Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues, 4th Edition Test Bank

Preview (16 of 101 Pages)

100%

Purchase to unlock

Loading page image...

Consider EthicsFourth EditionBruce N. WallerInstructor’s Resource Manualand Test BankTracy Grenier

Loading page image...

Table of Contents1. Thinking About Ethics12. Thinking Critically About Ethics73. Egoism and Relativism134. Ethics and Emotions205. Ethics and Reason266. Intuitionism327. Reflective Equilibrium388. Utilitarian Ethics439. Social Contract Ethics4910. Care Ethics5511. Virtue Ethics6012. Pluralism and Pragmatism6613. Moral Realism Versus MoralAnti-Realism7114. The Scope of Morality7915. Free Will and Moral Responsibility85Appendix A – G93

Loading page image...

1Chapter 1: Thinking About EthicsSummaryThe text discusses the goals of studying ethics. It will explore how to think carefully, critically, andeffectively, along with how to avoid errors in thinking. Some people believe that ethics is not based onreasoning, but is built upon emotions, feelings, and intuitions. Other people believe there are noobjectively true ethical principles. The chapter explores the arguments for and against theologicalvoluntarism—the principle that ethical principles depend on what God wills. A number of ethicistsbelieve there are no fixed facts in ethics and that any attempt to reach basic objective ethical principles isdoomed to failure. Religion also influences ethical inquiry. If a person rejects religious voluntarism, itdoes not mean that religions considerations are also rejected. The text considers what ethics might bebased on if they are not based on God’s will.Studying Ethics1.1. Summarize the goals of studying ethics.Ethics is the discipline that explores how we should live and how we should act. Ethical inquiry takesinto account the findings of psychology and sociology, but it is distinct from them. It is not the intentionof this book to make you a better person. This book will help you explore a wide range of different, andoften conflicting, accounts of ethics. You can then decide where your own views fit. This book isdesigned to give you an opportunity to think carefully about some major issues in metaethics (the studyof the nature of ethics) and some specific ethical questions. It is possible throughout this course, thatyour views on certain issues may change.The Nature of Ethical PrinciplesThere are many good places to start an examination of ethics, but one of the most disputed questions is:What kinds of truths are ethical truths? Are they eternal, absolute, and universal, known only by somespecial power; or are they more common ordinary facts that are part of our world that can be known byordinary means? Philosophers have taken various stands with regard to moral truths. Plato believed thatmoral principles are eternal truths that are known only through pure reason—reason that sees through thesenses and discovers the fixed, immutable truth. Aristotle regarded moral principles as basic guides toliving a good life. Moses found truth on a mountaintop, in the presence of God. Descartes believed thatGod implants moral principles in our minds as innate ideas. Kant discovered the basic governingprinciple of morality through rigorous reasoning. Thomas Hobbes believed that morality is a collectionof self-interested agreements that contributed to a more peaceful society. Bentham asserted that the basicmoral principle is to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. Hume insisted that morality is rooted inthe affection that humans feel for one another.Knowing Ethical PrinciplesThose who believe in absolute moral principles believe theymustexist. They are universal, eternal,moral principles that are unconditionally true whether one recognizes them or not. Some claim that thetruths are dictated by God; others believe that each of us has a conscience or moral sense that implants inus basic moral truths.Natural Morality versus Transcendent MoralityIs morality something that risesabovethe natural world? Is morality something thattranscendsthenatural world? Is morality a more natural process, based on our emotions or on rules we draw up forpromoting social harmony? People have strong opinions about these questions. Those who opposeabsolute ethics have little patience with the transcendent absolutism favored by Halverson and others.They believe denying transcendent absolutes does not lead to moral anarchy and that the benefits ofcooperation and honesty require neither divine sanction nor special insight.

Loading page image...

