Class Notes (891,657)
CA (533,297)
U of A (13,913)
PHIL (154)
PHIL250 (30)
Lecture 1

PHIL250 Lecture 1: PHIL 250

3 Pages
46 Views

Department
Philosophy at St Joseph's College
Course Code
PHIL250
Professor
Howard Nye

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 3 pages of the document.

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
find more resources at oneclass.com PHIL 250 September 7, 2016 - The Relativist Challenge Ethical Relativism • Metaethics: the investigation of what ethical thought and talk is really all about – Central questions: Can ethical claims be objectively correct or incorrect, independent of what people happen to think about them? – If so, how can we determine whether or not an ethical claim is correct? • Many people are tempted towards the view that there are no objective ethical truths – Ethical Relativism: Different cultures just have different ethical views, and none of these views can be more correct or accurate than any others – Why might this seem plausible? • Disagreement (just say it is due to culture), lack of objective support (no good model to get objective ethics?), tolerance (not judging others for their ethical morals) The Argument from Disagreement • The argument from ethical disagreement – (P) Different cultures have different views about what’s right and wrong, good and bad, etc. – \ (C) There is no culture-independent fact of that matter about what’s right and wrong, good and bad, etc. • But does the mere fact that people disagree about something mean there’s no fact of the matter about it? • E.g. climate change, • Any descriptive thing there • The argument from geographical disagreement • (P) Different cultures have different views about the shape of the earth (us – ‘round!’; them – ‘flat!’) • \ (C) There is no culture-independent fact of that matter about the shape of the earth • There is still a fact of the matter, we have the evidence to prove it, don’t want to go from individuals disagree to the fact of the matter… How do we figure out the truth of ethics? Is Ethics Different? • In the case of earth-shape, history, biology, etc. – We have methods of resolving the disagreement, even though applications can be variant, and challenges to the evidence. But there is a realization that evidence must be presented for these claims. – Views seem to reflect some common fact of the matter, even if we don’t know what it is. Empirical study vs. normative study. Beliefs can latch onto the effects, no concrete reality in ethics. • In some cases, might seem to be no way of showing one side’s ethical view to be uniquely correct – Cremating the dead (Greeks) vs. funerary cannibalism (Callatians) – There can be situations where neither side has plausible objective support… Overall theme is similar. The objectively right view is to respect the deceased by whatever conventional method is best. • But are all examples like this? find more resources at oneclass.com find more resources at oneclass.com PHIL 250 – Here, it’s plausible that we have different conventional ways of meeting a shared objective – namely respecting the dead – Cf. driving on right vs. left, shaking hands vs. bowing – If you confuse your convention for showing respect as universal, then you risk offending other cultures by not showing respect that they do. Is There No Method for Ethics? • Maybe both sides are wrong that theirs is the only permissible funerary practice – Why would showing respect by eating be worse than by burning? • Actually found: eating can transmit prion diseases – All can agree that suffering and deprivation of future goods by death should be avoided – Seem like plausible basic categories of things to avoid (i.e. suffering and deprivation) • But suppose eating the dead didn’t risk prion disease – What would be wrong with using it to show respect? – Seems implausible that eating per se – independent of harm or disrespect – should be a basic category of wrongful act • Might try claiming: “it’s just unnatural to eat dead loved ones” – But what does “unnatural” mean? Just “not typically done (around here)”? “not done for most of history”?
More Less
Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit