FINAL MIDTERM ETHIC AND MORAL THOERY (1)

.docx

School

Humber College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2320

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BaronInternetBeaver20

ETHICS AND MORAL THEORY Answer any 5 of the following questions (do not answer more than 5 questions). Each answer should be half a single-spaced page of writing (or a full double-spaced page of writing). Each answer is worth 5 marks, for a maximum total of 25 marks. Place submit your answer through blackboard. Do not submit your answers as a page file or in any other way than in blackboard, as it will not be marked 1.Explain the difference between an instrumental good and an intrinsic good. Come up with a clear example of each kind of good. Describe a scenario that clearly demonstrates that each example you have selected is the kind of good you say it is Instrumental goods are those that have value only because of the function they perform. They serve to a greater purpose. Goods that are appreciated only for themselves—rather than for what they can achieve or what they can do for us— are said to be intrinsic. A hammer is a tool; it is a device used in the process of making something. A piece of art has intrinsic value; it is valued for its own sake alone, regardless of any other function it could have. While intrinsic commodities are appreciated for themselves, instrumental goods are valued for the part they play in generating something else of value. A hammer is a prime example of an instrumental good since it is appreciated for its capacity to aid in the production of something else, such as a table. A diamond is a prime illustration of an intrinsic good since it is prized for its own rarity and beauty. As

we busy ourselves with this activity, it is helpful to distinguish between intrinsic good and instrumental good. Consider good not as a means to a goal but as an end in and of itself, regardless of everything else. An instrumental good is an efficient means to a desired end. Pleasure is an inherent good, which implies that it doesn't rely on anything else itself to be pleasant. 10. Exactly how does moral nihilism differ from ethical relativism on the question of moral truth? Which of the two theories, if any, do you think is the stronger one? Explain your answer. Moral relativism, on the other hand, holds that morality is dependent on the person, and moral nihilism holds that there is no intrinsic morality. Nihilism, in my opinion, is the more persuasive of the two ideas since it does not rely on a person's own judgment to establish what is right or bad. Moral nihilism is the idea that moral judgments cannot be true or wrong because there is no objective morality. The idea that morality depends on a culture or civilization and that what is ethically right or wrong may differ from one culture to another is known as ethical relativism. Since moral judgments are made independently of any specific culture or community, moral nihilism is the more compelling of the two views. Because it relies on a certain culture or civilization to define what is good or wrong, ethical relativism is weaker.

Moral nihilism rejects the idea of objective moral norms, much like ethical relativism. There are no moral realities of the situation that moral claims either match or don't match. In contrast to ethical relativism, moral nihilism maintains that there is no justification for accepting the veracity of any moral statements in the absence of objective moral standards. According to ethical relativism, thinking moral propositions to be true is enough to make them true for certain people. In contrast to ethical relativism, moral nihilism maintains that there is no justification for accepting the veracity of any moral statements in the absence of objective moral standards. According to ethical relativism, thinking moral propositions to be true is enough to make them true for certain people. Psychotics fervently believe the strangest things, yet the strength of their convictions is no guarantee that what they think is real. It is obvious that the strength of a belief, or the intensity with which it is held, is no evidence of the veracity of the belief. Therefore, one cannot demonstrate the veracity of their moral ideas by making an argument about how strong those beliefs are. 7. How does moral relativism as a meta-ethical theory of moral truth differ from a mere assertion that different people in different places and at different times have different moral values and beliefs (i.e., what does moral relativism say in addition to this assertion)? According to the meta-ethical idea of moral relativism, there is no universal, absolute moral truth and that what is morally good or evil, right or wrong, depends on a society's

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help