Ethical Philosophy

Home > Preview

The flashcards below were created by user Missybambi1 on FreezingBlue Flashcards.


  1. The philosophical study of ethics is often divided into three different sub-branches:
    • normative ethics
    • metaethics, and
    • applied ethics.
  2. Philosophers who study metaethics investigate questions on
    • Ethical terms and their meaning such as “good,” “bad,” “evil,”
    • If any objective moral facts exist,
    • Whether moral statements can be defined as true or false,
    • Whether or not morality is completely subjective
  3. For an argument to be valid, it must be structured in such a way that,
    • IF all of its premises are true, then
    • the conclusion must also be true.
  4. All arguments consist of
    • at least one premise and
    • a conclusion.
  5. Which branch of ethical study focuses on the nature, possibility, presuppositions, meaning, and logical consistency of ethical theories and judgments.
    Metaethics
  6. _____________ studies how one ought to live and why one should live that way.
    Normative ethics
  7. Normative ethics focuses primarily on
    • conduct and
    • what principles should govern one’s conduct.
  8. Metaethics is sometimes called
    analytic ethics
  9. _____________involves the application of specific normative ethical theories to particular ethical issues.
    Applied ethics
  10. ______________– the characteristics Rachels thinks all normative ethical theories must have.
    “a minimum conception of morality”
  11. Characterizing “a minimum conception of morality” is a metaethical goal, because it involves making claims about
    the nature of all genuine moral theories.
  12. The conclusion is the statement you are
    trying to prove
  13. The statements that are used to support and prove the truth of the conclusion.
    The premises
  14. The content of an argument refers to
    its premises
  15. the support between the premises and the conclusion is called
    The form
  16. The validity of an argument pertains to
    its form.
  17. By definition, it is impossible for the conclusion of a valid argument to be _____if all of its premises are_____.
    • False
    • true
  18. True or false: Any premise to a valid argument must be true
    False
  19. True or false: It is perfectly possible to construct valid arguments that have false premises.
    True
  20. True or False: The following is a valid argument
    1: All trees are nine miles tall.
    2: Dr. Esposito is a tree.
    3: Therefore, Dr. Esposito is nine miles tall.
    True
  21. Can an argument be valid, even though every statement within it is blatantly false?
    Yes
  22. If you pretend that all the premises of an argument really were true, ask yourself if the conclusion could still be false. If the answer is no, the argument is
    valid.
  23. if all the premises were true, the conclusion would
    have to be true as well in order for it to be a valid argument
  24. In a sound argument, It would be impossible for the premises to be ____and the conclusion_____.
    • True
    • false
  25. What kind of argument is this…
    1: All men are mortal.
    2: Socrates is a man.
    3: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
    sound argument.
  26. A sound argument is a valid argument in which
    all of its statements are true.
  27. The soundness of an argument involves
    • both its form and
    • its content.
  28. To be sound, an argument must be
    valid
  29. If all premises were true, the conclusion would also be true is defined as
    A valid argument
  30. All sound arguments, by definition, are
    valid,
  31. Not all valid arguments are
    sound.
  32. True or False: ALL sound arguments are valid
    True
  33. True or False: ALL valid arguments are sound
    False. All sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound
  34. True or False: A valid are argument is sound
    False, not always
  35. There are two main ways to critique unsound arguments.
    • prove that some or all of the premises are false.
    • attacking the form of the argument.
  36. This method involves attacking the content of the argument.
    proving that some or all of the premises are false.
  37. To attack the form of the argument., you would need to prove that, even if the premises were true, the conclusion _______
    could still be false!
  38. _____________ is when you critique the content and/or form of the other persons’ arguments.
    attacking the form of the argument
  39. Rachels believes any ethical theory must be based upon reason and exhibit
    impartiality.
  40. Rachels claims we cannot rely upon feelings to make moral judgments because:
    • -- Feelings prevent us from knowing the truth and can be contradictory; facts cannot
    • -- Expressions of personal taste don’t require reasons, but moral judgments do.
  41. According to his minimum conception of morality, there is some level of __________ involved with the making and evaluation of moral judgments.
    Objectivity
  42. Rachels’ comments throughout this part of the chapter clearly presuppose a major metaethical assumption – that objective moral facts _____
    exist!

Card Set Information

Author:
Missybambi1
ID:
334325
Filename:
Ethical Philosophy
Updated:
2017-09-17 06:37:45
Tags:
Ethical philosophy
Folders:
philosophy
Description:
philosophy
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview