ethics final exam

• Three main branches of ethics

  • Metaethics
  • Normative ethics
  • Applied ethics
• Metaethics


  The area that asks about the status of ethical claims and whether/how we can come to know them
• Metaethics

  • Are there moral facts?
  • Is it a fact that torturing kittens for no reason is wrong, what makes this wrong?
• Normative ethics


  The branch of ethics focused on identifying general ethical norms - such as standards or rules
• Normative ethics


  • Under what conditions is an act morally right/wrong?
• Applied ethics


  Concerns what is morally right/wrong regarding a specific issue
• Applied ethics

  • Is abortion ever morally ok?
  • Is it ok to eat animals?
• We discussed the following areas of philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and logic. Explain what sorts of issues/questions each one deals with and be able to recognize whether an issue is metaphysical, ethical or epistemological.

  Metaphysics - concerns the nature of reality and existence, what exists, how things persist over time and change (does God exist? Are there moral facts?)Epistemology - concerns the nature of knowledge and justified belief (what is knowledge? Can we know anything at all?)Logic - concerns how to reason and build good arguments (sound and valid arguments)
• What does it mean for something to be intrinsically valuable? Give an uncontroversial example of something the is intrinsically valuable


  Valuable if and only if it is valuable in and of itself, and not because of what it can get you (happiness)
• What does it mean for something to be instrumentally valuable? Give an uncontroversial example of something that is instrumentally valuable.


  Valuable if and only if it is valuable for what it can get you, but not valuable for what it is (money)
• What is an argument?


  a set of propositions which function as premises, and are intended to jointly support another proposition, which functions as the conclusion. (1,2, therefor 3)
• What does it mean for an argument to be deductively valid?

  An argument where the conclusion actually logically follows from the premises.
• Be able to recognize arguments that are the (deductively) valid forms Modus Pones and Modes Tollens

  Modes Pones :If P then Q,P Therefore Q, Modes Tollens:If P then Q Not Q Therefore, not P
• What is a question begging argument?

  Begging argument - one begs the question in an argument when they use a premise that one would accept only if they already agreed with the conclusion. It is a form of circular reasoning
• What is ethical objectivism? (don't confuse ethical objectivism with Kant's idea that there are absolute moral rules.)

  The metaethical view that some moral standards are objectively correct, and some moral claims are objectively true. A moral standard is or fact is objective if and only if it applies to everyone, regardless of whether people believe it, like it, or care.
• What is ethical skepticism?

  Denies that there are any objective moral facts, values, or standards. Denies that there are any moral facts or standards that apply to everyone, everywhere, whether those people believe them, like them, or care about them
• Can you be an ethical objectivist and an ethical skeptic at the same time?

  No, because ethical skepticism denies ethical objectivism
• What is cultural relativism? 


  The belief that there are no objective moral facts because each culture makes their own set of moral facts and that an act is morally right if and only if it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the society/culture it is performed
• TRUE/FALSE: Cultural relativism is the view that the moral status of an action depends on the specific circumstances (which include the non-moral facts about the situation) under which the action is peformed


  TRUE. Context and circumstances which concern non-moral facts about a situation including beliefs about a situation including beliefs about non-moral issues matter with respect to whether an action is right or wrong
• Is cultural relativism a version of metaethical objectivism or metaethical skepticism?


  Skepticism. Because the base of the belief is that there are no objective moral facts and that they vary by cultures.
• What are the objections/problems that are Rachels raised against cultural relativism?

  How are cultures individuated? How do we decipher which cultures are seperate from another, and which are meant to be conjoined?Can a person be a part of many cultures at once?If yes to number 2, which code do they follow and how do they choose which to follow? (there is no method for this.)What is the clear moral code for the entire group if there is a disagreement within a culture?
• Theism


  the belief that God exists
• Atheism


  the belief that God does not exists
• Agnosticism


  suspension of belief with respect to whether God exists
• Omniscient


  God is all-knowing
• Omnipotent


  God is all-powerful (having unlimited power; able to do anything)
• Omnibenevolent


  God is all-good (all loving; infinitely good)
• What is the Euthyphro question/dilemma? What are the two options?

  What makes an action pious? God commands act A because it is right. If an action is pious, is it because what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?
• What is the divine command theory? 

  It is the view that God created morality. An act is morally right because it is commanded by God, and morally wrong just because God forbids it - an act is right if and only if and because God commands it.
• What is (hedonist) utilitarianism?

  an action is morally right if and only if it is the action, which of all actions a person could perform, leads to the most net happiness.
• What is hedonism?

  Hedonism is the view that happiness is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable.
• example of hedonism

  1. the morality of an action depends solely on it's consequences. Nothing else mattersb. for the utilitarian, the consequences matter to the extent that they lead to increasing or decreasing net happiness among individuals.c. Everyone's happiness counts equally.
• Utilitarians think that everyone's happiness counts equally. But who is "everyone"? Whose happiness/unhappiness counts according to the utilitarian? Does a cat's happiness count? Does a butterfly's count? Explain
• Utilitarians think that everyone's happiness counts equally. But who is "everyone"? Whose happiness/unhappiness counts according to the utilitarian? Does a cat's happiness count? Does a butterfly count? Explain

  All sentient beings. Utilitarians think everyone's happiness matters equally
• Explain what it means for a being to be sentient. Give a few examples of sentient beings

  The capacity to experience negative or positive sensation; any being who can experience happiness or suffering counts equally. (humans, dogs, animals)
• According to utilitarians, does the rightness or wrongness of an action depend on the actual consequences of the action or the expected consequences of the action?


  Utilitarians say that the expected consequences do not matter when deciding if an action is morally but it is included when considering if an action is praiseworthy. Moral rightness/wrongness depends on the actual consequences.
• What are some of the main objections to utilitariansim? Explain why utilitarianism says that sometimes acting morally may require committing serious injustices, violating people's rights, or breaking promises.

  Is happiness the only thing that matters?Constitutes injustice because maximizing net happiness sometimes cause harm of another (killing bloggs to donate his organs to 5 other people)Rights violation (enslaving the minority)
• What is a supererogatory action? Do utilitarians think there are any supererogatory actions? Explain


  An action that goes above and beyond the call of duty. Utilitarians don't think there are supererogatory actions because they are focused on the morally right action that will maximize net happiness and always do that act no matter if the act is "beyond the call of duty"
• Explain the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative. Are ethical rules hypothetical or categorical imperatives, according to Kant? Explain


  Ethical rules are categorical imperativesHypothetical imperative - a command or that you should follow depending upon what you want or desire (if you want X, then do Y)Categorical Imperative - an imperative that applies to you regardless of what you value, want or desire (do Y)
• Did Kant think that it is ever okay to tell a lie? Explain

  No, because Kant feels we should only perform actions that conform to rules which are adopted universally, and if you were to lie, then you would be following the rule, " it is okay to lie."