2God’s Commandments and Ethics1.2. Analyze the arguments for and against theological voluntarism.One of the most common views of ethical principles is that they are tied to the commands of a divinebeing. This view is referred to as theological volunteerism or the Divine Command theory of ethics.Theological volunteerism holds that a law or principle is right if and only if it is willed (commanded) byGod. Something is good because God wills it to be so, not because God recognizes it to be good. Forexample, God does not condemn murder because it is wrong. Murder is wrong because God says it iswrong. Many people turn to religion for ethical guidance. There are some who insist that their personalreligious beliefs provide the only acceptable ethical standards. There are contradictions in religious textsabout many questions of right and wrong.Ethical Principles as Divine CommandmentsTheological volunteerism raises serious questions about the relationship between ethics and religion. Ifethics is based on God's commands, there are two questions we might ask about the nature of thesecommand: (1) Is something moral/ethical/right because God commands it, or (2) does God commandsomething because it is moral? These questions expose a tension between the religious views of ancientGreek philosophy, particularly Aristotle, and the religion of the ancient Hebrews. Aristotle’s God isperfect, completely self-sufficient, and unchanging. The God of Abraham changes His mind often, andHe rewards and punishes people.Problems with Theological VoluntarismTheological voluntarists believe that God is the sole arbiter of ethics that the ethical principles orcommandments laid down by God are absolute, universal, and eternal. They are not subject to criticalexamination or questioning. Critically examining ethical principles requires involving standards of ethicaljudgmentindependentof God’s commands. Many religious people have a great respect for reason and useit to understand their religion. For theological voluntarists, reason is more likely to be an enemy rather thanan ally. Some argue whether such total unthinking devotion would qualify as ethical behavior at all.Rachels argues that only those who exercise free will are capable of acting ethically.God’s Law and PunishmentThe intersection of religion and ethics raises another fundamental distinction in ethics, namely, thedifference between moral motivation and moral justification. It is possible that the person of faith endorsestheological volunteerism because of the possibility of divine punishment. While this may provide one witha motive for obeying God’s commands, it does not justify the commands themselves. One may bemotivated to act in accordance with certain rules, without reflecting on whether the rules are ones thatought to be followed.Religion and Ethics1.3. Outline the influence of religion on ethical inquiry.If we reject theological voluntarism, it does not imply the rejection of religious considerations in terms ofour inquiry into ethics. Martin Luther King’s civil rights campaign drew heavily on religious symbolism.Religious parables and traditions have often stimulated reform movements and have encouraged us to lookmore closely at our lives, habits, and assumptions. So, if ethics is not based on God’s will or God’spunishments, what is the basis of ethics?

Loading page image...

3Discussion1. Several films have explored explicitly or implicitly the problems with accepting theologicalvolunteerism or divine command theory. InThe Name of the Rosethe inquisitor Bernardo Gui justifiesthe torture and killing of supposed heretics on theological grounds. How can we know which commandsare genuinely from God? Show part or all of the film and examine the implications and problems withtheological volunteerism. Consider a present-day ethical question, such as: Is drug addiction a braindisease or a moral failing? Discuss how questions of ethics might determine how people are treated foraddiction.Activities1. The U.S. Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage nationwide in 2015. Should the government beable to decide who marries whom? People on all sides of this question often use religious or moralarguments to support their views. Have students research same sex marriage in the United States. Haveeach student take a position on the question. Facilitate a roundtable discussion where students use theirresearch to support their opinions.2. Although many churches are Christian, not all Christian churches share the same outlook onindividual moral issues. Ask the students to create a chart comparing the moral positions of severaldifferent denominations on a topic such as abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality, or marriage.

Loading page image...

4True/False Questions1.Metaethics is the study of moral rules, norms and principles that guide or govern human action. ______Answer: False2.Plato believed moral principles are eternal truths that are only known through reason. ______Answer: True3.The wordtranscendmeans to go beyond the limits of something. ______Answer: True4.Theological voluntarism is also referred to as Divine Command theory. ______Answer: True5.Western religious tradition has struggled to combine the views of ancient Roman philosophy with thereligion of the first Christians. _____Answer: False6.Aristotle’s God changes His mind frequently. ______Answer: FalseMultiple Choice Questions1. This philosopher believed that God implants moral principles in our mind as innate ideas.A. AristotleB. DescartesC. HobbesD. SocratesAnswer: B. Descartes2. The belief that what is moral or immoral is commanded by God is known asA. moral relativism.B. moral absolutism.C. theological voluntarism.D. theological noncognitivism.Answer: C. theological voluntarism.3. This religious leader referred to reason as “the Devil’s greatest whore.”A. MosesB. SocratesC. PythagorasD. Martin LutherAnswer: D. Martin Luther

Loading page image...

