Ethics And Medicine: Unit 1

Front 1

Explain the following: moral skepticism

Back 1

idea that moral facts do not exist (suppose to be a more economical approach to ethics compared to moral objectivism.)

Front 2

Explain the following: moral relativism

Back 2

Form of cognitivism that states that moral truths are relative to a culture or society. (Problem because the relates right back to normative subjectivism.)

Front 3

Explain the following: normative subjectivism,

Back 3

Form of cognitivism that states that the truth values of a moral claim are relative to the individual.

Front 4

Explain the following: Noncognitivism

Back 4

in any area of discussion the statements used in a person’s point of view or their moral claims are NOT capable of being true or false (because they don’t express factual claims, and therefore, lack truth value.)

Front 5

Explain the following: emotivism

Back 5

a noncognitivist theory that ethical judgments are mainly expressions of a person’s attitude that are meant to change the actions and attitudes of another. “Moral utterances express feelings”

Front 6

Explain the following: prescriptivism

Back 6

a noncognitivist theory that ethical judgments are mainly commands of an individual that are meant to manipulate the actions and attitudes of another. “Moral utterances express commands.”

Front 7

What is the Argument from Democracy. (What are the premises? What is the conclusion?) How has it been criticized?

Back 7

1. If everyone has an equal right to have and voice moral opinions, then everyone’s moral opinions are equally plausible.
2. Everyone does have an equal right to have and voice moral opinions.
3. Therefore, everyone’s moral opinions are equally plausible.
The first problem is that the annotate (premise 1) is an objective moral truth, and objective moral truths have no place in a subjective argument. This goes for the objective moral statement in the second premise. Also, there is a large gap between the first and second premise. The question is “why does everyone have an equal right to voice an opinion?” Some people would disagree with this. Finally, the conclusion isn’t necessarily true because there are situations where some people’s moral opinions lack edification and are outrageously false.

Front 8

What is the Argument from Disagreement. How has it been contested?

Back 8

1. If there is persistent disagreement among informed, good-willed, open-minded people, about some subject matter, then that subject matter does not admit of objective truth.
2. There is persistent disagreement about ethical issues among informed, good-willed, open-minded people.
3. Therefore, there are no objective ethical truths.
The first statement is not even valid because there are subjects that do have objective truths that are still debated upon simply because they have not been studied enough to find that objective truth that educated people are looking for. The premise 2 could be contested because some people believe that there are basic ethical truths that exist among educated people. Since premise 1 is not valid, then the conclusion is not valid either.

Front 9

What is the Argument from Tolerance. How has it been challenged?

Back 9

1. If normative subjectivism is true, then no one’s deepest opinions are more plausible than anyone else’s.
2. If no one’s deepest opinions are more plausible than anyone else’s, then we have to respect and tolerate the opinions of all others.
3. Thus if normative subjectivism is true, then we have to respect and tolerate the opinions of all others.
This argument has been challenged because the conclusion has an objective moral truth, which has no place in a subjective argument. Tolerance is an objective idea in ethics.

Front 10

8. What is the difference between moral objectivism* and moral absolutism*?

Back 10

Moral objectivism states that moral facts exist independent of what an individual thinks, but moral absolutism disagrees with the fact that “some”, meaning more than one, moral truths exist. Moral absolutism states that only one correct answer is possible in a moral dispute, so moral absolutism is different because it is a utilitarianistic approach to ethics.