"if God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good? If there is no logical impossibility in a man's freely choosing the good on one, or several occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion. God was not, then, faced with a choice between making innocent automata and making beings who, in acting freely, would sometimes go wrong: there was open to him the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right. Clearly, his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good.

According to Antony, what is the "No Tolerance" principle?

"No morally good being would allow suffering that they could have prevented"

Why does Antony think the No tolerance principle is false?

"There are circumstances in which a morally good being might choose to allow suffering that they could have prevented" (as long as they have a good reason for doing so)

What does Antony propose to replace the no tolerance principle with?

The No tolerance unless principle, which means no morally good being would allow suffering they could have prevented unless they have a good reason for doing so.

Explain Antony's Parent/Child example. What is it supposed to show?The parent-example shows a parent allowing a child's favorite toy to be destroyed in a storm instead of going in the backyard and saving it, which the parent could have easily done. Instead, the parent allows their child to be distraught in order to teach a lesson about the "strength of the wind and the fragility of toys" (Antony, pg 4). The parent is allowing the child to learn a lesson about something small so that in the future the child won't make a similar mistake which may cause a more catastrophic outcome.According to Antony why can't we use this example to show that God may have a good reason to permit suffering?Where is Daniel Dennett? Is he his brain (in the vat) or his body (out in the world) or somewhere else? To answer the question, (briefly) explain the background story and outline the reasons Dennett rejects each of these options.He illustrates a thought experiment in which his brain disconnected from his body and placed in a vat in Houston, Texas while his body is sent on a mission to recover a warhead beneath the surface of the earth in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His brain is still connected to his body and able to control his tasks through radio links. Dennett then proposes the question of, "where am I?" If his brain is in a whole different location than his body, then where is his personal identity? For the following thought experiment, he names his brain, "Yorick," his body "Hamlet," and he, his identity, is Dennett. He presents three possible answers to the question, "where am I?" 1. Dennett is where Hamlet is Prob- (Tom and Dick, person doesn't go where body goes) 2. Dennett is where Yorick is-Prob- (to punish Dennett, we wouldn't punish Yorick, Dennett is not where Yorik is) 3. POV prob ( virtual reality, dream) 4. both, no where, dead? (Yorik is not Hubert)Is Dennett identical to the computer copy of his brain? Why does Dennett consider that the answer might be yes? Do you think he is correct? Why or why not?I do not think it is it plausible to suppose that Hubert-Fortinbras pair is in fact Dennett, but a machine that resembles Dennett in computerized thoughts and memories. However, this machine has not had the same life experiences that his old body and brain had collectively so therefore, it would have different reactions to stimuli than Dennett would.What is personal identity (in your explanation, include the concepts of numerical and qualitative identity)? Why does personal identity matter (that is, why do I care whether a past person was me and a future person will be me)?Personality traits, abilities, likes and dislikes, your belief system or moral code, and the things that motivate you — these all contribute to self-image or your unique identity as a person. It is the unique numerical identity of a person over time. Numerical identity is being one and the same as. Qualitative identity-same qualities or same properties. For example, consider two children with identical bicycles engaged in a race while their mother is watching. The two children have the same bicycle in one sense (qualitative identity) and the same mother in another sense (numerical identity).What is cultural relativism?According to Rachels, cultural relativism states the "customs of society are all that exist. These customs cannot be said to be "'correct'" or "'incorrect'" for that implies we have an independent standard of right and wrong by which they may be judged" (Rachels, pg 2). This anchor quote explains Rachel's argument. The quote shows that Rachels believes there is no objective standard to judge one moral code over another. There are no "universal truths" in ethics, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times. Rachels believes we should adopt the attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures. He believes that we cannot set one moral code at a higher standard than another. Rachels also talks about tradition and how we cannot judge other cultures' traditions, even if it goes against one's personal moral codes.Give an example to illustrate cultural relativismAn example of cultural relativism could include; not judging another country such as China who believes it is an insult to tip someone for their service. Gratuity is also illegal in airports and some establishments. It is considered rude there and they generally do not accept tips. It makes the person giving the service feel inferior as if they are a charity case. Gratuity is also illegal in airports and some establishments. Cultural Relativism says that we cannot judge China for their way of thinking. Their values are different from ours as Americans, where someone like me who's a server, survives off tips. We think of gratuity as a compliment. It makes us believe our service was satisfying.Explain the reasons why one would accept cultural relativism.Someone would accept cultural relativism because different cultures have different moral codes, which implies that morals lack objective truth. Therefore, we cannot judge objectively because everyone follows their own moral codes. Cultural norms and values derive their meaning from specific social contexts, which other cultures would not understand. We would be biased (subjective) in saying that our moral code is better than another. No one wants to be consciously biased so that would be a reason to accept cultural relativism.Why does Rachels reject the Cultural Differences Argument?It is not sound, premises have to be true, the argument has to be valid and it's invalid bcs 1. DIff ppl have diff beliefs abt the shape of the Earth 2. Therefore, the Earth ford not have an objective shape (But, there is a right answer) So Rachels says that people may be holding false beliefs, it may be the same for cultural relativismWhat are the problematic consequences of accepting cultural relativism?You give tolerance to things due to epistemic humility, which is accepting that you're ignorant of things. You may be holding false beliefs, there may just be a right and wrong answer Cultural Relativism implies that there has been no moral progress, implies society is better today, which is comparing (something a relativist cannot do)Rachels--Do you think these consequences are problematic enough to reject cultural relativism? Why or why not?Yes because no one wants to accept that they are ignorant and that's why they are arguing there is no objective moral truth and no one wants to admit they are holding false beliefs about there being no objective moral truths Also, we can say that society is better today than it was in the past. If we were cultural relativists we could not say Hitler was wrong or slavery was wrong.Why does Rachels think that there is less moral disagreement than there appears to be?there's disagreement about our beliefs and how we express then, rather than our morals. We come to a belief using a different thinking process. For example, the question of whether or not it is moral to eat cows differs among cultures. Those who follow Hinduism believe their ancestors reincarnate into cows and that's why they are sacred. Most Americans disagree with the belief that led to this moral rule for Hindus. Americans don't disagree with the moral itself, but with the belief and how it is expressed.Why does Rachels think that there are some moral rules that all societies accept?Some rules we have in common, like rules against murder and lying. We have differences in reasoning and understand different acceptions. But there are objective moral rules in every culture. For instance, it is immoral in every culture to torture babies for fun.Mill: What is the greatest happiness principle?1. What is moral is that which promotes "the greatest good" 2. The greatest good is happiness (desirable as an end itself) 3. Therefore, what is moral is that which promotes happiness GHP-The moral thing to do is to maximize TOTAL amount of happinessMill: Appeal to a specific example in order to illustrate how to apply it to judge the morality of an actionTrolley Problem-What is the moral thing to do? A) do nothing-5 ppl die B) flip the switch--1 person dies (maximize the number of lives saved/minimize harm)In addition, explain why Mill thinks that happiness should be the ground of morality.Mill believes that human action is motivated by pleasure and pain, happiness is desirable as an end in itself-Happiness has INTRINSIC VALUE, instead of instrumental value (valuable as a means to something else). Happiness consists of lower and higher pleasures. Higher pleasures are mental pleasures (learning things) and lower pleasures are physical/bodily pleasures (eating candy)Mill: What are the major problems with utilitarianism?Bob the flu patient who has to organs to save lives by donating his organs. Do you just take his organs and maximize total amount of happiness or do you listen to Bob and not harvest his organs?Mill: Do you think that utilitarianism is convincing as a moral theory? Why or why not?No because in some instance where you're tying to maximize the total amount of happiness you are going not giving someone consent of what you'll be doing. No one is ever going to agree to sacrifice themselves in order to maximize the most happiness for someone else.Kant: What is a good will?"act morally, for the intention of being moral" Act accordingly to duty FOR THE SAKE OF DUTYWhy is a good will the ground of morality, according to Kant.The only thing that good in itself is good-will. Good-will is without exception good in all circumstances. "good without qualification" The only thing that is moral is acting for the sake of duty (you know it's right so you do it) We don't have full control over the consequences of a situation, but we do have control over our intentionsKant: How do we achieve a good will? Appeal to a specific example of an action in which one demonstrates a good will.Act according to duty, act accordingly without