54. One implication of accepting the premise that what is moral is moral in virtue of God’scommanding it is thatA. there must be a moral standard independent of God.B. there must be one God.C. what is moral is arbitrary.D. God is not a necessary for there to be morality.Answer: C. what is moral is arbitrary.

Loading page image...

6Short Answer Questions1.Are ethical principles fixed or changing? Explain your response.Answer: Student responses should be supported by evidence or reasoning.2.In the text, the author asks the reader to considerhowto think carefully, critically, and effectively. Whatdoes this proposition mean to you?Answer: Student responses should be supported by evidence or reasoning.3.What is the difference between moral motivation and moral justification?Answer: A motive might be a reward or punishment for doing or not doing something. Justification is anacceptable reason for doing something.4.What two questions can we ask of someone who holds that “moral” equals “what God commands?”Answer: Is a law right because God commands it? Does God command a law because it is right?Essay Questions1.Explain the difference between natural morality and transcendent morality.Answer: Student responses should be supported by evidence or reasoning.2.What two questions are raised by theological volunteerism (Divine Command theory)? What are theimplications of holding one or the other true?Answer: Student responses should be supported by evidence or reasoning.3.Do you agree with Rachels notion that only those who exercise free will are capable of actingethically? If you subject your will to the external commands of others, are you acting slavishly? Explainyour response.Answer: Student responses should be supported by evidence or reasoning.

Loading page image...

7Chapter 2: Thinking Critically About EthicsSummaryEthics requires that we be clear on the questions we seek answers to. You may decide that there are nomoral objective facts in ethics. You may also decide that there are objective moral facts. Understandingethical questions requires being able to identify which premises are relevant to the conclusion. Changingone’s beliefs in light of better arguments or new information is a sign of clear and honest thinking. Badforms of reasoning include: Red Herring/Irrelevant reason, Ad Hominem, Principle of Charity,Strawman Fallacy, and Inconsistency.What’s the Question?2.1. Determine the exact conclusion and distinguish relevant from irrelevant arguments.When considering ethics, it is important to be clear on exactly what question is being considered. Whenexamining an argument, think aboutpreciselywhat the argument is supposed to be proving. Make sureyou clearly understand what theconclusionof the argument is. The relevance of an argument is notdetermined by whether a claim is true or false but whether itmattersif the claim is true or false. Forexample, a false claim by a witness in a trial may be relevant because a defendant may go to prisonbecause of the false statement. When a person uses an irrelevant point in support of a conclusion, we saythe person has committed afallacy, or argument error, ofirrelevant reason. This is also known as thered herringfallacy.Ad Hominem Fallacy2.2. Recognize ad hominem arguments and distinguish legitimate uses of ad hominem from ad hominemfallacies.Anad hominemfallacy is an attack on thesource of the argument. If someone presents an argument, wemust evaluate the merits of the argument itself, not the merits of the person making the argument. If youattack the source of the argument in order to discredit the argument, you have committed anad hominemfallacy. It is important to keep this point in mind because many arguments can become intensely personal.Not allad hominemattacks are fallacious. For example, in the O.J. Simpson trial, the defense made an adhominem attack on Mark Fuhrman. In order to evaluate Fuhrman’s testimony, the jury needed to know ifhe was a credible witness.The Principle of Charity and the Strawman Fallacy2.3. Focus on the strongest version of arguments and avoid the strawman fallacy.Theprinciple of charitysupports the idea that you should interpret opposing views and arguments asgenerously, fairly, and honestly as possible. Resist the temptation to score cheap points and win falsevictories by misrepresenting opposing views. When someone distorts or misrepresents a position in orderto make it easier to attack, it is called thestrawman fallacy. Always represent opposing views in theirstrongest and most plausible form.Appeal to Authority2.4. Recognize the limits of appeal to authority in ethics.In order for anappeal to authorityto be legitimate, it must meet certain conditions. First, the authority to whomyou appeal must be an expertin the appropriate area. Second, the subject on which we appeal to authority mustbe the one in which there isgeneral agreementamong authorities on that subject. We cannot legitimatelyappeal to authority to settle ethics issues because there is no general agreement among such authorities.

Loading page image...

