Example Questions Flashcards
What is not an advantage of contractualism?
- It’s based on self-interest and so does not assume much
- It can explain why one should cooperate with disadvantaged groups
- It can explain why discriminatory laws need to be obeyed
- It can solve the tragedy of the commons
- It can explain why one should cooperate with disadvantaged groups
book’s definition: People must agree on rules to govern their interactions. They must agree, for example, not to harm one another and not to break their promises. Hobbes calls such an agreement “the social contract.” As a society, we follow certain rules, and we have ways to enforce them. Some of those ways involve the law—if
you assault someone, the police may arrest you. Other ways involve “the court of public opinion”—if you get a reputation for lying, then people may turn their backs on you. All of these rules, taken together, form the social contract.
What is the order of your preferences in a tragedy of the commons?
- We all cooperate
- Enough other cooperate but I don’t
- I cooperate but enough other’s don’t
- No one cooperates
“tragedy of the commons” -> resources are unowned/commonly owned + benefits go to each person while the costs are shared by everyone
Thus: 2 > 1 > 4 > 3
Idea: double benefit > i have to cooperate but we all benefit > no one benefits > i cooperate but no one benefits
What is true about the Minimum Conception of Morality (according to Chapter 1 of the textbook)
- Morality is the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason
- Morality assigns equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s action
- Morality is the effort to listen to and take into consideration multiple standpoints
- Morality involves impartiality (we don’t treat people arbitrarily)
- Morality is the effort to listen to and take into consideration multiple standpoints
book’s definition: Morality is, at the very
least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s action.
What is a necessary condition for contractualists to cooperate?
- When you know that everyone benefits
- When you benefit from cooperating
- When you benefit from the cooperation of others
- When you know that more people need to cooperate
- When you benefit from the cooperation of others
The CEO of Ajax said “In Qatar, they have different norms” With this statement he seems to state that we cannot judge the moral standards of Qatar.
Which statement is correct?
1. A subjectivist would agree because morality is up to us so there may be good reasons in favour of the norms in Qatar
- A cultural relativist would agree because morality is up to us and there are no good reasons against the norms in Qatar
- A cultural relativist would disagree because we can still judge other cultures from our own perspective.
- An objectivist can disagree because we can judge other cultures from an external perspective.
- An objectivist can disagree because we can judge other cultures from an external perspective.
online definition: objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity ( bias caused by one’s perception, emotions, or imagination ). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.
“The Eskimo also seemed to care less about human life. Infanticide, for example, was common. Knud Rasmussen reported meeting a woman who had borne 20 children but had killed 10 of them at birth”
- This example demonstrates the Cultural Differences Argument: infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong.
- Eskimos lacked respect for human life, and problematically so
- If cultural relativism were true, then only people from within the Eskimo community can criticise their moral code.
- Cultural relativism calls into doubt the idea of moral progress.
- Cultural relativism calls into doubt the idea of moral progress.
book definition: Cultural Relativism says, in effect,
that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various cultural codes. Cultural Relativism challenges our belief in the objectivity and legitimacy of moral judgments.
The following claims have all been emphasized by cultural
relativists:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; so, if a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least in that society.
3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s. There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should
always be tolerant of them.
“In culture X there exists a moral code not to eat animals Since all animal life is sacred. Person A, living in X, eats fish. Person B, also living in X, discovers that A is doing this. A defends himself: “In another culture Y, it is permissible to eat animals, so I should be permitted to do this too!” B responds that he disagrees that A may eat fish.”
1.A is arguing in accordance with cultural relativism.
2. A is arguing in accordance with ethical subjectivism.
3. B is not arguing in accordance with ethical subjectivism.
4. B is arguing in accordance with ethical subjectivism.
- B is not arguing in accordance with ethical subjectivism.
book definition: Ethical Subjectivism is the theory that our moral opinions are based on our feelings and nothing more. As David Hume (1711–1776) put it, morality is a matter of “sentiment” rather than “reason.” According
to this theory, there is no such thing as right or wrong.
“In culture X there exists a moral code not to eat animals Since all animal life is sacred. Person A, living in X, eats fish. Person B, also living in X, discovers that A is doing this. A defends himself: “In another culture Y, it is permissible to eat animals, so I should be permitted to do this too!” B responds that he disagrees that A may eat fish.”
- If B argued A does not follow society X’s moral code and is therefore in the wrong, B would be making a cultural relativist claim.
- If A argued that eating fish is permitted, because he
approves of this practice, then A would be making a cultural relativist claim. - If A argued that eating fish is permitted, because she
considers fish tasty, then A would be making an ethical
subjectivist claim. - If B was from society Y, and argued it’s permissible for A to eat fish, then B would be making a cultural relativist claim.
- If B argued A does not follow society X’s moral code and is therefore in the wrong, B would be making a cultural relativist claim.
-> It is a cultural relativist claim if you compare the norms of that specific culture
Suppose you are a contractualist. Then what do you do in the prisoner’s dilemma?
- You remain silent since doing so is compatible with the best outcome for the both of us.
- You incriminate me when you know that I will incriminate you.
- You remain silent when you know that I will incriminate you.
- You remain silent if I’m not an ethical egoist.
- You incriminate me when you know that I will incriminate you.
