PHIL 100_Ethics.docx

4 Pages
96 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
PHIL 100
Professor
Peter Graham
Semester
Spring

Description
PHIL 100 Ethics Ethics is not an inquiry into what we ought to believe about the world, but, rather, an inquiry into what we ought to do. There are two major branches within ethics proper Normative Ethics  In normative ethics we strive to come up with general principles that dictate for all possible scenarios what we morally ought to do in those scenarios. Practical Ethics (or Applied Ethics)  In practical ethics (or applied ethics) we examine particular ethical issues and try to figure out hat we morally ought to do respect to them. *Not going to be doing normative ethics *Focus on Practical Ethics Two particular issues: o Our moral obligations to those in desperate need o Our moral obligations to non-human animals. Some Crucial Moral Concepts  An action, x, is morally permissible if and only if it is morally OK (or morally allowed, or morally “all right”, etc.) to perform x. o We can define many other moral concepts in terms of moral permissibility.  An action, x is morally impermissible = it would not be morally permissible to perform  An action, X, is morally wrong = it would not be morally permissible to perform x.  An action, x, is morally wrong if and only if x is morally impermissible.  An action, x, is morally obligatory = it would not be morally permissible to fail to perform x.  An action. X is morally required= it would not be morally permissible to fail to perform x.  An action x, is morally obligatory if and only if x is morally required. Moral Obligations to Those In Desperate Need The Shallow Pond Case: On his morning walk to work Donald stumbles upon an infant frantically thrashing about in a shallow pond. Donald recognizes that the infant is in peril of drowning and will drown if no one saves it. He realizes that he can easily save the infant by wading into the pond, picking it up, and safely transporting it to dry land. He also realizes, however, that doing this will ruin the pants to his new Brooks Brothers suit. Without giving it a second thought, Donald decides not to save the infant and ruin his pants. He walks on and has a productive day at the office. The infant drowns. The Letter Case: John receives a letter in the mail from Oxfam informing him that with a donation of $200 he can save the life of a starving child in Nigeria. (A donation of $200 can transform a sickly 2-year-old into a healthy 6-year-old--offering safe passage through childhood’s most dangerous years.) John has $200 on hand, but he plans to spend that money on a new pair of pants for his Brooks Brothers suit. Without giving it a second thought, John crumples up the letter and heads off to Brooks Brothers, where, with his $200 he purchases a smashing new pair of pants for his Brooks Brothers suit. The Nigerian child starves to death. How does Donald act in the Shallow Pond Case? How does John act in the Letter Case? The Quite Plausible Assumption (QPA) ________________________________________________________________________ The Strong Principle (SP)
More Less

Related notes for PHIL 100

Log In


OR

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