8Consistency2.5. Appreciate the importance of argument consistency.A key question in examining ethical views is whether they are internally consistent and whether they areconsistent with our other beliefs. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”Emerson believed that it is okay for people to change their minds. He believed in keeping an open mind, but itshouldn’t be so open that it allows internal contradictions.Analogies2.6. Understand the different forms of analogy and how deductive arguments by analogy work.An analogy is a comparison of two things, usually for explanation or clarification. Using analogy can be aneffective way to convince someone to change his or her point of view. It can also be an effective way toevaluate the legitimacy of one’s own views. Figurative analogies don’t prove anything. They are illustrations.They are not effective as arguments or proofs.Deductive arguments by analogydo offer arguments, and theycan be powerful and persuasive. There are two ways to dispute deductive arguments by analogy. First, you canreject the basic starting point of the analogy. Second, you can accept the starting point of the analogy but thenargue that the analogy itself is flawed. For the second option, you must explain why the two cases are notanalogous.

Loading page image...

9Discussion1. There are many films that explore questions of ethics. In the 1981 filmWhose Life is itAnyway?, asculptor who is paralyzed from the neck down sues the hospital he is in for the right to be allowed to die.Show part or all of the film and examine the different kinds of arguments the parties make about theirpositions on the question. Compare the issues examined in the film to an ethical question you have had toconsider in your own life.Activities1. Logical fallacies are often found in the editorial pages, and letters to the editor pages of the local andnational newspapers (not to mention blog posts and comments). Have the students find an article from anewspaper, magazine, blog, etc. that commits one of the logical fallacies discussed in the text.2. President Donald Trump frequently uses red herrings in order to distract the media and the public frominvestigations conducted on his administration. Have students search online for examples of red herringsTrump has used during his presidency. Invite groups of students to share what they found with the class.

Loading page image...

10True/False Questions1.The first step in critical thinking is to understand the issue in question. ______Answer: True2.A red herring is used to attack a person who is making an argument. ______Answer: False3.Not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious. ______Answer: True4.People can appeal to authority to support arguments on ethics questions. ______Answer: False5.An arguer that uses an irrelevant point to support his or her position commits a red herring. ______Answer: True6.Attacking the person presenting an argument rather than the argument itself is tocommit the strawman fallacy. ______Answer: FalseMultiple Choice Questions1. Misrepresenting or distorting the argument of one’s opponent in order to make it easierto attack is called a (an):A. ad hominem fallacy.B.strawman fallacy.C.red herring.D. fallacy of irrelevant reason.Answer: B. strawman fallacy2. Steve believes that the universe came into being by accident. Joe says Steve does notbelieve in God, so nobody should accept his opinion. This is an example of a(an)______________fallacy.A. red herringB.strawmanC.ad hominemD. principle of charityAnswer: C. ad hominem3. “President Obama’s arguments for a public option to be included in the health care reformbill can’t possibly be good. After all, he has all of his medical needs taken care of by aprivate doctor.” This argument commits which of the following fallacies:A. ad hominem fallacyB.strawman fallacyC.red herringD. fallacy of irrelevant reasonAnswer: D. fallacy of irrelevant reason

Loading page image...

114. A person believes in freedom of speech but believes music with obscene lyrics should be banned. Theperson may be criticized for:A. charity.B.irrelevancy.C.inconsistency.D. hypocrisy.Answer: C. inconsistency

Loading page image...

12Short Answer Questions1.What does it mean for an ethical view to be consistent?Answer: The argument is internally consistent and also consistent with our other beliefs.2.What is the principle of charity?Answer: This principle interpret arguments that oppose yours generously, fairly, and honestly.3.How did the George W. Bush administration use a red herring in the lead-up to war?Answer: They spent a lot of time talking about the importance of fighting terrorism. The real question wasabout whether Iraq was supporting terrorist activities or providing weapons of mass destruction toterrorists.4.A witness in a murder trial wants to testify about the character of the victim instead of about when he orshe last saw the victim alive. Is the witness’s testimony relevant or not? Explain your answer.Answer: Student responses should be supported by evidence or reasoning.Essay Questions1. The 1960 filmPsychouses several red herrings to distract the view from finding out who the realmurder is. Choose a film you like. Briefly describe how a red herring is used in the film.Answer: Student responses should be supported by evidence or reasoning.2. Not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious. Describe an example of an ad hominem argument thatis legitimate.Answer: Student responses should be supported by evidence or reasoning.3. Samantha and Rajiv are having a discussion. Samantha says that women should make the samemoney as men for the same work. Rajiv says it is discrimination to pay men less than women. Describethe type of fallacy being used in this example. Make suggestions for improving the quality of theargument.Answer: Student responses should be supported by evidence or reasoning.

