Download Rough draft of Test #1 PHL 205 Relativism: Please answer one of

Rough draft of Test #1 PHL 205
A.
Relativism: Please answer one of the following two questions.
d.) No one who merely follows human instincts ever does something wrong.
e.) All people are equal and deserve equal rights.
[10 points]
2. Which of the following are naturalistic theories? (Write the letters into your blue
books.)
[Reminder: Relativism is the class theories which say that What is right depends
somehow on what some society approves of. For the purpose of these questions, you
can assume the relativist thinks what is right is just what her own society approves
of at the time.]
1.
2.
Rachels and I agree that one of the motivations behind Relativism is our
humility and tolerance of foreign cultural practices, as well as our reluctance to
pass judgment on them. However, we claimed relativism backfires. Please give
me an example of a situation where an adherence to relativism would force
someone to be profoundly intolerant. Make sure you explain why in that
situation, a strict adherence to relativism requires intolerance.
Give me two reasons (or examples) why this is a terrible view: What is morally
permissible is just the same thing as what is permissible by law.
a.)
b.)
c.)
d.)
e.)
D.
Intuitionism and Non-natruralism: Please answer question #1 and choose a second
question from among the remaining four to answer.
[20 points]
1.
2.
B.
Divine Command Theory: Please answer question #1 and choose a second
question from among the remaining three to answer.
[20 points]
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
C.
Suppose you meet a Divine Command theorist, ask her whether she thinks that
God had a good reason to command as He did, and she answers “yes”. What
would you tell her to make clear that her answer actually undermines Divine
Command Theory?
Explain as clearly as you can how Euthyphro loses his argument against
Socrates. (I probably won’t ask this.)
Rachels says: “On this view [Divine Command Theory], the
doctrine of the goodness of God is reduced to
nonsense. It is important to religious believers that
God is not only all-powerful and all-knowing, but
that he is also good; yet if we accept the idea that
good and bad are defined by reference to God’s will,
this notion is deprived of any meaning.” Why is this so?
What reason is there to worry that Divine Command Theory makes it
impossible to say something substantial about God’s goodness?
Explain why it is that a philosophical investigation would not help us discover
what is right and wrong if Euthyphro were right about the source of moral
truths.
Naturalism: Do both 1 (a-e) and 2 (a-e)
[20 points]
[Reminder: All naturalistic theories attempt to define what is right in terms of nonevaluative facts.]
5.
E.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a.) I strongly disapprove of racial profiling. (write: “C1a: factual,” or “C1a:
evaluative”)
b.) Sometimes, breaking the law is the right thing to do.
c.) Objective college entrance exams are unfair.
Simple Subjectivists claim that ethical statements are synonymous with reports about
the speaker’s attitude. Explain why this theory cannot make sense of ethical
disagreements.
What is Emotivism? How does an Emotivist interpret the content of evaluative
statements like “murder is wrong”?
What is Rachels’s problem with Emotivism?
How does an Emotivist (like Stevenson, as described by Rachels) understand ethical
disagreement?
Why did Wittgenstein think there are no truths about ethics? Try to put his reasons in
your own words.
True/False questions:
1.
1. Which of the following are factual claims (descriptive; “is-es”) and which are
evaluative (prescriptive; “oughts”)?
What is the Intuitionist’s answer to the question “what makes right things right”?
And how do they think that we come to know what is right?
I alleged that Intuitionists don’t have any evidence at all that there is such a thing as a
moral sense, and that there is such a thing as rightness and wrongness in the world.
Why not?
What do you take to be the best objection against Intuitionism, and why?
How would a non-naturalist criticize the following argument: “Facts from biology
show us to be natural hunters and carnivores; therefore it’s morally permissible for us
to hunt and eat meat.”
Wittgenstein distinguishes between relative evaluations (like: “a good runner”) and
absolute evaluations. Why does he think the former can be reduced to ordinary
matters of fact while the latter cannot?
Questions on Subjectivisms Please answer question #1 and choose a second question
from among the remaining four to answer.
[20 points]
1.
F.
What is right is (definable as) giving people what they deserve.
What is right is (definable as) maximizing the amount of goodness in the world.
What is right is (definable as) the actions that all societies agree are right.
What is right is (definable as) the thing I most desire to do at any given moment.
What is right is (definable as) whatever my mom told me was right.
2.
3.
4.
5.
[10 points]
Intuitionists think that ethical claims are synonymous with reports about your
intuitions.
Relativists are naturalists.
Emotivists think that there is no such thing as a reason for an ethical attitude.
Intuitionists are naturalists.
Divine Command Theory is consistent with the view that God acted with a good
reason when He commanded us how we ought to behave.