qualification, act morally for the intention of being moral. For example, two friends were asked to help another friend move. Friend A is an introvert and doesn't really want to help, but does it because they know it's right, this would be demonstrating good will. Friend B likes to help move because it satisfies them, they would be acting for the sake of immediate inclination, which isn't necessarily moralKant: Explain two ways that one can act in accordance with duty but not from the motive of duty. Appeal to examples to illustrate. What moral worth do these two ways of acting hold? Explain what it means to act in accordance with duty for the sake of duty. Appeal to an example to illustrate.One can act for the sake of self-interest, where they'd be getting something out of acting in accordance with duty. One can act for the sake of immediate inclination, which is acting bcs of the way it makes you feel, like Friend B. These examples are neutrally moral and would be acting in accordance to duty but don't have the right intentions behind the action. The action is the same for acting according to duty and for the sake of duty but the intentions are different. You would perform an action for the sake of it being moral not because you'll gain something from it. Moving exampleExplain the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative. Why does Kant think that the moral rules are in the form of a categorical imperative?A hypothetical imperative is a command relative to an end (you should study IF you want to pass) (you should get food IF you want to stop being hungry) these examples have a means and an end goal. Categorical imperative commands absolutely (regardless of the end) --You should help others, do not kill Morals are regardless of the end goal. The formula of the end itself: never treat anyone as a means but always an end 1. don't use people 2. treat someone as an end (consent, do not lie)Explain Kant's formula of the end in itself. Apply it to a specific example in order to illustrate how one should act.Formula: never treat someone merely as a means but always as an end 1. don't use ppl 2. treat someone as an end (consent, don't lie) you should not have the intention of acting in a way that uses people to get what you want. For example, you should not help others because you you expect something in return from helping. You should help because it is moral to help. You cannot use people as a means to get what you want, but as an end of moral principlesWhat is Singer's argument? Be clear how much, exactly is one required to give, and why. Explain a specific example of how one ought to act according to Singer's main conclusion.If you are in the position to help, then you should. Argument: 1. suffering/dying from lack of basic necessities is bad 2. general principle: if we an prevent bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it 3. we can prevent bad by giving away almost all our $$ to charity 4. we are morally obligated to give almost all our $$ to charity One must act in a way that prevents bad from happening, if we are able to donate as much as we can to charity without sacrificing our needs then we are obligated to do so. Malaria deaths: we can donate as much as we can in order to prevent death and suffering as long as it doesn't cause us to suffer or dieExplain an objection that Singer considers. What is his response to it? Is his response convincing? Why or why not?the objection is that it is too demanding. Alleviating poverty today might end in suffering in the future. The response is a moderate version of the argument--prevent bad unless it requires you to sacrifice something morally significant. If we recognize our moral obligations and choose not to meet them, then it is still better than not recognizing themWhat is King's overall argument? That is, what is he attempting to convince us of, and what are his reasons for making this claim?there ate unjust laws, we are morally obligated to break them (segregation)-create tension in society like Socrates in order to force change. Creative tension is a mental and emotion strain that compels one to act. It is necessity for growth-we are not obligated to live in an unjust situationExplain the distinction between just and unjust laws. Why does King make this distinction? According to King's characterization of unjust laws, what would be a current example of an unjust American law?Unjust laws are 1. immoral 2. degrading to one's humanity 3. binding on a minority but not the majority 4. inflicted on a minority that had no part in creating it One not only has legal, but moral responsibility to obey laws, but not if they are unjust. One American law that is unjust is abortion laws that ban abortion in some states. This is degrading to one's humanity because the law doesn't know how that woman got pregnant. The woman has no say in the law, but it is being inflicted on her.Explain why King is disappointed in the "white moderate." What does he think the white moderate should be doing instead?"the white moderate," identifying them as empathizing with the Civil Rights Movement, but not acting upon it. King thinks the white moderate should be acting and pushing the immorality of the unjust laws, not just saying they don't agree with the unjust laws

Philosophy Final

Other sets by this creator

Recommended textbook solutions

Tonal Harmony, Workbook

America's History for the AP Course

Ways of the World: A Global History

The Language of Composition: Reading, Writing, Rhetoric

Other Quizlet sets