Final Study Guide Flashcards

Question

What is the key difference between Bentham’s and Mill’s utilitarianism?

Answer 1

Bentham focused on the quantity of pleasure while Mill focused on the quality of pleasure.

Answer 2

The idea that everyone should follow a universal moral law without looking at the outcome of the situation. Just follow the rules to get to a specific goal.

Answer 3

The main difference between virtue ethics and all the other theories is that by following these ethics, you are not only following a code of ethics that benefits you by building a character, you are also benefiting everyone around you as well.

Answer 4

The problem of evil is to explain that if there is an all loving, all knowing, and all powerful god, then evil should not exist but in reality it does so a deity such as god is highly unlikely. The greater good defense is that god allows evil exists to achieve a greater good, that evil and suffering are needed for soul making, as well as if god took away all evil then he would be taking away humanity’s free will. One example of this is the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Hiroshima, which because that type of terrible suffering happened, we now know to never let such things happen again, that for the greater good of human kind we had to have those experiences and events occur. Basically it is saying that those types of tragedies natural or moral are needed to evoke human virtues such as generosity, courage, compassion, and fellowship. The solution is unsuccessful in proving that even with evil such an entity exists, because of the fact that supposedly the entity made us, so why would such an entity make the human race so capable of such horrendous acts? For the greater good? If god made humans all good, we would still have free will, we just wouldn’t be subjected to the more evil side of human nature. So this argument is unsuccessful.

Answer 5

The debate between the creationists and evolutionary theorists is whether living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation from god, or life started as simpler forms which developed over millions of years into the species we have today. Key arguments from creationists is the irreducible complexity that how can such unique and complex biological systems are absolutely too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, or less complete predecessors. Another example is the mouse traps, and without all the pieces in a mouse trap, it wouldn’t work at all. Objections to the irreducible complexity are the fossil record, although incomplete it shows that biological organisms can evolve and have evolved from less complete predecessors. Key arguments from evolutionist are that species evolved from natural selection over time and species branch through common descent. Objections to this argument are that evolutionary theory is a religion, instead of a science. There are missing links in the fossil record, that the branches linking the evolution of species are incomplete. The second law of thermodynamics proves that evolution cannot be true because order cannot be formed from disorder. The 100 monkey typing example is that 100 monkey over a period of millions of years cannot write a play word for word like Shakespeare’s hamlet.

Answer 6

The strength of moral objectivism is that it does not limit morality to a set standard, that everyone’s view of morality depends on the person or culture; while on the other hand a weakness of moral objectivism is that what someone views as morally right could be morally wrong in a majority consensus. The strengths of moral relativism is that there are certain morals to follow and those morals are set there for a reason, a weakness of moral relativism is that what if that set moral fact causes immoral actions. The theory that presents a better case is moral objectivism because in certain situations, some set morals can lead to wrong decisions and actions taken while moral objectivism allows for flexibility. One example of why moral objectivism presents a better case is if someone was about to be killed, then according to moral relativism "a person should never kill" then the person in danger would die, but following moral objectivism, in order to survive then the person in danger should be allowed to kill his or her attacker in order to live.

Answer 7

A relativist would say that saying "cheating on a test is wrong" is just a matter of opinion, that what is wrong for you is not wrong for me. A egoists would say that if cheating on the test gives you a better grade and lets you pass the class then it is in your own self-interest to cheat, and therefore it is not wrong. A utilitarian would say that cheating would not only disappoint your teacher, it would cause an unfair advantage among the other students therefore it is wrong because it does not produce the greatest amount of happiness among the students and classroom.

Answer 8

Dualism has many arguments encompassing a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter. Two of these arguments are the argument from reason and the subjective argument. The argument from reason postulates that if, as naturalism entails, all of our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then we have no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. However, knowledge is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it (or anything else), except by a fluke. An important fact is that minds perceive intramental states differently from sensory phenomena, and this cognitive difference results in mental and physical phenomena having seemingly disparate properties. The subjective argument holds that these properties are irreconcilable under a physical mind. Mental events have a certain subjective quality to them, whereas physical seem not to. A critic might respond by giving objections to these arguments. A critic would explain how these arguments do not adequately give the right idea of dualism.

Answer 9

- The man lacks the consciousness experience of knowing Chinese. - The system reply: the system as a whole knows Chinese. - The robot reply: having the right causal with the world. - The brain simulator reply: The brain is structure to have the mental state of knowing Chinese.

Answer 10

The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a First Cause to the universe, and by extension is often used as an argument for the existence of an "unconditioned" or "supreme" being, usually then identified as God. There are three basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions. The main argument being that whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe had a cause. According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation. The claim that "the universe began to exist" is in need of additional support, as many philosophers in history have posited an infinite universe. Even if one accepts the cosmological argument as a proof of a First Cause, an objection against the theist implication of the proposition is that it does not necessarily identify that First Cause with a god.

Answer 11

The ontological argument involves arguments about the state of being or existing. More specifically, ontological arguments tend to start with an a priori theory about the organisation of the universe. If that organisational structure is true, the argument will provide reasons why God must exist. God is the greatest, most perfect being; a being who exists is greater than one that does not exist; therefore, God must exist. The analogy of a perfect island, suggesting that the ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of anything. This was the first of many parodies, all of which attempted to show that the argument has absurd consequences.