Study Guide Know the difference between valid and invalid arguments Valid arguments have 2 premises that lead to the conclusion being true the conclusion may be false Know what a sound argument is A sound argument is when the argument is valid and the premises are true Be able to identify premises and conclusions If given an argument be able to argue whether it is sound or unsound Know the bad arguments against moral objectivism that Shafer Landau rejects Offers his own set of bad reasons A Individuals disagree about moral issues so there is no objective truth B Morals only exist if God exists God does not exist Values have no place in the scientific world KNOW PREMISES AND CONSLUSIONS RSL says P1 science doesn t verify the existence of X then it doesn t exist P2 science doesn t verify the existence of moral objectivism C Moral objectivism doesn t exist D It is not ok for people to impose their views on others so there is no objective ethical view E If there were objective moral rules there would be rules without exceptions but all rules have exceptions so there are no objective moral rules Be able to explain what Divine Command Theory DCT is An act is morally justified just because it is commanded by God and immoral just because God forbids it Be able to explain the Euthyphro argument against DCT e g what are the two things a divine command theorist might mean How do they both lead to problems Two things a divine command theorist might mean Argument 1 its wrong Argument 2 o X is wrong for independent reasons and the bible simply tells us o But then X is wrong for independent reasons That means that there is no morality created by God o X is wrong because the bible condemns it and if the bible and God did not condemn it it would not be wrong o Then this lead to the problem that bad simply means prohibited by God and good simply means allowed commanded by God o So if god commanded us to murder and rape random strangers this would be the morally right thing to do Know Thompson s thought experiments e g the violinist the growing child and the people seeds and explain how each is supposed to work as a defense of abortion Thompson s thought experiments Violinist o You wake up and are connected to a world famous violinist keeping him alive o By the pro life argument it is wrong to unhook o P1 Killing or ending the life of an innocent human being is wrong o P2 Unhooking from the violinist is killing or ending the life of an innocent human being o C Unhooking from the violinist is wrong o If you think it is right to unhook from the violinist there is something wrong with the pro life argument The growing child The people seeds o You are trapped in a house with a rapidly growing child o You cannot escape the child is already blocking the doors and windows and soon you will be crushed to death o Do you have the right to kill the child to save your life If so then the extreme view of abortion is false o The people seeds are like pollen and come into your house do you have the right to tell them to leave and refuse to house them o Do you have the right to put windows on your house birth control o If so the pro life argument is wrong Know what feature Marquis thinks beings must have to make killing them wrong How is this supposed to work as an argument that abortion is immoral Loss of a future if they die If the loss of a future makes killing something wrong there are major implications for abortion Know the premises 2 and conclusion of Rachels s argument for the morality of euthanasia P1 If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no ones rights then that action is morally acceptable P2 In at least some cases active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no ones rights C Therefore in at least some cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable Know the case of Jack in Rachel s Jack is suffering an excruciating slow death Euthanasia would have promoted Jack s interests Jack s wife interests and society s interests Nor would it violate his rights since he requested it we assume According to Velleman how might giving someone a choice harm them Explain how this applies to euthanasia Options can lead to pressure from third parties Having a choice deprives you of the chance to not have a choice Being given an option might send a signal If your professor singles you out and ask if you want tutoring Being given the choice of euthanasia may make someone worse off even if they choose the best option for themselves and their family They are denied the option to stay alive as default People who choose not to die might feel a burden in justifying their existence If euthanasia is not an option people do not feel a burden in justifying their continued existence According to LaFollette what are armchair arguments Armchair arguments are explanations of why and how the presence or absence of guns will increase or decrease violent crime In a study to discover if widespread availability of guns increases homicides or decreases crimes we need armchair arguments to tell us which variables we should control Pro gun control More weapons more violence o Guns are the easiest way to kill someone You have to get up out of your armchair and look at the evidence to validate Anti gun control The availability of guns prevents or stops crimes o Criminals will not go after armed people Lafollette says that from the armchair both arguments appear plausible Its really easy to make arguments about how the world is or how people will behave we have to go and gather facts and data but people sitting in an armchair make assumptions about things without data just by sitting in their armchair speculating Why does LaFollette think that we should control guns More weapons more violence Guns are inherently dangerous their main function is to harm or destroy and to make them better at their job would make them more dangerous Hughes and Hunt think that the effects of gun ownership do not determine whether guns should be controlled or not Why not In a liberal society They agree that guns are risky but do not think this is a reason to ban them Fair play It is unfair to treat harmless members of a group the same as dangerous members of a group There are harms society can do nothing about Individuals have Autonomy individuals should be able to control their own lives Neutrality between conceptions of the good life Equality gov t must not discriminate amongst citizens nor
View Full Document
Unlocking...