Ethcs Final Exam Answer
The status of morality
objective in ethics means:
it is a moral fact that cannot be argued and is always true
What are the main 3 topics of metaethics we focused on to answer the questions "Are there really such things as good/bad, right/wrong, etc?"
1. moral relativism 2. moral anti-realism 3. objective moral realism
typically illegal and thought to be unethical
typically legal and thought (sometimes atleast) to be ethical
example of active and passive euthanasia
active euthanasia: death is brought about by an act passive euthanasia: when someone lets someone die
the view that it is morally worse for the doctor to be actively involved in hastening death
the difference thesis
What are james rachels thoughts on active/passive euthanasia/ the difference thesis?
He thinks the difference thesis is false and that active euthanasia is no worse than passive euthanasia
What are the 4 arguments that Rachels uses to prove his point that active euthanasia is no worse than passive euthanasia?
Argument 1: active euthanasia is more humane than passive euthanasia bc there is less suffering, why would you want a person to suffer? Argument 2: the difference thesis leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds; the decision should be made on the quality of life that remains, amount of pain and suffering, etc. NOT on if the persons condition is already fatal if untreated Argument 3: Nasty Cousins: Smith drowns his cousin but Jones sees his cousin fall in bathtub and lets him drown. they both had the same end goal so this is an example of how active and passive euthanasia are both equally bad. Argument 4: People claim that passive euthanasia is ethical because the doctor didn't physically kill them but technically omissions are actions. The doctor LET the person die so this is an action too just like active euthanasia
What is Nesbits argument against Rachels nasty cousins example?
thinks that rachels makes Smith and Jones too similar and that they are both guilty of the same moral offense because they were both prepared to kill. He says to rethink the scenario if Smith wasn't prepared to kill his cousin but the situation arose and so he let him die.He says we judge Jones not for just letting his cousin die but for being PREPARED to kill his cousin. Even if Jones wouldn't have let his cousin die we would've still judged him because he was prepared to let his cousin die. He says that Rachels case doesn't show that killing is no worse than letting die. His final statement is that: Those who are prepared to kill make it more difficult for people to live together peacefully than those who are merely allowed to let others die, therefore, killing is worse than letting die
What is Kuhse's opinion on Nesbits view of Rachels "Nasty cousins" example?
Kuhse agrees with Rachels and thinks that there is something fishy with nesbits modification of the "nasty cousins" story. Kuhse says that maybe showed that smith is worse than jones in his nasty cousins example but he hasn't shown that killing is worse than letting die. Kuhse says that preparedness to kill is not always viewed as a bad thing. For example if the motive is noble and the person wants to die we might reverse our judgements. So Nesbit using the example that just because someone is prepared to kill is doesnt mean that killing is worse than letting die
Metaethics flow chart:
What are the two types of naive relativism?
1. subjectivism 2. cultural relativism
the relativism theory that moral facts are determined by the agent and their desires, moral beliefs, interests, or plans and commitments
the relativism theory that moral facts are determined by the community that the agent belongs to
how are cultural relativism and subjectivism similar?
1. they put a lot of stock in moral disagreement 2. they doubt that objectivism could explain how we gain moral knowledge 3. they see a big difference between moral facts and ordinary descriptive facts -they want to respect the idea that we should be tolerant of other people's moral opinions
What are the differences between cultural relativism and subjectivism?
1. subjectivists focus on person; cultural relativists focus on society 2. subjectivism has a more powerful "ideal observer" version 3. cultural relativism more obviously treats morality like etiquette or a game
What are the 4 problems for moral relativism?
1. Infallibility/Equivalence: some people, and some social customs, are just plain wrong 2. Disagreement/ Contradiction: People can and often so have genuine moral debates 3. Self-evaluation: people can and often do genuinely question their own commitments and the ideals of their society 4. progress: we can grow morally. this isn't just a matter of chang; it can be a matter of improvement
an act is morally right just because a fully informed and rational version of me would want me to do it
According to idealized subjectivism what is it that determines moral facts?
