Front Back
Ethics
the study of moral thought; values, principles, judegements
Theory
an attempt to state in a brief sentence some sort of fundamental principle or concept that explains everything else
"Pleasure is the ultimate value" is an example of a/n....?
theory
"Living in harmony with nature is the ultimate value" is an example of a/n....?
theory
Principles
not based on any one specific moral or value
"people should have freedom of speech" is an example of a/n....?
principle
"it is wrong to break a promise" is an example of a/n.....?
principle
specific judgments
someone is asserting an opinion about a specific situation
"the Watergate break-in and cover-up were wrong" is an example of a/n.....?
specific judgment
implications
THE CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM SOMETHING..... let Y be a statement, and let X be either a statement or a set of statements -if X is true, then Y is also true -X is sufficient for Y
divine command theory
the view that what is right is what God commands because what God commands determines what is right
secular
non-religious
moral disagreement
abortion, homosexuality,race, sex, religion
what does moral disagreement tell us?
because there is widespread and persistent moral disagreement, there are no universal moral truths
moral relativism
the ethical thesis that there are no universal moral truths; morality is relative to individuals, communities, societies, etc.
individual relativism
the view that morality is relative to individuals
objectivism
the view that there are some moral claims that are universally true, not merely true relative to some individual or society
relativist
they deny the fact that morality is objective; they do not believe that certain moral judgments are true or false regardless of the culture making them
relativism
the view that morality is relative (to culture) rather than objective or universal
psychological egoism
the view that all human actions are ultimately motivated entirely by self-interest
psychological egoism is concerned with how people 1???? act, not how they 2???? act.
1- do 2- ought to
Reinterpreting evidence
a strategy used to argue in favor of psychological egoism
Why is the strategy of reinterpreting evidence a problem?
when you always reinterpret evidence that seems to go against your theory, you are no longer treating the evidence as just a source of information; you are taking your theory and making the evidence to fit it
X is Y.
theory
A 1???? generates a 2?????
1- theory 2- principle
consequentialism
the consequences of one's actions are the ultimate basis for any judgement about the rightness or wrongness of the act
nonconsequentialist
judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences
supererogation
the performance of more work than duty requires
ethical egoism
people should act only for their own self-interest
utilitarianism
the belief that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority ---choosing to do something based solely off the consequences that it will benefit long-time, overall happiness of the majority
hedonism
the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence
Epicurus’s hedonistic view of the good life
One should limit one’s own desires to one’s basic needs, and seek to satisfy those alone. Excessive desires beyond those of basic needs are unnecessary, and often lead to distress and displeasure when they are not satisfied.

Access the best Study Guides, Lecture Notes and Practice Exams

Login

Join to view and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?