Philosophy 101 final UPDATED Questions and CORRECT Answers
Nihilism about ethics (Sobers subjectivism) the total rejection of religious or moral beliefs (belief of nothing)
Conventionalism moral rules are based on agreements in society, rather than on external reality
Individual Relativism idea that ethical claims are relative to an individual's values and perspectives
cultural relativism the practice of judging a society by its own standards
Divine Command Theory a theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that God commands
Realism the attribute of accepting the facts of life and favoring practicality and literal truth
the argument that ethical skepticism is justified because there is often deep and
The argument from disagreement
widespread disagreement on ethical issues
No ethical proposition is entailed by any set of non-ethical propositions. If no ethical
proposition is entailed by any set of non-ethical propositions, then there aren't any
The Hume-inspired argument
facts of the matter about any ethical propositions. So, there aren't any facts of the
matter about any ethical propositions (i.e., nihilism about ethics is true)
For there to br a fact of the matter about ethical propositions, there would have to
be ethical prosperities that are 'weird' (e.g., that have authority over us no matter
The anti-weirdness argument for nihilism
what we want). There aren't any such 'weird' properties. So, there isn't a fact of the
matter about any ethical propositions (i.e. nihilism about ethics is true).
Sobers rejection to the argument from Some ethical propositions are needed to explain things (e.g. that lying is
disagreement disrespectful and arguably explains why lying is wrong)
There is another sensible reason to posit ethical properties (i.e. not for the purpose
Sobers rejection to the Hume-inspired
of explaining what we do, but fir the purpose of guiding our deliberation about what
argument
we do
Delibertarian-based reasons to posit There are sensible reasons to posit ethical properties
ethical properties (sobers objection to the
anti-weirdness argument for nihilism)
The argument from bindingness for Devine Moral laws are binding. Unless the Devine command theory is true, moral laws would
command theory not be binding. So, the Devine command theory is true.
, Either God would have reasons to forbid certain actions or he wouldn't have any
such reasons. If he wouldn't have such reasons, then the moral laws would be
Sobers Euthyphro objection to Devine
arbitrary. If he would have such reasons, then it wouldn't be God that determines the
command theory
moral laws. Moral laws aren't arbitrary. So, God doesn't determine the moral laws.
(I.e. the Devine command theory is false)
In many choice contexts, there are multiple permissible things to do (and what its
permissible to do varies from person to person). If there were an objective fact
The arguments from Varying permissible
about which beliefs and values were correct, there would not be multiple
choices for individual relativism
permissible things to do in those contexts (and what its permissible to do could not
vary from person to person). SO, individual relativism is not correct
It's never morally permissible for one group to impose its beliefs or values on
The arguments from Anti-imperialism for another. If there were an objective fact about which beliefs our values were correct
cultural relativism then it would be morally permissible for one group to impose its beliefs or values on
another. So, cultural relativism is correct.
Sobers objection to the varying permissible The first premise of this argument is self-undermining. Look at it again: if it's read a
choices for individual realism (based on non-relativistic way, it's flatly inconsistent with the arguments conclusion. But if its
self undermining problems). read relativistically, the its not really an objection to 'imperialists' at all
The second premise of the argument is false: e.g. ethical realism is perfectly
Sobers objection to the arguments from
consistent with noninterventionism even to prevent some more wrongs. It's
anti-imperialism for cultural relativism
perfectly;y consistent to think X is (objectively) wrong, but also not think that its okay
(realisms ability to accommodate)
for anyone Y to do anything whatsoever to prevent X
the study of the meaning and justification of basic moral beliefs
Metaethics
Example:
The study of the principles, rules, or theories that guide our actions and judgments
Normative Ethics
Example:
the application of moral norms to specific moral issues or cases, particularly those in
a profession such as medicine or law
applied ethics
Example:
Fundamental Ethical Principles
How do the bystander and bridge roller The Trolley Problem sets up a moral dilemma in which one is to decide whether to
cases illustrate disagreement about steer the trolley in the first scenario, and whether to push the fat man off the
fundamental ethical principles? footbridge in the second, so that one person dies as opposed to five.
