Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
33 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is cultural ethical relativism?
(Benedict) |
Morality is culturally defined (for a 'group' of people in a specific point in time and geography.
The only standards for the truth of moral claims are the beliefs and practices of that culture. |
|
|
How does Benedict argue that morality is culturally defined?
|
1. Morality is normality.
2. Normality is culturally defined. ___________________________ C. Morality is culturally defined. |
|
|
What are some possible criticisms of Benedict's view?
|
1. Just because they're both socially-accepted doesn't make them the same.
2. This is equivalent to saying: "it is morally good=it is habitual" |
|
|
What are some possible criticisms of cultural ethical relativism generally?
|
1. Can't define moral progress
2. No room for dissidence 3. What percentage of people have to agree to decide what is normal? 4. Moral questions are 'up for vote' 5. 'Culture' is hard to define |
|
|
How does the Divine Command Theory explain the truth of moral claims?
|
The truth of moral claims is determined by God's commands.
|
|
|
What are some possible criticisms of this (DCT) theory?
|
1. Can't object to God's commands
2. Distinguishing what God wants is a problem (due to interpretation) 3. Is it moral because God commands it or does God command because it is moral (independent of God) 4. God is good (religious language-what does 'good' really mean) |
|
|
How are these criticisms similar to criticisms of cultural ethical relativism?
|
Cultural: 2-4
DCT: 1-4 1. God is good 2. Torturing babies 3. How do we know? 4. Moral deliberation |
|
|
What are Nagel's criticisms of the claim that we should be moral because God will punish or reward us?
|
1. It's not necessary for moral motivation.
2. Does not make things right or wrong. 3. Not appropriately moral motivation. |
|
|
How is the question, "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" supposed to help us discover reasons to be moral? Be able to give your own example.
|
Golden rule-like, also like Kant's formulation of humanity (treat humanity and yourself and others as ends in themselves and never merely as means) if everyone acted in a way that was concordant with how they would want to be treated (w/ the exception of sadists), the world might likely be a nicer place to live. Ex. Should I kick Dan in the nads... well, it might make me giggle, but I definitely wouldn't like it if someone did that to me.
|
|
|
How is a categorical imperative different from a hypothetical imperative?
(Kant) |
categorical imperatives are always true/false, right/wrong, black/white; hypothetical are very specific and refer to actions in a certain circumstance (how would you respond to a one-legged redhead attempting to steal you grandmas illegal uzi while she was cranked out with the preacher);
|
|
|
What are two formulations of Kant's "categorical imperative"?
|
1. FUL(N)-Formulation of Universal Law (of Nature)-Act so that you can will that your maxim can become a universal law.
2. FH-Formulation of Humanity-Treat humanity and yourself and others as ends in themselves and never MERELY as a means. |
|
|
What is a "maxim"?
(Kant) |
A maxim is the policy that you follow-your 'rule of conduct'
|
|
|
What significance do motivations have for Kant's principle? Does your motivation make a difference to the moral worth of your actions?
|
Motivations are everything in Kant's view-they are what determine the moral worth of your actions-it doesn't matter to Kant what the outcome is, just so long as you act so that you can will that your maxim can become a universal law
|
|
|
Be able to apply Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative to a concrete situation, and to compare that with the application of Mill's principle.
|
Nazis looking for Jews example-lie/don't lie-end result vs. maxim
|
|
|
What is Mill's "general principle of utility"?
|
Actions are right as they TEND to produce the greatest amount of happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse. What is right is what's going to create the greatest amount of happiness and prevent the opposite of happiness (least miserable). Increase the sum total happiness.
|
|
|
How does Mill define "happiness"?
|
Pleasure, and the absence of pain. More specifically, intellectual pleasure (things that you're 'in the know' about).
|
|
|
How does Mill rank the various pleasures?
|
Intellectual pleasures at the top and physical pleasures at the bottom. (sports example-if you know how the game is played/strategies, you're going to get a higher level of pleasure out of it); if we only have the physical pleasures, we will want to maximize those too.
|
|
|
Do you agree that pleasure is the only thing desirable for its own sake? How can the idea of a 'pleasure machine' help test our intuitions about this?
|
In a word, yes. But it's complicated, as part of the pleasure, or reward of actions is due to the "journey" or hardship that you had to endure to get there. Even when you gift something to a friend, you're experiencing pleasure due to their pleasure. It's just real fuckin complicated; you know?
|
|
|
Whose happiness should we be concerned about, according to Mill?
|
We should be concerned about the greatest total amount of happiness (not necessarily for the most amount of people, but the most 'net')
|
|
|
Do we need to calculate the consequences of every action?
|
No, we only have to know what TENDS to produce the most happiness. (not getting punched in the junk TENDS to produce the most happiness for me, while taking very little away from your pleasure of punching me in general)
|
|
|
What significance do motivations have for Mill's principle? Does your motivation make a difference to the moral worth of your actions?
|
Motivations have no significance for Mills-all that matters is the end result and how much total happiness it produced.
|
|
|
Be able to apply Mill's principle of utility to a concrete situation, and to compare that with the application of Kant's principles.
|
Nazi example with Jews hiding inside
|
|
|
What are the two criteria for the highest or ultimate good, according to Aristotle?
|
(1) Desire for its own sake and (2) complete by itself. Why the highest good can’t be achieved with money-not complete by itself-use it to get other things. (Pleasure-won’t supply all other needs, but is desired for its own sake) Being virtuous, however, (bravery) is valued for its own sake and is complete by itself (nothing makes up bravery). (virtues of character ex: confidence ex: overconfidence at one end and meekness at the other end. Virtues of thought are something that you can be taught.)
|
|
|
Why can't the ultimate good be pleasure or wealth?
|
Pleasure isn't complete by itself and wealth isn't valued for its own sake. The money itself isn't valued-it's its representative potential that is desired-the ability to acquire something with it
|
|
|
How does Aristotle's concept of 'happiness' (eudaimonia) differ from our contemporary understanding of the word?
|
Our understanding of the word pertains to fluctuating happiness, for example: I sure was happy to wake up next to that Victoria's Secret model this morning, but quickly became unhappy when she revealed that she had chlamydia... This is different from Aristotle's understanding of happiness: existence, deeper-meaning such as performing rational functions well, not really fluctuating.
|
|
|
How, according to Aristotle, does the good depend upon the function of a thing? Be able to give an example.
|
The good thing performs its function well. A good chair is one that isn't squeaky, allows you to lean back comfortably, and dispenses beer into your waiting cup while it sings praises of your grandeur-it performs its function well.
|
|
|
Be able to explain Aristotle's argument that the good human being lives according to reason well (that is, according to the virtues of reason).
|
What are the two criteria for the highest or ultimate good, according to Aristotle? (1) Desire for its own sake and (2) complete by itself. Why the highest good can’t be achieved with money-not complete by itself-use it to get other things. (Pleasure-won’t supply all other needs, but is desired for its own sake) Being virtuous, however, (bravery) is valued for its own sake and is complete by itself (nothing makes up bravery). (virtues of character ex: confidence ex: overconfidence at one end and meekness at the other end. Virtues of thought are something that you can be taught.)
|
|
|
What is the difference between virtues of thought and virtues of character? How are each acquired?
|
Virtues of thought are something you can be taught (avoidance of common error), while virtues of character are desires or emotions trained by reason. These can be rated on a scale (meek--right amount of confidence--overconfidence). The highest, or ultimate good, according to Aristotle, are desired for their own sake and are complete by themselves. (not money, since its solely an intermediary to other goods) (bravery-valued for its own sake and complete)
Virtues of Thought are acquired by teaching/studying Virtues of Character are trained by reason, through practice |
|
|
Be able to give examples of virtues of character and their corresponding vices.
|
(bravery, confidence, compassion)
(meek-----------------the right amount of confidence----------------------cocky) |
|
|
What is the Formulation of Universal Law?
|
The formulation of universal law states that you should act so that you can will that your MAXIM can become a universal law. (the maxim is the policy that you follow-you can't lie ever-even when the nazis at the door are looking for Anne Frank example
|
|
|
What is the Formulation of Humanity?
|
Treat humanity and yourself and others as ends in themselves and never MERELY as means.
|
|
|
How do Kant and Mills differ?
|
For Kant, FUL is the motivation for acting or not-the consequences don't matter, just your intentions; for Mills-only the consequences matter (utility-greatest sum total happiness)
|
|
|
What is Benedict's argument?
|
1. Morality is normality.
2. Normality is culturally defined. C. Morality is culturally defined. |