What a rational and fully informed version of yourself would believe moral facts were
Why is idealized subjectivism supposed to avoid the problems that the simpler version of subjectivism faces?
1. Moral disagreement would be genuine, because people would be talking about the same ideal 2. Nobody is infallible, since nobody is ideal. People can be better or worse relative to the ideal 3. Self-examination can be understood by comparing oneself to the ideal 4. Moral progress can be understood as progress toward the ideal
What is an "ideally coherent eccentric"?
Scenarios of people that are informed and rational but still are not ideal and would not be an example that is good for people to follow
why is the "ideally coherent eccentric" idea supposed to pose a serious problem for idealized subjectivism?
This is a problem for idealized subjectivism because it suggests that there is flaw in choosing an "ideal" self where the only requirements are to be informed and rational; aka you can be informed and rational and still think its okay to be anorexic or torture people.
thinks that we have to decide if moralism is absolute or nonexistent at all
terms that are used to say how things ought to be, in contrast with how they actually are
What is Boghossian's main problem with relativism?
He thinks that relativism is an iffy way to decide what is morally right/wrong and thinks that morality should be either absolute or non existent at all.
How does he illustrate this problem by comparing and contrasting (i) Einstein's physics, (ii) witchcraft, and (iii) morality?
He gives the examples of physics and witchcraft and asks the question of which is more similar to morality? His answer is that morality is more like the witchcraft case. Just like in witchcraft, when we don't agree with witchcraft we tossed the whole idea out the door. This is what boghossian wants us to do with morality.
Boghossian considers an objection having to do with etiquette. What is the objection, and how does he respond to it?
-The objection is that in some cultures it is rude to slurp your soup but in others it is a compliment to the cook. How does this not prove moral relativism to be true? But if relativism is coherent in the case of etiquette why couldn't we claim that morality is relative in the same way? -Boghossians reply is that etiquette has nothing to do with moral facts therefore it can vary between societies. In other words, the relativism of etiquette depends on the existence of absolute moral norms. Since etiquette does not dispense with absolute moral facts, one cannot hope to use it as a model for moral relativism.
What is boghossians main point?`
relativizing morality turns essentially normative concepts into purely descriptive ones.
-Harman thinks the analogy to witchcraft isn't very helpful. He prefers analogies to football, the law, and language. What do these things all have in common, which he thinks supports a better analogy with morality?
There is not a single true theory or statement. And there is no way to choose a correct one because each football league, law, or language needs its own unique set of rules.
What lesson does Harmans football, law, and language example teach us about morality?
Just because morality cannot be summed up into one statement doesn't mean we should throw the whole concept of morality away. Sometimes we need rules that are different to various scenarios.
Which of the following is NOT a core tenet of error theory? A. Our moral judgements aren't really attempts to describe the moral features of things at all B. there are no more features in this world C. no moral judgements are true D. there is no moral knowledge
A. this is the main point of expressionism not error theory
T/F: Shafer-Landau draws an analogy between error theorists in the context of morality and atheists in the context of religion.
T/F: The basic problem with the "argument from disastrous results," according to Shafer-Landau is that it answers the question "would it be good if people endorsed this theory?" and not the question, "Is this theory correct?"
What do error theorists and objectivists agree on?
people are atleast trying to capture the moral facts; it seems that those facts are objective
What do error theorists and expressionists agree on?
there are no such things as moral facts
reject all moral theories because they think that any adequate moral theory would require that we believe in the existence of something far too strange to really exist
What is "error theory"?
people think they are describing something about the world when they make moral assertions but people are systematically mistaken -the world doesnt contain any moral facts or features
J.L. Mackie thinks that if there were such things as moral facts, they would have to have three features. Which three features, and why are they so important?
