Ethics Exam 1

an entire domain of discourse

what error theories attempt to refute, like "no moral truths exist"

ethical questions

what metaethics asks questions about

Explain "Eternal Recurrance". What is Nietzsche trying to get us to see with the use of this thought experiment? What do you think "the last man" would say in response to the demon? Why?

"Eternal Recurrance" is an idea used by Nietzsche in a thought experiment, where an individual is told that he must live his life over and over again for all of eternity. He is trying to get us to see that we would be unsatisfied if we had to live the same life for all of eternity. "The last man" would simply accept this fact with little opposition, because he is satisfied with the mundane and uninteresting life.

What does Vitale mean by the phrase "winsome disruptor"? Why does he think that we need winsome disruptors? What are the two big ways Vitale suggests we can undertake to begin the difficult work of becoming a winsom disrupter? Based on these two tasks, what do you think are three traits or virtues that are important for being a winsom disruptor?

A "winsome disruptor" is one who can disrupt well by drawing people to them instead of moving past them. He thinks we need winsome disruptors because arguments are becoming more personal and people are not listening well. The two ways to become a winsome disruptor are having better conversations and telling better stories. Three traits that are important are confidence, good listening skills, and patience.

Some critics may claim that, if Haidt is correct, we have little reason to be concerned with the quality of our moral discourse, since his view seems to entail that moral reasoning is not particularly important. Explain why a critic might hold such a view. How do you think Haidt and his defenders might reply to this criticism? Is there any way in which Haidt's account might help us improve or encourage moral discourse?

A critic might hold such a view because Haidt's claim indicates that moral deliberation may not be related to moral actions. Haidt and his defenders may respond by saying that we should not get rid of moral deliberation, but instead focus on the context. Haidt's account may help improve or encourage moral discourse by allowing for a shift of focus onto the context.

Explain the difference between a normative claim and a descriptive claim. Explain the difference between a lexical definition and an ostensive definition. When might it be more useful to have an ostensive definition than a lexical one? Provide your own examples of both a lexical and an ostensive definition for your favorite slang term that Dr. P probably doesn't know. Your examples should demonstrate that you understand the difference between these types of definitions.

A normative claim states what ought to be, while a descriptive claim states what is. A lexical definition is when a term is defined using common usage, and an ostensive definition is when a term is defined using exemplars. It may be more useful to have an ostentive rather than lexical definition if a term is being defined to someone who is unfamiliar with the language being spoken. Dawg (lexical)-an incorrect spelling of dog. Dawg (ostentive)-a term used to refer to a friend, used like "buddy" or "man".

What is an error theory? What is error theory nihilism, and what, according to it, is the fundamental error on which all moral discourse rests? Name and explain each of the three versions of error theory nihilism.

An error theory is a theory that attempts to reject an entire domain of discourse. Error theory nihilism holds the belief that the entire domain of ethical discourse is wrong, resting on the fundamental error that there are any moral truths. The three versions are abolitionism, fictionalism, and exceptionalism. Abolitionism says that we should abolish morality altogether, fictionalism says that moral beliefs have practical value, and exceptionalism says that most people require morality, but exceptional people must be immoral to acheive greatness.

What are the two main versions of ethical nihilism? Explain the difference between these views. What does it mean to say that all moral statements are mere performative utterances? Which version of ethical nihilism holds this view of moral language?

Error theory and abolitionism. Error theory nihilism rejects morality as a whole, by stating that it rests on the fundamental error that there are no moral truths. Abolitionism states that we should get rid of morality entirely. To say that moral statements are performative utterances would mean that people do not act morally based on what they say their moral beliefs are. The version of ethical nihilism that holds this is...

What does ethical nihilism hold? Is Nietzsche an ethical nihilist? Defend your answers with reasons.

Ethical nihilism holds that people should say no to morality and its constraints. Niezsche is an ethical nihilist, because he believes that morality causes us to say no to ourselves, which leads to an empty life.

the solitary reasoner or individual

Haidt claims that his theory encourages moral deliberation because it denies that moral reasoning can be done effectively by this

When Gyges (Gyges' ancestor) climbs into the hole, what does he find first? What is this image likely to remind his readers of? What do you think Plato might be telling us about the role of poets like Homer by introducing this image in his story? What does Gyges ultimately take from the hole, and what does it allow him to do? How is this story used to support the claim that morality is a convention practiced only by the weak?

