PHL 406 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Logical Consequence, Existentialism, Martin Heidegger

94 views3 pages

olivetrout85

16 Mar 2017

School

Department

Course

Professor

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

Document Summary

Means & ends: ends are goals, ends of yours are just that which you desire. That to philosophize is to learn to die by montaigne. Lecture 3 a defining death: can be argued that anyone that is being kept alive by a machine is either dead or alive. It is the machine that is keeping the person alive: veatch: definitions of death, cardio-pulmonary, whole-brain-death, primary organ. Its not the dead body that has the rights it"s the rights of the person who has died. It can be argued that a person who is alive has no right: modern day slavery, you change choose your own definition of death, unless you don"t define it, then the higher brain dead would be used. Robert veatch: definition of death is primarily a moral issue. Saying people are alive is simply shorthand for saying that they are bearers of [moral & legal] rights .

Related Questions

Intrinsic value vs. Instrumental Value

Philosophy Question: Is wisdom (philosophy) something you value most, which you consider most vital to living a good life?

Is wisdom something mostly intrinsically valuable and so desired solely for its own sake? Or is wisdom also instrumentally valuable and so desired also for the sake of something else you desire/want? If so, what?

Instrumental Value

You value most things instrumentally, that is, as a means to some end. Usually, this is obvious and trivial. For instance, you value a washing machine that works—purely for its useful function, or instrumental value.

Intrinsic Value

There are two notions of intrinsic value. It can be:

Valuable in itself
Valued by someone for its own sake

If something has intrinsic value in the first sense, this means that the universe is somehow a better place for that thing to exist or occur.

coralmarten56

Intrinsic value vs. Instrumental Value

Philosophy Question: Is wisdom (philosophy) something you value most, which you consider most vital to living a good life?

Instrumental Value

Intrinsic Value

There are two notions of intrinsic value. It can be:

Valuable in itself
Valued by someone for its own sake

If something has intrinsic value in the first sense, this means that the universe is somehow a better place for that thing existing or occurring.

Reference

Intrinsic vs. Instrumental Value A Basic Distinction in Moral Philosophy

coralmarten56

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

PHL 406 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Logical Consequence, Existentialism, Martin Heidegger

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PHL 406 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Enmeshment, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Beginning Of Human Personhood

English 1022E Lecture Notes - Lecture 28: Jacques Lacan

English 1022E Lecture Notes - Lecture 18: Jacques Lacan

Related Questions