Phil101 study guide - Exam 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

Professor Dedman's study guide for Exam 1...

Description

TERMINOLOGY -Philosophy: A way of thinking about questions; the study of knowledge, reality, and existence -Philosophical (Socratic) method: Argumentative dialogue between individuals based on asking and answering questions in order to stimulate critical thinking and draw out ideas -4 branches of philosophy -Logic: The rules of rational thought -Metaphysics: The study of the nature of reality -Epistemology: The study of nature and scope of knowledge -Axiology: The study of value -Moral philosophy (ethics): A branch of philosophy that studies the origin of morals; emphasizes responsibility and capability of individuals to reach their own conclusions through reasoning -Socrates (470 BC -399 BC) -the original Western moral philosopher from Athens -advocated harmlessness, obedience to teachers and parents, and promise-keeping -Plato: -Components of an argument -one or more premises -must relate to one another -must support conclusion -conclusion -Descriptive claim: A factual claim that describes something (e.g. “She has blue eyes,” “John is drinking water”) -Normative claim: A statement that expresses an evaluation (e.g. “Carrots taste bad,” “You should do your homework”) -Meta-ethics: A branch of philosophy that studies the nature and foundations of ethics, not what is ethical or unethical -4 ways to not answer moral questions: -express your opinion -state your thoughts -derive your opinion from the majority’s opinion

-appeal to moral authority -Moral authority: The quality of being respected for having good character -Cahn argues that morality is independent of belief in a god -Divine Command Theory: The claim that morality is solely based on the commands of God -Euthyphro Dilemma: Plato’s rejection of the Divine Command Theory; “Are moral acts willed by God moral because they’re good, or are they good because they’re willed by God?” -Problem of arbitrariness: The Divine Command Theory is arbitrary—that is, it’s based on the mere commands of God alone. -Problem of independence: If morally good acts are willed by God because they’re morally good, then they must be morally good prior to and independent of God’s will. This contradicts the Divine Command Theory. -Cultural relativism: The view that because there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, all moral systems are equally valid -Objective ethics: Ethics that are deemed true regardless of our independent observations -Subjective ethics: Ethics that are subjective -Cultural Differences Argument (CDA): Different cultures have different moral codes, therefore there is no objective moral truth. -Ring of Gyges: Glaucon’s story proving that we have an inclination to act unjustly. It tells of a man who consistently acts unjustly because he wears a ring that makes him invisible. -Glaucon: Plato’s brother and a philosopher concerned with the value of justice -Psychological egoism: A view about human nature that people are selfish in everything that they do -Ethical egoism: A normative view that because people are all selfish in everything that they do, they should act selfishly -Selfishness v. self-interest -Selfishness ignores the interests of others -Self-interest promotes the well-being of the agent but not at the expense of others -Teleological ethics: A moral action is moral because it produces good consequences -Hedonism: The doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the ultimate goal of life -Crude hedonism: Unbridled pursuit of pleasure -Enlightened hedonism: Rational pursuit of pleasure -Epicurus: The “common sense” philosopher who believed the aim of life is happiness

-Epicureanism: A system of philosophy based on Epicurus’s teachings that the greatest good is to seek modest pleasures in order to attain ataraxia (tranquility, peace of mind and body) -Type 1 desires: natural (body enjoys without effort) and necessary for survival -Type 2 desires: natural but unnecessary (e.g. junk food) -Type 3 desires: unnatural (instilled by society and false beliefs) and unnecessary -Seneca: Ancient Roman philosopher who criticized the practices of his fellow Romans; he rejected the idea that death is evil, wealth is good, political power is valuable, and anger is justified -Stoicism: philosophy that teaches the development of self-control as a means of controlling destructive emotions -Fate: Everything is predetermined and inevitable

SHORT ESSAY QUESTIONS 1. What is the dilemma that Socrates raises in the Euthyphro? Do you think this dilemma poses a serious problem for Divine Command Theorists? Socrates raises a dilemma revolved around the origins of morality in Christianity. In the Euthyphro, he poses an important question: “Are moral acts willed by God moral because they’re good, or are they good because they’re willed by God?” Both parts of this question raise additional questions and pose problems for the divine command theory. Suppose divine command theorists believe that God is the highest moral authority—that is, God decides what is moral and immoral, and therefore, no action is morally good until God commands it to be. This argument poses a problem because it means that if no action is moral until God commands so, then whatever God commands is morally arbitrary. For instance, God could claim that rape and murder are moral, and divine command theorists would have to succumb to such claims. On the other hand, if divine command theorists believe that God commands moral acts because they are moral, then that means such moral acts have been moral before God has commanded them. Therefore, God would not be the highest moral authority—he would be basing his commands on a different, higher moral standard. This poses a problem for divine command theorists because they believe that God already is the highest moral standard, which based their theory incorrect.

2. What is the problem with drawing conclusions about what is true from facts about what people believe? Provide an example that makes clear why this might be a mistake. How does this relate to the Cultural Differences Argument given by cultural relativists? The problem with drawing conclusions about what is true from facts about what people believe is that beliefs are not concrete facts. This is shown by the Cultural Differences Argument, which argues that there is no objective moral truth because all cultures uphold differing moral standards. Each of these moral standards are an opinion, and therefore cannot be factual. In addition to the Cultural Differences Argument, cultural relativists believe that because there is no moral standard of good and evil, all moral systems are equally valid. This also shows that facts cannot be derived from moral beliefs since they are all the same. For example, if any one culture upheld that slavery was morally correct, would that mean that slavery actually is morally correct? Our society tells us that it is morally incorrect, but cultural relativists would argue otherwise that such a cultural belief is neither correct nor incorrect, but still valid nonetheless since it is a mere opinion and not a fact.

3. What is the main goal that both the Stoics and Epicureans are trying to reach? How are they different in their approaches? How are they similar? Create an example of a problem you might have and explain how a Stoic and an Epicurean might respond. According to Stoicism, the ultimate goal of life is to attain happiness through self-control as a means of refraining from giving into impulses and eliminating destructive emotions such as anxiety, anger, and pain. In contrast to Stoicism, Epicureans sought to attain happiness and ataraxia, or peace of mind, through seeking modest pleasures such as selfimprovement and freedom. Stoicism and Epicureanism are similar in that they both aim to ultimately achieve happiness in life. However, they are different in the methods that they achieve such happiness. Stoicism argues that we can achieve happiness by remaining neutral and controlling negative emotions, and that we should not give into impulses. On the other hand, Epicureanism argues that we can achieve happiness by moderately giving into our impulses to the point of living life to its fullest. For example, in a situation in which a person is clinically depressed, a Stoic would teach this person how to be more emotionally resilient and flexible enough to handle whatever negative event that has caused the depression, since negative events are always bound to happen in nature. However, an Epicurean would suggest that this person should attain ataraxia by finding good friends, maintaining a good self-esteem, and indulging in modest pleasures....