1. Practical 2. Objective, and therefore 3. Non-natural (or, at least, not based on our contingent desires, interests, attitudes, etc.)
the thought that morality may simply be a kind of make believe, a complex set of rules, and recommendations that represents nothing real
moral nihilism (error theorists and expressionism)
What are the arguments from metaphysical and epistemological strangeness?
-Metaphysical strangeness: moral facts would have to be practical, objective, and therefore not natural to be true. And even in that case the facts would be non-natural and that seems like the wrong thing to play a casual psychological role. -Epistemological strangeness: even if there were moral facts that were practical, objective and non-natural, how would we come to know about them? We would have to postulate some special faculty of moral intuition by which we would 1. Recognize which features of our circumstance were important 2. See the right and wrongness in the situation 3. Make the connection between the two.
According to Mackie, what explains widespread error in moral judgments?
1. We have a tendency to projects our own feelings onto the world 2. It is necessary for the functioning of society that we coordinate our activities, and this requires that people feel pressure to conform, and that they take this pressure to be independently authoritative
What is the difference between error theory and expressivism?
Expressivism rejects the third claim in the error theorists point of view: Our sincere moral judgements try (and always fail) to describe the moral features of things
According to expressivists when we make moral judgements we are not trying to speak the truth or making an effort to describe the way the world is we are simply:
expressing emotion and feeling about something and commanding others to act in the same way
According to expressivists: when someone says torture is immoral they mean arghhh.. don't torture! this statement can't be true or false and thats the central difference between _________ ___________ and expressivists. The ________ ________ thinks that our sincere moral claims are always meant to state the truth, but since there isn't such thing as moral truth, such claims are mistaken.
the ______________ thinks that our moral claims are largely all right, since they are doing what they intended to do. Which is to vent our feelings etc. and if they are doing there job then why accuse them of having error
want a way to have confidence in morality while rejecting ethical objectivity.
What is the biggest problem for cultural relativism and subjectivism?
They fail to explain moral disagreement
expressivists say that no moral claim is: so therefore moral contradictions disappear and arent a problem like they are in relativism or subjectivism
true or false
expressivists say that there are no moral _________, _________, or ________
features, values, or truths
Expressivism proposes a radical revision in how we think about moral language. Explain.
Expressivists say that moral features, truths, and values do not exist. For example when someone says "torture is immoral" they are simply expressing their disapproval or emotion about something. Expressivists say that all moral claims are just a way to show emotion or to tell other people not to do something
According to expressivism, what is the function of moral judgments (several possible answers)?
To express emotion, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action.
What are the supposed strengths of expressivism, compared with other views (esp. objective moral realism and error theory)?
Moral disagreement cannot be an objection to the theory because according to Expressivists no moral judgments are true or false.
someone who sincerely makes moral claims but is entirely unmoved by them; these people pose a big threat for expressivism
Explain the objection involving the possibility of an "amoralist"
An amoralist is someone who sincerely makes moral claims but is unmoved by them. This poses a threat to expressivists because they claim that everyone is motivated my their emotions aka moral judgements. Expressivists response to this argument is that an amoralist cannot exist because if a person isn't motivated by their moral claims then they aren't sincere in the first place.
What is the verification criterion?
Theory that A.J. Ayer uses to support his theory of Emotivism (Expressivism). Says that a claim can only be meaningful if it is empirically verifiable (can be confirmed by the by means of evidence gathered through the 5 senses) or is true by definition ( ex. all bachelors are unmarried). But, says Ayer, moral claims are not empirically verifiable and cannot be true by definition, therefore, they are meaningless.
What types of assertions are meaningful?
Claims that are empirically verifiable (can be confirmed by the by means of evidence gathered through the 5 senses) or is true by definition ( ex. all bachelors are unmarried).
How might an assertion fail to be meaningful?
Ayer says all moral claims are not empirically verifiable and cannot be true by definition, therefore, they are meaningless.
Why might moral judgments pose a problem for the verification criterion?
1. Moral judgements seem meaningful 2. Moral judgements are synthetic (not merely true by definition) 3. But moral judgements don't seem to be empirical
Why aren't moral judgements empirical? (arguments against subjectivism, utilitarianism, cultural relativism) What theory makes this claim?
Emotivism (Expressivism); There seem to be 3 candidate theories that would make morality empirical, and all 3 are false: o1. Subjectivism- is false bc "A man who confessed that he sometimes approved of what was bad or wrong would not be contradicting himself o2. Utilitarianism- is false bc; "We find that it is not self contradictory to say that it is sometimes wrong to perform and action that would actually or probably cause the greatest happiness" o3. Cultural relativism- is false bc; "it is not self-contradictory to assert that some actions which are generally approved of are not right, or that some good things which are generally approved of are not good"
How does Ayer propose we avoid this potential problem that moral judgments are empirically verifiable?
-By using the verification criterion because treating moral judgments as meaningless: 1. Solves the problem: the theory only requires that meaningful sentences be analytic or empirically verifiable; it doesn't say anything about meaningless ones 2. And is preferable to and absolutist/ intuitionist view -Ayer says the reason we cannot give an analysis of moral concepts, or verify the truth or moral judgments, is that they are meaningless and more pseudo-concepts.
According to the objection, what happens to the meaning of a moral sentence when you embed it in a larger sentence (assuming you are trying to think like an expressivist)?
For example: "it is wrong to lie" expresses disapproval of lying. You would think those words would have the same meaning every time they are used, but they can't because sometimes they aren't used to condemn: "If it is wrong to lie then you ought to tell her where the gift really came from" The same phrase is used in this larger sentence and the meaning is different, they are not meaning to condemn, they are just being hypothetical.
According to the objection, why can't an expressivist make sense of moral inferences?
The Frege/Geach theory challenges expressivism because according to expressivism a moral judgement is always an express of emotions or command for someone to do something. And this example shows that in a larger context some of the same phrases can be simply unbiased statements that are hypothetical.
Which of the following claims would cultural relativists and error theorists both accept?
Moral judgments aim to describe the moral features of things..
What is moral skepticism?
The view that moral objectivity is false and that there are no objective moral rules or truths.
According to the lecturer, why does objective moral realism start off with some initial plausibility points?
Because we have already discussed relativism and nihilism and seen all the faults with those theories and objectivism is the only one left, so if objectivism can successful defend itself against critics then it has to be true, because it's the only theory left. Also, the lecturer says that none of the most skeptical objections are necessarily correct.
What 11 problems are raised in ch21 as objections to objectivism? What responses to those 11 problems did we discuss in lecture?
1. Objectivity requires Absolutism: moral rules have exceptions but objectivism says that moral rules don't have objections. Solution-No, moral objectivism does not say that. It tells us that the truth of a moral rule does not depend on what we think of it, and can be true even if the rule has exceptions. Ex. The exceptions to "don't lie" don't arise because some circumstances make lying the best bet 2. All truth is subjective: there's no such thing as objectively true, all truth is relative to ones perspective; solution: If it is true then it is only subjectively true. In that case, it may not be true at all (depending on your perspective) aka this idea undermines itself 3. Equal rights imply equal plausibility: everyone has a right to their opinion, so how can you say that mine is false and your is objectively true? Solution: Some people have bad opinions ex. People who think its okay to steal, rape, etc. Not everyones opinions are right. Another example is that yes I have a right to form psychological opinions but a trained psychologists opinion is valued more. 4. Moral objectivity supports dogmatism: We shouldn't be dogmatic (stubborn and close minded in our beliefs) which is what objectivity says to do. Response: we are dogmatic about scientific facts and nothing is said about that so why not moral facts? 