PHI2604 Lecture Notes - Moral Reasoning

13 views1 pages

Camilaabreu16

21 Mar 2022

School

Miami Dade College

Department

Philosophy

Course

PHI2604

Professor

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

Document Summary

If so, provide an example of such an argument. The goal of moral reasoning is to determine whether a given idea is correct or incorrect. Furthermore, moral claims make assertions about individuals and their characters, whether good or bad, or they make assertions about right and wrong ways to act. Moral reasoning is fundamentally concerned with providing sound justifications for moral claims. A standard moral argument includes at least one moral premise as well as at least one nonmoral assumption. Moral arguments are best evaluated as deductive arguments. Moral claims are inextricably linked to feelings, just as they are to reasoning. The majority of moral decisions are influenced by the feelings of the person in question. It is also possible to present a logical argument that we strongly believe in. For example, medicine and skin care products are tested on animals such as rabbits and rats before they are finalized and delivered to the individual.

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

A cylinder with a valve at the bottom is filled with an ideal gas.The valve is now opened and some of the gas escapes slowly. Thevalve is then closed, after which the piston is observed to be at alower position. Assume that the system is in thermal equilibriumwith the surroundings at all times.

a) Is the final pressure of the gas in the cylinder greater than,less than, or equal to the initial pressure? Explain.

Explain how your answer is consistent with the forces acting on thepiston in the initial and final states.

b) In this process, which of the quantities P, V, n, and T are heldconstant and which are allowed to change?

c) Consider the following incorrect student statement.

"In the ideal gas law, P=nRT/V, so the pressure is inverselyproportional to the volume. If you decrease the volume, thepressure has to go up."

What is the flaw in the student's reasoning?

d) Explain why it is not possible to use the ideal gas law todetermine whether the pressure changed in this process.

PHI2604 Lecture Notes - Moral Reasoning

Document Summary

Get access

Related textbook solutions

Physics: Principles with Applications

Related Documents

PHI 221 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Modus Tollens, Modus Ponens, Hypothetical Syllogism

PHL 135 Chapter Notes - Chapter 3: Fallacy, Fetus, Begging

PHIL 246 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Moral Relativism, Cultural Relativism, Principlism

Related Questions