Loading page image...

13Chapter 3: Egoism and RelativismSummaryIt is useful to consider ethical egoism and cultural relativism together, even though they are very differenttheories. The ethical egoist believes that whatever benefitsmeis the right thing to do. The cultural relativistbelieves that whatever mycultureapproves is what I should do. Advocates of both views presentthemselves as tough-minded and scientifically-oriented. Cultural relativism may broaden ourunderstanding of cultures, promote tolerance, and encourage us to examine the motives and consequencesof promoting cultural reform. However, if cultural relativism is true, we cannot believe the customs ofanother culture are morally wrong. If cultural relativism is true we can decide if actions are right or wrongby considering the standards of our society. This is a real problem if a person considers him or herself amember of more than one culture. There is also little or no hope of being able to change customs for thebetter.Egoism3.1. Differentiate between the philosophical implications of psychological and ethical egoism.Egoism comes in two varieties:psychological egoism: the view that all of our behavior is selfish andethical egoism: the belief that we should always act in a way that is self-interested. If one is both apsychological and an ethical egoist, one believes that everyone always and inevitably does right.Selfishness is a virtue, and we cannot avoid acting selfishly and virtuously.Psychological EgoismPsychological egoismis the view that as a matter of empirical psychological fact, all our behavior isselfish, or self-interested. Although several convincing examples can be given in support of selfish orself-interested behavior, psychological egoism—as a scientific theory—fails the test of falsifiability. Ifpsychological egoism is a scientific account of human behavior, then one should able to state what wouldcount as evidence against the position. But, all acts that might count against the theory are immediatelyreinterpreted in terms of selfishness or self-interest. Thus, psychological egoists tend to espouse a beliefand not an empirically testable claim. If it is an empirical claim, then it must be possible to tell what sortof empirical evidence would count against the claim. Not even the most generous act escapes the clutchesof egoistic selfishness. Nothing could count as an unselfish act because every purposeful act has somemotivation, and the egoist redefines all motivations as selfish. Selfish egoism is not a universal truth.Unselfish generosity exists in humans and in other species. Genuine empathy is the norm in our species,and empathy motivates acts of altruism, generosity, and care.Criticisms of Psychological EgoismPsychological egoism is supposed to be an empirical claim. It is not based on logic, or pure reasoning, ordefinition. It is based on empirical observation and testing. There is no need to provide evidence that aclaim is false. Not even the most generous, selfless, and noble act is free of egoistic selflessness. Thepersuasiveness of psychological egoism rests on a special and all-inclusive meaning of selfishness. Wecan find examples of unselfish generosity in humans and in other animals.Ethical EgoismEthical egoismis the view that we ought to always act in a way that is self-interested. There are at least twoversions of ethical egoism:individualethical egoism anduniversalethical egoism. The individual egoistmaintains that everyone should do what benefitsme. Universal ethical egoism is the position of extremerugged individualism: everyone should focus on what benefits them and should neither give, ask for, norreceive help from others. It is very difficult to tell how many individual ethical egoists there are becausethey have no moral opposition to lying themselves, though they may object to other people lying to them.

Preview Mode

This document has 101 pages. Sign in to access the full document!

Report

Study Now!

Document Details

Related Documents

Microsoft vs

Philosophers on Authority, Property, and Society

The Deadly Picnic A Lab on Deductive Reasoning

A Heart-Wrenching Tale of Sacrifice and Ethical Di

The Concept of the Übermensch in Nietzschean Philo

Symbolic Logic and Truth-Functional Statements

Assignment 1 World View Chart Writing Assignment � World religions paper

Understanding Logical Reasoning and Argumentation in Critical Thinking

Analyzing Logical Fallacies and Inferences: A Study of Reasoning and Argumentation

Exam IV: Exploring Alan Watts's Philosophical Perspectives: Games, Dualities, and the Illusion of Self

Company

Explore

Study Tools