Ethics: Prescriptive vs Descriptive Approaches

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

How does the prescriptive nature of ethics differentiate it from the descriptive approach of social sciences like history and sociology in studying human conduct?

Ethics prescribes what actions are right or wrong, guiding human conduct, whereas history and sociology describe past human actions, without making moral judgments.

Differentiate between the scope of inquiry in ethics and moral philosophy. How does moral philosophy function as a subset of ethics?

Ethics broadly explores how we ought to live and why, while moral philosophy narrows the focus to understanding our obligations to each other, specifically right and wrong from a moral standpoint. Moral philosophy provides a systematic approach to moral questions, under the broader umbrella of ethical considerations.

Explain how the 'moral point of view' attempts to resolve conflicts of interest differently from the 'prudential' and 'legal' points of view.

The moral point of view seeks impartial and fair resolutions, while the prudential focuses on an individual's long-term well-being, and the legal focuses on adherence to laws, irrespective of fairness or individual benefit.

Explain the relationship between actions that violate '10C' and actions that are morally wrong, according to the provided material.

According to '10C', if an action does not violate '10C', it is not morally wrong. Therefore, violating '10C' is a necessary condition for an action to be considered morally wrong. Signup and view all the answers

Provide an example of an action that is morally right but prudentially wrong and another that is morally wrong but legally permissible.

Morally right but prudentially wrong: Donating a large sum of money to charity that leaves you unable to pay your bills. Morally wrong but legally permissible: Profiting from selling harmful products that aren't yet regulated. Signup and view all the answers

Explain the fundamental project of moral philosophy as conceived by the Greeks.

The fundamental project of moral philosophy, as the Greeks understood it, was to determine what character traits make someone a good person and how these traits could lead to living the best possible life. Signup and view all the answers

Briefly describe the Golden Rule (GR) and provide an example of an action that GR might consider morally acceptable, but is normally considered wrong.

The Golden Rule (GR) states that an action is morally right if the agent treats others as they want to be treated. An example is theft, which GR might find acceptable if the actor is okay with being stolen from. Signup and view all the answers

According to Wolff, in what way would the state of nature be a state of war?

According to Wolff, the state of nature would be a state of war because there would be no common power to resolve disputes, enforce contracts, or protect individuals from aggression, leading to inevitable conflict and insecurity. Signup and view all the answers

What assumption does the advocate of the Golden Rule make, and how does the case of Pete illustrate this?

The advocate of the Golden Rule assumes that people have a basic level of care and consideration for themselves and others. The case of Pete highlights that some people are okay with negative impacts on themselves, making it 'okay' to do those things to others. Signup and view all the answers

Define the following terms related to arguments: premise, conclusion, and argument.

An argument is a series of considerations to support a conclusion. Premises are the considerations offered in the argument. The conclusion is the viewpoint the argument tries to convince the listener of. Signup and view all the answers

How could one use the Divine Command Theory to argue for or against cultural relativism?

One could argue for cultural relativism by claiming that God commands different things to different cultures, making morality relative. Alternatively, one could argue against it by asserting that God's commands are universal and unchanging, establishing objective moral standards that transcend cultural differences. Signup and view all the answers

Define validity in the context of arguments. Explain in your own words what it means for an argument to be valid.

Validity in an argument means that IF the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true. Validity refers to the logical structure of the argument. Signup and view all the answers

Using Rachels' 'Challenge of Cultural Relativism', explain how perceived cultural differences in moral practices might stem from differing beliefs about facts rather than fundamental differences in moral values.

Cultures may appear to have different moral values, but these differences might actually arise from differing beliefs about the factual consequences of actions. For example, differing views on euthanasia might stem from different beliefs about the nature of suffering or the possibility of recovery, rather than a fundamental disagreement about the value of life. Signup and view all the answers

Must a valid argument have all true premises? Explain why or why not.

No, a valid argument does not need to have true premises. Validity only concerns the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. It posits that IF the premises were true, then the conclusion would also have to be true. Signup and view all the answers

Must a valid argument have a true conclusion? Explain.

Not necessarily. The conclusion only needs to be true IF the premises are true. A valid argument can have a false conclusion if one or more of its premises are false. Signup and view all the answers

What is factual correctness in the context of an argument? Can a factually incorrect argument be sound? If so, how?

Factual correctness refers to whether the premises of an argument are actually true in the real world. A factually incorrect argument cannot be sound because unsoundness means that the argument is either invalid or has at least one false premise, or both. Signup and view all the answers

In the context of moral philosophy, explain the fundamental project. What is the core aim of this endeavor?

The fundamental project aims to explain what makes morally right actions right, seeking to define the basis of moral correctness. Signup and view all the answers

Explain the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. Provide an original example for each to demonstrate your understanding.

