Philosophy 224 Week 1

Front 1

What is the difference between a normative question and a descriptive question?

Back 1

And normative question asks what should be the case? it is obligation based and start tipping in philosophy!
Descriptive questions address what is the case? what do we do?

Front 2

What is the difference between a philosophical argument and a moral argument?

Back 2

Philosophical argument must contain an acceptable premise, it must be explicit and must contain sound reasoning.
a moral argument is more specific. it must contain all of these things and also, but it must contain a normative claim.

Front 3

Describe the argument structure for a moral argument

Back 3

It must contain a normative claim a descriptive claim and make logical sense. You must also offer guidance as to what we should do.

Front 4

How do you know if an argument contains in an unexpressed or unexamined normative claim?

Back 4

If the argument is structured with only descriptive claims it contains an unexpressed or unexamined normative claim.

Front 5

What are the two most common fallacies and how are they similar?

Back 5

Ad hominem and the argument from authority are both fallacies. commonality between both of them is that the conclusion doesn't reasonably follow from the premise!

Front 6

What are the 4 ingredients to a good moral argument

Back 6

1 a sound and factual descriptive statement
2 a compelling moral claim which is normative and transparent (which is based on 1 either universal morals or 2 good reasoning )
3 a conclusion driven from the premises. without inconsistencies!
4 guidance on how we should proceed

Front 7

Why do we have to sort out a moral framework for ourselves?

Back 7

1 moral relativism doesn't work so you gotta think it up for yourself
2 the practice of thinking through what we believe morally helps us as a society to know what we want to do about something
3 it's always good to be clear on what you believe and why. what Rawls calls "the reflective equilibrium"

Front 8

What are the problems with moral relativism

Back 8

1 intuitive problems. i have to be ok with whatever crazy or s***** ideas you have about the morality of the world.
2 practical problems if everything is relative why should anyone listen to me?
3 philosophical problems what right do i have to make a universal claim?

Front 9

Name the 3 questions that broke down the divine command theory

Back 9

1 how do we know that god exists
2 how do we know what god wants
3 what is the source of gods authority. (does god only asks us to do the right thing? or does it become the right thing when god asks it?)

Front 10

According to aristotle how do we reach our telos

Back 10

aristotle said our telos, or final cause, was eudaimonia.
this is achieved by a rational activity of the soul in accordance with a virtue.
activity because life is an action
rational because that part of our soul guides us past the extremes of the other two souls
virtue is amines between extremes. It is not mathematical and it is situational

Front 11

What does aristotle think virtue is?

Back 11

He is very practical about it. He thinks we will know it when we see it. Virtuous people do virtuous things we can reflect on our own life and see when we made good choices and when we made poor choices.

Front 12

What is good according to Kant?

Back 12

Only good will is good according to kant. it is a jewel. even if you have no capacity to do anything with it, it is good.

Front 13

What is kants first categorical imperative?

Back 13

But you should only act as if the way you acted was universal law.

Front 14

What is kant's second categorical imperative?

Back 14

That all rational beings must be treated as having inherently worth, they are always their own ends and never merely a means.

Front 15

What action has the greatest moral worth according to kant?

Back 15

Actions which are based on duty have the highest moral worth.

Front 16

Why does kant think we have reason?

Back 16

We have reason to drive our will argues Kant. why else would we have reason? Reason certainly doesn't make us happy.

Front 17

The four actions which have different moral worth according to Kant.

Back 17

1 actions against duty which are just bad
2 actions according to duty but from a selfish purpose
3 actions according to duty but from inclination ( this is praiseworthy. )
4 actions from duty alone. full moral worth.

Front 18

What is the big difference between kant and rawls

Back 18

kant addresses the question as to what is right for an individual to do. Rawls addresses how we should decide what county is justice in society
and by what criteria.

Front 19

What is the original position

Back 19

The original position is a thought experiment in which a group of people know the characteristics of the world including economic and social but they know no particulars about their place in it.
From this point they cannot quote game the system

Front 20

What do the group of people use behind the veil of ignorance to establish the principles

Back 20

They use rational choice theory as well as concerns for the individual welfare rather than their collective concern they are trying to create the least s***** possible situation for themselves in the future

Front 21

What is rawls first principle of justice

Back 21

The each person should have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with a similar liberty for all others.

Front 22

What is rawls second principle of justice

Back 22

First economic and social inequalities should be arranged so that they are reasonably expected to be at it everyones advantage: especially the least well off.

AND positions and offices of economic or social power should be open to all

Front 23

What kind of basic liberties is rawls most concerned with?

Back 23

He is most concerned with the rights of a citizen such as political liberty and freedom from arbitrary arrest. as resources increase in a society more libertys can be offered to everyone and so they should be.

Front 24

What does rawls think we should do about inequalities in society?

Back 24

He thinks that after we have distributed basic liberties to everyone we should arrange the remaining social and economic inequalities in such a way that benefits everyone especially the least well off.

Front 25

Why is the order of rawls principles important?

Back 25

Because we don't want people to give up their basic rights to access and change inequalities.

Front 26

What are three of the critiques rawls principles of justice

Back 26

1 is imagining the veil of ignorance even possible
2 how do we know if the veil of ignorance is a good way to decide principles of justice
3 the scope is limited . this theory does not address the relationship between nation-states or our different relationships in capitalism

Front 27

What is the foundation argument that utilitarianism makes about what is right?

Back 27

Actions are right in the proportion that they tend to promote happiness: wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness

Front 28

Is utility a consequentialist theory? why or why not?

Back 28

It is a consequentialist theory because it is concerned only with the consequences of an action for all sentiant beings.

Front 29

Who is considered in the utility theory?

Back 29

All sentient beings capable of feeling pain or pleasure

Front 30

What are the differences between high and low pleasures

Back 30

1 the higher pleasures can be reexperienced
2 animals only feel low pleasure
3 no one would take the offer of a life filled with just low pleasures and none of the high... therefore there is a quality difference between higher and lower pleasures

Front 31

Why is utility right according to mills?

Back 31

It is an empirical fact that all people desire happiness and only happiness. if they want something else it's because it is a means to get happiness

Front 32

What is virtue according to utility?

Back 32

Utility is a means to happiness and an end in itself (which is a part of happiness)

Front 33

Does utility think it is ok to kill or torture people now if you knew it would prevent future suffering

Back 33

Technically yes but they argue that you must know for absolutely sure and this is very difficult

Front 34

Does utility think that more people will always mean more happiness

Back 34

Not necessarily. sedwick argue that more people will mean more happiness to a certain point.... but eventually it will make everyone miserable. therefore we should focus on the highest average happiness

Front 35

What are the arguments in support of utility

Back 35

1 it moves beyond rational beings to all sentient being
2 it is a broader than just ol Kant
3 it gives us a way to address moral problems beyond our duties and right.