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;
11 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
If the theory of cultural relativism were true, then could you criticize the practices of other societies? Why or why not?
|
-No you couldn't because cultural relativism establishes that each separate culture has it's own moral standards so anyone outside that culture cannot critique said culture's morals |
|
|
Ethical egoists claim that each person ought to pursue what is in his or her own best self-interest exclusively. Why might this be unacceptably arbitrary (that is, like a form of discrimination)?
|
-Ethical egoists establish treating anyone who is not you (or in your self-interest) differently which in and of itself is a form of discrimination and falsely justifies said discrimination |
|
|
How does Mill defend hedonism from the charge that it is “a doctrine worthy only of swine”? What point is Mill making when he says that “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
|
-Mill argues that no one, unless in deep unhappiness, wouldn’t chose to sacrifice all they have in order to be “fully satisfied” as a fool or a swine. -Human beings know higher pleasures than the piggy (quality over quantity of pleasure)
|
|
|
Why might Mill’s conception of justice commit him to rule utilitarianism? |
- Rule Utilitarians use rules to decide rightness of a particular act -What Mill considers to be injustice is: Violationof legal right, Violationof moral right, Whenpeople do not get what they deserve, Breakfaith, and Tobe partial when impartiality is called for which are all breaking some kind of rule forcing Mill into rule Utilitarianism |
|
|
What is the notion of negative responsibility,and why is it a part of consequentialism? |
-You’re just as responsible for the actions of others that you could influence. -Outcomes that you could, but fail to prevent you’re responsible for. -Consequentialists see no difference between drowning someone and letting someone drown. |
|
|
Why does Williams think that utilitarianism alienates us from our actions?
|
-Utilitarianism, either positively or negatively, forces one to act in accordance with the "projects" (moral stance and motivations) of others so any action is never truly one's own, it is formed by the goal of utilitarianism and the projects of others. |
|
|
According to Petit, what is the difference between honoring and promoting a value, and how can we understand the difference between consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories in terms of how agents respond to values?
|
-Honoring a value is devoting yourself to the understanding the value in your own life while promoting a value is devoting yourself to the general understanding of others.
-Honoring is checking your own actions and promoting is wanting as many people as possible to realize and act on that value. |
|
|
Imagine that “the happiest sorts of lives ordinarily attainable are those led by people who would reject even sophisticated hedonism”, and thus to live happily you would need to reject hedonism in any form. According to Railton, even if this were true, why wouldn’t this refute objective hedonism?
|
-Because objective hedonism seeks to promote the most happiness for each individual, and even if an individual refuted hedonism they would be doing so out of a desire to promote their own happiness -Especially because objective hedonism states that one should take the action that most supports one's happiness, even if it does not conform to hedonism |
|
|
According to Railton, how can an objective act-consequentialism capture some of the appealing features of rule-consequentialism?
|
-An objective act-consequentialist is able to support the kinds of characteristics that are appealing in rule-consequentialism because they are able to maintain motivational patterns or character traits that let them do good more often without being exclusively loyal to such traits as rules |
|
|
According to Rawls, in utilitarian ethical theories, the concept of ‘the good’ is defined independently, and prior to, the concept of‘the right’. What does this claim mean?
|
-Utilitarian’s have to know what is considered “good” in order to decide what is “right” because what is “right” is defined in terms of what is “good,” it’s a baseline that dictates what is “right”
-Deontologists on the other hand consider “right” to be the more fundamental notion where “right” is the baseline that dictates what is “good,” opposite of Utilitarian’s |
|
|
According to the utilitarian view of justice, what is rational for an individual to do in pursuit of his/her own good is also rational for a group to do in pursuit of the common good. According to Rawls, what is the main weakness with this utilitarian view of justice?
|
- What is good for the group is not always good for the individuals involved. It doesn’t take into account the distinctness of individuals, you’re not an individual, you’re part of a whole Nothing prevents pure exploitation of individuals in the group where all costs are put on them, fundamental tension between Utilitarianism and justice |
