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;
47 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Argument for harvesting Baby Theresa’s Organs
|
If we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, we ought to do so
transplanting Theresa’s organs would be beneficial to others and not harm Theresa --We ought to transplant the organs |
|
Argument against harvesting Baby Theresa’s Organs
|
It is always wrong to kill
|
|
Argument for separating Jodie and Mary
|
We should save as many lives as we can
if we do nothing, both will die if we operate, one will live we should operate |
|
Argument against separating Jodie and Mary
|
It is always wrong to kill an innocent human being
Mary is an innocent human being Operating is wrong |
|
Argument for euthanasia for Tracy Lattimer
|
Tracy could not live a normal life
Tracy’s life consisted only of suffering Ending Tracy’s suffering was preferable to preserving what little “life” she had Tracy’s father did the right thing |
|
Argument against euthanasia for Tracy Lattimer
|
It is an insult to those who are handicapped -- no one has the right to decide if one person’s life is worth more than another’s
it may be a slippery slope down the chute, Granny |
|
Argument for allowing same-sex marriage
|
We should allow people to be happy if it causes no harm to others
marriage would allow gay partners to be happy, while not harming others we should allow gay marriage |
|
Argument against same-sex marriage
|
Per the Theory of Natural Law
a same-sex union cannot be for the purpose of procreation therefore it is unnatural therefore it is wrong |
|
Define Cultural Relativism
|
Because different cultures have different moral codes
there is no objective truth of morality |
|
Pros of Cultural Relativism
|
Requires tolerance and respect for other cultures
keeps one culture from imposing their will on another |
|
Cons of Culturual Relativism
|
CR requires one to be tolerant of intolerance
does not give guidance does not allow critique - and thus no progress |
|
Argument for Cultural Relativism
|
Mackie:
different cultures have different moral codes the best explanation is that there is no objective truth so there is no objective truth of morality |
|
Arguments against Cultural Relativism
|
Different people had different views on the shape of the Earth
the differing opinions had no bearing on the truth of the Earth’s shape Mackie’s argument is inductive and broken - it is illogical to state that the best explanation is a lack of objective morality |
|
Define Subjectivism
|
There are no moral truths, even per culture - only per individual
divided into Simple Subjectivism and Emotivism |
|
Define Simple Subjectivism
|
“X is good” = I approve of X
”X is bad” = I disapprove of X You’re making no statment of fact there can be no disagreement |
|
Problems of Simple Subjectivism
|
infallibility - my actions can never be wrong
no possibility of disagreement |
|
Define Emotivism
|
“X is good” = “Yay for X!”
moral statements are an attempt to change someone’s attitude the concept of “truth” doesn’t even enter into it, and thus there is no truth |
|
Problems of Emotivism
|
Anything goes to change people’s opinions
you do not have to be truthful about your own feelings you can threaten people, etc such opinions are not treated as valuable |
|
Moral Skepticism v. Moral Nihilism
|
Skepticism: Flips the moral argument
there are moral truths, they’re just different from the ones society follows Nihilism: The very concept of morality is irrelevant things happen, they’re neither good nor bad |
|
Define Mackie’s Argument from Queerness
|
metaphysical: moral truths would be utterly unlike physical truths - we could not describe them with concepts like “truth”
epistemological: because a moral truth would be outside our ability to sense it, if it existed we could not know it and thus it would be of no use - you could not point to it and say “this is why I’m right” |
|
Refute Mackie’s Argument from Queerness
|
The unfair test
fairness is a moral judgement fairness in this case is decided by tangible facts we have proven a moral truth (this test was/n’t fair) |
|
Define the Divine Command Theory
|
“morally right” is that which is commanded by god
”wrong” is that which has been forbidden |
|
Pros of Divine Command Theory
|
Solves problem of finding an objective morality
provides accountability for moral transgressions |
|
Cons of Divine Command Theory
|
The Euthyphro Dilemma
Mysterious - if god could decree that something heinous is right, it would boggle the mind Arbitrary - if anything god says goes, then there’s no reason for one thing or another to be right, god might as well have been randomly picking moralities Provides the wrong reasons - if there were no god, there would be no wrong |
|
Describe the Euthyphro Dilemma
|
Is a thing morally true because god commands it, or does god command it because it’s morally true?
