PHIL 330 Fall - 2006 Anderson Notes

PHIL 330 Fall - 2006 Anderson Notes - r—fif—fl‘...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: r—fif—fl‘ a {(621 Pk“. AAJC¢SOfi 1. Minimum conception of morality A. Reason — We cannot rely on our feelings b/c they may be irrational. Difierent people’s feelings tell them opposite things. We must be guided by the argyents. Morality of a matter of consulting reason. The facts exist independent of our wishes. Ex—we cannot rationally defend our like of coffee B. Impartiality- each individual’s interests are equally important. II. Relativism A. Main claims 1. An individual’s moral judgments are true only if they conform to the moral standards of his or her society. 2. every society’s moral code is correct for that society 3. no society’s moral code is superior or inferior to another’s B. Cultural Differences Argument —Cultures differ on morals, therefore there is no objective truth 1. What makes it logically unsound? Conclusion doesn’t follow the premises. The fact that people disagree tells us nothing about objective truth i 2. Why its premise is probably false? The fact that cultures believe something to be true doesn’t make it true. Ex- the world is flat C. Arguments against 1. No judgment of evil abroad- genocide is evil b/c of good reasons 2. No internal criticism— there would be no reason to criticize your own society because they would be right 3. No moral progress- slaves were considered right 200 years ago. 4. Vagueness of a. Culture- people can belong to two cultures and different “V cultures. [Cu b. Moral code —there is no distinct moral code because we disagree on many moral subjects in a society 5. Tolerance as universal value~they say that everyone must be tolerating of others moral codes. She is claiming that there is a universal duty, This is self-contradictory D. Argument for universal values- there are universal values for society to maintain itself. If lying was accepted a society could not function E. The virtue of tolerance— it is necessary for peace, equality, and cooperation F. Two lessons to be learned III. IV. V. 1. tolerance 2. humility Subj ectivism- whatever someone believes about morals is true for that individual A. B. D. Garden-variety- if you believe it then it’s true. To believe something, you must be more likely to believe x than not-x. Simple subjectivism- any moral statement is a report on their subjective emotional state. 1. Main claim- Everyone is right 2. Objections a. Fallibility- we are incapable of error and we can’t be wrong with out feelings. Why would we change our mind about anything? b. Disagreement— no reason to debate or change our minds Emotivism 1. Main claim- There is no moral statements or moral beliefs. What sounds like a moral statement is just a verbal gesture. 2. How objections against simple subjectivism are answered-solves infallibility because a verbal gesture can’t be right or wrong. Solves disagreement because there would be no reason to argue ouch! Emotions disagree 3. Objection: justifying reasons given in moral argument— contradicts our own experience. We know our words have meaning. Moral proof- we are not confident in our beliefs and sometimes don’t trust of judgments. We don’t need mathematical proof. Divine command theory A. B. Main claim— what makes an act right is the fact that God commands it. Problems 1. Arbitrariness—there are no reasons for having moral judgments. We have a pre—existing feeling of whether it is right or wrong. 2. Goodness— it empties the idea of right and wrong. It is hard to know what God commands are or are not. We must have a pre-existing feeling of reason that something is right. Otherwise we couldn’t recognize a profit from a lunatic. 3. Interpretation of Scripture- it is impossible to derive a specific moral code from scripture. We have a pre-determined idea of right and wrong and we cherry-pick scriptures to validate our beliefs. Natural law theory VI. Teleology (purpose) - everything in the world is created for a purpose and A. we must act accordingly to that purpose. 1. Ambiguity in "purpose" a. Intent — some objects are have the intent of doing something but are used for another purpose. Ex. Dime. We don’t know Gods intentions. b. Function— We can’t mimic what the animals do. Animals do behavior that is wrong for us. 2. Anthropocentrism (Aristotle) -regards humans as the central element of the universe. Crucial to his idea of natural law. B. Confiision of "is" and "ought" -— theres a difference between what there is and what things ought to do. Hume points out the different between what is the case and _what ought to be the case. Cloning . A. Reasons for reproductive cloning- For couples who are infertile. Opportunity to have a child without the risk of passing down an inheritable disease. Opportunity for homosexual couples to have children. B. Issues 1. Dignity 2. Uniqueness 3. Reproductive rights C. Arguments for 1. People have the right to reproduce- . 2. Offers benefits to individuals- infertile couples. Homosexual couples. Inheritable diseases 3. Offers benefits to society-clone people in specific fields that may help all of society D. Arguments against 1. Cloning is unfair to the clone— clones have the right to an open future. Would be able to see their own capabilities 2. Cloning is dangerous— clone Hitler. 3. Unnatural— asexual behavior E. Kass Consent-unethical experiments. Cloning without permission 2. Identity and individuality-burden of being of being a child of your twin. Social identity. Different idea of children. - 3. Artifice— humans creating rather than naturally. 4. Tyranny (control) 5. Slippery slope F. Tooley 1. ' Right to genetic uniqueness— just cuz they hav makeup doesn’t mean they will be the same. 2. Right to an open future - unsound b/c our environm our future. 3. Benefits of cloning-clone albert Einstein. Benefit society. Self- knowledge is good. Homosexuals. ‘ 4. Brave new world —we could recreate people e the same genetic ent determines 5. Autonomy G. Wachbroit 1. Genetic determinism — even though they carry the same genes, they will be distinct persons with diflemnt traits 2. Right to an open filture Ambiguous lineage —less problematic. Wouldn’t be more difficult than sperm donorship. 4. Motivation for cloning- used for saving lives b/c of lethal recessive gene. ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/20/2008 for the course PHIL 330 taught by Professor Anderson during the Fall '06 term at UCLA.

Page1 / 4

PHIL 330 Fall - 2006 Anderson Notes - r—fif—fl‘...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online