Limited time offer 20% OFF StudySoup Subscription details

FSU - PHI 2635 - Class Notes - Week 1

Created by: Alli Ibach Elite Notetaker

> > > > FSU - PHI 2635 - Class Notes - Week 1

FSU - PHI 2635 - Class Notes - Week 1

School: Florida State University
Department: Philosophy
Course: Bioethics
Professor: Tracie Mahaffey
Term: Summer 2015
Tags:
Name: Chapter 1
Description: these notes come from the lecture and book.
Uploaded: 01/12/2018
0 5 3 89 Reviews
This preview shows pages 1 - 2 of a 6 page document. to view the rest of the content
background image CHAPTER 1 cont'd Moral objectivism vs ethical relativism Norms that apply to EVERYONE (true no matter what) vs. not universally true Ethical relativism: culture and subjective relativism Brings about PROBLEMS- now no one can agree completely on anything Makes it hard to make decisions on a community scale ® § Moral absolution- there is only one standard or answer WITHOUT exceptions (different from moral objectivism- which allows some exceptions) Some morals may be viewed as absolute, objective, etc. Arguments in favor of cultural relativism: If people's moral judgements differ from culture to culture, moral norms are relative to culture There are no objective moral standards i. 1. People's moral judgements do differ form culture to culture 2. Therefore, moral norms are relative to culture There are no objective moral standards i. 3. How to appropriately evaluate an argument: Argument- a patterned set of statement w at least one statement providing support for another statement Premises & conclusion (there may be more than one conclusion) § Reasons stated that support a point (needs PROOF) § Deductive We deduce from the premises that the argument is true If the premises are true, there is NO way the argument isnt true too Doesn’t make it RIGHT, but it makes it VALID, bc it is in the right format Valid vs sound Validity isnt about right or wrong- it is about whether it fits the framework One of their premises might be false, which makes it unsound } ® § Ex: If people's moral judgements differ from culture to culture, then moral norms are relative to culture *this statement is a CONDITIONAL* --> follows "if p, then q" structure; has an antecedent and consequent a) 1. People's moral judgements do differ from culture to culture 2. Therefore, moral norms are relative to culture 3. § Another way of looking at the above example: If p, then q 1. P 2. Therefore, q 3. Modus ponens- affirming the antecedent § Modus tollens- If p, then q 1. Not q 2. Therefore, not p 3. § An INVALID argument: If p, then q 1. Not p 2. Therefore, not q 3. We don’t know enough about q to make a decision about it (denying the antecede nt) If p, then q 1. Q 2. Therefore, p 3. Affirming the consequent § Inductive Says that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is PROBABLY true Chances are high that its true, but its also not guaranteed Cogent- premises are ALL true § Fallacies in moral reasoning Straw man Defeating an easier argument § Appeal to the person Rejecting a statement on the grounds that it comes from a particular person § An attack on the person's character § Appeal to ignorance Tries to prove something by appealing to what we don't know § Begging the question Trying to prove a conclusion by using the conclusion as part of the support § Slippery slope Arguing that an action will lead to another which will lead to another action and eventually some dire outcome § Lecture 2- chp. 1 Tuesday,  January 16, 2018 12:24 PM
background image CHAPTER 1 cont'd Moral objectivism vs ethical relativism Norms that apply to EVERYONE (true no matter what) vs. not universally true Ethical relativism: culture and subjective relativism Brings about PROBLEMS- now no one can agree completely on anything Makes it hard to make decisions on a community scale ® § Moral absolution- there is only one standard or answer WITHOUT exceptions (different from moral objectivism- which allows some exceptions) Some morals may be viewed as absolute, objective, etc. Arguments in favor of cultural relativism: If people's moral judgements differ from culture to culture, moral norms are relative to culture There are no objective moral standards i. 1. People's moral judgements do differ form culture to culture 2. Therefore, moral norms are relative to culture There are no objective moral standards i. 3. How to appropriately evaluate an argument: Argument- a patterned set of statement w at least one statement providing support for another statement Premises & conclusion (there may be more than one conclusion) § Reasons stated that support a point (needs PROOF) § Deductive We deduce from the premises that the argument is true If the premises are true, there is NO way the argument isnt true too Doesn’t make it RIGHT, but it makes it VALID, bc it is in the right format Valid vs sound Validity isnt about right or wrong- it is about whether it fits the framework One of their premises might be false, which makes it unsound } ® § Ex: If people's moral judgements differ from culture to culture, then moral norms are relative to culture *this statement is a CONDITIONAL* --> follows "if p, then q" structure; has an antecedent and consequent a) 1. People's moral judgements do differ from culture to culture 2. Therefore, moral norms are relative to culture 3. § Another way of looking at the above example: If p, then q 1. P 2. Therefore, q 3. Modus ponens- affirming the antecedent § Modus tollens- If p, then q 1. Not q 2. Therefore, not p 3. § An INVALID argument: If p, then q 1. Not p 2. Therefore, not q 3. We don’t know enough about q to make a decision about it (denying the antecede nt) If p, then q 1. Q 2. Therefore, p 3. Affirming the consequent § Inductive Says that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is PROBABLY true Chances are high that its true, but its also not guaranteed Cogent- premises are ALL true § Fallacies in moral reasoning Straw man Defeating an easier argument § Appeal to the person Rejecting a statement on the grounds that it comes from a particular person § An attack on the person's character § Appeal to ignorance Tries to prove something by appealing to what we don't know § Begging the question Trying to prove a conclusion by using the conclusion as part of the support § Slippery slope Arguing that an action will lead to another which will lead to another action and eventually some dire outcome § Lecture 2- chp. 1 Tuesday,  January 16, 2018 12:24 PM

This is the end of the preview. Please to view the rest of the content
Join more than 18,000+ college students at Florida State University who use StudySoup to get ahead
6 Pages 49 Views 39 Unlocks
  • Better Grades Guarantee
  • 24/7 Homework help
  • Notes, Study Guides, Flashcards + More!
Join more than 18,000+ college students at Florida State University who use StudySoup to get ahead
School: Florida State University
Department: Philosophy
Course: Bioethics
Professor: Tracie Mahaffey
Term: Summer 2015
Tags:
Name: Chapter 1
Description: these notes come from the lecture and book.
Uploaded: 01/12/2018
6 Pages 49 Views 39 Unlocks
  • Better Grades Guarantee
  • 24/7 Homework help
  • Notes, Study Guides, Flashcards + More!
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to FSU - PHI 2635 - Class Notes - Week 1
Join with Email
Already have an account? Login here
×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to FSU - PHI 2635 - Class Notes - Week 1

Forgot password? Reset password here

Reset your password

I don't want to reset my password

Need help? Contact support

Need an Account? Is not associated with an account
Sign up
We're here to help

Having trouble accessing your account? Let us help you, contact support at +1(510) 944-1054 or support@studysoup.com

Got it, thanks!
Password Reset Request Sent An email has been sent to the email address associated to your account. Follow the link in the email to reset your password. If you're having trouble finding our email please check your spam folder
Got it, thanks!
Already have an Account? Is already in use
Log in
Incorrect Password The password used to log in with this account is incorrect
Try Again

Forgot password? Reset it here