Fundamentals
What are our considered moral judgements?
These are essentially a collection of judgments or claims about what is morally right or wrong that are thought-out and free of bias.
What is the meta-ethical claim of NCR?
This is the claim that what is morally right or wrong is determined by the standards of your culture.
What is the metaphysical dependence?
This is the idea that God created morality, right and wrong, and that, in this way, morality depends on God in an essential way.
What is hedonistic utilitarianism?
This is the moral system which says that any action is morally right insofar as it maximizes pleasure.
Have you done your readings?
No.
What are our background assumptions of morality?
These are essentially a collection of assumptions about the nature of morality, how a moral system should work and what it should or should not do.
What are the three claims of NCR?
That one ought to do as their culture says.
That one ought to tolerant of all cultures and views on morality.
That one ought not to treat their cultural norms, or any other, with special status.
Yes, DCT is just one moral theory and is not about whether or not God exists.
Is there a difference between hedonistic and act utilitarianism?
Yes. In Act Utilitarianism, we focus on maximizing the best outcomes. Thus, an action is morally right insofar as it maximized the best outcomes in any given situation for all the parties involved.
Why haven't you done your readings?
-insert answer met with no judgement-
Explain what it means if an argument is "VALID"
The conclusion of the argument is entailed by the premises of the argument.
Is the argument from cultural differences sound? If not, why?
The argument is not sound because it is not valid. The argument is not valid as it breaks down by suggesting that on account of widespread disagreement about what is wrong or right, there is no objective morality. But disagreement does not entail that there is no matter of fact about something.
What is the meta-ethical claim of DCT and how is it inferred from the metaphysical dependence?
This is the claim that one ought to do as God wills. This is based on the idea that God is the creator of morality. As such, we ought to do as he commands.
Give me an example of the 'equality' condition at work.
As long as the example shows that what the Ut really cares about is the maximization of pleasure and does not care to distinguish types of pleasures, the example is fine.
How can we manage our time such that I can fit in all my work and still have a life, thereby avoiding burn-out or feeling overwhelmed?
Set strict times wherein you are working. Try treating 8-6 as work hours with a lunch break and two tea breaks/ lectures in-between.
Try to ensure you have at least Sunday or half of Sunday, or any day, to relax. Don't think about work during this time.
What sort of logical fallacy is this:
If the moon is made of cheese, then cows jump over the moon.
Cows jump over the moon.
Therefore, the moon is made of cheese.
What is the argument from cultural differences, in your own words.
Paraphrase of:
There is widespread disagreement about morality
Moral right and wrong differ according to culture
Therefore, there is no objective morality and right and wrong are determined by our culture.
Why is moral arbitrariness a problem and do 'contingent truths' aim to solve this?
Moral arbitrariness is a problem as there should be some consistent reasoning or working to a moral system. What we ought to do should be based on a consistent meta-ethical claim which can be defended by several considerations. Contingent moral truths aim to solve arbitrariness of DCT by suggesting that God can only command what is right based on necessary moral truths.
What is rule-utilitarianism? What happens if a rule does not actually result in the best outcome?
Rule utilitarianism is essentially the idea that one ought to follow a set of rules which, if followed, will result in the best outcome for everyone involved. But, if a rule turns out not to have this result, then the RU could break the rule, adjust it or just bite the bullet.
Could someone subscribe to DCT and be an atheist?
Possibly. It would just mean that they would accept that we ought to do what God commands. But, given that they don't think God exists, they wouldn't have any defined view of what we ought and ought not to do.
What is wrong with affirming the consequent in an If P, then Q statement?
Why should I be moral relativist? What are two appealing factors about MR? Why are they appealing?
Can mention:
Tolerance-this is a principle which is not in itself bad.
Moral learning-perhaps we think that MR suggest that everyone take an interest in the cultures of others and treat them as complex bodies of thought.
Avoid Moral chauvinism.
What is Euthypro's Dilemma? Why does it present a threat to DCT?
The dilemma states that either God's commands make something morally right or God commands what is already morally right. In the case of the former, this would mean that God could potentially command just anything and that there is no real reason behind what is right or wrong other than God's will to make it so. The former suggests that God is not the creator of morality, which thus undermines the basis of the meta-ethical claim of DCT, along with that very claim.
Why is it a problem if the RU breaks a rule in order to maximize the best outcome? How is this a step back to AU?
The problem is that if the RU does this, then they are subject to the same problems which AU faced. But RU was meant to be an escape from those problems. So, if they broke the rule, then they revert back to RU as it is clear that what they actually follow is maximizing the best outcomes in any given situation, not following a rule which is meant to do this. As such, they revert back to AU.
If someone was followed the meta-ethical claim that morally right actions are determined by our culture and that person lived in a Rule Utilitarian culture, one that said they always ought to follow certain rules which maximize the best possible outcomes, what would they be?
They would be a moral relativist in theory, but in practice a rule utilitarian. If they could treat their moral norms without special status, they probably would not be tolerant unless this lead to the best possible outcomes.