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;
74 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Validity |
If the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true |
|
|
soundness |
a valid argument with true premises |
|
|
circular |
in order to believe the conclusion, one must also believe one of the premises |
|
|
equivocations |
ambiguous language that coneals truth or to avoid commiting oneself ex: a word that can have multiple meanings |
|
|
moral language |
permissible impermissible obligatory supererogatory nuetral |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definition/Claims of cultural relativism |
1)Different societies have different moral codes 2)There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another 3)The moral code of our own society has no special status, it is merely one among many 4) There is no universal truth in ethics, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times 5)The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society, that is, the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action IS right within that society 6) It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other people. we should adpot an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures. |
|
|
Definition Cultural Differences argument |
An argument based on social relativism that says, different cultures have different moral codes, therefore there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture |
|
|
Refute Cultural Differences Argument(No example) |
It is not a sound argument. If the premise is true the conclusion could still be false. Disagreeing on a matter does not logically equate to there being no truth in the matter. |
|
|
Refute Cultural Difference Argument (using examples) |
Earth is round/flat: Some societies believe the world is flat, others believe it is round. This does not mean there is no objective truth about the shape of the earth. Ice Cream Flavors: Some people think chocolate is the best. Others think vanilla is the best. This does not mean there is no 'best' ice cream. |
|
|
Consequences of taking cultural relativism seriously *break this up* |
|
|
|
Judging other cultures |
We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. i.e. Nazi Germany Sometimes other cultures might appear to have a different set of moral values, when actually the difference a matter of beliefs. (eating cows, eskimo infanticide) |
|
|
Common Values of all cultures |
There are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist. We must all care for our young in order to continue our existence as a group. Truth telling as the default. if we had no assumption for telling the truth, it would be impossible to communicate and societies cannot exist with communication. |
|
|
what can be learned from cultural relativism |
Most practices are unique to a society our feelings are not necessarily perceptions of the truth but instead could just be cultural conditioning |
|
|
Moral Progress |
Moral progress is called into doubt. women's role in western society has increased over time, but cultural relativism says it would be wrong to say whether or not a change in societal moral structure is progress or regress |
|
|
Critique of our own culture |
We could decided whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society. Very few think our moral code is perfect but if cultural relativism was true, we would not be able to say anything is wrong with it because right and wrong is determined by our moral code. |
|
|
Moral Heroism |
??? |
|
|
Define Utilitarianism |
The best moral action is the one that maximises well-being and happiness |
|
|
Slavery objection to utilitarianism |
Utilitarianism allows for certain situations of slavery to be morally permissible if it maximizes aggregate happiness. However, it is widely accepted that slavery is inherently wrong. Therefore, utilitarianism is not a good moral theory. |
|
|
Juba and Camaica |
Juba and Camaice were two islands that both had slaves. In Juba the Slave owner took political control of the island and made better living and working conditions for the slaves and enjoyed a much preferrable version of life than camaica, where slaves were left by the white colonists and they suffered political turmoil and a population explosion which led to starvation and misery. |
|
|
Hare's response to the slavery objection to utilitarianism |
Hare claims that an idealistic slavery society such as juba which appears to maximize happiness, might be too unrealistic. In addition, Hare points out that historically slavery has not maximized happiness which is a more concrete example than a theoretical one. |
|
|
The integrity objection |
Utilitarianism does not differentiate between acts I do, I let do, and I have to do. Williams thinks that integrity should play a role in whether a not an act is morally permissible. He also thinks it is absurd to disregard moral feelings and focus only on consequences when dealing with moral dilemmas.
|
|
|
Agent Nuetrality |
There is a difference between what i do and what some one else does (jim and the indians) |
|
|
Kagan's defense of utilitatianism |
Integrity either means A) acting in line with one's own convictions and principles even if they are immoral or B) acting in line with one's convictions and principles, so long as they are morally permissible. If A, then the premise that Jim would not be obligated to kill the one indian is not adequately supported. if B, then argument is circular.
