



Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
A comprehensive overview of key concepts in philosophy, particularly focusing on ethics and argumentation. it delves into various ethical frameworks, including consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics, providing clear definitions and examples. The document also explores the structure of arguments, differentiating between valid and invalid reasoning, and introduces the charity principle in argument interpretation. furthermore, it examines classic ethical dilemmas like the trolley problem and discusses the application of ethical principles in real-world scenarios, such as the case of a muslim cross-country runner's religious accommodation. the inclusion of questions and answers enhances understanding and promotes critical thinking about complex moral issues.
Typology: Exams
1 / 6
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!




philosophy correct answer The study of questions that cannot be answered scientifically Specific: practice of using reason and argument to study questions that cannot be answered scientifically Ethics correct answer reason-guided study of what makes actions morally right or wrong and how we morally ought to act Applied Ethics correct answer applying a moral theory to a particular case or dilema Argument correct answer line of reasoning offered in support of a particular claim or thesis Valid argument correct answer if the premises are true then the conclussion must be true as well invalid argument correct answer conclussion false even if the premises are true sound argument correct answer valid form and true premises. the best type of argument that one can make premises correct answer statements that offer support for the conclussion supporting statement conclussion correct answer the CLAIM that the arguements proponent is trying to establish *what you're arguing for
consequentalism correct answer look at outcomes of all available actions perform actions that does the most good do good, avoid bad deontology correct answer identify relevant moral rules or principles that apply to your circumstances follow relevant rules or principles do your duty (follow rules) categorial imperative correct answer commands you must follow, regardless of your desires. Moral obligations are derived from pure reason first formulation correct answer act only on the maxim which you can at the SAME time will that ir should become a universal law without contridication ex) even if no one is looking do not steal second formulation correct answer the formula of the end within itself Don't use people as your own benefit or objects for personal gains never use others as a mere object ex) do not push someone off the bridge maxim correct answer a general truth or rule of conduct; a short saying virtue ethics correct answer cultivate virtuous character traits in yourself
our opponents do not have easy ways to avoid criticism show respect to intellects we are criticizing explain the bridge case and switch case variations of the trolley problem. What is the most common combination of verdicts about these cases? is this a logically consistent position, or are these cases too similar to yield different moral verdicts? explain correct answer explain the theories most common- pull the switch but not push the man. These cases yielded different moral verdicats. The switch pull people were not directly harming 2nd one was consider the common claim "the ends do not justify the means" Do you think this claim represents a good reason to reject consequetialism? Why or why not? correct answer I do think this is a good reason to reject consequetalism. Consequalism means looking at the outcomes that do the most good. This statement does not necassarily say we have to do morally good to bad so long as we get to the end it doesn't matter how In "when to break a rule" Steven Nadler recalls an instance in which a 16 year old muslim cross- country runner in ohio was disqualified for wearing a hijab during her race because her coach failed to file a religious waiver. How does Nadler evaluate the enforcement of the rule in this case? In your view, should the rules have been enforced in this situation? Why or why not? correct answer He evaluates the the enforcement of the rule in this case by saying the hijab may have given her an unfair advantage. In my view i do not believe the rules should be enforced in this situation. I do not know how a hijab could even give someone an unfair advantage. This seems more like a case of discrimination and it was not more unfair to not let her compete. How do we evaluate non-moral premises? How do we evluate moral premises? Why can't we use the same tactic for evaluating these different types of premises? correct answer non moral premises evaluation- ask: are the sources reliable? is there conflicting evidence? Does the premises support rely on appeals to emotion
moral premises evaluation-use counterexamples to prove premises wrong, base premises on foundation moral claims, base premises on moral values that are shared We can't use the same tactics because there are different standards for these claims What are six of Russ Shafer-Landau's "Ethical Starting Point?" correct answer everyone is morally fallible friendship is valuable we are not obligated to do the impossible children bear less responsibility than adults equals ought to be treated equally justice is a very important moral good agony is bad What are six of the moral principles that are included in the American Pharmacists Association's Code of Ethics? correct answer pharmacist respects relationship between them and patient pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in caring, compassionatee, and confiden manner pharmacist respects autonomy and dignity of patient