exam review Flashcards
what is moral nihilism
the view that there are no moral truths at all
cultural relativism
an act is morally right/wrong because my culture approves/disapproves of it
what is subjectivism
an act is morally right/wrong because i approve/disapprove of it
What is it that moral nihilism, cultural relativism, and subjectivism agree on?
all these views that there are no objective universal moral truths
Does cultural relativism prescribe or encourage tolerance or teach us to be tolerant of other cultures
No. No aspect of cultural relativism says we must be tolerant of others’ culture and or learn how to be tolerant of other cultures. Ethical relativism is a meta-ethical view that does not give you or prescribe specific norms. Normative principles depend on what you or your culture approves/disapproves of; therefore, there is no tolerating other cultures. If one were to claim that we should be tolerant of others’ cultures, then that wouldn’t be following cultural relativism
Explain the two forms of ethical relativism (subjectivism and cultural relativism)
Subjectivism states that an act is morally right/wrong because you approve/disapprove of it. Cultural relativism states that an act is morally right/wrong because your culture approves/disapproves of it
Explain what Shafer Landau calls the contradiction problem
The contradiction is that if I claim that abortion is immoral and someone else claims that abortion is moral, then it could be said that abortion is both moral and immoral. If I say abortion is immoral, then that means I disapprove of it. If someone else says abortion is moral, then that means that they approve of abortion. So, in theory, there is no contradiction because I have my opinion and they have theirs, and abortion is said to be moral and immoral. That being said, this implies that everyone misunderstands their own moral claims and that this view eliminates the possibility of genuine moral disagreement because everyone is entitled to their own opinion on whether something is moral or immoral because that’s what subjectivism is.
Explain the problem of defining culture for cultural relativism
Culture or society is notoriously difficult to define. If an individual belongs to more than one society/culture, then there may be differences in what the cultures approve/disapprove of. This creates a contradiction. If the individual decides to pick a specific culture to agree with based on the circumstances, then it threatens cultural relativism and can produce counterintuitive results. The individual may create a subculture where everything is agreed upon, which is essentially subjectivism, and they will end up just choosing what they approve/disapprove of, which in turn, therefore abandoning cultural relativism
Are theists much more likely (as compared to agnostics and atheists) to do what is morally right? Why might one be tempted to answer “yes”? Is this a good reason to say “yes”? What are different possible motivations to do the right thing, and how might this affect what one says in response to the question
Theists are much more likely to be morally conscientious or much more likely to be motivated to do what is morally right. Because theists believe in god and can see what they are doing, one might be tempted to say yes, theists are more motivated to do what is morally right because god is watching them, and they believe in doing what is right because god says it’s right. No, this is not a good reason to say yes because I don’t think that doing the right thing is based on whether you believe in god or not. It’s based on who you are and your moral compass. Different possible motivations to do the right thing are fear of being punished if you don’t do the right thing, the right of being rewarded for it, or doing the right thing just because it’s the right thing to do. This might affect some people’s response to the question because one would think that a theist would be more motivated to do what’s right because they fear god will punish them and or reward them, making them more conscious and likely to do the right thing.
What is the divine command theory
The divine command theory states that an action is required because god commands it or approves of it; an action is not required because god doesn’t command it or disapprove of it.
what is the utilitarian principle in its basic form
An action is right if and only if it has a higher utility than any other action the individual could perform instead
explain utilitarianism, making sure to describe all its main features
Features include consequentialism, welfairsm about value, maximizing value, universalism, and imperialism. Consequentialism is the view that the rightness/wrongness of an action is dependent on the goodness/badness of its consequences. Welfarism about value is that the relevant value is the well-being or welfare of individuals. Maximizing value is the good or well-being of any and all who might be affected. Impartialism is when no special weight is given to one individual’s good or well-being as opposed to anothers
CWMUI - Can we make u immortal
What is the universal formula of law, and how might one motivate or support it
The FUL is to act only according to the maxim that you can will to be universal law. do an act because you can see it being universalizable. intuitive motivation for the FUL is the universal nature of reason and seems to capture the importance of fairness and justice, not making any exceptions for yourself. motivation is that if the universe couldn’t do it and have everything be okay, then you shouldn’t do it.
explain how to apply the FUL using Kants false promise example.
formulate a maxim (create a rule). Imagine a world where everyone follows this rule or acts this certain way. Then, I ask if the goal of my action can be achieved in such a world. If yes, then your maxim is universalizable, and you should do that action. If the answer is no, then your maxim is not universalizable, and you should not do it. Kant’s false promise example is that if your maxim is to make false promises to get what you want and you imagine a world where everyone follows this rule, the imaginary world where everyone does this would lead to chaos, meaning this action is not permissible because it’s not universalizable.
raise a counterexample to the FUK: explain how, in some cases, applying the FUL seems to get an incorrect result.
a counterexample to Kants could be if i create the maxim do not lie, in theory it seems like a good maxim because lying is bad but when you picture it in the imaginary world and no one is lying that can be bad because if someome were to come to your door and ask if your friend is home because they want to murder them, youd want to lie to protect your friend but you have to follow the maxim whihc means now your friend is dead. This explains how sometimes applying the FUL doesn’t always have a universalizable outcome and can give you an incorrect result.
What is Kant’s formula of humanity
Always treat humanity as an end and never merely as a means (act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means) your humanity = your nature as a rational and autonomous being - rational and autonomous beings are worthy of dignity and respect, a kind of value that unlike, commodities or commerical goods, is literally priceless and cannot be replaced by another thing of the same sort.
