Final exam study guide part 1philosophy 3730
Final exam study guide part 1philosophy 3730
Popular in Department
This 7 page Study Guide was uploaded by Tricia Williams on Friday January 15, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to at Georgia State University taught by in Summer 2015. Since its upload, it has received 110 views.
Reviews for Final exam study guide part 1philosophy 3730
Clutch. So clutch. Thank you sooo much Notetaker!!! Thanks so much for your help! Needed it bad lol
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 01/15/16
Philosophy final’s study guide (part 1) What are the parts of an argument? An argument is form from premises that are intended to lead to a conclusion. Premise provides the reason to draw that conclusion. Types of argument Deductive argument: The claims made intend to provide enough evidence to guarantee the conclusion (If the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise, the argument is invalid). If this then that is an invalid, deductive statement as it provide lesser level of support for its conclusion. Inductive argument: are arguments in which the truth of the premise is not said to guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but the conclusion derived from them is likely to be true. Fallacies: Flawed arguments 1. Biased sample: Comparing a small town to the entire state 2. Equivocation: Using the same word twice in the same argument with different meaning (without specifying which meaning is meant) 3. Fallacy of accent: Emphasizing or focusing on the wrong side of the argument. Ex. A Professor should always consider the rights of the school; therefore, it is fine to disregard the rights of others. 4. Ad hominem: Occur whenever one argues that something is true or false based solely on the character or circumstances of the arguer. Ex. The professor is generally disliked around campus; therefore, we should disregard his/her lecture. 5. Appeals of force: Occur when someone substitutes a threat of force for premises. Ex. If you release the letter from the department of safety, you will be fired. 6. False analogy: Comparing two things that are not similar to make a conclusion. 7. False dichotomy: Trying to convince someone that there are only two options, when there are more than two and the arguer assumes that one is right when the two can be right. Descriptive statement: Describing person or thing which can be true or false description. They are only true If the person/thing describe is indeed true. Normative claim: Evaluating something by a set of standards. They frequently contain the word “ought” or “should”. Ex. You should not lie. Ethical claims: These are principles that originate from society’s cultural belief. Perfect duty: Have a narrow scope, don’t have a lot of flexibility. (Ex. Danny is responsible for watering the plants every day at 5:00am and 6:00pm) Imperfect: Have a lot of flexibility (Ex. Danny is responsible for watering the at least five days per week) Defeasible duty: An obligation that you cannot get out of Indefeasible duty: An obligation that you can get out of Ethical relativism: Right or wrong is based on culture, there are different values in different culture, cannot judge other people’s culture. Stockholder theory: The manager of a publicly traded corporation should work towards one goal, to increase, preferably maximization of profits or owners. It is also based on the idea that managers should not act outside of the expertise for which they were hired, they are to act according to their position so that maximum profits are sought for the company. Additionally, this theory states that CEO’s do not have social responsibilities in their roles as managers; their only responsibility is to make a profit. Principled objection: Managers would be spending somebody else’s money, either stockholders or customers, thus this is the same thing as taxation without representation because Gov’t spend somebody else’s money as well. Practical objection: What does CEO’s know about solving pollution, how would they know about fighting inflation, he is presumably an expert in running the company, producing a product or selling it. Moreover, managers are not trained at solving social problems, because that is not their area of expertise. Friedman view on cloaking: Profit is not the number one responsibility but it would be great if one can social responsible and still make profit. Criticism for Stockholder (Argument against): Resistance to change (They only have one reason that they will change for, and that is if stockholders are the beneficiary). Not consistent with the law (they do not protect the interest of customers, employees and local communities). Not consistence with basic ethics Stakeholder theory: There is range of interest wider than profit maximization that a company should consider when forming its plans and policies (stockholders, employees, customers, suppliers, and local community who are vital to the survival of the corporation). Moreover, this theory states that managers should create as much value as possible for its stakeholders. Arguments for Stakeholder theory: Consequences (It work out better for everyone when everyone pursues their interest together) Rights (one should consider all of the different rights of all the stakeholders) Character (what kind of person do one become while making these decisions) Pragmatics (How everyone can live together) Problems with stakeholder theory The descriptive thesis It was an early stakeholder theory Freeman did not distinguish between stakeholders very clearly Primary stakeholders Customers Employees Suppliers Local community Stockholder Secondary stakeholders Media Government Competitors Consumer advocate groups Special interest groups Psychological egoism (descriptive claim): The view that each person is in fact only pursuing his or her own interest. Ethical egoism (Normative): The view that each person ought to pursue only his or her own interest. Restricted egoism: The view that each person ought to pursue only his or her interest constrained by adherence to the law (you only follow the law when it is in your interest) Utilitarianism: Perform the action that will likely maximize benefits for the greatest number of people involved, while doing the least harm (everyone is equal) Bentham version Bentham claims that the only real good is pleasure and pain is the only evil (whatever brings the most pleasure to the most people) Mill version Mill emphasizes happiness rather than pleasure (actions are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they promote the opposite) For Mill promoting human health is greater value than the good of maximizing profit (health is a valuable ingredient for human happiness). Higher order capacities (humans should pursue the higher order of capacities, intellect, noble feeling, imagination, and moral sentiments). Lower order capacities are not unique to humans but are rather shared by animals. Objections to Utilitarianism Problem of application Problem of Justice (can’t protect rights) Problem of Demand (it is demanding, it doesn’t allow one to have no sort of out) Problem of integrity (it will force someone to make a choice that would violate their conscience and integrity) Kant’s argument: If a human being is force to perform a duty, then the action is immoral (all human beings are capable of making their own choices). Kant is interested in your duty, not the reason why you do something Categorical imperative (Kant fundamental principle of morality): Declare an action to be of itself necessary without reference to any desire Objectives Purity of motive: Eg: It is our duty to visit an individual when they are sick and not because they are our friend. Conflicts of duty: Having an obligation to tell the truth and at the same time protect one’s life (Eg: Hiding a thief from persons in authority) Animals: Kant does not think animals count as stakeholders (you can do animals any wrong because they do not make decisions) Virtue ethics Focuses on character rather than on single actions For Aristotle living a happy lie is the purpose of being endeavor According to Aristotle when one is living virtuous, one is happy, happiness is intrinsically related to virtuous actions so that they became in effect inseparable. Once someone is being virtuous in performing his or her activity, that person will be happy; if someone is not virtuous, that person will not be happy. How is virtue obtained? Action (doing something over and over builds habits)--------habits (builds character)----------character How might a virtue ethicist respond? Without a virtuous character, how could one begin the assessment concerning consequences of actions that will lead to the best outcome for the maximum number of people Without a virtuous character, how would it be possible to perform the ethical analysis of Bentham, Mills and Kant? Aristotle concept of the golden mean Virtue is the mean between the different vices Criticism No account of right action (it does not have a principled objection etc.) Virtuous action don’t exhaust all right action Self-centeredness (it just focus on oneself, it should be about other people) Moral luck
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'