Ch. 12 Flashcards
what is the core understanding of a naturalistic view of ethics
a rejection of the possibility of having an absolute standard by which to judge right and wrong
definition of ethics
field of study that deals with discovering what is morally right and wrong
what is the position of utilitarianism
an action is not good in and of itself; it’s good only if there are beneficial results from the act
2 proponents of utilitarianism
jeremy bentham: pleasures are all equal
john stuart mill: intellectual and sophisticated pleasures are ranked higher than fleshly pleasures
what is ethical relativism?
each person must determine their own ethics of right and wrong
who is a proponent of ethical relativism
jean-paul sartre
what is conventionalism?
right and wrong are determined by the culture in which a person lives
what’s another name for conventionalism
cultural relativism
what is the definition of a theistic view of ethics?
an ethic of absolute truth that flows from a morally perfect God, who is the foundation of ethics
what is absolutism?
there are absolute laws that should never be broken in any situation
who is a proponent of absolutism
saint augustine
what is conflicting absolutism?
argues that in conflicting situations the application of absolute law should lead to the choice of “the lesser of two evils”
what verse supports conflicting absolutism
matthew 5:22
what is graded absolutism?
argues that in conflicting situations the application of the absolute law should lead to the choice of choosing the greater good
what verse supports graded absolutism
ezra 10 - rahab’s choice
how does hardy compare the ethical views with the difference theories of truth?
utilitarianism resembles pragmatism; ethical relativism resembles the subjective theory of truth; and conventionalism is a result of the coherence theory of truth. none of these affirm the absolute theory of truth
according to schaeffer, what is the problem with being finite
there’s no sufficient point of integration in himself
who does he quote?
jean-paul sarte
if there is an impersonal being, what are the two consequences?
- morals disappear
2. there’s no ultimate fulfillment in the universe
what does schaeffer mean by his term “moral motions”
the sense that things are right and wrong
what is the problem withhindu “paneverthingism”
nobility and cruelties are of equal value
relativism is based on what kind of process?
a statistical process - majority rules
2 important results if there is discontinuity
- man is cruel w/o god being a bad god
2. there’s hope of a solution for this moral problem
does lund believe that even a heinous act is by its very nature intrinsically wrong?
no, b/c value has no value apart from an evaluator
values are contingent upon…
the existence of a conscious being w/ feelings, concerns, desires, and purposes
what is required for there to be moral or immoral behavior?
a second individual with the properties of the first individual
value subjectivism
a contribution of the subject of the experience not found in the object itself
value objectivism
value statements do describe the objects to which they refer
when does a personal value become an aspect of morality
when you apply your preferences as a standard to which others ought to follow
how is utilitarianism defined?
the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people
utilitarianism is what kind of theory
consequentialist theory
how is kant’s deontological theory defined?
the only thing that is good without qualification is a good will
what are some glaring weaknesses of utilitarianism?
b/c it puts emphasis on the greatest good for the greatest number the liberty of the minority is sacrificed
what is the summation of seeking to synthesize utilitarianism and deontological theory?
decisions of morality should be based on consequences
what are 2 problems with accepting a society’s moral norms
- societies have engaged in practices that were morally wrong
- by grounding morality in preference, there’s not higher court of appeal
what are some of the issues raised regarding the case that people should be moral?
- by being moral people get something else they value
- we should be moral out of love for God, not personal gain
- morality doesn’t necessarily mean it’s in need of religion as a foundation
- it enables us and others to be treated well
is religion essential for the establishment of a foundation for morality?
no
what’s a substitute for god if morality has an alternative foundation?
other people
what is stace’s definition of relativism?
any ethical position which denies there’s a single moral standard which is equally applicable to all people at all times
what are 2 definitions regarding standards?
- what people think is right
2. what is right is distinct from what people think
what is stace’s view of the anthropological science in support of morality among various societies?
it has a psychological effect but doesn’t add anything to the argument for ethical relativism
does stace believe affirming the commands of god is an adequate foundation for absolute moral values?
no
3 problems with ethical relativism
- it renders meaningless all propositions which attempt to compare these standards with one another
- it’s not possible to compare individuals within the same moral code
- no one person’s moral opinion or even a majority view is an adequate standard for morality
the morality trap
the belief you must obey a moral code created by someone else
3 different kinds of morality
- personal
- universal
- absolute
personal morality
act in a way that brings the best consequences to you
universal morality
a code of conduct to which an individual is supposed to bring happiness to everyone that uses it
absolute morality
a set of rules to which an individual is expected to surrender his own happiness
the unselfishness trap
the belief that you must put the happiness of others above your own
morality must be situated where
in your own values
4 reasons why maciver is so enthusiastic about the golden rule
- only rule that stands by itself in light of its own reasoning in the face of warring systems
- instead of attacking the will of others, it offers a new dimension
- it goes deeper to show how morality establishes relationships with other people
- it weakens those who use moral laws to inflict evil on other people
what is the glaring weakness of the golden rule
doesn’t solve the ethical problem but only offers another approach
