Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Philo Unit 1
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Declarative sentence | is a sentence that appears to make a claim about the way things are Ex, -> the sky is blue, cats are cute, Hershys' taste like feet |
| Argument | is a series is a series of declarative sentences where at least one of those sentences (the conclusion) is supposed to follow from or be supported by the other sentences (premises) |
| Example of an argument | Socrates is a man. All men are mortal.(← premises) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (← conclution) |
| Premise indicators | since, because, for, seeing that, given that |
| Conclusion indicators | therefore, hence, it follows that, thus |
| Example | Because animals can suffer and the capacity to suffer is a condition for ethical treatment, therefore they deserve ethical treatment. |
| Unstated premises | are called enthymemes ->ex: animals deserve ethical treatment because they can suffer ->enthymeme: everything that suffers deserves ethical treatment |
| deductive argument | is one in which the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises necessarily. Guarantees a conclusion from general rules |
| inductive argument | inductive argument is one in which the conclusion is made more probable given the premises. a probable conclusion based on specific observations |
| Example deductive: | P1 If a creature displays pain behavior, then it experiences pain. P2 Octopuses display pain behavior. C1 Octopuses experience pain. P1, P2 Modus ponens) |
| Example inductive | P1 Humans flinch, cry out and nurse injuries when in pain. P2 Octopuses flinch cry out and nurse injuries. C1 Octopuses experience pain P1, P2 analogy) |
| thought experiment | a hypothetical scenario which is descried in enough detail to test our intuitions. |
| Necessary condition | a requirement that must be met for an event, outcome or concept to occur or apply, but its presence does not guarantee that it will happen |
| Sufficient condition | something that guarantees an outcome will happen |
| Conceptual analysis | aims to clarify what was said by giving necessary and sufficient conditions |
| Reflective equilibrium | method for justifying general principles by working back & forth between: principles -general claims (taking property w/o consent is stealing) considered judgments (firm intuitions about particular cases ex. confiscating a criminal's weapon isn't stealing |
| Permissions in English: | Permissions in English: You must tidy your room. You ought to go to the party. You may have some ice cream. You must not break the window. |
| Obligatory | You must maximize happyness. You ought to give to charity. A moral obligation is something that morality requires of you. If you do not do it you fail to be moral. You ought not speed is a legal obligation |
| moral obligation | if you do not do it you have failed to be moral |
| Impermissible | You must not kill, You ought not cause harm Morally impermissible acts are act that require you to not do them, if you do you fail morally |
| Permissible | You may eat meat - You can do them or not do them it doesn't matter, if you do the action you have not failed morally |
| Supererogatory | You do not have to donate organs but it is good if you do Morally right to do it but not doing it is not morally wrong |
| Metaethics | most general area of ethics, what individuals think about ethics, has to do with truths. The area of ethics that asks the most general questions about the possibility and foundations of ethics such as is moral realism, relativism, or nihilism correct. |
| 3 main study of ethics | metaethics - realism, relativism or nihilism -normative ethics - consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics -applied ethics - area of ethics that studies particular ethical questions such as should one eat meat, is stealing wrong, and should you lie. |
| Moral Relativism | The view that there are no universal and objective moral truths, but that there are moral truths relative to some measure. |
| Moral nihilism | the view that there are no ethical truths |
| Moral realism | the view that there are universal and objective ethical truths |
| Individual moral relativism | A form of ethical relativism that asserts that ethical standards are determined by each individual's personal beliefs Morality is different for each person; each person has their own opinions and theyʼre all equally right. |
| A consequence of individual moral relativism | A consequence of individual moral relativism is that many serial killers did nothing morally wrong when they killed people. |
| Consequentialism: | Any ethical theory that evaluates the morality of an act on the basis of the act's consequences. Focused on consequences and classifies them as good and bad |
| deontology | an ethical theory that judges whether an action is right or wrong based on a set of rules and moral duties, rather than looking at the consequences |
| virtue ethics | Any ethical theory that emphasizes the character of human beings, rather than rules or consequences |
| intrinsic value | The ethical or philosophical value that something has 'in itself' |
| Instrumental value: | The ethical or philosophical value that something has because of the ends that may be achieved by means of it Ex. money is valuable because you can buy things from it. |
| Cultural moral relativism | A form of ethical relativism that asserts that ethical standards are determined by the collective beliefs of a particular society. |
| The consequentialist schema is | An act is morally right if and only if it maximizes/minimizes consequences with [feature] |
| Selfish hedonism | a consequentialist ethical theory that says an act is morally right if and only if it maximizes the individual's happiness |
| Altruistic hedonism | is a consequentialist ethical theory that says an act is morally right if and only if it maximizes the collective happiness. |
| Paperclipism | is a consequentialist ethical theory that says an act is morally right if and only if it maximizes the number of paperclips in existence. |
Created by:
user-2023960