PHLB09H3 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Divine Command Theory, Cultural Relativism, Euthyphro Dilemma
1. Are moral principles objectively true according to relativism? Explain why/why not.
They are not objectively true, as relativism goes against Universality and Objectivity. As ideals
vary from culture to culture, person to person, and entity to entity, the concept of objectivity and
absolute morals is put into question. Morality is relative to each culture and is therefore not
objective but rather morality is a matter of opinion.
-looking at cultural relativism from a normative point of view its claims that culture determines
which actions really are right or wrong or things good or bad
-normative relativism implies that some actions that commonsense morality considers either
obligatory or forbidden are both, depending on each culture’s norms.
-ex: mistreatment of mentally ill in western countries before mental illness became understood as
a pathology to be treated
-ex: experiment conducted on women w/o consent ‘cause it culturally acceptable
-commonsense morality suggests that such actions are forbidden period, no matter where or
when they happen. Those involved in them were doing something morally wrong
-it counts against relativism that it must deny such apparently objective truths
Morality is relative to each culture and is not objective. It is a matter of opinion.
The argument must be valid → validity
You can endorse the premises but still reject the conclusion.
2. Rachels argues that there is less variation in moral beliefs than it might initially
appear. Explain this argument with respect to the practice of infanticide and the
consumption of cows.
-concept of values; actions and doings do not work in isolation but rather are guided by values
- there could be factual differences in belief between societies that could explain different
practices
-in the case of infanticide
-killing the babies not because they don’t care about/love babies but because they might
not be able to provide for the child
-infanticide is more common where resources are scarce
- could hurt the survival of the group as a whole if every child was kept with little
resources
-societies that practice infanticide might have been pressured to do so by difficult
circumstances
- One society might take the route to survival completely differently from us. However,
the underlying value is the same for all of us which is survival of the group.
- Differences are explained by differences in facts and not values
-in the case of the consumption of cows
-culture in which ppl believe it is wrong to eat cows and even if the ppl are poor they will
refuse to eat cows
-this culture appears to have very different values from our culture
-important question to ask is why dont they consume cows even if it means they will
starve
-because people believe that after death the souls of humans inhabit the bodies of animals
...so eating a cow may be someone’s grandmother
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
-different practices don’t necessarily mean that you have different values from another
person
-both people believe that you shouldn’t eat souls only difference between them is where
they believe the souls are kept
-therefore beliefs don’t have anything to do with value
3. Why does Rachels reject the argument from cultural differences?
Rachel’s central objection to the argument from cultural difference is that it has a logical flaw (ie
the premise does not follow the conclusion and that there is a missing premise in the argument)
Simply because one argument for a view is false does not disprove a view… some independent
reason for believing a view is false can disprove a view. This is what Rachels is saying
Some may believe the earth is flat others believe it is round. But the shape of the earth is not
relative to what each person believes (premise 2 must be false). The earth is round by FACT.
4. What are the two options presented in the Euthyphro dilemma? Why is each one
argued to be problematic?
First Option: God commands people to do what’s right, because it’s right
Second Option: God’s commandments are the basis for moral requirements
The first option goes against Divine Command Theory, as DCT states that ethical obligations
only exist if commanded by god.
The second option becomes problematic when the commandments go against moral intuition, as
well as the commandments being arbitrary to begin with.
5. Explain the decision reached in Mulloy v. Hop Sang (i.e. who won the case). How
would this case be analyzed using the four principles approach?
Hop sang (defendant) won the case
Mulloy (plaintiff) cut the arm of Hop Sang even after he repeatedly told him not to do so
Four principles approach
Principle of autonomy
Requires that the patient be autonomous of all the information regarding health care procedures.
The decision making process must be free of coercion or coaxing
Principle of beneficence
Requires that the procedure must be done with the intent of doing good for the patient involved
“Dr. Mulloy took it for granted when the defendant” did not fully understand the spoken english
as he was a “chinaman”. Had Hop Sang been knowledgeable of the procedure, he would not
have given his consent.
