Term
| Why do so many young people today come into college talking like relativists? |
|
Definition
| Because the so-called "Common Core" standards used by most US public schools require students to distinguish between FACT and OPINION as though they were mutually exclusive |
|
|
Term
| How do public schools commonly define the terms "fact" and "opinion"? |
|
Definition
Facts: Statements that are true and can be tested or proven (i.e. Justified and True)
Opinion: Statements that reflect a person's own thoughts, feelings, or beliefs, and cannot be proved true (i.e. Belief) |
|
|
Term
| What are students in most US public schools taught about facts and opinions? |
|
Definition
They are taught that a claim can *only* be a fact or an opinion, not both. Thus students are taught that an opinion is neither true nor false.
Students are furthermore taught that all value or moral claims are "opinions," and are therefore not factual. Thus there are no moral facts, and thus no moral truths! |
|
|
Term
| When dogmas conflict, what does that suggest about truth? |
|
Definition
Not that all dogmas are true relative to a person's experience, but that some of those dogmas must be false.
The opposite of dogmatism is not relativism but fallibilism. |
|
|
Term
| What's wrong with the public school view of facts and opinions? |
|
Definition
Their distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is a false dichotomy; in other words, it's not either-or.
A statement can be both a fact and an opinion. In fact, all "facts" believed to be true are also "opinions." For instance, I *believe* George Washington was the first US President. It is also true that he was, and the research backs it up.
Thus there's no reason to think that a moral opinion (i.e. "It's wrong to murder") can't also be factual! |
|
|
Term
| What is cultural relativism? |
|
Definition
| Cultural relativism is the view that there are no universal moral truths - thus the only standard for what's right or wrong is what a particular culture decides for its own members. |
|
|
Term
| What's the typical argument for cultural relativism? Is it valid? |
|
Definition
1. Different cultures have different moral codes, which include basic moral beliefs that conflict with those of other cultures (for instance, Americans think infanticide is wrong, but many Eskimos approve of it).
2. Thus there are no universally applicable, objective truths in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, which vary from culture to culture.
This is an invalid argument because premise 2 does not follow from premise 1. Disagreement does not entail a lack of objectivity. You and I may disagree that God exists, but that doesn't mean He both exists and doesn't exist! |
|
|
Term
| What are the three big problems that arise from cultural relativism? |
|
Definition
1. No Intercultural Critique
We'd have no basis for saying the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. For instance, we couldn't condemn the political oppression going on in Hong Kong or Venezuela.
2. No Intracultural Critique
We'd have no basis for criticizing our own culture's moral code. For instance, we wouldn't be able to oppose systemic racism or sexism.
3. No Moral Progress
Unable to criticize any culture (including our own), society would never improve. America may never have gotten rid of slavery, and the efforts of MLK and Gandhi would have been meaningless. |
|
|
Term
| What's a more intuitive argument against cultural relativism? |
|
Definition
| In many cultures, it's culturally acceptable to perform female circumcision, or to abduct and rape women (as in Kyrgyzstan), or to behead a woman for not wearing a hijab (as in Saudi Arabia and Iran), or to sexually abuse young boys (as in Afghanistan), or to perform third-trimester abortion. Given these practices are all culturally accepted, does that make them right in your mind? Or does something matter more than cultural context? |
|
|
Term
| What is Divine Command Theory? |
|
Definition
A theory of ethics that morality wholly depends upon what God commands.
Thus what makes an action right or wrong is whether the action accords or conflicts with what God commands. |
|
|
Term
| What happens in Plato's Euthyphro? |
|
Definition
| On the way to his own trial, Socrates runs into Euthyphro, a self-proclaimed expert on piety. Euthyphro is at court to prosecute his own father for murder, as his father bound and threw a murderous servant into a ditch, leaving him to die. Socrates questions Euthyphro's extremely taboo decision of prosecuting his father, but Euthyphro defends his actions as pious; prompting Socrates to discuss with him the definition of piety. |
|
|
Term
| What are Euthyphro's three definitions of piety, and Socrates's responses? |
|
Definition
E1. What I'm doing now is pious: prosecuting a man for murder, no matter if he's my father or not!
S1. That's just an *example* of piety; what is the *form* of piety that applies to all situations?
E2. What the gods love is pious; what they hate is impious.
S2. Some gods love A, and other gods hate A, or love ~A. Since the Greek gods disagree, this definition isn't helpful.
E3. What *all* the gods love is pious; what *all* the gods hate is impious.
