Philosophy 3820F/G Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Brian Berry, Brexit, Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

28 views2 pages

chocolatedonkey329

26 Jun 2018

School

Department

Course

Professor

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

Day 9

There is a connection between nationalistic sentiment and dead people

Why is it bad to die?

Texas case where woman killed her children because they would be

better off in heaven

If there’s nothing bad that you face when you die then why is it bad to

die?

Ought to be able to explain why its worse to die young

A theory: Williams/Blackburn

Something has to be a motivating reason (internalism)

A person has subjective motivational set (desires, plans, projects,

preferences, commitments)

The subjective motivational set is forward looking

If you die all of this goes out the window

Death is bad because it cuts off all of the options that you had

Those left behind

It can be good to do what a dead person wants

Were going to be more committed to this thing if we have an

emotional attachment to them if they die

We may have or feel obligations to people who are now dead

Objection: it will not do anything for the person

Owen WIngrave

Supposed to enlist in the army since a long line of his family went to this

military school

Morality

The nature of rationality

A need

The idea of a need is a bare minimum

You cant always get what you want but if you try you might get something

that you need

The UDHR

Armstrong

If a person who fears to leave her house she does not have security of the

person

Argument that this is more important than say to join a trade union

Freedom of association

Who has a duty

Shue

Duties of global distributive justice must fall on institution

Is must correct

Griffin (what’s an imperfect duty)

Something you cannot rightly do

find more resources at oneclass.com

Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 2 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

There is a connection between nationalistic sentiment and dead people. Texas case where woman killed her children because they would be better off in heaven. Ought to be able to explain why its worse to die young. Something has to be a motivating reason (internalism) A person has subjective motivational set (desires, plans, projects, preferences, commitments) The subjective motivational set is forward looking. If you die all of this goes out the window. Death is bad because it cuts off all of the options that you had. It can be good to do what a dead person wants. Were going to be more committed to this thing if we have an emotional attachment to them if they die. We may have or feel obligations to people who are now dead. Objection: it will not do anything for the person. Supposed to enlist in the army since a long line of his family went to this military school.

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 3820F/G Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Brian Berry, Brexit, Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PHIL 2010 Lecture 14: Phil-Notes14

Philosophy 2073F/G Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Nagel Point, Lucretius, Baruch Spinoza

PHIL-360 Chapter Notes - Chapter 4: Suspended Animation, If And Only If, Brain Death

Related Questions