New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Midterm Study Guide

by: Nicole Campbell

Midterm Study Guide PHIL 1100 - 01

Nicole Campbell

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Chapters 1-8
Introduction to Ethics
Study Guide
ethics, Introduction, midterm, Study Guide
50 ?




Popular in Introduction to Ethics

Popular in PHIL-Philosophy

This 4 page Study Guide was uploaded by Nicole Campbell on Wednesday February 3, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to PHIL 1100 - 01 at University of Missouri - Columbia taught by Wu in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 51 views. For similar materials see Introduction to Ethics in PHIL-Philosophy at University of Missouri - Columbia.


Reviews for Midterm Study Guide


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: 02/03/16
Cultural Relativism: good means socially approved - Pick moral philosophy by following what your society approves of - EX: If racism is good, racism is socially approved. She’d have to either accept the conclusion of racism being socially approved, or reject cultural relativism. Consistency would require that she change at least one of her views - EX: If infanticide is wrong then infanticide is not socially approved. She would accept this example and cultural relativism would be held true - Key points: can’t be objective moral truths because morality is product of culture, cultures disagree widely, no clear way to resolve moral differences - Key points: comes in four stages: punishment/ obedience, rewards, parental approval, social approval - Objections: CR forces to conform society norms or we contradict ourselves - Objections: CR is intolerant toward minorities Idealism: X is good, we’d desire X if we were fully informed and impartial - Ideal Observer view - EX: I like smoking, but smoking isn’t good. Liking is about feelings. Good if we were rational. - EX: Nazis are good if we were fully informed and impartial. Likely violates our “be informed” condition. His attitude may be based on factual errors. - Key points: idealism incorporates rationality if only we are informed and impartial. Develop rational moral feelings first and then follow with your feeling - Key points: Allows morality to be objective if all ideal agents agree. If everyone agrees that means everyone is informed and impartial - Objections: Impartiality condition is unclear (do we have equal concern for everyone?) - Objections: fully informed seems to be idealized (require infinite amount of knowledge?) Supernaturalism: X is good, god desires X - Based on gods will - EX: everything has cause-universe has cause- cause must be god - EX: god is perfect-property of perfect contains property of existence-therefore god exists - Key points: gods will is based on bible, church, prayer, reason without these god would not have a will - Key points: must be true if the bible teaches it (problem: bible doesn’t really teach SN), all basic laws of every sort depend on gods will (doubtful that all basic laws are based on gods will; x=x), and god is the only plausible source of objective moral duties (may not be true because someone made them true - Objections: Socrates question: is a good thing good because god desires it or does god desire it because it is good? - Objections: Atheists: kindness is good, but there is no god. Atheists don’t believe in god. Intuitionism: Good is indefinable. There are objective moral truths - Pick your moral principles by following your basic moral intuitions - EX: My friends indorse gun ownership-ownership is good- invalid(cant deduce ought from is) - EX: Humes Law: Society demands that you do such and such- you ought to do such and such. Cant deduce ought from is - Key points: three claims: good is indefinable, there are objective moral truths, basic moral truths are self-evident to mature mind - Key points: self-evident truth: known truth that requires no further proof or justification - Objections: principles claimed to be self-evident are vague and widely disputed, no clear way to see what is actually right - Objections: intuitionism doesn’t tell us how to distinguish genuine from apparent moral truths. Parents are not able to teach their children the right way, because there is no correct way to do something Emotivism: X is good is an emotional exclamation (not a truth claim), and means Hurrah for X - Pick your moral principles by following your feelings - EX: Empirical: testable by experience; it is snowing outside - EX: Analytic: true by definition; All bachelors are single o Logical Positivism contains both of these - Key points: sees a moral judgement as an expression of feeling, not a statement that is literally true or false. (Hurrah for X, Boo on X; not taken literally) - Key points: we can reason about morality if we assume a shared system of values, but we can’t establish the correctness of any system of values - Objections: Moral judgements are emotional exclamations- moral judgements aren’t necessarily emotional in emotivism - Objections: X is good means hurrah for x- many cases of good and bad cant translate into exclamations according to emotivism Prescriptivism: You ought to do this is universalizable prescription, it means do this and let everyone do this is similar cases - Pick your moral principles by first trying to be informed and imaginative and then seeing what you can consistently hold. - EX: RULE U: I ought to steal detra’s bike-I believe that if the situation was reversed Detra ought to steal my bike - EX: I ought to be a racial Nazi discriminating others- I believe that if the situation were reversed, I would be discriminated against - Key points: two logical rules for ought to be logically consistent: U-make similar evaluations about similar cases; P- Keep our moral beliefs in harmony with how we live and want others to live - Key points: GR consistency condition claims that this combination is logically inconsistent-I believe that I ought to do something to another; I don’t desire that this be done to me in this same situation - Objections: implies ought judgements are truth claims, so they aren’t true or false - Objections: a. I know you ought to do this, B. I know that do this and let everyone do the same in similar case---a makes sense, b doesn’t, so prescriptivism seems to clash with how we use moral judgements


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

50 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


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'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.