A necessary condition ($x$) means that if $y$ occurs, $x$ must occur. A sufficient condition ($x$) means if $x$ occurs, $y$ must occur. For example, oxygen is necessary for fire, and striking a match is sufficient for starting a fire (under normal conditions). Signup and view all the answers

Describe a scenario where condition $x$ is both necessary and sufficient for condition $y$. What specific phrase is used to indicate this dual relationship?

Winning an election is necessary and sufficient for becoming president; you become president if and only if you win the electon. The phrase used to denote this relationship is 'if and only if'. Signup and view all the answers

Explain how the criterion 10C differs from the Ten Commandments themselves. What does 10C attempt to add or clarify beyond the commandments?

10C claims that an action is morally right if and only if it doesn't violate the Ten Commandments, whereas the Ten Commandments are simply rules to follow. 10C goes beyond the commandments by suggesting they are sufficient to determine moral rightness. Signup and view all the answers

State the criterion 10C in your own words. According to a strict interpretation of 10C, what types of actions might be considered morally acceptable even if they are typically viewed as morally wrong?

10C: An action is morally right if and only if it does not violate any of the Ten Commandments. Actions not explicitly addressed by the Ten Commandments but still considered morally wrong, such as lying to protect someone's feelings, would be morally permissible according to a literal interpretation. Signup and view all the answers

Imagine a situation where someone follows all of the Ten Commandments but still acts in a way that is widely considered unethical. How does this scenario challenge the claim that adhering to the Ten Commandments is sufficient for moral behavior, as suggested by 10C?

If someone exploits loopholes or focuses solely on the literal interpretation of the commandments while disregarding their spirit, they might act unethically while technically not violating any commandment. For example, a businessperson following all ten commandments, who exploits workers through legal loopholes, may be considered unethical, even though they are technically acting within the bounds of the Ten Commandments. Signup and view all the answers

Consider the claim that 'respecting the rights of others' is a necessary condition for a morally right action. Provide an example of an action that, while seemingly beneficial, might not be considered morally right if it infringes upon someone's rights.

Forcibly taking resources from a wealthy individual to distribute them to the poor might seem beneficial, but it infringes upon the wealthy individual's property rights and therefore might not be considered morally right. Signup and view all the answers

Critically evaluate the statement: 'The fundamental project of moral philosophy is complete once we have identified a set of rules that, if followed, guarantee morally right actions.' Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

I disagree. Identifying a set of rules is insufficient because moral philosophy also involves understanding the reasons behind those rules, how they apply in complex situations, and how to resolve conflicts between different moral principles. Morality is not just about following rules but also about exercising ethical judgment. Signup and view all the answers

Explain the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. Can a valid argument be unsound? Why or why not?

A valid argument has a logical structure where if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. A sound argument is valid and has all true premises. A valid argument can be unsound if its premises are not all true. Signup and view all the answers

Identify the form of the following argument and state whether it is valid or invalid: 'If it is raining, then the ground is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it is raining.'

The argument form is Affirming the Consequent, and it is invalid. Signup and view all the answers

Fill in the blanks: If an argument is unsound, it must be either or .

Factually incorrect, invalid Signup and view all the answers

Consider the statement: 'If a country has universal healthcare, then its citizens are healthy.' Provide a scenario in which this statement could be false, and explain why that scenario makes the statement false.

This statement could be false if a country has universal healthcare, but its citizens still have poor health outcomes due to factors like lifestyle choices, environmental pollution, or other social determinants of health. In this case, having universal healthcare does not guarantee that citizens are healthy, thus falsifying the conditional. Signup and view all the answers

Explain Divine Command Theory (DCT) in your own words. How does DCT determine whether an action is morally right or wrong?

Divine Command Theory states that an action is morally right if and only if God commands it, and morally wrong if and only if God forbids it. According to DCT, morality is based on divine decrees. Signup and view all the answers

What are the two possible interpretations of Divine Command Theory? Explain the difference between them.

The two interpretations are: 1) God commands actions because they are already morally right (actions are independently right, and God recognizes this). 2) Actions are morally right because God commands them (actions are morally neutral until God issues a command). Signup and view all the answers

Give an example of a hypothetical syllogism. Explain why this form is considered valid.

If it rains, the ground gets wet. If the ground is wet, then plants will grow. Therefore, if it rains, then plants will grow. This is valid because if the first two premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true; the relationship between the conditions necessitates the outcome. Signup and view all the answers

Explain the difference between Divine Command Theory (DC) and the Ten Commandments (10C). Which is broader in scope, and why?

Divine Command Theory (DC) is a general ethical theory stating that morality is based on God's commands, while the Ten Commandments (10C) are a specific set of commandments given by God in the Bible. DC is broader in scope because it includes all of God's commands, past, present, and future, not just the ten listed in 10C. Signup and view all the answers

Explain the core difference between the 'Divine Command Theory' and the 'Divine Advisor View' regarding the source of moral rightness.

Divine Command Theory posits that an action is right solely because God commands it, whereas the Divine Advisor View suggests that God commands actions that are already right based on an independent standard. Signup and view all the answers

Outline the central idea behind premise 4 of Socrates' Euthyphro Argument: 'If the acts God commands are right by some independent standard, then morality is not the monopoly of religion.'

This premise suggests that if God relies on an external standard to determine right and wrong, then humans can also access and apply this standard directly, making religious authority non-exclusive in moral matters. Signup and view all the answers

What is 'theological voluntarism'?

Theological voluntarism is the view that morality is based on the will of God. Actions are morally right or wrong solely because God commands or forbids them, not because of any inherent quality of the actions themselves. Signup and view all the answers

Describe one of the four main problems associated with Theological Voluntarism and explain why it is considered problematic.

One major problem is the 'Arbitrary' objection. If God's commands have no rational basis and are based solely His will, then morality seems arbitrary. There is no good reason why God commanded one action versus another. Signup and view all the answers

According to the challenge of 'Wrong Reasons' against Theological Voluntarism, what is the problem with claiming that murder is wrong merely because God forbids it?

The problem is that it makes the wrongness of murder seem arbitrary and fails to acknowledge any inherent moral reasons, such as the value of human life or the suffering caused to the victim and their loved ones. Signup and view all the answers

Explain the 'Nihilism in God’s Absence' objection to Theological Voluntarism.

The 'Nihilism in God’s Absence' objection argues that if Theological Voluntarism is true, then without God, nothing would be right or wrong. Morality would simply cease to exist. Signup and view all the answers

What would be true about right and wrong if Theological Voluntarism is true and God did not exist?

If Theological Voluntarism is true and God did not exist, then, according to the text, nothing would be right or wrong. Signup and view all the answers

In the Euthyphro Argument, does Socrates explicitly deny the existence of God, claim that Divine Command Theory (DC) is true, or presuppose that Theological Voluntarism is true?

Socrates does not deny the existence of God, nor does he claim that DC is true. He also doesn't presuppose that Theological Voluntarism is true. His argument aims to question the foundations of morality, irrespective of these claims. Signup and view all the answers

Explain the distinction between moral evil and natural evil. Provide an example of each.

Moral evil results from human actions, like theft; natural evil stems from non-human causes, such as a hurricane. Signup and view all the answers

Why does the existence of natural evil pose a significant challenge specifically for theists, according to the text?

Theists struggle to reconcile natural evil with the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God who would not permit such suffering. Signup and view all the answers

Briefly outline Cultural Relativism (CR). What are the implications of CR for universal moral principles?

CR asserts that an action's morality depends on the moral code of the society in which it occurs. It implies that there are no universal moral principles applicable across all cultures. Signup and view all the answers

Define 'society' and 'moral code' in the context of Cultural Relativism.

In Cultural Relativism, a 'society' is a group of people in close proximity sharing beliefs, values, and institutions; a 'moral code' is the society's widely-shared beliefs about acceptable and forbidden behaviors. Signup and view all the answers

Explain the 'Fauziya' argument against Cultural Relativism. What premise does it challenge?

The Fauziya case argues that if female circumcision is accepted in a culture, CR implies it is morally right there, which many find objectionable, challenging the premise that a society's approval makes an action morally right. Signup and view all the answers

How does the 'Slavery Advice' argument challenge Cultural Relativism, using Bob in Alabama as an example?

The 'Slavery Advice' argument posits that if Bob is in a society where slavery is accepted, CR would dictate he must accept slavery, which is morally repugnant, challenging the core tenet of CR. Signup and view all the answers

Explain, in your own words, how the diversity of opinions on a topic does not necessarily negate the existence of an objective truth. Provide an example to support your explanation.

The existence of diverse opinions doesn't preclude objective truth because people can be mistaken or misinformed. For example, people may disagree whether climate change is human caused, but that doesnt mean there is not objective truth about the causes of climate change. Signup and view all the answers

If an action objectively causes only harm and no good, what conclusion can be drawn about its morality from a non-relativist perspective? Why?

From a non-relativist perspective, if an action objectively causes only harm and no good, it is morally wrong. This is because non-relativist theories often posit universal moral principles that prioritize well-being and the avoidance of harm. Signup and view all the answers

Flashcards

Ethics

A branch of philosophy concerned with how we ought to live, guiding human conduct by prescribing right and wrong.

Normative Ethics

The normative study of human conduct, prescribing right and wrong.

Ethics (Broader Question)

The general study of how we ought to live and why.

Moral Philosophy (Narrower Question)

The attempt to systematically understand what we owe to each other, focusing on right and wrong from a moral standpoint.