Terms in this set (20)
A moral rule is fundamental if and only if
it is not explained by some deeper, more basic rule.
Ethical pluralism is
there is more than one fundamental moral rule
According to the argument from disaster prevention
every moral rule may be permissibly broken.
If every moral rule may permissibly be broken in order to prevent a catastrophe, then
moral absolutism is false.
The Doctrine of Double Effect states that
you are sometimes permitted to foreseeably cause certain harms, even though you may not intend to cause those harms.
all of the above.
What is the most serious difficulty with the Doctrine of Double Effect?
We lack a clear basis for distinguishing between intention and foresight
If two supposedly absolute moral rules conflict with each other, then
this generates a contradiction, which refutes the claim that both rules are absolute.
According to the text, what is the moral absolutists best response to the argument from contradiction?
Maintain that absolute moral rules can be honored entirely through inaction.
According to the argument from irrationality, why are absolute moral rules irrational?
Because perfect obedience to any absolute moral rule can sometimes frustrate its underlying purpose
One problem for the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing is that
it is sometimes very difficult to determine whether something counts as doing or allowing.
Which of the following is not a prima facie duty identified by Ross?
Which of the following correctly describes the relationship between absolutism and Ross's theory?
Ross's theory avoids the main problems facing absolutism, such as contradiction and irrationality.
According to Ross, the fact that we appropriately regret something is a test for knowing
what our prima facie duties are.
If Ross's theory is true, then
any moral rule may sometimes permissibly be broken.
Which of the following is not identified by the text as an advantage of Ross s view?
It explains why moral rules may never acceptably be broken.
None of the following arguments against absolutism is also a threat to Ross s view
The argument from contradiction
The argument from disaster prevention
The argument from irrationality
According to Ross s theory, in order to know what to do when prima facie duties conflict, we must
bring our experience and insight to bear on the case.
Ethical particularists reject
the existence of prima facie duties.
Particularists claim that justice is
always an important moral consideration, though not always the most important one
If particularism is true, then
nothing possesses permanent moral importance