Principle of non-maleficence
Requires that the procedure does not harm the patient involved or others in society
Mulloy cut off Hop Sang’s arm even though he repeatedly told Mulloy not to
Principle of justice
Requires that procedures uphold the spirit of existing laws and are fair to all players involved
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
6. What moral principles serve as the basis for the doctrine of informed consent
according to Brock and Buchanon? How does obtaining informed consent respect
these two values.
Moral principles that serve as the basis for the doctrine of informed consent are:
self-determination/autonomy. The duty of beneficence, competent patients are best suited to
pursuing their own well-being, they have access to information and they know what they are
trying to promote. If dealing with competent patient, given enough information and they know
what’s the best for themselves, can give inform consent, the doctor doesn’t know it
Brock and Buchanon have a high standard of competence and argue that it is decision-relative.
This is to say that every case is different. - They argue that there are capacities that are required
for competency such as: o 1. Capacity for communication and understanding o 2. Capacity for
reasoning and deliberation o 3. Relatively stable set of values (i.e. sense of what is good for
them)
Friedman, on the other hand, argues that competency does not vary based on the stakes of the
decision. He argues that consent cannot be grounded by the risks/benefits of the decision at hand.
If consent is determined by the stakes of a decision, we are not genuinely concerned with the
patient’s competency, but their well-being. The purpose of informed consent is to respect
autonomy (not beneficence). As a result, he argues that competency is a general capacity and as
long as people can reason, and are open to rational discussions, they are and should be
responsible for their own decisions.
7. Invent a case where Brock and Buchanon would disagree with Friedman about the
competency of a patient to make a health-care decision.
Brock and buchanon believe in beneficence, bringing greather good, well being and improve
health of patient. Freedman belives in self-determination/autonomy and that the decision should
not be based on competence but on autonomy (respect the rights/values of the person).
Case: A patient has cancer/or any other fatal disease. Doctor knows treatment to increase some
life time for patient. Patient disagrees with doctor, doesn’t want medication/treatment.
Brock and buchanon would disagree because beneficence tells them to agree with doc whereas
freedman would agree because respect patient autonomy.
I argued that the threshold has to be set very high for competency for Brock and Buchanon. For
instance, if one is anxious during the decision making, they are incompetent according to Brock
and Buchanon. Now imagine a case where a patient is being suggested chemo-therapy for a life
saving operation. However, the individual rejects the treatment for personal reasons. Friedman
would argue that the individual is competent to make that decision given that the patient knows
what is best for him. And as long as he can reason and is open to rational discussion, he is
responsible for his own decision. Brock and Buchanon would disagree with Friedman because
they argue that given that the person is rejecting a life saving operation or therapy, the patient is
not competent enough. This could be due to anxiety or fear or what not.
8. What kind of information do Brock and Buchanon suggest is needed for properly
informing patients about a health-care decision? How does Friedman disagree with
this analysis?
Brock and Buchanon suggest that in cases of medical decision-making, patients should be given
detailed information about the disease/treatment so that they can be competent enough to give
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
They are not objectively true, as relativism goes against universality and objectivity. As ideals vary from culture to culture, person to person, and entity to entity, the concept of objectivity and absolute morals is put into question. Morality is relative to each culture and is therefore not objective but rather morality is a matter of opinion. Looking at cultural relativism from a normative point of view its claims that culture determines which actions really are right or wrong or things good or bad. Normative relativism implies that some actions that commonsense morality considers either obligatory or forbidden are both, depending on each culture"s norms. Ex: mistreatment of mentally ill in western countries before mental illness became understood as a pathology to be treated. Ex: experiment conducted on women w/o consent cause it culturally acceptable. Commonsense morality suggests that such actions are forbidden period, no matter where or when they happen. Those involved in them were doing something morally wrong.
