How would most Americans react to you ignoring UNICEF over pond drowner
Case one, they may guilt you, but they likely haven’t donated either, case two, you’ll be criminalized and extremely guilted
What method should we use to determine whether our reactions are justified
By isolating the variables and problematizing each
What is the distinction between would and should (or ought)
Would is psychology, should is ethics
What is Singer’s challenge
To find a difference between human and non-human animals that justifies their suffering for counting as less
What is the method we employed and how did we apply it to Singer’s Challenge
Isolating variables and problematizing them
I like scary movies and Jägermeister but my friend doesn’t, does this show that right and wrong is relative to a person or group of people
No, because it is a utilitarian argument which follows absolutism
The three main areas of philosophy
Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics
Plato?s method of philosophical analysis is:
propose analysis (iff), search for counterexamples, revise.
Plato?s method of philosophical analysis is good for:
determining what exists, what exists fundamentally, and the nature of those things.
An example of an argument that is valid but not sound:
If my parents leave town I?ll throw a party, my parents will not leave town, therefore I won?t throw a party.
An example of an argument that is sound but not valid:
Peter Singer?s argument that we ought to donate to UNICEF:
Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are
bad, if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening
without sacri?cing comparable moral importance, we ought to, it is in
our power to prevent suffering without sacri?cing comparable moral
importance, we ought to prevent suffering.
The distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperative:
hypothetical depends on many factors, categorical is the fill-in-the-blank rule for what to do.
Fallacies in moral rightness:
the law, the bible, normalcy, naturalistic
Moral rightness granted if it doesn?t lead to
Singer?s argument that it is wrong to assign unequal value to the interests of animals:
it is morally wrong to do the same to
humans based on color, sex, etc thus we shouldn?t be able to
discriminate by species either.
Objections to moral relativism:
internal criticism is impossible (view can?t change over time), genuine
disputes are impossible (because you must recognize that all ideas are
difft), and it is counterintuitive (not what I mean by ?right?)
Want to see the other 18 Flashcards in Ethics Review?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!