There is really such a thing as the property of 'being wrong', but what makes it true
Relativistic theories of metaethics
that some act has that property is someone's say so
Why do nihilists about ethics have to claim There isn't really any such thing as true property of 'being wrong'. So there's nothing
that ethical sentences are neither true nor out here in the world that makes any ethical sentence true (or false).
false (simply rather than being false)
nonrelativistic theories of metaethics
Nihilism about ethics (Sobers subjectivism) the total rejection of religious or moral beliefs (belief of nothing)
Conventionalism moral rules are based on agreements in society, rather than on external reality
Individual Relativism idea that ethical claims are relative to an individual's values and perspectives
cultural relativism the practice of judging a society by its own standards
Divine Command Theory a theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that God commands
Realism the attribute of accepting the facts of life and favoring practicality and literal truth
the argument that ethical skepticism is justified because there is often deep and
The argument from disagreement
widespread disagreement on ethical issues
No ethical proposition is entailed by any set of non-ethical propositions. If no ethical
proposition is entailed by any set of non-ethical propositions, then there aren't any
The Hume-inspired argument
facts of the matter about any ethical propositions. So, there aren't any facts of the
matter about any ethical propositions (i.e., nihilism about ethics is true)
For there to br a fact of the matter about ethical propositions, there would have to
be ethical prosperities that are 'weird' (e.g., that have authority over us no matter
The anti-weirdness argument for nihilism
what we want). There aren't any such 'weird' properties. So, there isn't a fact of the
matter about any ethical propositions (i.e. nihilism about ethics is true).
Sobers rejection to the argument from Some ethical propositions are needed to explain things (e.g. that lying is
disagreement disrespectful and arguably explains why lying is wrong)
There is another sensible reason to posit ethical properties (i.e. not for the purpose
Sobers rejection to the Hume-inspired
of explaining what we do, but fir the purpose of guiding our deliberation about what
argument
we do
Delibertarian-based reasons to posit There are sensible reasons to posit ethical properties
ethical properties (sobers objection to the
anti-weirdness argument for nihilism)
The argument from bindingness for Devine Moral laws are binding. Unless the Devine command theory is true, moral laws would
command theory not be binding. So, the Devine command theory is true.
, Either God would have reasons to forbid certain actions or he wouldn't have any
such reasons. If he wouldn't have such reasons, then the moral laws would be
Sobers Euthyphro objection to Devine
arbitrary. If he would have such reasons, then it wouldn't be God that determines the
command theory
moral laws. Moral laws aren't arbitrary. So, God doesn't determine the moral laws.
(I.e. the Devine command theory is false)
In many choice contexts, there are multiple permissible things to do (and what its
permissible to do varies from person to person). If there were an objective fact
The arguments from Varying permissible
about which beliefs and values were correct, there would not be multiple
choices for individual relativism
permissible things to do in those contexts (and what its permissible to do could not
vary from person to person). SO, individual relativism is not correct
It's never morally permissible for one group to impose its beliefs or values on
The arguments from Anti-imperialism for another. If there were an objective fact about which beliefs our values were correct
cultural relativism then it would be morally permissible for one group to impose its beliefs or values on
another. So, cultural relativism is correct.
Sobers objection to the varying permissible The first premise of this argument is self-undermining. Look at it again: if it's read a
choices for individual realism (based on non-relativistic way, it's flatly inconsistent with the arguments conclusion. But if its
self undermining problems). read relativistically, the its not really an objection to 'imperialists' at all
The second premise of the argument is false: e.g. ethical realism is perfectly
Sobers objection to the arguments from
consistent with noninterventionism even to prevent some more wrongs. It's
anti-imperialism for cultural relativism
perfectly;y consistent to think X is (objectively) wrong, but also not think that its okay
(realisms ability to accommodate)
for anyone Y to do anything whatsoever to prevent X
the study of the meaning and justification of basic moral beliefs
Metaethics
Example:
The study of the principles, rules, or theories that guide our actions and judgments
Normative Ethics
Example:
the application of moral norms to specific moral issues or cases, particularly those in
a profession such as medicine or law
applied ethics
Example:
Fundamental Ethical Principles
How do the bystander and bridge roller The Trolley Problem sets up a moral dilemma in which one is to decide whether to
cases illustrate disagreement about steer the trolley in the first scenario, and whether to push the fat man off the
fundamental ethical principles? footbridge in the second, so that one person dies as opposed to five.
There is really such a thing as the property of 'being wrong', but what makes it true
Relativistic theories of metaethics
that some act has that property is someone's say so
Why do nihilists about ethics have to claim There isn't really any such thing as true property of 'being wrong'. So there's nothing
that ethical sentences are neither true nor out here in the world that makes any ethical sentence true (or false).
false (simply rather than being false)
nonrelativistic theories of metaethics
