Phil 100A
Study Questions
Relativism, Subjectivism and Objectivism
1. What is relativism? What would a relativist say is the right answer to a moral question, such as whether it is ever permissable to have an abortion?
2. It is obviously true that different societies have different moral views. Recognizing this does not make one a moral relativist. What must be added to the claim that different societies have different moral views in order to yield moral relativism?
3. What would a relativist say about moral tolerance: should we be tolerant of those who disagree with us on moral issues?
4. One way to test a moral theory is by seeing to what extent it squares with certain features of our moral lives. It is obvious that there are significant moral disagreements among individuals. How well does moral relativism account for the nature of these disagreements?
5. People sometimes wonder what they should do in a certain situation, not because they are in doubt about what they would like to do, but rather because they wonder whether what they would like to do is morally acceptable. How well does moral relativism account for this feature of our lives?
6. What is subjectivism? What would a subjectivist say is the right answer to a moral question, such as whether it is ever permissable to have an abortion?
7. What would a subjectivist say about moral tolerance: should we be tolerant of those who disagree with us on moral issues?
8. How well does subjectivism account for the nature of moral disagreements?
9. How well does subjectivism account for the nature of moral perplexity, the fact that people often wonder about what they ought to do?
10. Both realtivism and subjectivism take as given certain contrasts between non-moral disagreement and moral disagreement. Each then attempts to explain why these two kinds of disagreement are so different. List three apparent constrasts between moral and non-moral disagreement. How do relativism and subjectivism attempt to explain these differences? Are these differences genuine? What would an objectivist say in response to these attempts at explanation?
11. To what extent is objectivism compatible with moral tolerance?
12. How would an objectivist account for the nature and extent of moral disagreement? moral perplexity?
Plato: The relationship between self-interest and morality
1. What is ethical egoism? What is psychological egoism? If both of these views were true, under what conditions, if any, would someone act immorally?
2. There seems to be a gap between morality and self-interest, i.e. there seem to be cases in which the morally correct action is not the same as the self-interested action. How might an ethical egoist attempt to defend his view by appealing to conscience? Why would this be an implausible way of defending ethical egoism?
3. People surely do seem, at times, to act for the benefit of others. What would a psychological egoist say about such cases? How plausible is the psychological egoist's account of such behavior?
4. When people do favors for friends, they often feel good about it. Give two different reasons why this by itself does not show that in these cases the actions performed fit well with the psychological egoist's account of human behavior.
5. What is the difference between an action which is self-interested in its result and an action which is self-interested in its motivation? Which of these is, on your view, more closely connected with morality? Explain why you think this.
6. What is the Paradox of Egoism?
7. Socrates says that the benefit one gets from acting morally is that one will have a healthy soul. Explain in non-metaphorical language what this might mean and discuss to what extent the thesis is plausible.
Mill's Utilitarianism
1. What is utilitarianism? How does it differ from ethical egoism?
2. Mill argues that there is an important distinction to be drawn between higher and lower pleasures: some pleasures, he says, are of greater quality than others. Why does Mill draw this distinction? Why does Mill think that intellectual pleasures are of greater value than sensual pleasures?
3. Explain what a utlitarian would say about the morality of telling a lie. Under what conditions, if any, would a utilitarian believe that telling a lie is morally permissable?
4. What is the distinction between rule and act utilitarianism? Describe a situation in which act and rule utilitarians would behave differently.
5. Why do situations requiring co-operation among a large number of people present a challenge for utilitarians? Describe two different ways in which utilitarians might respond to this challenge.
6. Explain why questions about justice present a challenge for utlitarianism. Discuss two different ways in which utlitarians might respond to this challenge.
Russell's Problems of Philosophy
1. What is foundationalism? What alternatives are there to foundationalism?
2. Russell presents an argument for believing in the existence of a world outside our minds which depends on the notion of simplicity. Present this argument as carefully as you can. How well does this argument fit with Russell's foundationalism?
3. What would Russell say is the justification for believing that all swans are white? How successful is this kind of justification of inductive inference?
Quine's Web of Belief
1. What does Quine mean by an observation sentence? How does Quine's view that our knowledge is based on observation differ from Russell's that our knowledge is bsed on sensation?
2. How do Quine's views on induction compare with Russell's? Discuss some example in detail to illustrate these differences.
3. Quine's response to skepticism involves an appeal to Darwin's theory of evolution. Explain precisely how this argument goes.
4. What, according to Quine, are the five virtues of scientific theorizing? What have these virtues to do with a coherence theory of justification?
5. Explain the difference between Quine's attitude toward science and Russell's attitude toward science. Explain which of these you take to be more reasonable and why.