|
|
|
Demandingness Objection |
Utilitarianism demands more than common-sense morality by making certain acts that are normally thought of as supererogatory and making them obligatory. |
|
|
Singer's Argument as to why affluent people should give to the poor |
1)suffering an death from lack of food are bad 2) if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, orally, to do so 3) If affluent people forgo some luxuries then they can save people from starving to death with the money saved 4) therefore, affluent people must forgo lucuries in order to save people who are starving to death |
|
|
Singer's Defense for producing a new generation of needy people |
Instead of supporting famine prevention, one should do everything they can without sacrificing anything of moral equivalence in order to reduce population growth |
|
|
Singer's defense to the objection of proximity |
Proximity isn't morally relevant, think of cases of harm. |
|
|
Singer's defense to the objection of giving to much/not having enough to give |
Only give when it does not sacrifice something of equal moral importance |
|
|
Singer's objection to "How do we know that our gifts are actually saving lives" |
research how youre giving to people |
|
|
Singer's objection to communism |
one is a moral theory, the other is a political theory. He also does not mind inequality above the basic needs line |
|
|
Singer's objection to giving more than our fair share |
It is based on the assumption that everyone in an affluent position is giving five dollars. This is definitely not the case therefore you will do more good by giving more money |
|
|
Doctrine of doing and allowing |
It is always morally worse to do a harm than to allow the same harm. The kill let die thesis is a derivation of this. (it is always morally worse to kill someone than to let him/her die) |
|
|
Rachel's Arguments against the kill let die thesis |
if letting someone die involves more suffering than killing that person, then it is not worse to kill than to let die (terminal cancer patient) based on the baby in the bathtub thought experiment, what smith did is not worse than what Jones did |
|
|
Baby in the bathtub thought experiment |
One person drowns a kid in the bathtub, the other watches him slips but doesn't help him and lets him drown. |
|
|
Foot's Duties of provision and duties of non-interference |
obligation to do something good for someone and obligation to refrain from doing something bad for someone |
|
|
Foot's Reconstructuon of the DDA |
It requires more justification to infringe a negative right than it does to infringe a positive right |
|
|
Foot's respone to Rachels' baby in the bathtub experiment |
It would require more justification for smith to permissibly kill the baby than for jones to permissibly let him die. But since both acts are impermissible and unjustified, they might be equally morally wrong |
|
|
Foot's Response to Rachels' terminal cancer patient argument |
There is adequate justification to permissibly kill or let die in this case. There is no violation of either provision or non-interference he only has pain or suffering left in his life |
|
|
Kant's Moral theory |
There are two versions of the correct categorical imperative that both stem from two general moral principles that most of us accept 1) we shouldnt make exceptions of ourselves 2)We shouldnt use other people |
|
|
Kant's Principle of humanity |
Stems from the principle that we should not use others we must always treat others as ends in themselves and not as mere means to an end |
|
|
Kant's principle of universalization |
Stems from the principle that we shouldn't make exceptions of ourselves When we do something we have to make sure it's something that is okay for everyone else to do application: "It is permissible to break promises" would be a useless universal moral law because the fundamental meaning of a promise would be meaningless if promises could be broken. |
|
|
Kant's perfect vs. imperfect duties |
imperfect duties are things you have to do some of the time but not all of the time perfect duties are things you have to do all of the time |
|
|
Murder at the door objection to kant |
Telling someone that the person they are trying to kill is not home. This shows that sometimes deception is ok |
|
|
Kant's theory on deception |
Deception is always wrong because we are not taking their ends into account because in order to form one's own ends, one must take all their knowledge into account and if you have false information you cant formulate your own ends. even if you lie to avoid hurting someones feelings youre serving your own ends because you dont want to hurt their feelings, while they just want the truth |
|
|
Catastrophe objection to Kant |
According to utilitarianism, it would be ok to kill someone if it was good for the rest of the world, but kant would say that this is using someone as a means to an end |
|
|
Deceiving some one into sex by dougherty |
It has to be an issue that pertains to the sexual encounter (about partner or sexual situation) |
|
|
deal breakers by dougherty |
if your partner had not been deceived about X, then s/he wouldnt have had sex with you |
|
|
feminist charge |
women will disproportionately be sex workers |
|
|
Kant's hypothetical imperative |
commands you should follow if they help you achieve an end of your choosing (you are on a diet so you dont allow yourself to eat a cookie) |
|
|
Kant's categorical imperative |
commands you must follow no matter what |
|
|
Kant's view on charity |
they are imperfect duties-we need not always do this but we wouldnt want to live in a world where people never did these things
|
|
|
Ways kat handles things utilitarianism can't |
doctor and healthy patient/5 sick patient case cases of rape |
|
|
Dougherty's overal argument |
