PHI 1102 Study Guide - Summer 2018, Comprehensive Midterm Notes - Plato, Immanuel Kant, Ethics
PHI 1102
MIDTERM EXAM
STUDY GUIDE
Fall 2018
Gandhi: Religion and Truth
He is a personal god that can be felt by the individual.
Eeryoe’s iterpretatios of god is alid ad all the religios are true – more or less.
Louis Pojman: Who is to Judge?
People in the West have rejected ethnocentrism, we all seem to have this conscious-raising
need but this leads to a lack of moral objectivism.
Moral objectivism: the view that there are universal moral principles.
An Analysis of Moral Relativism
- No universally moral principles
- They vary from culture to culture
- All moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance
- What is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to society, so that there
are no moral principles accepted by all societies
- Dependency Hypothesis: People act in right or wrong depending on the nature of
society from which they emanate
- Morality does not occur in a vacuum, but what is considered morally right or wrong
must be seen in a context
Students usually start out with strong subjectivism. But in this concept then both Gandhi and
Hitler could be on the same plane. Notions of moral good and bad, right or wrong, cease to
have interpersonal evaluative meaning.
People may not elect the same moral principles as you – therefor, a teacher could give you an F
and your neighbor an A for the same paper and be fine if justice is not one of her elected
principles.
Conventional Ethical Relativism: the view that there are no objective moral principles but that
all valid moral principles are justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance, recognizes the social
nature of morality.
- Many suggest that ethical relativism is the correct theory
Ethical Relativism entails intercultural tolerance:
i. If morality is relative to its culture, then there is no independent basis for criticizing the
orality of ay ulture ut oe’s o.
ii. If there is no independent way of criticizing any other culture, we ought to be tolerant of
the moralities of other cultures.
iii. Morality is relative to its culture
iv. We ought to be tolerant of other moralities of other cultures.
Hoeer, if orality is siply relatie to oe’s ulture ad they do ot istill aeptae tha
there is no obligation to be tolerant.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
This is also a problem who go against the culture, change the culture, and then it becomes what
is morally right. For example, people who were against slavery in the US 200 years ago.
Culture and society are notoriously difficult to define. A person many belong to a nation as a
single society but might go to church and oppose those same values.
The Diversity Thesis: what is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to society,
so that there are no moral principles accepted by all societies.
The Dependency Thesis: all moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance.
Ethical Relativism: Therefor, there are no universally valid moral principles, objective standards
which apply to all people everywhere and at all times.
Every culture has a concept for murder, distinguishing this from execution, killing in war, and
other justifiable homicides. The notions of incest and other regulations upon sexual behavior
the prohibitions upon untruth under defined cirumstances, of restitution and reciprocity, of
mutual obligations between parents and children – these and many other moral concepts are
altogether universal.
The relativist needs a strong thesis of dependency, that somehow allprincples are essentially
cultural inventions.
Conclusion for moral objectivism: (1) cultural relativism (the fact that there are cultural
differences regarding moral principles) does not entail Ethical Relativism (the thesis that there
are no objectively valid universal moral principles). (2) that the dependency thesis that morality
derives its legitimacy from individual cultural acceptance is mistaken; (3) that there are
universal moral principles based on a common human nature and a need to solve conflicts and
flourish.
Lachs: Relativism and its Benefits
i. What is Lachs problem with the idea that we have firm ethical institutions or that there
are self-evident truths?
ii. How is Lachs account of the variety of human natures connected to his defense of
tolerance?
iii. What are the benefits of relativism, as imagined by Lachs?
As dogmatists we live in glorious and safe ignorance of alternatives – we find it not unlikely ut
actually inconceivable that a style of life and a form of behavior – different from ours have any
value.
(Describing dogmatists really poorly instead of just presenting his arguments – descriptive?)
Ie. the steadfast dogmatists are immune to external change.
There are four areas to which we may turn for the foundation of morals: (1) society with its
rules, attitudes, and institutions; (2) human nature with its structure and laws of operation, (3)
nature and its purposive constitution; (4) God as the infinite lawgiver of creation.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Dependency hypothesis: people act in right or wrong depending on the nature of. Morality does not occur in a vacuum, but what is considered morally right or wrong. All moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance. What is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to society, so that there. He is a personal god that can be felt by the individual. E(cid:448)eryo(cid:374)e"s i(cid:374)terpretatio(cid:374)s of god is (cid:448)alid a(cid:374)d all the religio(cid:374)s are true more or less. People in the west have rejected ethnocentrism, we all seem to have this conscious-raising need but this leads to a lack of moral objectivism. Moral objectivism: the view that there are universal moral principles. An analysis of moral relativism are no moral principles accepted by all societies society from which they emanate must be seen in a context. But in this concept then both gandhi and. Notions of moral good and bad, right or wrong, cease to have interpersonal evaluative meaning.
