Final Exam

Front 1

Assessing Definitions

Back 1

-Identify definition: “term=df. Definition.”
-Universally generalizable statements
-Are generalizations true

Front 2

Extracting, evaluating arguments

Back 2

o Identify conclusion
o Identify the premises
o Squash it into a valid pattern

Front 3

moral objectivism, absolutism

Back 3

there are true universal moral principles that bind all people and all cultures at all times and all places whether or not they accept those principles

Front 4

ethical relativism

Back 4

there are no universally valid moral principles

Front 5

strong conventional relativism

Back 5

in all cases, societal standards determine what is morally required for an agent to do

(this says what is right/wrong, not legal/illegal)

Front 6

weak conventional relativism

Back 6

in some cases, societal standards determine what is morally required for an agent to do

Front 7

strong subjective relativism

Back 7

in all cases, individual standards determine what is morally required

Front 8

weak subjective relativism

Back 8

in some cases, individual standards determine what is morally required

Front 9

moral nihilism

Back 9

no moral judgements are objectively true or false (abortion is neither fully right nor fully wrong)

Front 10

moral skeptivism

Back 10

no one can ever know which moral judgments are true and which ones are false.

Front 11

strong cultural relativism

Back 11

in all cases, there are no moral standards accepted by all societies

Front 12

weak cultural relativism

Back 12

there are some moral principles which some societies believe and some societies reject

Front 13

argument from difference

extract

Back 13

1. cultures differ from each other in their moral practices

2. if 1 is true, then there are no moral principles accepted by all societies
-----

3. there are no moral principles accepted by all societies

4. if 3 is true, then there are no universally valid moral principles

-----


5. there are no universally valid moral principles

Front 14

response to argument from difference: no fundamental disagreements

Back 14

P2 is false: X and Y have a fundamental disagreement about P iff: X and Y disagree about P1 and their disagreements cannot be attributed to nonmoral facts

ex: whether or not capital punishment deters crime

Front 15

response to argument from difference: at least one principle

Back 15

attacks P2

if you can find 1 principle everyone can agree on, then P2 is false

Front 16

response to argument from difference: P1 is sketchy

Back 16

reject P1

what counts as a culture?
you must carefully define a culture
even within a set culture, there are varying opinions within a culture. it is hard to define the opinions of a culture

Front 17

response to argument from difference: dependency is false

Back 17

rejects P4

just because people dont agree on a moral principle doesnt mean that there is a set answer

ex. earth flat vs round

does this mean that the earth is neither round nor flat?

Front 18

ER and tolerance

Back 18

- it is innapropriate to say that ER endorses tolerance because that would be enforcing an absolutist agenda

-ER says that whatever is right and wrong is based on a culture or the individual

Front 19

argument from bad behavior

Back 19

1. if sSR is true, that it would be morally ok to fail all of my students

2. it is not morally OK for me to fail all of my students.

---
3. sSR is false

Front 20

argument from meaning

Back 20

1. is sCR is true, that "action x is morally right" means "x is in accordance wit the current standards of my society"

2. "if action x is morally right" means "x is in accordance with the current standards of my society" then it is always a contradiction to say that an action approved by your society is always wrong.

3. it is not always a contradiction to say that an action is in accordance with the current standards of my society is morally wrong.

----
4. sCR is false

Front 21

socrates' first def of justice

Back 21

justice= df. speaking the truth and paying whatever debts one has incurred

Front 22

socrates' seconddef of justice

Back 22

justice= df. benefiting ones friends and harming ones enemies

Front 23

criticism of def 1

Back 23

giving a knife to a crazy man

Front 24

criticism of def 2

Back 24

if you harm your enemies, you are actually making them less able to do the right thing.

(locking someone away for stealing bread)

Front 25

socrates' principle of specialization

role in the healthy city

Back 25

each person should perform the role for which he is naturally best suited and he should not meddle in any other business

allows society to be efficient

Front 26

the healthy city

Back 26

city that contains everything it needs to be self sufficient and nothing else.

food, shelter, clothing, (and respective makers)

needs to be efficient. everyone needs to be specialized, division, of labor.

Front 27

the luxurious city

Back 27

city that has stuff that is not needed. (silk recliners, people who fan you with palm leaves)

cannot be self sufficient, leads to propreital problems

Front 28

pragmatic vs epistemic justification

Back 28

p- believing something is good for you

e- evidence supports it

socrates only supports epistemic...he should only escape if the evidence says so

Front 29

why does socrates think it is unjust to escape

Back 29

you should never do an inustice for an injustice. it would be disregarding the law to say no to authority.

socrates- no matter what, it is bad to undermine the law. he has lived in athens his whole life. he is giving consent to the ways of athenian society.

Front 30

lockes state of nature

Back 30

what people would be like without government

Front 31

laws of nature

Back 31

1. state of perfect freedom (within law of nature)

2. state of equality

3. note free to destroy yourself unless justified by a noble being/cuase

4. state of nature is governed by laws of nature. (there are some laws that apply to us by being human being (cannot harm people, restrict liberty, take possessions)

5. not everyone has intrinsic goodness

6. everyone has the right to enforece the law in a state of nature

7. deficencies of state of nature
-no settled, know legal law
-no indifferent judge
-you lack the power to execute sentences
-lockes solution: institute a civil government

Front 32

lockes state of war

Back 32

if one person wants to take advantage of somebody else, it is violation of the law of nature. as a victim, you could enforce the law of nature by killing them or enslaving them

Front 33

can you enslave yourself according to locke? is he right?

Back 33

-you do not have the moral power to end your life or give it to someone else

people cannot be born into slavery

if you violate laws of nature, you can enslave them

Front 34

locke and right to property

Back 34

you own your body and the activities of your labor

if you take an unowned thing and work it, it becomes yours

you cant take as much as you want