He first finds a bronze horse, which is likely to remind his readers of the ambush of the Trojan Horse. By introducing this, Plato may be telling his readers that... Gyges takes the ring off of the giant's finger, and finds out that it allows him to turn invisible. This story supports the claim that morality is a convention practiced by the weak, because it demonstrates that people only act immoral if they can get away with it.

Why does Hobbes think that we cannot use empirical methodologies to study human nature? What strategy does he adopt instead? What does Hobbes think life would be like if we all acted as purely rational agents? How is that account related to the idea of a "dominant strategy" in a prisoner's dillema?

Hobbes thinks that we cannot use empirical methodologies to study human nature because we are governed by reason. Instead, he adopted observations of nature. If we all acted purely as rational agents, Hobbes thinks that we would use anything or anyone as a means to our ends. This account is related to the dominant strategy in the prisoner's dilemma because it shows how agents who act rationally will have a sub-optimal solution for all sides.

What is moral dumbfounding and what does Haidt think that the experience of moral dumbfounding shows about moral reasoning? Explain how Haidt's evidence that we can affect the severity of moral judgments by altering the conditions of judgment is supposed to help support his theory of moral reasoning. How does Haidt's account differ from Kohlberg's? On what do Haidt and Kohlberg agree?

Moral dumbfounding occurs when a person cannot find reasons to defend their moral judgement. Haidt thinks that this shows that in moral reasoning, people make judgements first and think about the reasons after. Haidt's evidence of affecting the severity of moral judgements supports his theory of moral reasoning because it shows how external factors can affect moral judgement before actual reasons. Haidt's account differs from Kohlberg's because Kohlberg believes that people first think about reasons, and then goes on to make a moral conclusion. Haidt and Kohlberg agree that...

In Crime and Punishment, what does Raskolinkov think that all "great men" have in common? Why is this necessary for greatness, according to Raskolinkov? In light of this, what would Raskolinkov say is wrong with the fictionalist's position? What, if anything, would he say is correct about fictionalism?

Raskolinkov thinks that all "great men" are criminals. According to him, this is necessary for greatness because it shows that they are not afraid to do what they need to do to achieve greatness. He would say that the fictionalist position is wrong because morality does not have any practical value. He may agree with the point that morality supports order, because he feels that the herd uses morality to guide their actions since they are not capable of great things.

What is the definition of Soundness? What, exactly, is the definition of Validity? Using these terms, how might one provide a response to the critic who says that "there are no right answers in philosophy"? What other reasons might there be for criticizing this claim? To what kind of logic does validity belong? What is the other kind of logic, and what is the difference between these 2 logics?

Soundness describes an argument that is valid and has all true premises. Validity is the property of a deductive argument such that if all premises are true then the conclusion cannot be false. One may respond to this by asking for the premises. Other reasons for criticizing this claim may be... Validity belongs to deductive logic. The other kind of logic is inductive logic, which aims at probability. Deductive logic aims at a guarantee.

Utilizing both a) premise-conclusion form and b) the concepts of soundness and validity, explain and assess the Disastrous Results Argument. Is this argument successful? Why or why not? Explain you reasoning.

The Disastrous Results Argument is sound and therefore is valid. This is because all premises are true, which means that the conclusion cannot be false.

What is the Disastrous Results Argument? How would a fictionalist reply to it? How would an abolitionist? Which of these two replies, in your view, is more likely to be correct? Why?

The Disastrous Results argument is as follows: 1. If ethical nihilism is true, then abolitionism is true 2. If abolitionism is true, then disastrous results would follow. 3. If a theory has disastrous results, we should reject it 4. Therefore, ethical nihilism is not true. A fictionalist would disagree that ethical nihilism is not true. An abolitionist would reject that disastrous results would follow. The fictionalist reply is more correct, because all the premises are true.

What is the Heinz Dilemma and what does Kohlberg want to learn by using it? Briefly, explain his theory. In what way or ways does Nietzsche's answer to the question "why are people moralists?" resemble Kohlberg's theory?