1) having sex with someone without his or her morally valid consent is seriously wrong 2)deceiving someone into sex is having sex with him or her without morally valid consent 3)therefore deceiving someone into sex is morally wrong |
|
|
dougherty's argument for premise 1 |
Dougherty thinks that what is wrong with rape is the lack of consent which would cover instances like the coma patient |
|
|
The argument of the case of chihuahua |
Defends dougherty's second premise Saying you are bringing home a great dane and instead bring home a chihuahua is morally wrong just as it is in the case of chloe and victoria |
|
|
The argument from sexual moralism |
1)some forms of deeiving another person into sex undermine that person's sexual consent 2) if some forms of deceiving another person into sex undermine that person's sexual consent, then all forms of deceiving another person into sex undermine that persons sexual consent 3)all forms of deceiving another person into sex undermine that person's sexual consent |
|
|
objections to douhgerty |
what about when someone's deal breaker could not have been reasonably known by the person's sexual partner? The sex was not consensual but no one is blame worhty |
|
|
Conly's minimal accounts of rape |
physical force or threat of physical force failure to consent |
|
|
Conly's broadest Accounts of Rape |
sex that is not rape requires mutual desire. Problem: sometimes you may not feel like having sex but you do it to make your partner happy. the broad account of rape ties sexual desire too closely to consent- one can desire without giving consent and can consent without desire |
|
|
Conly's definition of coercion |
A creates a situation in which B has no other viable choice but to have sex with A. This can happen because of a physical or emotional threat. (pinching doesnt count as a physical threat) |
|
|
legitimacy of coercion |
Some coercion is unproblematic when the person trying to coerce gives the victim a choice that is better than having sex (employer that says have sex with me or youre fired) |
|
|
Seduction by conly |
Distinguishes between all things considered desires and desires Seduction is a weakness of will being induced. it is morally problematic but not rape |
|
|
Persuasion by conly |
legitimate maniupulation not rape and not morally problematic Appealing to rationality or undermining rationallity |
|
|
Ericsson's argument for prostitution |
1) it is morally unobjectionable for a consumer to pruchase nonsexual services from a supplier in a free exchange on an open market 2) purchasing sexual services is morally on par with purchasing non sexual services 3) prostitution is the practice of a consumer purchasing sexual services from a supplier 4) therefore prostitution is morally unobjectionable |
|
|
Conventtional morality Objection to Ericsson and his response |
Prostitutes degrade themselves and ruin marriages Response: we have to come to accept all sorts of non-marital sex, and that sex is no less likely than prostitution to harm marriages. If prostitutes feel or are perceived as degraded, it is the fault of conventional morality |
|
|
Sentimentalist Objection to ericsson and response |
sex should be about emotions and love, which are not present in commercial sex Response: "good" sex is about emotions and love, but "good enough" sex doesnt need to be. there are a lot of " sub-optimal" sexual experiences. people might want a variety of sexual experiences |
|
|
Paternalist objection to ericsson and response |
Prostitution is bad for women, and we make women's lives better by prohibiting it. if we reformed prostitution so that it wasn't dangerous for women and if we didnt associate a tabo with prostitution, then there would be no reason to protect women from prostitution |
|
|
Feminist charge against prositution and response |
it involves and promotes sexual inequality. availability of sex to men vs women. women are more subject to the dangers of prostitution. women are oppressed and objectified through prostitution response: availibility: supply and demand, dangers: legalization would make it less dangerous, objectification: men can be prostitutes too |
|
|
Scott anderson's objection to prostitution |
Anderson thinks that ericsson succeeds in defeating the objections brought up to him. However, the success is only achieved for a legalized/normalized state of prost. anderson thinks that premise 2 of ericssons argument is still wrong. (purchasing sexual services is morally on par with purchasing non sexual services) |
|
|
Autonomy as the justification for free markets |
We think that the government needs justification to constrain our autonomy. Anderson proposes that sometimes overall autonomy is best promoted by taking certain options off the market. |
|
|
sexual autonomy |
anderson thinks that having the choice of prostitution actually diminishes sexual autonomy. sexual autonomy is more important for the sake of overal autonomy than is having the choice to be a prostitute. |
|
|
Anderson's consequences of normalized prostitution |
1) job descriptions 2) welfare 3) contract enforcement 4) corporate monitoring of sexual services 5) nondiscrimination 6) government inspections and prohibitions 7) agressive marketing strategies 8) career counseling |
|
|
Scott anderson's argument that legalizing prostitution is morally problematic |
1) if we legaize prost then we must normalize it or not normalize it 2) if we do not normalize it, it is morally problematic for thereasons described by the feminists 3) if we do normalize it, our sexual autonomy will be diminished 4) sxual autonomy is more important for the sake of overall autonomy than is having the choice to be a prost 5) so if we normalize prostitution, then our overall autonomy will be diminished. 6) anything that diminishes overal autonomy is morally problematic 7) legalizing prostitution is morally problematic |