5. Moral objectivity supports intolerance: objectivism says that some peoples view are better than other peoples. Response: unless we can say that some peoples values are better than others, we cannoy say a tolerant value system is better than an intolerant one, this objection is self defeating 6. Moral objectivity cannot allow for legitimate cultural variation: objectivism says that moral standards apply to everyone in all culture but one rule doesn't work across the board for all cultures. Response: Any example of cultural variation can be explained by appeal to a more basic, universal standard. In a country where a dowry is offered, we actualy do the same thing just in a different way but the overall moral rule is respect. 7. Moral disagreement undermines moral objectivity: some moral disagreements run deep and seem intractable. If moral objectivity is true we should be able to solve these disagreements. Solution: There is deep, persistent disagreement among experts in a lot of areas that surely must be objective. So deep disagreement doesn't prove anything 8. Atheism undermines moral objectivity: solution:But we already rejected the idea at the heart of Divine Command Theory. The idea here is that moral law must have a lawmaker. But atheists believe in objective laws that don't have a lawmaker (laws of physics, e.g.) So they shouldn't be persuaded in the first place (unless they also stop believing in laws of physics etc.) 9. The absence of categorical reasons undermines moral objectivity: There are no categorical reasons, but objectivism says there is. Solution: 1. Maybe moral rules don't always give us reasons to act. 2.Maybe there really are categorical reasons after all. This is a tricky area of study and still is undetermined 10. Moral motivation undermines moral objectivity- a lot of people think that moral judgments, by their very nature, can motivate people to act. They also think that beliefs by themselves cannot motivate people to act. That would mean that moral judgements are not just beliefs, they must be desires or emotions. Suppose that's true: moral judgments aren't beliefs, then they cant be true or false so then they cant be objective. Solution: an objectivist can say that moral judgements do not necessarily motivate people or an objectivist might say that beliefs really can motivate people all by themselves. 11.values have no place in a scientific world: we are doing a type of metaphysics which mean we are trying to build a theory of the true nature of the universe. Moral judgments cannot be verified like scientific date therefore it has no place in the scientific world. Solution: the physical world is separate from our human experience. There are human experience facts separate from scientific facts
Only this theory says that morality is how it seems and we discover the moral facts, we dont make them true
What four tests does Enoch offer us? Each test has a three-part structure. How does that work? What lesson(s) are we supposed to learn from each test?
• 1. The spinach test- for example: when a young boy says " im so glad I don't like spinach because if I did I would eat it and spinach is yucky!" this is a joke and funny because when it comes to taste our preferences are the only thing that matters. Now look at another example of cosmology " Im glad I didn't grow up in the middle ages because if I did I would think the earth is at the center of the universe and that is not true" this joke doesn't work because when it comes to matters in the universe our perspective is irrelevant. So is morality like spinach or cosmology case? "Im glad I didn't grow up in the 1900s because then I would've thought racism was okay" this is more like cosmology because its not a joke and morality is objective (like the cosmology case) than it is a matter of taste (spinach) • 2. The disagreement test- sometimes we disagree about things that have to do with tastes or preferences ex. Is milk chocolate or dark chocolate better. And other times we argue about more serious matters ex. Whether human activity contributes to global warming or not. So compare a moral matter such as if abortion is morally permissible or not. Is this more like chocolate or global warming? Global warming of course. • 3. The Deliberation test- sometimes when we try to make up our minds on what to do we base it on our own preferences ex. Which cereal to eat. Other times we base our decision on factors outside of ourselves ex. Whether or not to vaccinate our children. Now take the moral example of having to decide whether to vote for a pro-choice candidate or not. Is morality more like vaccinating our children or cereal? Vaccines of course. • 4. The counterfactual test- what if we thought different about something? Ex. If we changed our minds and thought top hats were stylish, then they would be. But if we thought differently about the dangers of cigarette smoking that wouldn't change the fact of how they are unhealthy. What about a moral issue? If we thought differently about gender discrimination it wouldn't make it more right.
