Philosophy Final Exam

Front 1

descriptive claim

Back 1

a claim is descriptive if an only if it says something about how the world IS

Front 2

normative claim

Back 2

a claim is normative if and only if it says something about how the world OUGHT to be

Front 3

objective claim

Back 3

a claim is objectively true if and only if it is true independently of whether anyone believes it

Front 4

subjective claim

Back 4

a claim is subjectively true if and only if its truth depends on the beliefs of the person making the claim

Front 5

ethical subjectivism

Back 5

a normative ethical theory. claims that an act is morally right if and only if the person judging the action approves of it (normative claims are only subjectively true or false)

Front 6

consequentialism

Back 6

a normative ethical theory. includes GHP(j.s. mill) and ethical egoism. (wiki) refers to thos moral theories that hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis of any valid moral judgment about that action

Front 7

social contract theory

Back 7

(hobbes) a normative ethical theory. an action is morally right just in case it abides by the social contract. also said as: an action is morally wrong just in case it is a violation of one's covenants

Front 8

divine command theory

Back 8

a normative ethical theory. an action is morally right if it's something God approves of and visa versa.

Front 9

intrinsic value

Back 9

something has intrinsic value if and only if it is valuable for its own sake, rather than as a means to something else.

Front 10

instrumental value

Back 10

instrumental value is given to something if and only if it has value as a mens to something else that has value.

Front 11

greatest happiness principle (utilitarianism)

Back 11

(j.s. mill) a type of consequentialism (a normative ethical theory). an action is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much happiness (or more happiness) as the relative alternative.

Front 12

forward-looking moral consideration

Back 12

a forward-looking moral consideration is any factor relevant for determining whether an action is morally right that concerns the consequences of the action.

Front 13

non-forward looking moral consideration

Back 13

a non-forward looking moral consideration is any factor for determinig whether an action is morally right that do NOT concern the consequences of the action.

Front 14

state of nature

Back 14

a state in which there is no goernment and people are free to do whatever they want. a state of total perpetual war. everyone against everyone else

Front 15

covenant

Back 15

a mutual promse between two or more people to do or not to do something

Front 16

hobbe's first natural law

Back 16

seek peace if possible, as long as others are willing too. defend myself otherwise.

Front 17

hobbe's second natural law

Back 17

be willing to give up my right to everything, so long as others do too; retain as much of that right as you're willing to let others retain. (golden rule)

Front 18

hobbe's third natural law

Back 18

keep your covenants

Front 19

death sub p

Back 19

the process of dying

Front 20

death sub s

Back 20

the state of being dead

Front 21

being alive

Back 21

subject to experiences(good and bad), subject to thought, having emotions, engaging in any kind of activity.

Front 22

organic survival

Back 22

continued existence of functioning body, doesn't require any experiences, thoughts, emotions or activities.

Front 23

argument from disagreement

Back 23

(russ shaefer-landau)

1. there is disagreement among reasonable, well-informed people of good will about normative claims.

2. when there is disagreement about some subject matter among " then there is no objective truth about the subject matter.

3. therefore, there is no objective truth about normative claims.

Front 24

argument from atheism

Back 24

(russ shafer-landau)

1. if morality is objective, then god exisits.

2. god doesn't exist

3. morality isn't objective.

Front 25

euthyphro argument

Back 25

(russ shafer-landau)

1. if god doesn't have reasons for his judgements then morality is not objective and DC is false.

2. if god does have reasons then objective morality is independent of god, and so DC is false.

3. either god has reasons or he does not.

4. therefore, DC is false.

Front 26

hobbe's argument for the right to everything in the state of nature

Back 26

(hobbes)

1. every person has a right to do whatver they need to in order to defend themselves.

2. in the state of nature, any action can be justified as necessary for self defense.

3. so, in the state of nature, every person has the right to everything.

Front 27

argument from non-forward looking moral considerations (against utilitarianism)

Back 27

(js mill)

1. if ghp is correct then all moral considerations are forward looking ones.

2. not all morally relevant considerations are forward looking ones.

3. so ghp is not correct.

Front 28

epicurus's argument

Back 28

1. death is bad for the person who is dying only if it is an unpleasant experience

2. while a person is alive, death is not an unpleasant experience for him/her.

3. once a person is dead,death is not an unpleasant experience for him/her.

4. therefore, death is not an unpleasant experience for the person who dies.

Front 29

lucretius's argument

Back 29

1. it isn't bad to be born later than you might have been, even though this deprives you of pleasure.

2. being born later than you ought have been is just like dying earlier than you might have.

3. so, dying earlier isn't bad for you, event hough it deprives you of pleasures.

Front 30

deprivation argument

Back 30

(nagel)

1. being alive has intrinsic value.

2. death deprive syou of something valuable.

3. it is bad for you to be deprived of something valuable.

4. therefore, death is bad for you.

Front 31

the argument from disagreement and the argument from atheism trying to prove what?

Back 31

(landau) trying to prove ehtical subjectivism. mill thinks they all fail?

Front 32

what is landau's response to the argument from atheism?

Back 32

the euthyphro argument. it's against premise 1 of afa. says that DC is false.

Front 33

according to mill what are the only things that have intrinsic value?

Back 33

happiness and pleasure.

Front 34

what is ethical egoism? is ghp ethical egoism?

Back 34

(js mill) ethical egoism: the morally right thing to do is to maximize one's own happiness. NO!!

Front 35

what is psychological egoism? is ghp psychological egoism?

Back 35

(js mill) psychological egoism: people always act with the intension of maximizing their own happiness/pleasure. NO!!

Front 36

consider the case w/ the hitler boy and how it causes a problem for ghp. what does mill conclude?

Back 36

ghp is based on consequences whether they are immediate or very far in the future. mill concludes that although it is objectively morally wrong to pull the lever and save the kid, it is understandable that one would act in that way b/c they did not know all the consequences.

Front 37

consider the case w/ L and R in which you are babysitting L. what does mill conclude you should do according to ghp?

Back 37

saving l is morally right.

Front 38

hanging judge

Back 38

(js mill) small town, you find out the convicted is innocent but the real killer is now dead. saying he's innocent will lead to riot, chaos, suffering etc. ghp says to not overturn conviction even though it's the morally right thing to do.

Front 39

what are the three basic ideas of the state of nature?

Back 39

1. competition (resources, mates)

2. desire for glory (power, famous, feared)

3. diffidence aka timidity/mistrust (we know others will try to kill us)

Front 40

what are the three objections to the deprivation argument?

Back 40

1. only experiences can be good or bad for you; deprivation of something cant be bad (epicurus)

2. everything that harms you must harm you at some point in your life; but death sub s doesn't harm you in any point of your life (epicurus)

3. being born later than you might have deprives you of life, but that isn't bad for you. (lucretius)

Front 41

what are the counter examples to objections 1 and 2?

Back 41

1. broken promise: friend promises to do something and then doesn't, but you never find out, so no bad experiences follow from breaking the promise.

2. losing ones lifes work: smith, is a great writer who's only dream in life is to create works of art. after death smith loses credit for his work and though to be a plagarist.

both are counter examples.