quiz #1

Question 1

argument

Answer 1

a groups of statements in which some statements (the premises) are intended to support another statement (the conclusion)

Question 2

distinction between premises and conclusion

Answer 2

premise: expresses the reason(s) for believing the conclusion

conclusion: the statement that the person tries to establish and get us to accept/understand

Question 3

validity

Answer 3

the premises give perfect rational support to the conclusion

It’s impossible that the premises are all true and (at the same time) the conclusion is false

a valid argument can still be faulty, though, because the premises might not be true

Question 4

Prinz’s argument for moral relativism (his premises + conclusion)

Answer 4

P1: cultures have incompatible moral codes
P2: relativism is a good explanation for that fact
P3: objectivism is not a good explanation for that fact
C: morality is relative to a given culture (it’s subjective)

Question 5

deny variation

Answer 5

• denying the fact that different cultures have incompatible moral values, and instead, stating that cultures do agree about the same moral values, they just have different factual beliefs or life circumstances that leads them to behave differently
• ex. people do agree that life is valuable, but different beliefs that are imbeded in cultures make certan people for example own slaves or practice infanticide
• there are universal/objective moral standards, but variations in moral values across cultures and individuals can be explained by variations in people’s factual beliefs and circumstances

Question 6

deny that variation matters

Answer 6

even if the premise is true (“cultures have incompatible values”) the premise doesn’t traditionally support the conclusion (“morality is subjective”)

moral variation exists and that variation does not entail relativism

Question 7

Prinz’s explanation of how people come to have moral beliefs, and why different cultures (supposedly) have incompatible moral codes

Answer 7

• 1) Prinz claims that moral beliefs are largely shaped by emotional conditioning rather than rational thought or empirical observation (emotions guide moral judgments)
• Our emotions are conditioned by socialization
• different cultures use incompatible moral frameworks in conditioning the emotions of their members
• Almost all of us can be conditioned/brainwashed by different cultures that result in different moral feelings
• Different societies condition different emotional responses, resulting in diverse moral codes that can be fundamentally incompatible
• 2) No amount of reasoning can cause a moral value, because all values are, at bottom, emotional attitudes
• reasoning cannot create new values
• moral disagreements stem from deeply ingrained emotional foundations rather than mere differences in logical reasoning

Question 8

interpretation and evaluation

Answer 8

figuring out what the arguer means and then deciding whether the argument is good enough that we should believe the conclusion

Question 9

statement

Answer 9

• something that can be true or false
• an assertion that something is or is not the case

Question 10

principle of charity

Answer 10

when it’s unclear what the arguer has in mind, we should go with the interpretation of the argument that makes it as reasonable and rationally powerful as possible (make the argument as good as it can be)

Question 11

straw man fallacy

Answer 11

to substitute the other person’s real argument for a much worse one that is easier to dismiss or refute [opposite of the principle of charity]

Question 12

invalidity

Answer 12

if there’s even the slightest chance that all the premises could be true, without the conclusion being true

the premises dont rationally support the conclusion