front 1 When are arguments valid? | back 1 is when the conclusion follows the premises. if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true if x then y x y invalid: if x then y y x |
front 2 When are arguments sound? | back 2 is valid and the premises must be true |
front 3 What are necessary conditions? | back 3 A is a necessary condition for B=B only if A ex: food is a necessary condition for human life, if only if, essence, anything you really need to do to get it |
front 4 What are sufficient conditions? | back 4 A is a sufficient condition for B=B if A ex: -20F is sufficient for water freezing, if and only if, essence, anything to get what meets the standard |
front 5 What is Cultural Relativism? | back 5 theory of nature mortality, a form of argument cultural difference argument but not sound, argues from the facts about differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about mortality status |
front 6 What is the Argument from Disagreement? | back 6 different cultures have different moral views, right and wrongs are
invented, people disagree on what is right and wrong, people would be
talking past each other, nazi vs non-nazi, no such thing as
cross-cultural disagreement, contradictions, making it "for
me" or "for you" |
front 7 What are some of the worries facing Cultural Relativism? | back 7 is implausible 1) moral infallibility- society cannot be wrong, ex honor dillings, ex nazis in 1930 germany, no moral progress: MLK civil rights movement- 1st started unpopular and is against popular opposition, woman's suffrage, disagreement: nazi vs non nazi: people will be talking past each other, no such thing as cross-cultural disagreement, apparent benefits are illusory: you should not be tolerant, ill-defined: no plausible way to fix it, when are you "in" a society/culture? what is a culture? what does approval mean? ex) wisconsin v yoder 1972 |
front 8 What is Emotivism (the "final" version we discussed)? | back 8 factive sentence: can be true/ false, nonfactive sentence: can't be true/false, cheering/booing: you should do X means yay X, you would not do X means boo! doing x. you should be x means yay being kind and you should not lie means boo! lying commands: you should do x means do x, you shouldn't do x=means do not do x, you shouldn't lie to me=do not lie, ex: flirting regina should not have been flirting with my bf"= don't flirt, sui generis (unique) expressions features: 1) does not posit moral features- don't make mortality real? 2) moral judgment aren't true or false 3) moral judgment are not false (wrong) |
front 9 What are some worries facing any form of Emotivism? | back 9 agreement/disagreement: ex: transgender people should be able to serve I agree, 2) frege-geach problem (moral reasoning) ex: you should not kill people, i am a person, you should not kill me: is valid, you should not kill people, i am a person, you should wear blue socks: unrelated invalid valid: if the premises are true, conclusion has to be true. boo!, ouch!, where's the library? |
front 10
| back 10 1st is valid, you should not kill me = boo doing killing and do not do x 2nd is unrelated and invalid premises aren't claims, they are just expressing emotion so you can't make an argument that results in a conclusion (can't distinguish good argument from bad) |
front 11 What is Moral Nihilism? | back 11 All PMCs are false (positive moral claims) ex: you should not kill people, you should donate to charity. (error theory)=atheism god moral nihilism: mortality, false ex: god is not friendly, god is friendly |
front 12 What is Moral Objectivism? | back 12 some, not all PMCs are (objectively) true, reasons: PMC: it is ok to enslave someone based on the color of their skin (darker skin- lower moral status) reasons: skin color determines moral status, plausibility/ arbitrary, consistency, reasons, = diagnostic test, arbitary: why is it skin color, consistency: getting a tan reduces moral status is mortality objectively true? yes and sometimes interpretation |
front 13 What is the Observation Argument? | back 13 p1) observation principle you should only believe in things that appear in the best scientific explanations of your observations, p2) moral facts do not appear in the best explanation of our observation (note: moral facts not beliefs about moral facts) c) you should not believe in the existence of moral facts (moral nihilism true) valid yes sound:? |
front 14 What are some potential replies to the Observation Argument? | back 14 is premise one really true? (math facts) |
front 15 What is the (Sophisticated) Argument from Disagreement? | back 15 p1) if open open-minded minded, rational well informed people disagree about some claim then that claim is not objectively true. p2) open minded, rational well informed people disagree about moral claims c) moral claims are not objectively true. valid yes sound idk, p2: are all cases between open minded, rational, well informed people? how do we understand this? p1: ex: sugar ex:multiverse p2: some pmcs are clearly accepted by all |
front 16 What diagnostic criteria do contemporary ethicists use to assess our moral beliefs? | back 16 give reasons for your moral judgements |
front 17 What is Utilitarianism? | back 17 value: happiness is the only thing with intrinsic value (intrinsically good), intrinsic good: good in and of itself, extrinsic good: good as a means to something else ex: money, you should do as much good as possible, you should do x if x maximizes happiness, choose what leads to the most happiness, |
front 18 How would a utilitarian evaluate the wrongness or rightness of helping a friend move? | back 18 help you: -5 units, friend: +10 units, 5 units, TV: you +5 and friend: -10 units/ -5 units help friend because maximizes happiness which is their happiness whereas -5 would be lost if you watched Tv, right to help, increases their happiness more than it decreases yours |
