PHL 228 Quiz: NEUROETHICS, Exam I, WQ 2021

58 views3 pages

maddyrock1210

7 Oct 2021

School

DePaul University

Department

Philosophy

Course

PHL 228

Professor

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Intrinsic/neutral/instrumental: bodily/aesthetic/intellectual, obligatory/permissible/forbidden, simple/binary/complex, the goal of a theory of good character is to classify all values (all goods) into the following set of categories: Bill is an adult male who committed a violent offense, assault and battery, three years ago. During his time in prison, bill submitted to a research study that was conducted using fmri and a go/no go impulse control test (gng). The testing found that bill"s anterior cingulate cortex (acc), a region associated with impulse control and conflict monitoring, showed abnormally low levels of activity. The test suggested that members of this population were riskier than others because they are more likely to be deficient in controlling impulsivity and thus more likely to reoffend. Why or why not? (4) conclude your essay by stating your own position on the morality of the use of neuroimaging technologies in predicting antisocial behavior.

Related Questions

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions, genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense.

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

ell25

Q1.4 The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) maintains several accurate copies of the international standard kilogram. Even after careful cleaning, these national standard kilograms are gaining mass at an average rate of about lug/y (y = year) when compared every 10 years or so to the standard international kilogram. Does this apparent increase have any importance? Explain.

53. Rank each set of substances in order of increasing standard molar entropy (S). Explain your reasoning. a. NH3(g); Ne(g); SO2(g); CH3CH2OH(g); He(8) b. H2O(s); H2O(1); H2O(g) c. CH4(3); CF4(); CC14(8)

PHL 228 Quiz: NEUROETHICS, Exam I, WQ 2021

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PHLB09H3 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Normative Ethics, Descriptive Ethics, Bioethics

ADM 1301 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Moral Reasoning

PHLB09H3 Chapter Notes - Chapter 1: Descriptive Ethics, Normative Ethics, Applied Ethics

Related Questions