PHILOSOPHY Ethics- Midterm Study Guide

Does objectivism entail intolerance? Why or why not.

Objectivism is the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone. This entails tolerance because it implies universal morals for everyone. However, absolutism, which implies rigid rules that have no exceptions, must be implied exactly the same wa

Does objectivism requires absolutism? Why or why not?

Yes. There are morals that are applied whether you are tolerant or intolerant. Such as, people should have a good sense of right and wrong. This can be applied to all cultures and religions. Another example is people should respect the communities in whic

How does subjectivism relativism imply moral infallibility?

Subjectivism relativism says that morality is right for the person who approves the moral. So what is right for me is might be wrong for you, and what is right for you might be wrong for me. In other words, what is right for me is decided based on my cult

Does the diversity of moral outlooks in cultures show that right and wrong are determined by culture?

The answer is no. The principle behind this is that people's judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, and right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. The problem with this argument is that i

What does cultural relativism imply about the moral status of social reforms?

Cultural relativism also has the peculiar consequence that social reforms of every sort would always be wrong. In this theory, culture would be the ultimate authority on moral matters and any reform would possibly be wrong. In the matter of abortion, if t

Suppose a serial killer approves of his murderous actions. According to subjective relativism, are the killer's actions therefore justified? Do you believe a serial killer's murders are justified? If not, is your judgment based on a subjective relativist'

The serial killer's actions are absolutely wrong. I believe it is morally wrong to kill just for the sake of fulfilling some sick purpose. Objective relativism says that some moral principles are valid for everyone while subjective relativism says that mo

what are the three moral criteria of adequacy

1) Consistency with considered judgments.
2) Consistency with our moral experiences.
3) Usefulness in moral problem solving.
A moral theory that is inconsistent with trustworthy judgments is at least dubious and likely to be false, in need of drastic over

Suppose you try to use the Ten Commandments as a moral code to help you make moral decisions. How would you resolve conflicts between commandments? Does your approach to resolving the conflicts imply a moral theory? If so, can you explain the main idea be

I would resolve conflicts between commandments by going back to the Holy Bible and finding scriptures throughout the text that support that commandment. For example, one of the commandments is thou shall not kill. Throughout the bible there are examples o

What is the main difference between the ways that Mill and Bentham conceive of happiness? Which views seem more plausible?

They differ on the nature of happiness and how it should be measured. Bentham thinks that happiness varies only in quantity�different actions produce different amount of happiness. To judge the intensity, duration or fecundity of happiness is to calculate

Mill/Kant vs Aristotle

Mill/Kant:
actor or rules
individual orientated
"what should I do?"
Aristotle:
agents of character
community oriented
"Who should I be?

what is the difference between act- and rule utilitarianism?

In rule-utilitarianism, the morally right action is not the one that directly brings about the greatest good but the one covered by a rule that, if followed consistently, produces the greatest good for all. In act utilitarianism, we must examine each acti

Is act-utilitarianism consistent with our considered moral judgments regarding justice? Why or why not?

Inconsistent. Act utilitarianism suggest that someone can measure an act solely on the consequences the will receive for following through with the action. This is extremely inconsistent with why the law is the law in the first place because it reflects w

to what was Mill referring when he said; " It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied"? Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

It is better to be dissatisfied with things you disagree with then to be satisfied with everything and not contemplate anything. Yes, I agree with this statement. This statement makes sense to me because to many people agree with everything that media and

If you were on trial for your life (because of an alleged murder), would you want the judge to be an act-utilitarian, a rule utilitarian, or neither why?

Neither. I would want to be judged based on my psychotic state. I believe that people are literally in a different state of mind if they commit a crime. They may not be in the right state of mind therefore, making it complex as to why they commit the murd

if you were the surgeon in the example about the five transplants, what would you do? Why?

In the example about the five transplants it would make sense for the person to perform the surgery based on the rule utilitarian because all human lives are important and should be preserved at the will of an animal. I would make this decision because I

What is the difference between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative?

A hypothetical imperative tells us what we should do if we have certain desires: for example, "if you need money, work for it" or "if you want orange juice, ask for it" We should obey such imperatives only if we desire the outcomes specified. A Categorica

How does Kant distinguish between treating someone as a means and treating someone merely as a means?

Kant believes in the means-end principle. It says that we must always treat people as ends in themselves, as creatures of great intrinsic worth, never merely as things of instrumental value, never merely as tools to be used for someone else's purpose. To

How might the subjectivity of Kant's theory lead to the sanctioning of heinous acts?

Kant does not provide any guidance for how we should state a rule describing an action, an oversight that allows us to word a rule in many different ways. Consider, for example our duty not to lie. We might state the relevant rule like this: "Lie only to

According to natural law theorists, how can nature reveal anything about morality?

According to Aquinas, at the heart of the traditional theory is the notion that right actions are those that accord with the natural law�the moral principles that we can "read" clearly in the very structure of nature itself, including human nature. We can

What is the doctrine of double effect?

The principle that performing a good action may be permissible even if it has been effects, but performing a bad action for the purpose of achieving good effects is never permissible; any bad effects must be unintended.

According to Kant, why is breaking a promise or lying immoral? Do you agree with Kant's reasoning? Why or why not?

According to Aquinas, at the heart of the traditional theory is the notion that right actions are those that accord with the natural law�the moral principles that we can "read" clearly in the very structure of nature itself, including human nature. A cate

According to the textbook, natural law theory generates judgments that conflict with commonsense morality. Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not.

There is a good example that demonstrates why natural law theory contradicts common sense morality. Natural law theorists would condemn the killing of the one innocent person even if it would save the lives of hundreds. This statement alone contradicts wh