front 19 How would a Utilitarian respond to the “philosophy of the swine” objection? | back 19 philosophy of the swine: people will behave irresponsibly or
degradingly (shouldn't invest in yourself bc you want happiness right
now |
front 20 How would a Utilitarian respond to the “it’s useless” objection? | back 20 ex. old lady is killed walking across the street bc you didnt help
but she donates her money to charity but charity is
corrupt.... |
front 21 What are some attractive features of Utilitarianism? | back 21 1) impartiality: doesn't discriminate race, gender, class, or species 2) gets many of our ordinary moral judgments right: ex: Hitler vs lying to your friend, ex:$5 to a homeless person 3) gets difficult right too ex) best friend and suicide and grandpa and assisted suicide |
front 22 What is the Experience Machine objection to Utilitarianism? And how might a Utilitarian respond? | back 22 robert nozsick, you are in this machine forever: you do not know what is inside, you're just having the experience of doing things, it's awesome utilitarian: go in pov: +1,000,000 you're morally required to go in, not going in +10,000 response 1: are you sure that utility is maximized? don't you need some happiness and pain? what about everyone else? people in the matrix are false? what about the actual good that you are going to do? response #2: now are you sure we shouldn't go in? |
front 23 What is the Too Demanding objection to Utilitarianism? And how might a Utilitarian respond? | back 23 ex: saturday night 1) donate oxfam you -5 other +100 2 movie you +5 other -100 response #1 are you sure utility is maximized? ex) drowning vs peter singer ex malaria notes p1 we are morally required amount of money against malaria foundation to save a drowning person's life, even if it means sacrificing your own if so) then we are morally required to donate the same c) we are morally required to donate AMF |
front 24 What is the Justice/Fairness objection to Utilitarianism? And how might a Utilitarian respond? | back 24 ex: mob ex: doc/ organ shortage response 1 is it clear that happiness is maximized? yes response 2: are you sure that the actions are wrong? ex: trolley problem |
front 25 What is the Collective Action objection to Utilitarianism? And how might a Utilitarian respond? | back 25 ex: littering, what if everyone did that ex: voting |
front 26 What is the Hypothetical Imperative? | back 26 when willing on end will the means to that end or give up the end, rationality, will an end commit yourself to the goal |
front 27 What is a Maxim? | back 27 guiding principle that encodes our motivation ex) washing your car i will [x=action] when [y=some situation] in order [z=goal/lend] ex i will [x= washing you car] when [y=car is dirty] in order to [z=clean it] |
front 28 What is the Categorical Imperative? | back 28 moral action act only on that maxim which you can be at the same time will that it become a universal law of nature, goals: happiness, bodily autonomy, not being in a lot of pain, food |
front 29 What are the four steps for evaluating the morality of an action with the Categorical Imperative? | back 29 1) formulate your maxim, 2) universalize your maxim, everyone will [x=wash their car] when [y= its dirty] in order to [z=clean it] 3) imagine this universalized maxim is a law of nature (everyone in situation y is compelled to do action x] can you achieve z? can you still meet your ends/ goals? |
front 30 How would a Kantian evaluate the morality of torturing someone? | back 30 i will x= torture someone when y= I'm in a war in order z= to get information. everyone will torture someone when y=they are in a war in order to get information. yes you can still achieve z and no you can not achieve your other goals |
front 31 What is the Trivial Actions objection to the Categorical Imperative? | back 31 ex: driving home from work i will x=take the back roads when i am y= coming home in order to z=save time. everyone will take the back roads when they are driving home in order to save time. imagine everyone in y is compelled to do x. can you still achieve z? no |
front 32 What is the Sly Universalizer objection to the Categorical Imperative? | back 32 ex) cheating partner 1) i will x=lie to my partner when y=I've been caught cheating in order to z=decrease them 2) everyone... 3) imagine everyone in y does x 4) can you still achieve z? can you still achieve your other goals? yes ex: eichmann i will x=put jewish people in concentration camps when y=i am a nazi in order to z=to remove jewish people from germany everyone will 3) imagine everyone in y does x tests |
front 33 What’s the Prisoner’s Dilemma? (Why is it called a “dilemma”?) | back 33 they and you confess 5 years. them silent you confess 1 year 10
years, you silent and them confess 10 years 1 year them silent and you
silent 2 years, don't care about partner, only yourself |
front 34 What is the Veil of Ignorance? | back 34 ignorant: race, gender, class, know you're rational and you have certain basic needs: food, shelter, bodily autonomy freedom of speech, being from autonomy |
front 35 What is Rawlsian Contractualism? | back 35 fairness, act in accordance with rules that would be agreed to by agents who are rational, self-interested, and behind the veil of ignorance |
front 36 How would a Rawlsian Contractualist evaluate the morality of torturing someone? | back 36 bad to torture because you could be the one getting tortured |
front 37 How does Rawlsian Contractualism avoid the worries facing Kant’s view? | back 37 experience machine: basic needs need to be met so can't go in machine
and happiness isn't only priority |
front 38 what are some worries for Rawlsian contractualism? | back 38 difference principle: no inequalities, unless it is to the benefit of the worst of it what is "rational" and why? (risk adverse vs. risk
inclined) |