What are some of the key moral considerations that might lead one to the conclusion that we have a moral responsibility to develop our space program?
we have a moral responsibility to develop our space program because we're running out of natural resources and eventually, we'll need to have some sort of "back up earth" or something like that. So if we only have 1000 years until all of earth's non-renewable resources are used up, now is the time to start finding alternative life-sustaining planets. So like we need to start doing everything we can to find other planets that we can inhabit with similar resources, climates, etc to earth so we can live. Like we have an obligation to our future generations to prolong the sustainability of the human race if that makes sense.
Metaethics Flow Chart: What is the core idea?How is it similar to the other theories?How is it different from the other theories? Expressivism
-says that moral judgments are merely an expression of emotions, a command to do something, or revealing a plan of action. Expressivists say that moral features, truths, facts, and values do not exist. Moral disagreement cannot be an objection to the theory because according to Expressivists no moral judgments are true or false. They claim that people are motivated by their moral judgments. -agrees with error theory in that there are no true moral facts or objective moral rules but disagrees with error theory about the thought that moral judgments purport to express beliefs about moral facts. Expressivists think that when people make moral judgements they aren't trying to state facts but just merely express their emotions Example: Don't steal!!
Metaethics Flow Chart: What is the core idea?How is it similar to the other theories?How is it different from the other theories? Error Theory
-says that there are no moral facts or features, think that any adequate moral theory would require that we believe in the existence of something far too strange to really exist -agrees with cultural relativism that moral judgments AIM(dont get confused they dont believe in them) to describe moral features of things; agrees with expressivism in that there are no true moral facts, features, or objective moral rules but disagrees with expressivism because they agree that moral judgments purport to express beliefs about moral facts while expressivism thinks moral judgments only express emotion. Dont get confused.... ERROR theory does NOT believe there are moral facts only that moral judgements purport to express BELIEFS of moral facts; they agree with objectivists that people are atleast trying to capture the moral facts and it seems like those facts are objective
Metaethics Flow Chart: What is the core idea?How is it similar to the other theories?How is it different from the other theories? Relativism
-believes that there are moral facts and that they are relative to either individuals (subjectivism) or cultures (cultural relativism -similar to objectivism in the fact that moral facts do exist but different because objectivism says moral facts are universal and not determined by individuals or cultures
Metaethics Flow Chart: What is the core idea?How is it similar to the other theories?How is it different from the other theories? Objectivism
-says that there are moral facts, features, and values and that they are universal and objective for everyone; A moral rule does not depend on what we think of it, there can be exceptions. Endorses tolerance; not all truths are subjective (based on personal beliefs); uses categorical reasons; "common sense" -similar to error theory in the thought that people are atleast trying to capture the moral facts and it seems like those facts are objective; similar to relativism in the fact that moral facts do exist but different because relativism thinks that moral facts are determined by individuals or cultures and objectivists think that moral facts are universal
Metaethics Flow Chart: What is the core idea?How is it similar to the other theories?How is it different from the other theories? Subjectivism
-believes that moral judgments purport to express beliefs about moral facts and that there are moral facts, and that moral facts depend on the agent. The moral facts are determined by the agents, desires, moral beliefs, interests, plans and commitments -similar to cultural relativism because they are both types of relativism but different because they believe moral facts depend on the culture not the person and both doubt objectivism because of moral disagreement, how you come to know what moral facts are, and they see a big difference in moral facts and descriptive facts ; similar to objectivism because they both believe there are moral facts but different because they think moral facts come from individuals and arent universal.
Metaethics Flow Chart: What is the core idea?How is it similar to the other theories?How is it different from the other theories? Cultural relativism
-believes that moral judgments purport to express beliefs about moral facts and that there are moral facts, and that moral facts depend on the community that the agent belongs to. -agrees with error theory that moral judgments AIM to describe moral features of thing; similar to subjectivism because they are both types of relativism and both doubt objectivism because of moral disagreement, how you come to know what moral facts are, and they see a big difference in moral facts and descriptive facts but different because they believe moral facts depend on the person not culture
What three types of theory exhaust all the possible views of the status of ethics? a. Nihilism, relativism, and objectivism b. Skepticism, dogmatism, and quietism c. Monism, pluralism, and particularism d. Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and contractarianism
a. Nihilism, relativism, and objectivism.