|
|
Define The Theory of Natural Law
|
All things naturally have a purpose
to go against this purpose is to be unnatural and thus wrong we can see what is natural, and thus we may observe the reasoning behind morality |
|
Pros of Natural Law
|
Agnostic - the appeal to rational order cares not who defined the order
|
|
Cons of Natural Law
|
there is no logical causation between is and ought
nature has no morality - there is no moral truth to gravity or to cause and effect - only facts |
|
Ethical v. Psychological Egoism
|
Psych: We only ever pursue our own best interestn (unfalsifiable)
Ethical: We ought to pursue our best interests |
|
Ethical Egoism v. Hedonism
|
Hedonism says you should do whatever feels good for you at the time
EE would take the long view (and still go to the dentist) |
|
Paradox of Hedonism
|
the things that feel good now may lead to misery later on
|
|
Rand’s Proof for Ethical Egoism
|
Either you’re an Ethical Egoist or an Ethical Altruist
to be an EA is to devalue your own life EE respects human life while EA does not we must be EEs |
|
Refutation of Rand’s Ethical Egoism
|
A straw man (of a false dilemma)
it’s illogical to say that no ethical position besides EE allows actions that do not sacrifice your own happiness |
|
Rachels’s proof for Ethical Egoism
|
We ought to do whatever would promote everyone’s best interests
the best way to promote everyone’s best interests is to allow everyone to pursue their best interests (being EEs) Therefore we should all be EEs |
|
Refutation of Rachels’s Ethical Egoism
|
eliminates the benefits of collaboration and competition
promoting everyone’s interests isn’t EE at all EE is arbitrary - who says -I- am more important than everyone |
|
Sharing your Ethical Egoism
|
a moral theory is no good if it cannot be shared with others
if you really were an EE, you would never recommend that others should feel the same way |
|
Descrive the “state of nature”
|
We have
an equality of need a scarcity of supply an equality of power limited altruism --without morality there is nothing to stop the brutality of life so we have the SCT - I won’t kill you if you won’t kill me |
|
Definte the Social Contract Theory
|
X is right if it would be rational for everyone to accept X as a rule (assuming everyone will in fact accept the rule)
thus, SCT says it is rational to be moral |
|
Discuss SCT’s 4 moral states
|
Forbidden - Breaking the contract
Required - Anything that would break the contract if not done Permissible - etiquette, fashion, etc - things that are not a moral issue Supererogatory - good acts, above and beyond, that are not actually necessary |
|
Describe SCT’s Veil of Ignorance
|
the people “drawing up the contract” would not know on which side they themselves would fall on social issues
so you wouldn’t forbid homosexuality, because you might be a homosexual, etc |
|
Pros of Social Contract Theory
|
corrects for oppression (especially as defended by cultural relativism)
promotes fairness and equality allows you to make the irrational short-term choice to benefit yourself and society in the long term |
|
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
|
the dominant choice is to confess
but the best possible outcome for the both of you (and thus society...) is for both of you to remain silent The SCT allows you to agree on the correct action, even if it’s not the immediate-best for each party |
|
Cons of SCT
|
Lack of inviolate rights
animals have no rights it has nothing to say about suffering |
|
Describe the Tragedy of the Commons
|
It’s better if I bring 11 goats, but if everyone acts on that, none of us will have any damned goats
|
|
Define Utilitarianism
|
We should think of an idealized world in which everyone is happy and healthy
and we should work toward that goal if an action promotes the goal, it is right if not, it is wrong |
|
Pros of Utilitarianism
|
There are no dogmatic rules, and no appeals to unseen authority
the goal is happiness (unusual among previous moral theories) refutes restrictions on personal liberty |
|
Cons of Utilitarianism
|
What about the will of god?
|