exam 1 Flashcards
descriptive ethics
scientific study of morality
3 major divisions in ethics
Metaethics
Normative
Applied
definition of meta ethics and a brief explanation
study of the meaning and justification of basic moral belief.
questions what makes a action or a person good.
questions the origins of the words good/bad and various ethical systems
definition of normative ethics and a brief explanation
search for and justify moral standards or norms.
how to act and what course of action should be taken.
generates most ethical theories.
define applied ethics and briefly explain
use moral norms and concepts to resolve practical moral issues.
goes beyond theory and step into real world ethical practice. questions like whether or not abortion is correct.
normative judgement
study of how people should behave.
aimed at sorting out what behaviors would be best
descriptive judgement
study of people do behave and how they think they should behave.
look at people as they are and not as they should be
naturalistic fallacy
argument that derives what it ought to be done from what it is
informal logical fallacy which argues that is something is natural it must be good.
two main types of ethical theories
consequentialist/ teleological moral theories
non-consequentialist/ deontological moral theories
consequentialist/ teleological moral theories
base moral judgement on consequences
producing results
non-consequentialist/ deontological moral theories
actions can be right or wrong regardless of consequences
duty based
don’t care about suffering just results
4 main elements of ethics
preeminence of reason
universal perspective
principle of impartiality
dominance of moral norms
intrinsic value
value something has in itself
instrumental value
value something has because it helps us to get or achieve some other thing
moral agent
beings who can make and act upon moral judgements.
have rights only if one is a full member of the moral community with duties and responsibilities
moral patient
object of moral concern
matters morally and has value to us
are extended certain rights and protections but do not have correlation
premise
statement supporting the conclusion
conclusion
statement being supported
two types of common arguments in reasoning
deductive arguments
inductive arguments
deductive arguments
give logically conclusive support to conclusion so the premise is true.
conclusion must be true
has proper logical structure that’s valid
doesn’t have proper logical structure to be valid
inductive argument
give probable support to conclusion.
establish that premise is true then the conclusion is probably true.
succeed in lending probable support support to strong conclusion.
if they fail to provide probable support then its a weak argument.
what’s needed to have a good deductive argument
a valid logical structure
to have a good inductive argument you need
strong probable support for their conclusion.
strong arguments with a true premise must have a true conclusion
good moral arguments have
at least one moral premise and at least one non moral premise
straw man fallacy
misrepresenting a persons views so they can be more easily attacked or dismissed
appeal to the person fallacy
reject a statement on the grounds that it comes from a particular person, not because the statement itself is false or dubious
appeal to popularity fallacy
arguing that aa claim must be true not because it s beached by good reason but simply because many people believe it
appeal to ignorance
argue either that a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false or a claim is false because it hasn’t been proven true
false dilemma fallacy
arguing erroneously that since there are only two alternatives to choose from, and one is unacceptable, the other must be true
begging the question fallacy
try to prove a conclusion by using the same conclusion as support
slippery slope fallacy
arguing erroneously that a particular action should not be taken because it will lead inevitable to other actions resulting in dire outcomes
moral statement/ claims
affirm that action is right or wrong or that a persons character or motive is good or bad
nonmoral statement/ claim
statement that does not affirm that an action is right or wrong that a person is a good or bad
subjective/ individual rleativism
view that an action is right if one approves it.
are a matter of preference
cultural relativism
view that an action is right if ones culture approves of it moral rightness and wrongness are relative to cultures
differ from culture to culture and there are no objective moral principles
reasons supporting ethical relativism **
moral diversity: there is no agreement on basic moral principles.
moral uncertainty: we do not know what is right or if anything is right or wrong
situational differences: times and places are different, one moral code could not possibly be right for all
reasons against ethical relativism **
moral diversity: disagreement doesn’t not prove there is no truth.
moral uncertainty: maybe we don’t know yet, may be unsure if we can know, but not knowing does not prove we can’t know.
situational differences: maybe same underlying values, just expresses differently
descriptive ethical relativism
in different cultures the variant is the sense of morality: the mores, customs, and ethical principles vary from one culture to another
moral objectivism
the idea that at least some moral standard are objective
can be absolutists about moral principles
position that moral truths exist independently from opinion
moral theory
explanation of what makes an action right or what makes a person or thing good.
focus is not on rightness or goodness but the nature or rightness or goodness itself
need to weighed against our considered moral judgements
two types of consequentialist theories
utilitarianism
ethical egoism
ultilitariantisn
morally right action is the one that produces the most favorable balance of good over evil; EVERYONE CONSIDERED
can be act- ( directly produces gates overall good) or rule- (a genial rule produces the greatest overall good)
ethical egoism
morally right action is the one that produces the most favorable balance of good over evil for ONESELF
types of nonconsequentialist theories
Kants theory - action is right if its done in accordance with the categorical imperative
natural law theory - action is morally right if it follows the dictates of nature
