Philosophy 143 Dawn Gale Fall 2013 Study Questions for Exam #1 1. What is ethics?

List the three main branches of ethics and offer a brief characterization of each branch. Give examples of the types of questions that arise within each major branch of ethics. Ethics is the study of morality 3 branchs A Metaethics-studies of nature of ethics and moral judgments-can a truth value exists. Capital punishment is wrong has no truth value B normative ethics-what should be done- good permisslbe and wrong and how to do it like denotical Right-x-is only right iff it is morally required Wrong-x-is morally forbidden Permissible -x- is iff it is neither required nor prohibited And value concepts Determine what has worth what to pursue or avoid : Good, Bad, Neutral X is good iff positive value worth pursing X is bad iff negative value x to avoid X is neutral iff neither positive nor neg C Applied ethics tries to answer questions to resolve moral problems Capital punishment or mercy killing or abortion EXAMPLES OF METAETHICS AND NORMATIVE ETHICS

2. Explain what is meant by the metaethical question, Can moral judgments have truth value? Explain the 4 different metaethical views that attempt to answer this

question (metaethical subjectivism, ethical subjectivism, ethical relativism, and ethical objectivism). Compare and contrast these different schools of thought. Where can I find class material to help me answer that question other then using outside sources 3. Characterize the main aims of normative ethical theory. Explain the importance of each of these aims in the attempt to offer a successful account of normative ethics. Normative ethics helps us understand how to relate to the world and what we think we should do its a guiding perspective not descriptinve It defies ethics in a theoretical aim Or it offers a decicsion calcusls for use so we know how to act in certain instances 4. What are the two basic types of moral concepts that normative theory attempts to define? What are the relevant terms under each of these categories? Offer a brief explanation of the general meanings of each of these terms.
o

Deontic concepts Action concepts-used to evaluate actions 3 categories Right, Wrong, and permissible Right-x-is only right iff it is morally required Wrong-x-is morally forbidden Permissible -x- is iff it is neither required nor prohibited Value concepts Determine what has worth what to pursue or avoid : Good, Bad, Neutral X is good iff positive value worth pursing X is bad iff negative value x to avoid X is neutral iff neither positive nor neg

5. Briefly explain the difference between action-oriented and agent-oriented moral theories. Be able to classify each new normative theory according to this distinction. TELEOLOGICAL THEORIES AND DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES ACTION OREINTED THEORIES ARE CONSEQUENCESLIST THEORIES BECAUSE WE ALWAYS HAVE TO DO X BECAUSE IT PRODUCES GOOD AND X IS WRONG IF WE PRODUCE BAD THINGS AND X IS NEUTRAL/PERMISSIBLE IF NOT ACTING DOES NOTHING-END BASED THEORIES WHERAS DEONTOLOGICAL THOERIES ARE AGENT ORIENTED LIKE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY WE SHOULD NOT ACT

IN CERTAIN WAYS IF THEY ARE WRONG THE OUTCOME IS IRREVANT IT IS JUST OUR ACTIONS?

, metaethics asks questions about the nature of ethics itself as opposed to trying to define and use the moral concepts. Questions such as can moral judgments have truth-value? Is ethics prescriptive or descriptive? are metaethical questions. Questions like what makes something right or wrong? How do I know if this act is right or wrong? are examples of normative questions. As for the difference between teleological and deontological moral theories, the main difference is in how they define the moral concepts and whether there is reference to the value concepts. Teleological theories define the deontic concepts of right and wrong in terms of the value concepts, good and bad whereas deontological theories do not reference the value concepts at all. Outcome is relevant to defining morality on the teleological side whether this is true directly of specific consequences as in consequentialist theories or in a broad overarching way without looking directly at specific consequences such as in non-consequentialist approaches such as Aristotelian Virtue Ethics. Many people are careless in the use of language and use non-consequentialism as equivalent to deontological; however, that is a bit misleading so stick with the explanations above

6. Characterize teleological moral theories and deontological moral theories & their respective approaches to defining the moral concepts and the relationship between the different types of moral concepts on each account. Using the examples of moral reasoning from the Frasier episode, classify Frasiers basic approach to his moral dilemma & Martins (Frasiers father) basic approach to morality and Frasiers dilemma according to this distinction. Be able to characterize each new moral theory according to this distinction. In general, which approach to ethics do you find more plausible? Explain your answer. Teleological getting the bad guy jusfities the ends Deontological lying is bad and should always be avoided

7. Explain how teleological theories of morality can be further divided into consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories of morality explaining the basic distinction between these two subtypes of theories. Be able to classify each new teleological theory according to this further distinction.

