1. Explain Mill’s Harm Principle. Say what it is, and whether you think it’s a good principle for governments to follow. Use examples.
Harm Principle- The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm from others. This is not a good principle to follow because this is only stating how we should prevent harm from others. This principle does not say anything about harm to oneself, for example, suicide.
2. Explain one of the four reasons Mill gives for why we should have complete freedom of speech. Evaluate the reason you gave – is Mill right? Use examples.
The Argument from Partial Truth- Mill argues that most claims have some truth to them and to silence …show more content…
Or does God command something because it is good? The problem with the first answer is that anything could be considered good. The problem with the second response would be that God is not the source of morality, he is just the messenger for some external force. You can break these two horns and create a third horn that states that God’s nature determines morality not his will or judgment. This creates a new dilemma that asks, does God have control over his nature or does he not have control over his nature? By splitting the dilemma, it will fall back into itself.
4. Tom Regan claims that people who say a dog doesn’t feel pain are committed to the view that other humans don’t feel pain either. Why would he think that? Because morality is more than just a matter of having a social contract. Slaves were human but their pain doesn’t matter because they are not covered by the interest of “thinking adults.”
5. Give one argument against cultural relativism. Other customs outside of our own society are not inferior to our own. There is not a universal standard that tells us right from wrong.
6. How would an emotivist interpret the sentence “It is wrong to enslave others”? In other words, rewrite that sentence as an emotivist would understand it. An emotivist has the belief that moral sentences express feelings. My example would be, “Boo,
Harm Principle- The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm from others. This is not a good principle to follow because this is only stating how we should prevent harm from others. This principle does not say anything about harm to oneself, for example, suicide.
2. Explain one of the four reasons Mill gives for why we should have complete freedom of speech. Evaluate the reason you gave – is Mill right? Use examples.
The Argument from Partial Truth- Mill argues that most claims have some truth to them and to silence …show more content…
Or does God command something because it is good? The problem with the first answer is that anything could be considered good. The problem with the second response would be that God is not the source of morality, he is just the messenger for some external force. You can break these two horns and create a third horn that states that God’s nature determines morality not his will or judgment. This creates a new dilemma that asks, does God have control over his nature or does he not have control over his nature? By splitting the dilemma, it will fall back into itself.
4. Tom Regan claims that people who say a dog doesn’t feel pain are committed to the view that other humans don’t feel pain either. Why would he think that? Because morality is more than just a matter of having a social contract. Slaves were human but their pain doesn’t matter because they are not covered by the interest of “thinking adults.”
5. Give one argument against cultural relativism. Other customs outside of our own society are not inferior to our own. There is not a universal standard that tells us right from wrong.
6. How would an emotivist interpret the sentence “It is wrong to enslave others”? In other words, rewrite that sentence as an emotivist would understand it. An emotivist has the belief that moral sentences express feelings. My example would be, “Boo,