PL2301 Lecture Notes - Ethical Subjectivism, Moral Relativism, Subjectivism

240 views1 pages

nurtoa03

7 Jun 2022

School

St. Mary's University

Department

PL - Philosophy

Course

PL2301

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Focused on the good life, our duties to others, the nature of virtue, etc. Argument: a chain of thought in which reasons (called premises ) are offered in support of a particular conclusion. At least one premise and a conclusion that (supposedly) follows from the premises. Premise- a reason that supports a conclusion of an argument. Conclusion- that which is inferred from the premises of an argument. Ex. (1)socrates was a man (2)all men are mortals (3)therefore, socrates was a mortal. Validity: an argument is logically valid if the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion. Saying that an argument is valid says nothing about the truth of premises. Sound: an argument is sound if it is a valid argument with true premises. Soundness: an argument is sound if it is valid and all of its premises are true. This person is in a group, the group has a quality and he has that quality.

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

Philosophy

Reflection Question: What do you value?

I value vacations and playing video games. I put forward the idea these are valuable things to me. However, playing video games is only an instrumental value. In other words, young students play video games because they receive joy and satisfaction from playing video games. Do you agree?

Question 1: Is traveling the world (vacations abroad) desirable because it is instrumentally valuable, i.e., only valuable because it will help you achieve or acquire other things you desire? Is this because you think it is bad (unpleasant) in itself or just neutral (neither desirable nor undesirable)? Or is traveling the world also intrinsically valuable, i.e. valuable for its own sake? If so, why?

Question 2: Is playing video games (Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo Switch) desirable because it is instrumentally valuable, i.e., only valuable because it will help you achieve or acquire other things you desire? Is this because you think it is bad (unpleasant) in itself or just neutral (neither desirable nor undesirable)? Or is playing video games also intrinsically valuable, i.e. valuable for its own sake? If so, why?

coralmarten56

Theoretical question here on relativity and black holecollisions.

Suppose a very small black hole (A) is at rest and an observer iswithin its event horizon.
Now consider that a much larger black hole (B) is approachingsingularity A at a highly relativistic speed (hence very highlyrelativistic momentum), and the two singularities collide head-on(extreme precision).

Now, by Conservation of Relativistic Momentum, the twosingularities (whether they fuse together or not) should travel inthe direction of initial motion of the larger black hole (B)because it had much more momentum.

Q: Is it possible for the observer, initially suspended withinevent horizon of Black hole (A), to escape both black holes becausethe collision would cause the 2 singularities to recede away fromher at a very high relativistic speed?

That is to say, would this bizarre black hole collision allow anobserver to escape a black hole and violate the concept of theevent horizon? If so, since not even light can escape a black holefrom within the horizon, would this imply that the observer isreceding away from the two singularities at a relative speedgreater than c? What sort of physical implications would this have,what would happen to the local spacetime? What strange events mightoccur? If this event is not possible, please explain explicitly whynot. If the observer did not escape, what sort of strange thingsmight she see when being dragged by the receding 2singularities?

PL2301 Lecture Notes - Ethical Subjectivism, Moral Relativism, Subjectivism

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

CAS PH 100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Ethical Subjectivism, Normative Ethics, Moral Equivalence

CAS PH 100 Study Guide - Final Guide: Susan R. Wolf, John Searle, Ethical Subjectivism

UCOR 151 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Morality, Egotism, Credit Union

Related Questions