The Heinz Dilemma is a thought experiment by Kohlberg, in which Heinz's wife is about to die, but there is a miracle drug that can save her. Heinz cannot afford the drug and the inventor of the drug will not give it to Heinz, so he must decide to either steal the drug or let his wife die. Kohlberg wants to learn how people make moral decisions. Kohlberg's theory of moral development states that there are three stages of moral development, being preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Each level also has two stages. Niezsche answers this question by saying that people want to satisfy others, protect their reputation, and to go to heaven and avoid hell. This resembles Kohlberg's theory because he says that people are moral to avoid punishment.

In Fight Club, what is the significance of the chemical burn? Explain, in your own words, how this idea is supposed to show us that morality is bad for us.

The significance of the chemical burn is that the pain is what allows for progress. This should show that morality is bad for us because if we constantly avoid pain, then there would be no progress.

What are the 3 main branches of Ethics? What kind of question does each branch study? For each branch, provide an example of a question that is representative of the kind of question that branch studies.

The three main branches of ethics are normative ethics, metaethics, and descriptive ethics. Normative ethics asks questions about what ought to be, metaethics asks questions about ethical questions, and descriptive ethics asks questions about what is right and wrong. Normative-should women be able to get an abortion? Metaethics-how do people decide if abortions are right or wrong? Descriptive-is getting an aboriton right or wrong?

What are the three reasons that abolitionists provide to show that morality is bad for us? Explain these. In light of these, how would an abolitionist reply to the Disastrous Results Argument?

The three reasons are falsification, intractability, and interventionalism. Morality gives us problems that we may not actually face, it says that some problems are unsolvable, and it brings the wrong people into discussions. An abolitionist would respond to the disastrous results argument by saying that abolitionism would not bring disastrous results.

What are the 3 types of characters that Nietzsche thinks are possible in the modern world. Briefly, explain your understanding of each.

The three types of characters are the moralist, the last man, and the unbermensch. The moralist is a virtuous person who thinks in terms of right and wrong, good and bad, etcetera. The last man has no concern for value and is satisfied with this empty life. The ubermensch does not say no to itself, and does not strive for self-negation.

What, according to Nietzsche, is the will to power? How does he use this concept to explain why moralism is committed to self-negation? What, briefly, is his account of "slave morality"? What does he mean by saying that slave morality is itself an expression of will to power?

The will to power is all beings and the striving to overcome and displace. He uses this concept to explain why moralism is committed to self-negation because both involve saying "no" to oneself and being meek. His account of "slave morality" is also herd morality, in which the majority of people value sympathy and humility. Slave morality is an expression of will to power because...

Corcoran

argues that ethics and logic are inseperable

Inventing Right and Wrong

book by JL Mackie that began the professionalization of metaethics

Zarathustra

came down from the mountain to "teach the lightning"

soundness

describes an argument that has validity and has all true premises

limits freedom, falsification, intractability, interventionalism

four reasons as to why morality is bad, according to abolitionists

Tyler Durden

gave his friend a chemical burn

will to power

in ethics, Nietzsche claimed all being is this

normative ethics

largest subfield of ethics, which asks "what ought to be?"

lexical and ostensive definitions

lexical definitions tell us how a linguistic community uses a term, and ostensive definitions use exemplars

investigative and organizational ethics

other fields that descriptive ethics may be concerned with

the right, good, and virtuous

three main concepts in ethics

deductive and inductive

two types of logic

Kohlberg

used the Heinz Dilemma to study moral psychology

religion; God, heaven and hell

reason why many people strive to be moral

social institutionalism

school of psychology that says what we do depends more on context than character

premise-conclusion

simple method of representing arguments with numbered lines

moral dumbfounding

the experience that Haidt said Kohlberg has backward

validity

the property of a deductive argument such that if all premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false.

The Ring of Gyges

the story that Glaucon uses to challenge Socrates' belief that justice/morality is the highest source of good and we should all be moral

structure and context

the two ways in which an argument can be "good" or "bad"

eternal recurrence

thought experiement by Nietzsche attempting to show that we do not value morality