S3. Euthyphro's Dilemma: Is the pious thing loved by the gods because it's pious, or is the thing pious because it's being loved by the gods? |
|
|
Term
| What makes Euthyphro's Dilemma so tricky? |
|
Definition
If a thing is loved by the gods because it is pious, then it must have been pious even without the gods' saying so. Thus we still have no definition of piety.
If a thing is pious because it is loved by the gods, then there would be no reason for them to choose whether a thing is to be loved or not - piety would be completely arbitrary. Even if you say the gods chose to love something because it was beneficial, something other than the god's love made it "pious." |
|
|
Term
| How does Euthyphro's Dilemma apply to God's Biblical commandments? |
|
Definition
Why am I morally obligated to follow the command, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"?
If it's just because God commanded it, wouldn't that make the commandment arbitrary? Why would God choose to command it?
If God commanded it because it's morally obligatory, wouldn't that suggest that there's a standard of right and wrong higher than God? Does this mean that morality doesn't fall under God's sovereignty?
It doesn't mean that, because God doesn't *command* morality - He *is* morality. Things are right and wrong because you do them out of love, and God by His very nature *is* love. |
|
|
Term
| Who are the two major figures of Utilitarianism? |
|
Definition
| Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill |
|
|
Term
| What is Utilitarianism, according to Mill? |
|
Definition
| "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure." |
|
|
Term
| What are the three key features of classical Utilitarianism? |
|
Definition
I. Hedonism
Happiness (pleasure and the privation of pain) is the only *intrinsically* valuable thing, and that's why all human behavior should be aimed at achieving happiness.
II. Consequentialism
We can determine whether an action is right or wrong by looking at the consequences of the action to see how much happiness vs. unhappiness it brings about.
III. Universalism
Everyone's happiness matters. |
|
|
Term
| What, according to Mill, is the only intrinsic good? What is his reasoning? |
|
Definition
Happiness is the only intrinsic good, and pain is the only intrinsic evil.
Something is desirable because it either (a) is pleasurable in itself (eating chocolate) or (b) is instrumental in bringing about happiness (getting money) |
|
|
Term
| What are three challenges against Utilitarianism? |
|
Definition
1. Hedonism: Is pleasure the only good? Pain the only evil?
Aren't there pleasurable, painless situations that nonetheless seem intuitively to be bad? Like stepping on pain-free naked mole rats, or raping a comatose patient
2. Consequentialism: Are consequences the only determinant of morality?
Aren't there cases that involve net good consequences but still seem wrong? Like killing one baby to harvest its organs and save ten other babies
3. Universalism: Should we be concerned equally for every person's happiness?
Between saving a stranger's two children from death and saving your own child, who would you choose? |
|
|
Term
| What, according to Kant, is the only intrinsic good? What's his argument for it? |
|
Definition
A good will is the only intrinsic good.
1. The only possible candidates for being intrinsically good things (for some reason) are talents of mind (i.e. character traits or virtues), gifts of fortune (i.e. riches, health, happiness), or a good will.
2. But talents of mind can be used to do evil things (courage can be used for robbery).
3. And gifts of fortune can be used to do evil things (happiness can lead to arrogance).
4. Thus all that's left is good will. |
|
|
Term
| What, according to Kant, is "good will"? |
|
Definition
A good will is a will that (a) does its duty (b) for the sake of doing its duty.
Duty being the "right thing" - you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. |
|
|
Term
| What are examples of a failure of good will, according to Kant? |
|
Definition
1. Failing to do your duty
Instead of washing the dishes like you promised, you ate 47 cookies.
2. Doing your duty by accident
You washed the dishes, but only because you happened to soak them while having a soap water fight with your uncle.
3. Doing your duty for selfish reasons
You only wash the dishes because you hope it will impress your uncle enough to make him give you 47 cookies.
4. Doing your duty out of habit (or "prior inclination")
You only wash the dishes because it is a part of your uncle's Nazi-like regime. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
An ethical theory (championed by Immanuel Kant) that evaluates morality by the fulfillment of duty, or a good will.
Morality isn't about BEING happy (as utilitarians suggest) but about DESERVING happiness. |
|
|
Term
| What determines one's duty, according to Kant? What are the two types of imperatives or "oughts" according to Kant? |
|
Definition
Duty is determined by reason.
Reason offers two types of imperatives: Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives.
Hypothetical Imperatives depend on a specific goal or desire. If you want this, you gotta do that. If you don't want to do this, then fine! you don't get that!
Categorical Imperatives don't depend on any goal and apply to all situations. Do this! If you don't, that's too bad! it's wrong!
Only Categorical Imperatives define morality. |
|
|
Term
| What is the only Categorical Imperative, according to Kant? (he formulates it in two ways) |
|
Definition
Basically the golden rule: treat others as you would yourself, don't treat others as you wouldn't yourself.
His first formulation of it is this:
"Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become universal law."
A "maxim" being the principle behind your actions. If you can't wish your principle to apply universally, it's immoral.
For instance, I couldn't universalize the maxim "I will end my life to make it better" because it's self-contradictory.
I can't universalize "I will make a false promise to gain an advantage" because if everyone did that, the very notion of a promise would break down and it would be impossible to gain an advantage through a false promise.
Immoral situations are bad NOT because of consequences, but because they are logically contradictory. They don't work practically.
His second formulation is this:
"So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only..."
Treat people as ends-in-themselves, never as means only. |
|
|
Term
| What are the two major concerns for Kantian Deontology? |
|
Definition
1. Problem of Rigidity
Kant says it is NEVER permissible to lie. But what if I'm hiding Jews from Nazis? What if my mother is terminally ill and only has a chance of recovering while she has hope she could make it? What if my father asks what happened to the illegitimate child he was so guilty for giving away for adoption 23 years ago when the truth is the child was thrown off a train?
2. Problem of Conflicting Duties
If moral duties have no exceptions, what do you do when they conflict each other? Should I shoot one of ten innocent people in the head, or allow my superior to shoot them all, including me? |
|
|
Term
| What is a "state," according to Robert Paul Wolff? |
|
Definition
The person (or group of persons) who possesses and can exercise supreme authority within a given territory or over a certain population
The distinctive property of a state is the *possession of supreme authority* over a given territory or people |
|
|
Term
| Name some varieties of "states" |
|
Definition
Monarchy: the monarch IS the state, insofar as he or she possesses supreme authority
Oligarchy: The ruling class is the state, insofar as the ruling class possesses supreme authority
Democracy: The people are the state, insofar as the people possess supreme authority |
|
|
Term
| What is power? What is authority? What's the difference? |
|
Definition
Power: The *ability* to command obedience or compel compliance.
(i.e. I shove you out of the way because I am stronger)
Authority: The *right* to command obedience or compel compliance.
(i.e. I demand $20 for washing your car)
The key difference is legitimacy: authority is always legitimate, but power can go either way. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The view that there is no such thing as a legitimate governing authority |
|
|
Term
| According to Wolff, what does it require for somebody to be responsible, or take responsibility? |
|
Definition
They must be both FREE and RATIONAL
If you're forced against your will to do something bad, you aren't responsible for your actions.
If you simply don't understand that what you're doing is bad, you aren't responsible for your actions. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The ability to *choose* to do *whatever you want* to do.
So both voluntariness and the ability to choose a different action. For instance, you wouldn't necessarily have freedom in a locked room full of all your favorite people and things. Maybe you wouldn't want to leave, but if you did you still wouldn't be able to. |
|
|
Term
| What, according to Wolff, is the key assumption behind all moral judgments? |
|
Definition
| That people are responsible for their actions. Thus we can rightly punish or praise people for them. |
|
|
Term
| What, according to Wolff, is required of free, rational people? |
|
Definition
He who is both free and fully rational has an obligation *to take full responsibility for his own actions.*
Because you are fully in control of yourself, and because you are fully aware of what you are doing, you have no excuse to do wrong.
As a free person, no one else can make you behave the way you do. Ultimately, *you* decide how to behave. Thus you are *self-governing,* or *autonomous* |
|
|
Term
| What, according to Wolff, is the relationship between autonomy and state authority? |
|
Definition
Wolff contends that being an autonomous, self-legislating individual stands in tension with the very concept of state authority.
"The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled [by others]. It would seem, then, that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state."
So someone may still comply with laws, but only for their own sake (i.e. to avoid jail time) - not because the laws morally obligate them. |
|
|
Term
| What is Robert Paul Wolff's argument for anarchism? |
|
Definition
1. Individual autonomy is of supreme value, and it obligates individuals to act ONLY according to reasons they deem to be good reasons.
2. Autonomy is in conflict with the idea that states have authority over individuals.
3. Thus, states can have no moral authority over individuals, and anarchy is the only political doctrine worth endorsing. |
|
|
Term
THOUGHTS: Is individual autonomy really the supreme value? Does it outweigh things like peace, wellbeing, or even truth?
Is it really impossible for autonomous individuals to transfer their authority to others? (i.e. the state) |
|
Definition
I say the supreme value is love, and autonomy is merely a means of achieving it. But I think the idea is that autonomy is something that exists necessarily in all situations. That is to say, whenever you do something voluntarily, it's always YOU doing it.
But I do think it's possible to willingly agree to comply with outside authority (i.e. transfer authority to others). Yes, in the end, only YOU are the captain of your own ship, but you still need a greater intelligence to know how to steer clear of the rocks and other ships passing by. |
|
|
Term
| What is the major question of government? |
|
Definition
| When can you be forced or prevented against your will? |
|
|
Term
| What is Hobbes's "state of nature"? What qualities do people possess in this state? |
|
Definition
How we would (presumably) be in our most natural state. A society without government, laws, rulers, police, etc. Just people who are:
Free
Rational
Self-Interested
Equal
(that is, equally capable of pursuing their own interests) |
|
|
Term
| What is the problem of society in a state of nature? |
|
Definition
Everyone is equally free to pursue their self-interest, but the resources are limited. Everyone wants the same thing, but there's not enough to go around.
This would result in a "state of war," where anything goes. There would be no progress, no science, no art, no technology, a constant fear of death, "and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Clearly this should motivate us to find some way out of the state of nature! |
|
|
Term
| According to Hobbes, how do we exit the state of nature? |
|
Definition
Social Contract Theory
Individuals agree with one another to forfeit some portion of the liberties in the state of nature *on the condition that others do so as well.*
To give up pursuing self-interest *by any means necessary* as long as everyone does the same.
This "social contract" legitimizes the authority of the state, as everyone willingly agrees to give some of their authority to it. |
|
|
Term
| What are the three basic laws of Hobbes's social contract? |
|
Definition
1. Endeavor peace as far as possible; self-defense is permissible when peace isn't possible.
2. Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. (inverse golden rule)
3. Perform your end of the bargain in any covenants entered into.
Laws 1 and 2 prevent people from harming each other, and law 3 allows contracts and agreements to exist. I give up my ability to defy these laws, but it's to my advantage as no one else can defy them either. |
|
|
Term
| What, according to Hobbes, enforces the social contract? |
|
Definition
The Leviathan
A political state that has the power and authority to enforce agreed-upon laws. It has legitimate authority in that free and self-interested individuals consent to be governed by it! |
|
|
Term
| What is the relationship between government and individual? |
|
Definition
| It is an inverse relationship: the more authority the state has, the less liberty an individual has. |
|
|
Term
| How have people handled the tension between government and individuals? |
|
Definition
People limited state authority by writing documents such as the Magna Carta or the US Constitution.
Essentially, the government collapsed into the governed, resulting in a majoritarian democracy (i.e. majority rules). People appointed representatives to speak for the people. |
|
|
Term
| According to John Stuart Mill, what is the problem with majoritarian democracy? |
|
Definition
The majority is able to place unfair restriction upon a minority of its citizens. We end up with "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule."
For instance, Jim Crow laws were passed by majority rule because whites outnumbered blacks. But in the process, blacks unfairly lost their liberties. |
|
|
Term
| What is Mill's solution to majoritarian democracy? |
|
Definition
Liberal Democracy
We need a schedule of legal rights that specify the liberties that cannot be eliminated even by majority vote! |
|
|
Term
| According to Mill, what would justify limits to majority rule? |
|
Definition
What justifies the rights against majority opinion is their UTILITY. In other words, these limits maximize happiness for the greatest amount of people.
He rejects the idea that these rights are natural (as Hobbes, Locke, and the Founding Fathers profess), and agrees with Jeremy Bentham who describes this idea as "nonsense upon stilts." |
|
|
Term
| What is Mill's suggested limit to majority opinion? |
|
Definition
The Harm Principle (or "Nonaggression Principle")
"[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection...[T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
The only reason to limit a person's liberty is to prevent them from harming others. |
|
|
Term
THOUGHTS:
Do seatbelt laws satisfy Mill's harm principle?
How about legal restrictions against selling alcohol on Sunday?
How would it factor into abortion?
Would Mill support or oppose bans on same-sex marriage? |
|
Definition
I'd argue yes, since your own death could be an immense unhappiness to others. But yeah, the fact the harm principle excludes self-protection is an annoying technicality. I think it's just an assumed thing.
The alcohol thing doesn't seem to line up with the harm principle since it seems irrelevant to the harm of others, but I suppose it gets sticky if this law is being suggested for religious reasons. Even then, I fail to see how it could relate.
As for abortion, it depends entirely on if you think the fetus is being "harmed" or not. That is to say, if you consider it enough of a living human being to have rights. If it has rights, abortion violates the harm principle since it harms the fetus. If it doesn't have rights, abortion doesn't violate the harm principle; arguably, the refusal of abortion could violate the woman's rights. Very sticky situation.
Based on the harm principle alone, I would expect Mill to reject bans on same-sex marriage, as gay sex has no clear negative consequences on anyone. Rather, the ban would violate the gay couple's rights. |
|
|
Term
| What do the Founding Fathers have to say about the relationship between government and individuals? |
|
Definition
| "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." |
|
|
Term
| What is the concept of Constitutionalism? |
|
Definition
| Governments are subject to a higher law, and have limits on their exercise of power. |
|
|
Term
| What's the difference between common law and code of law traditions? |
|
Definition
Common law traditions refer to past cases for what to do.
Code of law traditions refer to a written law for what to do. |
|
|
Term
| How has English government evolved over its history? |
|
Definition
It started as a feudal, class-based system where the upper class called the shots.
Then the Magna Carta was written in 1215, the first democratic document to limit governmental authority. Specifically, it protected the English people from King John's extortionate taxes.
Now England operates under an "unwritten constitution" (a common law tradition) |
|
|
Term
| How does Dr Schwerdt define sovereignty and authority? |
|
Definition
Sovereignty is being the ultimate decision maker over a territory
Authority is the right to rule |
|
|
Term
| What did the American Experiment bring about? |
|
Definition
1. An established, widespread belief in a power higher than the state
2. A social contract of the state |
|
|
Term
| What do checks and balances do? |
|
Definition
1. They allow for a peaceful transition of power
2. They eliminate (or minimize) conflict
As Montesquieu's argued (in "The Spirit of the Laws"), the separation of powers protects liberty. |
|
|
Term
| What, in Dr Schwerdt's mind, is the "higher power" above the law? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| How does John Rawls describe the "original position"? |
|
Definition
The "original position" is basically Hobbes's "state of nature."
In the original position, people come together for the first time to agree upon the basic terms of justice. Everyone lobbies for their own self-interest. |
|
|
Term
| What problem arises from Rawls's original position? |
|
Definition
| As self-interested individuals, people would choose laws that favor their own specific demographic. But these things (race, religion, gender, class, looks) are irrelevant to what they deserve, since they're just products of the natural lottery of birth. Thus they shouldn't be the basis for societal justice! |
|
|
Term
| What is Rawls's solution to the problem presented by the original position? |
|
Definition
The Veil of Ignorance
Imagine that each party is wearing a veil that disguises from themselves what demographic they are. They would still lobby for their own self-interest, but not based on their demographic. |
|
|
Term
| How would people lobby for their self-interests from behind a veil of ignorance? |
|
Definition
They must follow the "maximin rule."
That is they try to *maximize* their lot while *minimizing* their chances of getting burned.
You don't know if you're advantaging or disadvantaging yourself by favoring one demographic or the other (since you don't know your own demographic) - thus you try to distribute rights so that even the worst off in society is better off than they would be under any alternative distribution. |
|
|
Term
| What are Rawls's two principles of justice? (memorize this!) |
|
Definition
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both [a] reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage [including the least well-off], and [b] attached to positions and offices open to all. |
|
|
Term
| What does Rawls's difference principle look like? |
|
Definition
This is Rawls's second principle of justice, that unequal distribution of goods is allowed if even the least well-off get a decent share.
In a socialistic scenario, everyone would get an equal share. But if everyone got equal pay for everything, there'd be no incentive to work up to more important jobs in society (say being a surgeon rather than a lawnmower).
In a more utilitarian scenario, one demographic would get the lion's share while the rest have pitifully less. There may be a greater overall benefit, but the less well-off are screwed.
In the ideal scenario, higher classes get more, but the lower classes still have plenty. So if you remove your veil of ignorance and find out you're upper class, you're better off than if everyone split it equally. And if you find out you're lower class, you're not screwed. |
|
|
Term
THOUGHTS:
Would parties to the original position from behind a veil of ignorance choose a progressive tax structure or a flat tax?
Would they support charity organizations or not?
Would they choose a high capital gains tax or a lower one?
Would they choose for there to be an estate tax?
Would they choose to allow certain state offices to atheists? |
|
Definition
They would choose a progressive tax, because it advantages the poor (i.e. a more affordable percentage than a higher flat rate) while not significantly disadvantaging the rich (they still have plenty of money).
They would support the poor, since it advantages the poor and disadvantages no one else. Besides, the poor could riot and disadvantage everyone if they aren't supported.
They may choose to have no sales tax, as the tax disadvantages everyone, and disproportionately disadvantages the poor.
They may choose an estate tax so that people with an estate worth more than roughly $6 million dollars (maybe less) would be taxed for around 40% of the value.
They would allow atheists in office, because if they found out they were atheists once they removed the veil of ignorance, they'd be screwed. |
|
|
