PHIL 211 1nd EditionExam # 1 Study Guide Chapters 1-7Chapter 1 (Thurs. 8/21/2014 & Tues. 8/26/2014)Ethics & the Examined Life (pg. 5-13) in Vaughn’s Doing Ethics- Ethics is the philosophical study of moralityo Morality consists of beliefs concerning right and wrong, good and bado This includes judgments, principles, and theories- Moral philosophy requires we give reasons to why we should follow these principles/ethics/etc. as opposed to others- You can decide to forego ethical deliberation by embracing the beliefs and norms inherited from your family and cultureo This undermines your freedom if you accept these without question- 3 Main Divisions of Ethicso Normative ethics – study of moral norms that guide our actions and judgments  Ex soundness of moral reasoningo Metaethics – study of the meaning and logical structure of moral beliefs  Ex Cognitivism – logical claim between true and false Noncognitivism – view that moral utterances are neither true nor falseo Applied ethics – application of moral norms to specific moral issues or cases  Ex  medical, journalistic, or business ethics- Elements of Ethicso Preeminence of reasono Universal perspective  Universalizability All moral principles apply to all subjects and situations (i.e. law of gravity)o Principle of impartiality Principle of equal consideration o Priority/dominance of moral norms  Provides consistency Not all norms are moral norms (i.e. legal norms, aesthetic norms, etc.)- Religion and Moralityo Doing ethics (decision making) can be viewed as interpreting religious directiveso Moral philosophy enables productive discourse  Ethics provides a common set of concepts and procedures to make decisions/judgments between those with religious differences  Divine command theory (pg.11 & seen in Ch. 4)- Belief that God is the maker of moralityo God defines right and wrongo Right actions are those willed by God because he is omnipotentChapter 2 (Thurs. 8/28/2014 & continued on Tues. 9/2/2014)Subjectivism, Relativism, Emotivism (p. 22-34) in Vaughn’s Doing EthicsRand excerpt (PDF document)- Objectivism – doctrine that some moral norms are valid for everyone/universal (pg.22)-- Cultural relativism - view that an action is morally right if one's CULTURE approves of ito Implications: (pg. 22) Cultures are morally infallible,  Social reformers can never be morally right Moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture equate to arguments that someone disagrees with his/her culture Other cultures cannot be legitimately criticizedMoral progress is impossible.- Subject relativism - view that an action is morally right if ONE approves of it (pg. 22)o Implications:Individuals are morally infallibleGenuine moral disagreement between individuals is nearly impossible- Emotivism - view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but expressions of emotions or attitudes (pg. 23)o Implications: (pg.23)People cannot disagree over moral facts b/c there are no moral factsPresenting reasons supporting moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts to influence someone's attitudeNothing is actually good or bado Cognitivism & noncognitivism (pg.30)- *Know how to apply these in given scenarios review the CH. 2 multiple choice handoutChapter 3 (Tues. 9/2/2014 & Thurs. 9/4/2014)Evaluating Moral Arguments (pg. 43-64) in Vaughn’s Doing Ethics- Statement - assertion that something is or is not the case (pg. 43)- Argument - group of statements, one of which is supposed to be supported by the rest (pg. 44)- Premise - supporting statement in an argument (pg. 44)- Conclusion - statement supported in an argument. (pg. 44)- Indicator words - Terms that often appear in arguments to signal the presence of a premise or conclusion (i.e “so”, “therefore”), or to indicate that an argument is deductiveor inductive (pg. 45)- Deductive argument - gives logically CONCLUSIVE support to its conclusion. (pg. 45)o Conditional argument (Hypothetical Syllogism) Premise (antecedent): If p… ; Conclusion (consequent): …then q.  Examples that are ALWAYS valid (no matter what statements you substitute)- modus tollens (denying the consequent)o “If p, then q. Not q. Therefore, not p.”- Modus ponens (affirming the antecedent)o “If p, then q. p. Therefore, q. o Valid argument - A deductive argument that DOES provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion. (page 46) Concentrate on form of argument, NOT its content (Validity≠Truth) Sound argument – valid (deductive) argument with true premises 3 types of Valid Arguments: 1. True premise(s) & true conclusion2. False premise(s) & true conclusion3. False premise(s) & false conclusiono Invalid argument - deductive argument that does NOT offer logically conclusive support for the conclusion 4 types of invalid arguments:1. True premise(s) & true conclusion2. False premise(s) & true conclusion3. False premise(s) & false conclusion4. True premise(s) & false conclusiono Proofs often used in math- Inductive argument - offers PROBABLE support to its conclusion. (pg. 45)o Strong argument – inductive argument that DOES provide probable support for its conclusion Cogent – strong (inductive) argument with true premiseso Weak argument – inductive argument that does NOT give probable support to the conclusiono Deals with probabilities not certainties- **REVIEW Hurley’s Overview of Inductive & Deductive Arguments (tree diagram PDF)Moral Statements and Arguments- Moral statement – affirms that an action is right or wrong or that a person (or one's motive/character) is good or bad (pg 53)- Nonmoral statement - does NOT affirm that an action is right or wrong or that a person is good or bad (pg 53)- Characteristics of moral arguments:o Consists premises & a conclusion (being a moral statement or judgment) o A typical moral argument has at least one moral premise and one nonmoral premise - Counterexamples are used to test moral premises- Any implied premise should be valid or strong, PLAUSIBLE & FITTING.- **See QUICK REVIEW BOX on pg. 57 for material to study- Avoiding bad arguments (Informal FALLACIES)o *SEE PDF FILE named “Hurley list of Informal Fallacies” *o *KNOW how to identify examples of these o Fallacies of Relevance: Appeal to force; Appeal to pity; Appeal to the people (Direct & Indirect); Argument against the person (Abusive, Circumstantial, & tu