What is the relationship between ethical objectivism and ethical absolutism? a. Ethical objectivism requires ethical absolutism. b. Ethical objectivism is consistent with, but does not require, ethical absolutism. c. Ethical objectivism is inconsistent with ethical absolutism. d. If ethical absolutism is false, then so is ethical objectivism.
b. Ethical objectivism is consistent with, but does not require, ethical absolutism..
According to the text, which of the following does ethical objectivism support? a. Ethical absolutism b. Ethical nihilism c. Tolerance d. Dogmatism
If ethical objectivism is true, which of the following must be true? a. We are permitted to force our moral views onto other people. b. It is OK to be dogmatic about one's moral views. c. Not all truths are subjective. d. All of the above.
c. Not all truths are subjective..
What is the key assumption behind the claim that atheism is incompatible with ethical objectivism? a. God created absolutely everything. b. All laws require a lawmaker. c. Atheists are guaranteed to act immorally. d. Religion is most people's only motivation for acting morally.
b. All laws require a lawmaker..
What kind of reasons is the objectivity of morality often thought to require? a. Categorical reasons b. Hypothetical reasons c. Prudential reasons d. Theoretical reasons
a. categorical reasons
What is the conclusion of the motivational argument inspired by David Hume? a. Morality is relative. b. Morality is subjective. c. Moral beliefs can't be true. d. Ethical objectivism is true. ???? why
c. Moral beliefs can't be true..
What is the term for the view that moral features are just ordinary scientific features? a.Moral nihilism b. Moral scientism c. Moral naturalism d. Moral physicalism
c. Moral naturalism.
What kind of claims tell us how things ought to be? a. Positive claims b. Normative claims c. Scientific claims d. Theoretical claims
b. normative claims
According to the text, what is wrong with thinking that a claim is true only if science can verify it? a. Such a claim does not pass its own test. b. Such a claim does not make room for religious knowledge. c. Such a claim ignores the failings of science. d. All of the above.
a. Such a claim does not pass its own test..
What is the relationship between ethical relativism and moral nihilism? a. Ethical relativism is a version of moral nihilism. b. Moral nihilism is a version of ethical relativism. c. They are competing theories that cannot both be true. d. They are completely independent theories that could, in principle, both be true.
c. They are competing theories that cannot both be true..
What is the relationship between expressivism and moral nihilism? a. Expressivism is a form of moral nihilism. b. Moral nihilism is a form of expressivism. c. They are competing theories that cannot both be true. d. They are completely independent theories; the truth of one doesn't require the truth of the other.
a. Expressivism is a form of moral nihilism..
What is the fundamental "error" that the error theory seeks to debunk? a. The idea that our culture is superior to other cultures b. The idea that one's own moral views are better than other people's c. The idea that moral claims seek to describe the world d. The idea that morality is objective and requires things of us independently of our desires
d. The idea that morality is objective and requires things of us independently of our desires.
Which of the following claims would an error theorist not accept? a. There are no moral features in this world. b. The main aim of moral judgments is to express emotions. c. No moral judgments are true. d. There is no moral knowledge.
b. The main aim of moral judgments is to express emotions..
Which of the following claims would cultural relativists and error theorists both accept? a. Moral judgments aim to describe the moral features of things. b. Whether a moral judgment is correct depends on the standards of one's culture. c. There is no moral knowledge. d. There are no moral features in the world.
a. Moral judgments aim to describe the moral features of things..
What is a categorical reason? a. A reason that applies to us only because acting on it will make us better off b. A reason that applies to us only because acting on it will get us what we want c. A reason that applies to us regardless of whether acting on it gets us what we want d. A reason that applies to us only if we accept its authority
c. A reason that applies to us regardless of whether acting on it gets us what we want.
