Philo Final

Front 1

maxim

Back 1

rule that you follow

Front 2

sin

Back 2

an act that violates one of the absolutes (love god and others) and encompasses both action and desire

Front 3

atheism

Back 3

lack of belief in a personal god

Front 4

personal god

Back 4

god cares about creation and has the attributes of personality

Front 5

deism

Back 5

belief that god is impersonal or otherwise unconnected with the word

Front 6

classical deism

Back 6

god brought the universe into being and possibly 1. fused it with moral fiber 2. life after death; but ultimately, god is irrelevant in our lives

Front 7

agnosticism

Back 7

we can’t know that there is a god thus there is no need to believe that there is; soft atheism

Front 8

theism

Back 8

belief that there is a personal diety

Front 9

monotheism

Back 9

belief in 1 personal god

Front 10

omnipotent

Back 10

god is all powerful and all able

Front 11

omniscient

Back 11

god is all knowing

Front 12

omnibenevolent

Back 12

god is perfectly good

Front 13

omnipresent

Back 13

god is everywhere

Front 14

transcendent

Back 14

beyond the universe

Front 15

immanent

Back 15

right here

Front 16

for the deist, god is?

Back 16

transcendent

Front 17

for the theist, god is?

Back 17

immanent and transcendent , thus everywhere

Front 18

theology

Back 18

study of god (have faith and use reason to deduce principals)

Front 19

philosopher of religion

Front 20

hard atheism

Back 20

there is no god

Front 21

5 criticisms of utilitarians

Back 21

1. why care about the happiness of others? 2. do the ends justify the means? 3. not everyone’s happiness counts the same 4. consquentialist system, but the consequences are impossible to know 5. based on maximizing the greatest net happiness, but impossible to quantify 6. part of an evil system an opposing would do no good- supposed to go along with it

Front 22

kant’s morally wrong act

Back 22

good consequences but poor motive

Front 23

kant’s morally right act

Back 23

can have bad consequences as long as motive is good

Front 24

both forms of kant’s categorial imperative

Back 24

1. “so act that you could wish your maxim would be a universal law of human conduct” (whatever rule you follow, be it one that you wish everyone would follow) 2. always treat others as ends in themselves and never as a means to an end (dont use people because people are intrinsically valuable)

Front 25

consequentialist ethics? examples?

Back 25

1. altruism 2. egoism 3. utilitarianism; the rightness of the act is always based on the consequences (others happiness/ my happiness/ our)

Front 26

nonconsequentialist ethics

Back 26

motive matters

Front 27

how can you tell if an act is unversalizable

Back 27

1. if everybody did it, it would have to be logically coherent (if everyone lied, we wouldnt believe anything) 2. reversible (if everyone does it, you have to be willing to have it done to you)

Front 28

difficulties with kant’s ethics?

Back 28

1. why categorical imperative and not ego? (no basis for accepting CI rather than EI because there must be a higher moral standard to compare, but according to kant, there is no higher standard thus reason cannot choose between the two) 2. what if 2 absolutes conflict? kant does says that this scenario does not exist 3. kant says that the act must be reversible, but reversible for who? depends on the individual’s perspective and is thus egoist

Front 29

2 fundamental absolutes in the christian worldview? thus?

Back 29

1. love others (5-10) thus justice; 2. love god (1-4); thus happiness through these two and the whole point of biblical ethics is happiness

Front 30

christian ethics: obligation to love others has 2 dimensions? guideline?

Back 30

1. justice 2. compassion ; the golden rule: treat others at you want to be treated

Front 31

the new testament stresses?

Back 31

the importance of compassion

Front 32

the old testament stresses?

Back 32

the importance of justice

Front 33

the 10 commandments are? 1-4 are? 5-10 are?

Back 33

ethical commands; 1-4: religious commands to love god; 5-10: love others

Front 34

contingent being?

Back 34

one which is dependent on something else for existance

Front 35

necessary being?

Back 35

cannot not exist

Front 36

necessay truth

Back 36

cannot not be true; true by definition

Front 37

ontological argument

Back 37

the nature of god’s being

Front 38

cosmological argument is based on?

Back 38

the existence of the universe 1. every event has a cause 2. nothing causes itself 3. the universe is caused by something outside of itself (necessary being)

Front 39

anselm’s definition of god

Back 39

“that which nothing greater can be conceived”; 1. omnipotent 2. omniscent 3. omnipresent 4. eternal 5. omnibenevolent 6. transcendent

Front 40

aquina’s cosmological argument?

Back 40

1. contingent beings require a necessary being as thier ultimate cause 2. some contingent being exist 3. thus, there must exist a necessary being which is the ultimate cause of all contingent beings

Front 41

anselm’s ontological argument?

Back 41

1. if god exists, god is the greatest possible being 2. to exist objectively is greater than to exist merely subjectively 3. god exists at least subjectively as an idea in the mind 4. but if god exists only subjectively, then he is not the greatest possible being 5. thus, god must exist in reality (objectively) and in the mind (subjectively)

Front 42

problem of evil?

Back 42

1. if god is omnipotent then he could prevent suffering 2. if god is omnibenevolent then he would want to prevent suffering. 3. evil exists 4. either god is not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent