Term
|
Definition
| A moral issue is a normative issue (how things ought to be, matters of value: good, bad, wrong). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| We are biased toward believing what we want to be true. |
|
|
Term
| "Makes-sense" stopping rule |
|
Definition
| When presented with a question, people look for evidence that supports derived answer and stop as soon as we find anything. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| People's commitment to desired answer often strengthened when they are presented with contrary evidence. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| All normative claims are non-descriptive, all descriptive case are non-normative. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A chain of reasoning that typically aims at showing things we already believe but lead logically to other things we don't yet believe. |
|
|
Term
| Arguments consist of a premise, inference, and conclusion. |
|
Definition
Premise: The starting point of any argument
Inference: The logical connection between the premise and conclusion
Conclusion: The ending point of any argument |
|
|
Term
| Argument must be valid with true premises to be SOUND. |
|
Definition
| Arguments can either have false premises or be untrue to be UNSOUND. |
|
|
Term
| An argument is bad if (state two): |
|
Definition
1. There is a bad inference (the truth of the premises doesn't guarentee the truth of the conclusion)
2. There are false premise(s)
Arguments with good inferences are always valid.
Arguments with bad inferences are always invalid. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Argument that logically is proven true. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Aims to show that conclusion is probably true. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
An argument that seeks to show that conclusion is probably true. Stronger when based on greater pool of data.
-Hitler was a dictator, therefore he is evil
-Sadam Hussein was a dictator, therefore he is evil
-Mussolini "
CONCLUSION: Raul Castro is dictator, therefore he is evil too |
|
|
Term
Is the following argument valid? Is it sound?
P1: All camels have two humps.
P2: Alice is a Camel
C: Alice has two humps |
|
Definition
-Valid argument
-Unsound because P1 is false. Camels only have one hump.
-All C's are B's
-a is a C
-a is a B
|
|
|
Term
Is the following argument valid? Is it sound?
P1: If George is the father of James, then George is older than James
P2: George is older than James
C: Thus, George is father of James |
|
Definition
-Argument is invalid.
-Argument is unsound.
|
|
|
Term
Is the following argument valid? Is it sound?
P1: If I am lying, then what I am saying is false.
P2: I am not lying.
C: Therefore, what I am saying is not false. |
|
Definition
-Invalid, and therefore
-Unsound
If p, then q
~p
q |
|
|
Term
Is the following argument valid? Is it sound?
P1: All four legged creatures have wings
P2: All spider have exactly four legs
C: Therefore, all spiders have wings |
|
Definition
-Valid
-Unsound because P1 and P2 are false
All A's are B's
x is an A
x is a B
|
|
|
Term
Is the following argument valid? Is it sound?
P1: All mammals have lungs
P2: All whales have lungs
C: Therefore, all whales are mammals |
|
Definition
-Invalid and therefore
-Unsound
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When a word changes meaning in an argument. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Moral claims are not objectively true or false. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Moral claims are objectively true or false (they are not debatable). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| All moral claims are objectively false (there is essentially no right or wrong). This falls under moral objectivism. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Moral claims are not objectively true or false because they just express our feelings, not our beliefs (this falls under moral relativism). |
|
|
Term
| Argument from intractability of moral disagreement |
|
Definition
P1: The reason we know there is objective truth in science is that we can resolve disputes by experiments and observation.
P2: We cannot resolve moral disputes by experiment and observation.
C: No reason the believe that there is objective truth in morality
INVALID. |
|
|
Term
| Argument for moral relativism |
|
Definition
P1: Different people have different beliefs about what is morally right and wrong.
P2: If different people have different beliefs about X, then there is no objective truth about X.
C: There is no objective truth about what is morally right and wrong.
Valid, but P2 is obviously false. |
|
|
Term
| An argument from the value of tolerance |
|
Definition
P1: We should be tolerant of different moral beliefs.
P2: If there are objective moral facts, we shouldn't be tolerant of differing moral beliefs.
C: There are no objective moral facts.
VALID, but P2 may be false. P1 seems to be a claim anyways! |
|
|
Term
| Argument against relativism |
|
Definition
P1: According to moral relativism, there is no truth.
P2: If there is no truth, then there is no moral relativism.
C: According to moral relativism, moral relativism is not true.
VALID, but unsound because of P1. |
|
|
Term
| Moral principles vs. moral judgements. Is moral disagreement really as great as it seems? Probably not. |
|
Definition
Moral Principle: We should respect the dead.
Nonmoral belief: Eating the dead is not respectful.
Moral judgment: We ought not to eat the dead.
-Attacking another country that is a threat to our own is acceptable
-Iraq was a threat to the US
-The US rightly attacked Iraq |
|
|