What is the function of moral claims, according to expressivism? a. To describe the moral features of things b. To vent our feelings c. To describe the moral codes of our society d. All of the above
b. To vent our feelings.
How might an expressivist translate the claim that stealing is wrong? a. I disapprove of stealing. b. The act of stealing has the moral feature of being wrong. c. Don't steal! d. Both a and c.
c. Don't steal!.
Which of the following theories is inconsistent with the claim that there can be valid moral arguments? a. Ethical objectivism b. Ethical subjectivism c. Ethical relativism d. Expressivism
Which of the following is impossible, according to expressivism? a. A person who is motivated by her moral judgments b. A person who is not motivated by her moral judgments c. A moral judgment that is not based on a fundamental error d. A moral judgment that is neither true nor false
b. A person who is not motivated by her moral judgments.
Which of the following would the ethical objectivist accept? a. Morality is determined by the guiding ideals of a society. b. Morality is determined by personal opinion. c. There are no moral truths at all. d. None of the above.
d. None of the above
Which of the following would a cultural relativist accept? a. Morality is determined by the guiding ideals of a society. b. Morality is determined by personal opinion. c. There are no moral truths at all. d. None of the above.
a. Morality is determined by the guiding ideals of a society..
Which of the following is not a version of moral skepticism? a. Moral nihilism b. Ethical objectivism c. Ethical subjectivism d. Cultural relativism
b. Ethical objectivism.
Which of the following would a cultural relativist not accept? a. Different societies have different moral codes. b. Individuals can be mistaken about what is morally required of them. c. Some societies have better moral codes than others. d. There are no objective moral standards.
c. Some societies have better moral codes than others..
What does cultural relativism imply about iconoclasts who oppose the conventional moral wisdom of a society? a. They are always a source of moral progress. b. They are always morally mistaken. c. They can be morally correct but are often morally mistaken. d. They are impossible.
b. They are always morally mistaken..
According to ethical subjectivism, what is the relationship between a thing being good and someone approving of it? a. The only reason people approve of things is because those things are good. b. Whether something is good is independent of whether anyone approves of it. c. Good people approve of good things, whereas bad people approve of bad things. d. Things are good only because people approve of them.
d. Things are good only because people approve of them..
If cultural relativism is true, what happens when the moral code of a society changes? a. Such changes always indicate moral progress. b. Such changes only rarely indicate moral progress. c. Such changes never indicate moral progress. d. It is impossible for a society's moral code to change, according to cultural relativism.
c. Such changes never indicate moral progress..
If I say, "The death penalty is immoral," what does this mean, according to ethical subjectivism? a. The death penalty is objectively morally wrong. b. My society disapproves of the death penalty. c. I disapprove of the death penalty. d. This claim is meaningless, according to ethical subjectivism.
I disapprove of the death penalty..
What is an ideal observer? a. A fair third party who negotiates disputes b. An improved version of oneself who is fully informed and perfectly rational c. Someone who comes to moral verdicts by using thought experiments d. None of the above
b. An improved version of oneself who is fully informed and perfectly rational.
According to the text, what is the most serious problem for ideal observer subjectivism? a. Ideal observers would approve of things because they were good and not vice versa. b. It cannot account for moral disagreement. c. It makes moral progress impossible. d. It makes questioning one's own commitments pointless.
a. Ideal observers would approve of things because they were good and not vice versa..
thought that no one person has moral knowledge, which theory agrees with this
moral skepticism, objectivists
the contrast of relativism is
What is the "common sense" metaethical view?
Boghossians view is that:
main point*** relativizing morality turns essentially normative concepts into descriptive ones.We must decide between morality being absolute or non existent; witch vs. physics example; he is against relativism
Harmans view is that:
he supports relativism and uses the football, law and language examples to show how different rules are a must
What view is accused of confusing normative and descriptive claims?