? How are we supposed to apply it in order to determine whether a particular action is morally permissible or not?
The first formulation of Kant's categorical imperative is: act only in accordance w/ that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law. To apply it, we must use our reason, be logical, and be consistent/realistic, and always be motivated by the good will. He thought that all moral duties are categorical imperatives. Applying it, you should formulate your maxim and imagine if everyone would support you. A maxim is explaining why we act the way that we do. Now we think about it if everyone did that, you would end up angry when people stole your movies. Therefore, you should not do it as well. You can't break the rules, and then expect that others wouldn't do the same. You want to achieve overall goodness for no just yourself, but others as well. Therefore, this act would not be morally permissible.
What is the method of reflective equilibrium that McGrath considers?
The method of reflective equilibrium consider cases or hypothetical scenarios that challenge or conflict with initial moral beliefs and principles that are already appealing. It is a method of ethical reasoning that involves working towards a coherent and consistent set of moral beliefs and principles through a process of mutual adjustment. This method is often used in moral philosophy to help individuals determine the correct moral principles or beliefs to hold.
What does Kant claim is the only thing that is "good without limitation"? How does his view on this matter differ from hedonism?
The only thing that Kant claimed is good without limitation is "the good will." The goodwill is a good in itself. Kant didn't believe, as the utilitarians do, that happiness is the ultimate value. He said if happiness comes as a result of wrongdoing, it has no value, and wealth, power, and even health can be misused, but the one thing that is of value in any and every situation is the good will.
According to the Divine Command Theory, actions are right just because God commands them. Explain how a modified version of the Euthyphro question might be used to raise a problem for the Divine Command Theory.
The second part of the Euthyphro question states that right actions are right because God approves them and wrong actions are wrong just because God disapproves them this agrees with the divine command theory. Divine command theory- An act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it. -The problem that arises with this is that was if God does not exist or does not issue any commands does that mean that nothing is morally right?
Define utilitarianism and clearly explain the difference between the two versions of the theory.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that holds that actions are right or wrong based on their consequences. It asserts that the goal of moral action is to maximize overall happiness or pleasure (known as "utility") and minimize overall pain or suffering. There are two main versions of utilitarianism: act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. The main difference between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism is that act-utilitarianism evaluates individual actions based on their consequences, while rule-utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their conformity to a set of general rules that would maximize overall utility. Act-utilitarianism is more flexible and open to individual circumstances, while rule-utilitarianism is more focused on establishing general rules that can be followed in most situations.
What does Aristotle mean when he says that "virtue is a kind of mean"? Illustrate a virtue using his explanation
Virtue is a state of character concerned with choice lying in a mean. We need to live in a good character, improving our reasoning to hit the right spot of the good life. By "mean" Aristotle means that one can not have too much or too little but just the right amount. EG: Bravery - too little bravery means that one is too cowardly where too much makes a person rash. If someone is drowning in the San Marcos river one with not too little bravery is going to sit there and maybe cry out, one with too much bravery would jump in head first and hit his head on a rock but one with a mean in bravery might go get a floatation device.
What does Enoch mean when he says that moral discourse "aspires to objectivity"? Why does Enoch think it is important to establish this?
When Enoch says that moral discourse "aspires to objectivity," he means that moral statements or judgments aim to be true or false based on independent standards, regardless of our personal beliefs, emotions, or preferences. In other words, moral discourse seeks to make claims about what is right or wrong, good or bad, regardless of who is making the claims or their subjective experiences. Enoch thinks it is important to establish moral discourse because it enables us to engage in rational and critical discussions about moral issues, to evaluate different arguments and evidence, and to hold ourselves and others accountable to moral standards. Recognizing the objectivity of moral discourse makes it possible to make claims about what is right or wrong, good or bad, regardless of personal beliefs, emotions, or preferences. This allows us to have meaningful and productive discussions about morality, rather than arbitrary or meaningless expressions of personal preferences or emotions.
Draw on Enoch's essay to show both why moral disagreement might support the claim that morality is objective and why moral disagreement might undermine the claim that morality is objective
While the assumption of a correct answer in moral disagreement can support objectivity, fundamental disagreements and disagreements about specific moral judgments can suggest that morality may be more subjective or difficult to determine than objective.
Explain Wolf's theory of meaning.
Wolf argues that a meaningful life involves not only happiness but also a sense of purpose or significance. She suggests that this sense of purpose or significance arises from the pursuit of worthwhile goals or projects that one values.
Explain Wolf's account of the relationship between meaning in life and the value of a life.
Wolf suggests that while a meaningful life is valuable, not all valuable lives are necessarily meaningful. According to Wolf, a meaningful life involves not only happiness but also a sense of purpose or significance. She suggests that this sense of purpose or significance arises from the pursuit of worthwhile goals or projects that one values. Engaging in these activities provides a deeper level of satisfaction and fulfillment than simply experiencing pleasure or avoiding pain. Wolf also suggests that a meaningful life has intrinsic value, meaning that it is valuable in itself, regardless of any external factors or consequences. In other words, the pursuit of meaning is valuable in and of itself, and not just for the sake of achieving some other goal or outcome.
How does Mill think we can determine which kinds of pleasure are most valuable?
You would have to ask the people that have experience both, nè whichever one is viewed as more valuable to them, is the most valuable kind of pleasure. (Quality vs. Quantity)
Which kinds of pleasure does Mill claim are most valuable?
You're going to want to strive for higher pleasures (intellectual: reading and math; they're long term pleasures). -Lower pleasure- short term self gratification (temporary)(innate, eating, sleeping, sex etc.) .
Explain the Greatest Happiness Principle.
actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness
