Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
65 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Descriptive Ethics
|
Descriptive ethics describes and/or tries to explain the moral practices and beliefs of societies. It is not normative.
|
|
|
Normative Ethics
|
A norm represents a standard. Normative ethics attempts to identify moral standards and how those standards should be formed.
|
|
|
Why is morality not subjective?
|
1) People overrate the amount of disagreement, 2) they ignore the values that are held in common (among those who disagree), and 3) they mistakenly appeal to "personal autonomy" as an "easy way out".
|
|
|
What kind of ethics is usually used by sociologists?
|
Descriptive Ethics
|
|
|
Morality
|
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad behavior.
|
|
|
Moral Philosophy
|
Principles of right behavior to serve as guidance for people.
|
|
|
Appropriate behavior that is not qutie in the realm of ethics
|
Etiquette
|
|
|
Identify four sources of behavioral norms
|
secular ethics, religious ethics, law, and etiquette
|
|
|
3 primary questions ethics attempts to answer.
|
What goals ought we to pursue in life?
What sort of persons ought we to be? What practices out we to follow? |
|
|
Cultural Relativism
|
With respect to ethics it means that right and wrong are defined relative to a particular
culture. Consequently, right and wrong could be very different between any two different cultures. |
|
|
Diversity Thesis
|
Moral practices and beliefs do in fact vary from culture to
culture and at different times in history, and none are universal (16). |
|
|
Dependency Thesis
|
Morality is not a matter of indepent rational judgment
but is causally dependent on cultural context. |
|
|
how does the dependency thesis address behavior of people
|
The dependency thesis indicates that behavior is causally dependent on cultural
context. In other words, why someone behave in a particular way is essentially determined by their environment. |
|
|
What does the dependency thesis say about the truth of morals
|
The dependency thesis indicates that moral beliefs are neither true nor false. The
beliefs are simply a result of the environment and cannot be judged as true or false -- the beliefs simply "are". |
|
|
Are moral beliefs completely cultural as dependency thesis says?
|
If moral beliefs in a culuture are really controlled so thoroughly by by the
environment/culture, then there would be no room for independently-minded dissidents, "and no prophets could arise as preachers of a social justice hitherto unknown" (19). Consequently, if there are some moral dissenters, then the dependency thesis is overstated. |
|
|
ad hominem
|
An ad hominem argument attacks the person rather than the person's argument. For
example, if I think that I am losing an argument with you I could resort to "tearing you down" (i.e., an ad hominem argument) hoping that your argument will be discredited in the process. |
|
|
Defending norms as being intolerant.
|
A relativist cannot consistently reject all intolerance. A relativist would claim to
tolerate everything and anything. However, it is not uncommon for someone who preaches tolerance to also preach against intolerance -- but that is inconsistent. Logically you cannot be both tolerant (of everything) and intolerant of intolerance. |
|
|
What should be done in response to relativism
|
Holmes suggests the we should "go beyond criticism to the construction of an
alternative ethical theory" |
|
|
State the basic principle of the utilitarian.
|
Maxmimizing the benefits for the maximum number of people.
|
|
|
When the utilitarian position was first devised, what was it meant to address?
|
It was originally meant to address social policy, and used as a basis for penal reform.
|
|
|
It is easy to say, "choose the best alternative". But someone must identify the alternatives in the first place. Why is it not possible to choose these alternatives using a utilitarian judgment?
|
A non-utilitarian judgment must be used to first identify the alternatives because the alternatives do not appear "on their own".
|
|
|
How would the utilitarian determine what the consequences of an action would be?
|
The utilitarian really can only guess at the the possible consequences of any action, because they cannot see into the future. Sometimes those guesses will be better than others, but sometimes the guesses will simply be wrong.
|
|
|
An ethical principle should be “universally acceptable”. If Bentham decided that he valued particular kinds of pleasure, why would this be a problem when someone else uses his approach to make moral decisions?
|
If someone else uses Bentham's approach they may not share the same set of values. They may not agree with Bentham's definition (and priorities) of pleasure.
|
|
|
Describe what is meant by “the problem of distributive justice”.
|
Whatever good that you receive (based on your decision) does not solve the problem of how that good should be distributed among people or organizations.
|
|
|
Epiricism
|
Empiricism regards only measurable things as real. For any knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced, it is to be gained ultimately only from one's sense-based experience.
|
|
|
Why would empiricism not be able to solve the problem of distributive justice?
|
Distibutive justice would require an understanding of "the value of persons" and what it means to be "just". Empiricism, however, knows nothing of these things because it only pays attention to experiences. The "value" for an empiricist comes only from the satisfaction of experience, including the value of moral decisions.
|
|
|
Why would the concept of motives be significantly different, in a moral sense, from the concept of “good consequences”? Give an example to illustrate your response.
|
Motives are considered, for the most part, to be internal. Consequently, it is difficult to "weigh and measure" them, unlike consequences. Also, it is not that easy to determine from where motives arise, or to even control them. For example, if you see someone drowning you may experience a strong motive to save the person even at your own peril.
|
|
|
Six sources of moral knowledge
|
1. common morality
2. conscience 3. intuitionism 4. duty for duty's sake 5. natural law 6. the law of God (divine command) |
|
|
Common Morality
|
Common morality is developed more or less by common consent within a society over time. Common morality would usually be associated with a group of people, i.e., the society, within which those people would have similar attitudes toward morality.
|
|
|
Identify two major problems with the use of common morality as a standard for moral behavior.
|
Common morality is only associated with those aspects of society which are in fact common, which leaves out a considerable amount of situations. Also, common morality can easily change over time, indicating that it is not so much a standard (which should not really change that easily) but a “reflection of the times”.
|
|
|
How did the 18th century people describe conscienciousness
|
a spcifically moral faculty that balances ournatural tendency for self-love with an adiitional tendency for benevolence (toward others); some thought that this faculty was based on sentiment/feeling, others considered it based on aesthetics, while others argued that it is cognitive
|
|
|
What two major problems does the author identify with conscience as a standard for moral behavior?
|
Conscience “has only a limited range of operation”. In other words, it does not serve us well or at all in some situations. Also, conscience can vary significantly from one person to the next, indicating that it cannot really serve as a standard for moral behavior.
|
|
|
What does the author conclude concerning conscience as a guide for moral behavior?
|
It is a variable, unsure, and often defective guide.
|
|
|
Who is associated with Duty Base d ethics?
|
Immanuel Kant
|
|
|
State the two formulations of Kant's categorical imperative.
|
Always act from rules that can without self-contradiction be universalized
Aways treat persons as ends and not just as means |
|
|
Natural Law
|
Natural law assumes that we can deduce rationally moral principles from what occurs naturally, e.g., from the nature of the human person (Locke) or from the manner in which creation operates. For example, from the natural law of self-preservation we would infer the human life should be protected.
|
|
|
How is the concept of creation related to the use of God's law as the basis for moral standards?
|
Here the moral law stems from an ordered creation, ordered according to God's purposes. "Going against the created order" is equated with wrong moral choice. The creation "bears witness" to the moral law. Also, part of the created order involves the law being written into our nature, or, as Paul says in Romans 2:14-15, "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts..."
|
|
|
Which philosopher identified the "good" with harmonious unity?
|
Plato
|
|
|
What is one of the main problems with utilitarianism as it relates to obligation?
|
The utilitarian position does not identify the source of obligation. The
utilitarian must first define the good. However, there is no utilitarian “method” for defining the good, nor is there the concept of distributive justice. |
|
|
Three possible sources for moral obligation
|
Either it is self-imposed, imposed by society, or imposed by God.
|
|
|
What is the source of obligation in social contract theory?
|
Moral obligations are constructed by society via agreement -- they do not
arise naturally. This is an example of obligation that is socially imposed. |
|
|
What is the basis of John Rawls hypothetical social agreement, as stated by
Holmes? (It is usually listed in two parts.) |
1. Each person is to have the greatest liberty compatible with similar greatest
liberty for all. 2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged for the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, while providing equal opportunity for all. |
|
|
What problem is there with John Rawls “ought”? In other words, how successful is he in
identifying a legitimate obligation? |
There is no apparent universal imperative (i.e., obligation), just a hypothetical
imperative which would be insufficient as an ethical obligation. |
|
|
What ultimately should be the obligation behind treating human person as ends and not solely
as means? |
"Because God created the human person in his own image, thereby
requiring a respect for persons that resembles respect for God. He is to be valued for himself, not just used as a means to my own self-interest. All people likewise, for they are in god's image ..." (75) |
|
|
Kant believed in an “autonomous will” governed by “good will”, which
imposes moral obligation on itself. A theonomous will represents an alternative. Define theonomous. |
Theonomous means subject to God’s authority. Consequently, it is an “opposite of
autonomous”. |
|
|
What are some basic criticisms of rule-based ethics?
|
Motives are morally significant and rules do not refer to motives. Consequently, there is more to morality than rules. From the perspective of the threefold moral evaluation, rule-based ethics does not consider “all of the circles”.
|
|
|
Virtue
|
A virtue is a commendable quality, representing an inner state rather than an overt behavior
|
|
|
Plato's virtues
|
Wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice
|
|
|
What are the so-called religious virtues, identified by Thomas Aquinas?
|
Faith, hope, love
|
|
|
If someone is to "act rightly", what is necessary besides knowing what is right?
|
To act rightly you have to know what is right, do what is right, and do what is right for ethical reasons.
|
|
|
Someone may claim that virtues vary from culture to culture. Would that mean that virtues are relative? Explain.
|
No. Although "particular moral practices and rules vary, universal areas of value related to human needs can readily be identified" (17) The diversity is probably more at the level of practice rather than the level of principles. (17) And if moral standards were really completely relative, then we could really not condemn what happened during the Nazi holocaust.
|
|
|
On what universal concept or characteristic did Plato base his virtues?
|
The universal nature of persons
|
|
|
How did Augustine reinterpret Plato's four virtues?
|
“Wisdom, he said, is love distinguishing what helps it toward God from what might hinder it; courage is love bearing everything readily for God's sake; self-control is love keeping itself entire and incorrupt for God; and justice is love serving God only and therefore ruling all else well.” (118,119)
|
|
|
How does love, as a Christian virtue, differ from the ancient Greek concept with the same name?
|
“Plato talks of love as self-interested desire, eros; Aristotle talks of friendship as in our mutual interest. But Christian love, like the love of God, is unselfish, even sacrificial in its compassion for others.”
|
|
|
Identify the desirable "mean" between each of the following concepts, as defined by Aristotle:
* foolhardiness and cowardice * extravagance and stinginess * self-indulgence and disinterest * obsequious and grouchiness |
Courage
Generosity Self-control Friendliness |
|
|
Is conscientiousness a virtue? Explain.
|
Conscientiousness alone is insufficient. You can have the wrong motives as well as the wrong actions and still be conscientious. (119)
|
|
|
Did Aristotle believe that virutes could be taught or learned? Explain.
|
Yes. “Aristotle saw virtues as habits of mind that can be cultivated.” (120)
|
|
|
Explain the following statement: "Aristotle, Hume and Augustine all insist that it is the will's orientation, not reason alone, that is morally decisive."
|
Aristotle recognized the role of the non-cognitive (i.e., affective) aspect of ethics. Augustine believed that society is “bound together not by the rule of reason but by agreement as to what we love.” (121) And Hume insisted that human actions “spring from the passions and will rather than from reason itself.” (120)
|
|
|
From a Christian perspective, what is it that builds within us the virutes of godly character, especially in light of our fallen nature?
|
The grace of God.
|
|
|
What appeared to be the motives of the hackers?
|
Russian Pride
|
|
|
What are the cardinal virtues
|
Justice - The DNS admins had to bring justice to the botnets by stopping them
Fortitude - The people who worked to isolate the IP addresses and block them so the country of Estonia could continue to survive Prudence - The people who stopped the attacks showed prudence by fixing the problem the correct way instead of solving it irrationaly. Temperance - The hackers only attacked for two weeks. They could have continued the attacks but they showed temperance by only attacking moderately hard. |
|
|
How would Kant reply?
|
Kant would argue that the hackers may have done the right thing. For one I think he would side with them in the fact that justice needed to be brought. But most importantly is a derivative of the attack. This attack brought to the table the idea that World Web War can exist. Bringing this difficult issue to the attention of all the countries in the world is certainly a good thing. Countries will now take the steps they need to in order to protect themselves from attacks like these. The interesting part is that attacks like these seem to be problematic, but when a tiny problem brings to the attention a bigger problem it is often seen as a good thing for society as a whole. That is why I think Kant would view the hackers as doing a good job for society as a whole.
|
|
|
Identify the capital sins (i.e., vices) that were present in the story.
|
The hackers showed too much Russian pride. The hackers also exhibited wrath by coordinating the DDoS attacks.
|
|
|
What are the primary moral issues of the eStonia story
|
First we have to think about the Estonians removing the statue. It seems that removing the statue that represented oppression would be ok. They are no longer ruled by the Russians and they should be able to do what they want with the statue. It is obvious that the hackers response to the statue removal was immoral. They took down an entire country's internets. Whenever someone disables your internets it is bad news. The people who fought the attacks also had to make the right decisions. They could not do anything that would violate moral principle. It is also a question of whether or not it was actually the Russian government that sponsored the attacks. It the Russian government sponsored the attacks it is immoral for them to have done this. At the same time though, Estonians have to be careful when they are placing the blame on Russia because they do not know for sure that it was the Russians that orchestrated the attack.
|
|
|
How did the hackers of the estonia story act morally?
|
They were motivated by the removal of a statute which was a tribute to their ancestors. They felt like they needed to bring justice to the people who defaced their relatives. The means by which they brought justice is the real problem. They decided to respond to the event by taking down an entire country's internets. A country like Estonia that relies on internets for almost everything in its society is severely crippled when its internets are shut down. Instead of responding like they should have they launched war on the Estonians. The ends of bringing justice to those that defamed their relatives was achieved somewhat, but the means were so immoral that it tainted the ends.
|
