CAS PH 251 Study Guide - Spring 2018, Comprehensive Midterm Notes - Informed Consent, Liberty, Immanuel Kant
12 Oct 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
CAS PH 251
MIDTERM EXAM
STUDY GUIDE
Fall 2018
Medical Ethics PH 251 9/11/12 10:57 AM
What is philosophy?
Three main components:
● Metaphysics: what is there?
● Epistemology: What can we know?
● Ethics: What should we do?
o Metaethics
o Normative Ethics
o Applied Ethics
The Nature of Moral Disagreement
Disagreement in Science vs. Moral Philosophy
(no crucial experiments or data in moral philosophy)
● So what then distinguishes good philosophical reasoning from poor
philosophical reasoning?
o The rigor of argumentation (e.g. logical form, conceptual
clarity, defensibility of assumptions, reliable empirical
evidence etc.)
Logical Implication: Validity and Soundness
● Validity: an argument is valid only if it’s the case that if the
premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true.
o Premise 1: All men are mortal
o Premise 2: Socrates is a man
o Conclusion: Socrates is mortal
● This is a valid argument, but not a sound argument
o Soundness: an argument is sound only if it’s valid AND the
premises are true.
o Yes the premises are true. This is a sound argument
o But not all valid deductive arguments are sound.
● Consider this argument:
o Premise 1: all birds can fly
o Premise 1: This animal is a bird
o Conclusion: This animal can fly
This is a valid argument, but not a sound argument
● Many arguments are inductive, not deductive
● Consider this inductive, statistical argument:
o Premise 1: nearly all birds can fly
o Premise 2: this animal is a bird
o Conclusion: this animal probably can fly
The difference between these statistical arguments is that you can add a
premise can change the probability of the conclusion:
● Premise 1: nearly all birds can fly
● Premise 2: this animal is a bird
● Conclusion: this animal probably can fly
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Add premise 3: this animal is over 100 lbs.
Renders conclusion false, since no known bird over 100 lbs can fly
Beware of Logical Fallacies
Example of a logically fallacious argument
● Premise 1: all mammals are warm blooded
● Premise 2: this animal is not a mammal
● Conclusion: this animal is not warm blooded
Other logical fallacies:
Personal attacks (‘ad hominem’ arguments)
Appeals to popular opinion
Appeals to authority
Circular reasoning
Appeals to emotion
Beware of Assumptions and Hidden Premises
Premise 1: Mary has lied in the past
Conclusion: Marry cannot be trusted
What’s the hidden premise?
Be Clear on the Facts and their Relation to Normative Calims
Beware the ‘Naturalistic Fallacy’: i.e., ‘what is, is what ought to be’
Just because it’s natural for human beings, doesn’t make it right
Be clear on the concepts
What is Moral Philsophy?
● Socrates: moral philosophy addresses “no small matter, but how ew
ought to live our lives.”
● The Minimum Conception of Morality:
● The morally right thing to do is whatever one has the strongest
reasons to do
● Impartial standpoint/equal consideration of interests
● Some useful distinctions to keep in mind
● Folk vs. Theoretical Morality
Lecture 2: Tuesday 9/1/2
Origins of cultural Relativism
Anthropological school of Franz Boas and his academic disciples
Ethnography demonstrate moral variation
“Primitive culture” was not descriptive but value laden claim
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Ethics: what should we do: metaethics, normative ethics, applied ethics. Moral philosophy (no crucial experiments or data in moral philosophy) So what then distinguishes good philosophical reasoning from poor philosophical reasoning: the rigor of argumentation (e. g. logical form, conceptual clarity, defensibility of assumptions, reliable empirical evidence etc. ) This is a valid argument, but not a sound argument: soundness: an argument is sound only if it"s valid and the premises are true, yes the premises are true. This is a sound argument: but not all valid deductive arguments are sound. Consider this argument: premise 1: all birds can fly, premise 1: this animal is a bird, conclusion: this animal can fly. This is a valid argument, but not a sound argument. Consider this inductive, statistical argument: premise 1: nearly all birds can fly, premise 2: this animal is a bird, conclusion: this animal probably can fly.
