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;
24 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What are Thomas Aquinas’ five arguments generally for the existence of god? Do these arguments tell us much about god’s nature (i.e., personal, omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent)?
|
1. Motion must have an initial mover
2. Motion must have an external cause-something outside itself 3. Everything that exists is divided into two different kinds of entities: necessary or contingent. No contingent thing can cause itself. "A house must have a foundation." (4) All goodness must have a source, a perfect origin. (5) Everything in nature fits together These arguments tell us that God exists and created the universe, nothing more. |
|
|
What is the primary modern scientific explanation for the cosmological argument?
|
The Big Bang Theory
|
|
|
What does William Paley’s teleological argument claim and conclude?
|
Design implies that there is a designer. Through the "watchmaker analogy" we see that the watch is designed with a purpose, knowing this we must conclude that the watch has a maker. We can imply this to the universe as well, however, because of the complexity of the universe we can infer that a being with infinite wisdom and power had to design the universe.
|
|
|
What is the alternate modern scientific explanation for the development of an orderly universe and life on this planet?
|
Evolution
|
|
|
What does Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of god claim and conclude?
|
God is "that which nothing greater can be conceived". Remember Ella the Elephant! The real perfect Ella is better than the imagined Ella. In application to God we can clearly see that a real God is better than an imagined God. Our definition of him demands that he exists.
|
|
|
What is Gaunilo’s objection to Anselm’s argument?
|
Argument of the existance of a "Perfect Island" even though no such island exists. The ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of anything.
|
|
|
What conclusions about god’s nature/being does William Lane Craig offer us through his version of the cosmological argument, which focuses on god as a “fine-tuner”? What is this “fine-tuning” portion of his argument?
|
If things we just a little different we might not be here. The earth could have been closer to the sun meaning that life wouldn't have existed. Because things exist so perfectly it must mean that God is caring. He may have designed the universe in such a way as to preserve out lives. God's character is: personal (he cares of us), powerful (can design and shape the universe), omniscient (knew what would be best for us).
|
|
|
What is the main reason that David Hume gives to reject the teleological argument which makes reference to our inability to conduct certain “experiments”?
|
We don't have any other world to compare it to, which means we have no idea how complex our world is. It's conceivable that our world is not designed or orderly at all, because we have no comparison.
|
|
|
What is the problem of theodicy for god’s existence? What three properties does this argument assume god to have?
|
The existence of evil implies that God is not all good, through which we can infer that there is no God. The three properties of God: omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent.
|
|
|
What is John Hick’s response to the problem of theodicy? What is the difference between moral evil and non-moral evil? How does Hick say the latter is justified?
|
Evil has a purpose it is useful for soul making. Evil gives us the opportunity to grow into better people. If there was no evil we would have no opportunity to become better people. Non-moral evil is evil that we have no control over such as natural disasters. Moral evil is evil that is generated by humanity.
|
|
|
What is the thesis of the cultural relativists (i.e., the conclusion of the “Cultural Differences Argument”)?
|
Wrong is determined by cultural opinion. What is right or wrong is only so because we have learned an opinions. There is no objective moral truth. We all have moral opinions and there is no moral fact.
|
|
|
What are the three arguments that James Rachels gives to oppose cultural relativism?
|
1. We can't criticize other cultures (Nazis), we can't criticize ourselves (USAs Guantanamo Bay), and we can't make moral progress (abolishing slavery).
2. What looks like huge moral discrepancy on the surface actually shows similarity at the core. Even though it looks like we disagree about the right and wrong of killing, we all do agree that preserving the life of the society is good. 3. The structure of the relativist argument is fallacious. Just because two people disagree doesn't mean that there is no answer. We may simply be ignorant of the proper answer. Disagreement doesn't mean there is no answer! The problem with the form is the premise and that it is impractical. |
|
|
What does Glaucon say about our relationship to justice (hint: Gyge’s ring)? Does he say we would be just if we could avoid it without repercussions? If not, why not and why do we put up with justice normally?
|
We would be very unjust if there was no form of punishment. If we had a means of not getting caught we would do wrong. Justice is and extrinsic value. Justice is a necessary evil and can be used for a good end. It maintains order in society. Life would turn to chaos if we did not accept the responsibility of justice.
|
|
|
What does Plato alternatively say about justice? Does he say it is intrinsically or extrinsically valuable? Why does he think this?
|
Justice is intrinsic (good in and of itself). We are not animals, we are people and we have the facilities to appreciate justice.
|
|
|
What is the relationship between consequentialism and utilitarianism?
|
Consequentialism is a moral theory that assesses actions, persons, policies, and institutions by the value of their consequences. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism that is concerned with welfare, well-being and happiness as a consequence. Consequentialism says that the results determine the goodness or badness of an action. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentiality where the results are judged on whether or not they promote happiness which determines if something is good or bad. Utilitarianism judges the amount of happiness that is produces in all possible people.
|
|
|
What is the central theoretical feature of utilitarianism? Whose happiness matters?
|
The greatest happiness principle states that we are to do what makes the most people happy and everyone's happiness matters equally.
|
|
|
What does John Stuart Mill define utility as? What are the net utility and scope aspects of the principle of utility?
|
The principle of utility shows that utility is happiness. The "net utility" considers the result causes of happiness and possible result of pain and adds them together. This shows that we need to consider as many people as possible in our actions.
|
|
|
Instead of utility, what does Immanuel Kant say should be the used to determine moral goodness/badness in his deontology theory?
|
Right and wrong are based on the intent, motive, and reason behind the action. The goodness is built into the action itself and is intrinsic.
|
|
|
What two formulations of the categorical imperative did Kant place at the center of his theory (that is, the two we discussed)? What does each call on us to do?
|
1. Universal Law: we can't do what we can't desire for everyone together all the time.
Formula of Humanity: don't treat people as the mere means to an end. We must respect their humanity as well. "Don't use people". |
|
|
According to the virtue theorist, where does ethical value reside? How does the answer to this set virtue theorists apart from utilitarians and deontologists (hint: actions vs. what?)?
|
Character is more important than action because it is the thing that grounds action. Value resides in our character.
|
|
|
What is the “teleological aim” of an action and what is its relationship to vice and virtue?
|
The teleological aim is the goal of an action. Virtue is the balance between two extremes - the lack and the excess of the virtue.
|
|
|
What determines for the care ethicist whether an action is right or wrong? How does the care ethicist understand people in an ethical context?
|
Care ethicist - We have not given enough emphasis to emotion, to much reason. This impersonalizes ethics. We must understand people by their emotional proximity to us. Also, we must consider the "golden rule" in light of the situation. Relationships matter: objective moral principles, less so. We are all socially interdependent in the web of relationships.
|
|
|
What critical responses does the care ethicist offer to “traditional” ethical (and broadly philosophical) theories? What problems does the care ethicist cite with traditional ethics?
|
Care ethicist - We have not given enough emphasis to emotion, to much reason. This impersonalizes ethics. We must understand people by their emotional proximity to us. Also, we must consider the "golden rule" in light of the situation. Relationships matter: objective moral principles, less so. We are all socially interdependent in the web of relationships.
|
|
|
What two options does James Rachels give us for the origin of right and wrong? What are the problems he cites with saying what is good is determined by what the gods love?
|
1. Divine command theory: God determines what is good or bad
2. God describes what is already inherently good or bad Divine Command Theory suggests an arbitrariness of God. God could decide that anything is good or bad. God's role in morality is that he relays truth to humanity-however, this suggests that he is not omnipotent (not all powerful) |