Consquestalist- acting to prevent our doom or helping medical research at any means to keep people alive Not consequest- not breaking that line-tuskegee trials helped us understand STIs but they were not right according to this theory because of the racist methodology behind em

8. What two theses does Ruth Benedict defend in her article, Anthropology and the Abnormal? Explain the difference between these theses. What normative ethical theory is Benedict defending in her article? Explain how the moral concepts are defined by this normative theory. What metaethical theory is presupposed by this normative view? A normality and abnormality are culturally defined People are made up by culture Cultural relativism no universal truth because morality is culturally determided-which means cultures views determine if something is good or bad Ethical relativism

9. What examples does Benedict offer as evidence for her theses? Does Rachels dispute the accuracy of Benedicts evidence? What examples does Rachels offer to reinforce the central premise on which cultural relativism supposedly rests? What critique does Rachels offer of Benedicts reasoning/argument? Explain your answer in terms of the appropriate logical concepts and the analysis Rachels offers in his critique of this type of reasoning. Greeks and callations different funerary practices, Rachels says she is true but gives us a bad standard to live by because if Cultural Relativism is true we have no basis of judgment for other cultures that means if one group likes genocide we would have to think it was okay because we couldnt judge them

10. What are the 3 problematic implications of taking cultural relativism seriously according to James Rachels? Be sure to explain each implication, how it follows

from the view of cultural relativism, and why each implication is troubling. Do these concerns disprove cultural relativism? What is Rachels ultimately trying to demonstrate with his critique of this theory? k's cultural relativism as being insufficient and the theory itself is problematic Bad for ethics 3 reasons 1. If cultural relativism was true then there would no bases for judging other cultures beliefs and practices 1. If CR is right then genocide is okay 2. Nullifies universal moral judgment

11. What difficulties are raised for cultural relativism when it comes to defining a culture or society? What difficulties arise when faced with the question of whether individuals can belong to multiple cultures/societies?

12. Offer an overall assessment of cultural relativism based on the considerations addressed above. Explain your basic assessment of cultural relativism in light of these considerations. 666666666666666666666666666666666

13. What is the Socratic Method? Characterize the steps of the Socratic Method as seen in Platos Euthyphro. Why is this method useful in ethics? We dont know we think we know but we dont so we always have to ask why. Socratic method 1 Elicit definition or answer 2 Test definition against facts and other knowledge and considered beliefs (ones that you have thought about) 1. Revise/ reject and start over

Euthyprho Socrates made euthrophy redifne pious to be a defiton come from itself

14. What is the Platonic notion of priority of definition? What does a good definition provide? How is this concept relevant/important in ethics? Consider the different definitions of piety Euthyphro offers and why they are not sufficient.

Defitnion comes from itself i. identifies all the necessary and sufficient conditions of something 1. Necessary condiont one must be met for x to occur 2. A sufficent condition enough to ensue x occurs a. An arugment is valid iff the truth of the premises guarentees the truth of the conclusion d 15. How does the Euthyphro dialogue end? What is the value in this sort of ending? Explain your answers.

Socrates is fucking with him showing euthyprho there is no static defiton of truth

16. What is Divine Command Theory? Explain how DCT defines the deontic concepts of right, wrong, and permissible. Is DCT a religious theory? Explain your answer.

Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined by what God commands, and that to be moral is to follow his commands.

Followers of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have often accepted the importance of God's commands in establishing morality. Numerous variants of the theory have been presented: historically, figures including Saint Augustine, Duns Scotus, and Thomas Aquinas have presented various versions of divine command theory; more recently, Robert Merrihew Adams has proposed a "modified divine command theory" based on the omnibenevolence of God in which morality is linked to human conceptions of right and wrong. Paul Copan has argued in favour of the theory from a Christian viewpoint, and Linda Zagzebski's divine motivation theory proposes that God's motivations, rather than commands, are the source of morality. Semantic challenges to divine command theory have been proposed; the philosopher William Wainwright argued that to be commanded by God and to be morally obligatory do not have an identical meaning, which he believed would make defining obligation difficult. He also contended that, as knowledge of God is required for morality by divine command theory, atheists and agnostics could not be moral; he saw this as a weakness of the theory. Others have challenged the theory on modal grounds by arguing that, even if God's command and morality correlate in this world, they may not do so in other possible worlds. In addition, the Euthyphro dilemma, first proposed by Plato, presented a dilemma which threatened either to leave morality subject to the whims of God, or challenge his omnipotence. Divine command theory has also been criticised for its apparent incompatibility with the omnibenevolence of God, moral autonomy, and religious pluralism, although some scholars have attempted to defend the theory from these challenges.

17. Explain ethical objectivism and how DCT makes the metaethical assumption of ethical objectivism and what this means for the theory. Explain how DCT differs from cultural relativism in light of their different metaethical assumptions. Explain what DCT and cultural relativism have in common in their metaethical assumptions that differentiates both of their views from that of a metaethical subjectivist. 18. Is DCT an action-oriented or agent-oriented theory? Is it a teleological or deontological theory of morality? Explain your classifications. Explain the decision procedure DCT would use to offer moral verdicts in particular cases and how this supports your classifications. 19. How is it possible for atheists to endorse DCT? Explain the conclusion that atheistic divine command theorists would draw about morality and the reasoning they might offer. 20. Explain the Euthyphro Problem and the implication of each of its options. Where does this leave us at the end of Platos dialogue? How does the Euthyphro problem apply to DCT and pose a significant challenge to the plausibility of DCT? Is there any way out of the difficulties that the Euthyphro Dilemma presents for DCT through resolution or avoidance? Explain your answers.

21. What additional challenges might DCT face? Evaluate the overall plausibility of DCT in light of class discussion, the Euthyphro Problem, and any other challenges the theory might face. 22. Explain Aristotles basic worldview and its relationship to his ethical theory. How can we classify his ethical theory in light of this perspective? Explain Aristotles characterization of ethics as a subset of political science and how this relates to his overall world view. Review his qualification on the classification of ethics as a science and its implications for the conclusions we draw in ethics. 23. Explain Aristotles characterization of The Good and its defining features. What constitutes The Good for human beings on his account? Explain Aristotles elimination of various alternative interpretations of this concept and his final characterization of this concept in light of his function argument. Explain how Aristotles notion of the Good is one that is supposedly objective and universal or in other words something that applies to all of humanity.

Happiness(eudainmonia)= life of contemplation in accordance with virtue (life of contemplation rational being) we can think about ourselves and our actions and our place in the world

24. What are the two basic types of virtue according to Aristotle? How do the different types of virtue correspond to Aristotles notion of the human function?

Two types of virtue intellectual virtues and Moral virtue- shows we can act according to reason

25. Offer a brief explanation of each of the five virtues of thought. Which of these is related to the virtues of character? Explain the relationship and its significance to the virtues of character.

A. B. C. D. E.

5 intellectual virtues Episteme: factual/propositional knowledge- particular facts 2+2=4 sentances begain with capital leaders being dislexic sucks Techne: craft know experimental know/know how to make something or forge something computer programing Phronesis practical intelligence know how to act in certain situations, etiquette and politeness Dois understanding of general principals on a general bias Sophia: wisdom tieing things together and making connections

26. Offer a complete characterization of the virtues of character according to Aristotle. Be sure to explain the origin of such virtues, the genus of such virtues, and the defining features of such virtues. Be sure to explain Aristotles idea that the virtues of character are relative means between the two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency. Illustrate this characterization with an example

Virtues of character states of character all virtues of charcter are means. There is a point of virtue for everyone and we must find it. This is not mathmatic it is a realtive midpoint between two exteremes. We need to be in the balanced-but to be virtue it must be good-ie lying midpoint not good-the points are vice of defiecency and vice of excess done frome phronesis with pleasure

. 27. Are all virtues of character means according to Aristotle? Are all means virtues of character according to Aristotle? Explain your answers. 28. Characterize the various examples of the virtues of character that Aristotle describes in Books III and IV of the Nichomachean Ethics. Explain the three main subtypes of the virtues of character and classify each of his examples within these subcategories. Explain what Aristotle means by his classification of shame as a quasi-virtue. 29. Explain how, as an agent centered account of morality, Aristotles virtue ethics offers a different approach to ethics than many traditional theories. What are the merits and/or shortcomings of such an approach? Explain your evaluation. 30. Offer an overall evaluation of Aristotles Virtue Ethics as an account of morality. Explain your analysis in detail. 31. Of the normative views considered thus far, which do you think offers the best account of morality, if none of them offer satisfactory accounts of morality what alternative account might you offer? Explain your answers.