Deck 3: Skepticism About Morality

Question 1

Talk about:
-Altruism

Answer 1

the motivation to benefit others for their own sake.

Question 2

Talk about:
-Atheists

Answer 2

those who believe that God does not exist.

Question 3

Talk about:
-Begging the question

Answer 3

assuming the truth of the conclusion that one's argument is meant to support.

Question 4

Talk about:
-Categorical reasons

Question 5

Talk about:
-Error theory

Question 6

Talk about:
-Ethical egoism

Question 7

Talk about:
-Iconoclast

Question 8

Talk about:
-Infallible

Question 9

Talk about:
-Objective moral standards

Question 10

Talk about:
-Psychological egoism

Question 11

Which of the following is not one of the arguments in favor of error theory?

A) The Argument from Disagreement
B) The Argument from Expected Benefit
C) The Argument from the Scientific Test of Reality
D) The Argument from Atheism

Question 12

In what ways does ethical egoism require actions that seem to be paradigmatic cases of immorality? How serious of a problem is this for the theory? What should the egoist say in response? Defend your answers.

Question 13

What is psychological egoism and how does it provide support for ethical egoism? Do you think psychological egoism is true? Why or why not?

Question 14

What is moral progress? Why is moral progress impossible if relativism is true? How serious of a problem is this for the theory? Defend your answers.

Question 15

What does it mean to say that an ethical standard is objective? In what ways do relativists deny the objectivity of ethics, and why do you think they do so? Is morality objective? Defend your answers.

Question 16

Which of the arguments offered by error theorists do you find most powerful and why? Does the argument you chose establish the truth of error theory? Why or why not?

Question 17

According to Jeske's analysis, moral disagreement across cultures is

A) the result of differences in non-moral beliefs.
B) merely apparent.
C) a justification for moral skepticism.
D) impossible to resolve.

Question 18

According to Jeske, if cultural relativism is true, then moral disagreement across cultures is

A) the result of differences in non-moral beliefs.
B) merely apparent.
C) a justification for moral skepticism.
D) impossible to resolve.

Question 19

Which of the following is not part of the appeal of cultural relativism according to Jeske?

A) It explains our reluctance to judge those in other cultures.
B) It makes sense of moral disagreement without forcing us to say that someone must be wrong.
C) It provides the best possible defense against moral skepticism.
D) It seems to encourage the toleration of diversity.

Question 20

According to Jeske, cultural relativism _______ toleration.

A) is, under no circumstance, compatible with
B) is the best theory to promote
C) necessarily entails
D) is, under certain circumstances, incompatible with

Question 21

Those who accept cultural relativism argue that adhering to a culture-independent moral code

A) leads to moral skepticism.
B) makes moral disagreement merely apparent.
C) encourages judgmental arrogance that leads to intolerance.
D) All of the above

Question 22

Jeske argues that practices such as slavery and lynching show that

A) cultural relativism is true.
B) toleration should not be extended to all cultural practices.
C) moral skepticism is unjustified.
D) cultural relativism encourages toleration.

Question 23

Jeske argues that in cases of extreme moral disagreement

A) there is usually common ground.
B) the disagreement is usually more apparent than real.
C) resolving the disagreement is always impossible.
D) there is no fact of the matter about who is right and who is wrong.

Question 24

Which of the following statements is consistent with cultural relativism with speaker-relativity?

A) "That's right for them even though it's not right for us."
B) "It is certainly wrong for me to own slaves, but it was not wrong for Thomas Jefferson to own slaves."
C) "What's right for the members of my culture is right for everyone."
D) None of the above

Question 25

According to Jeske's analysis, our reluctance to judge people in other places and times is best explained by

A) cultural relativism with agent-relativity.
B) our recognition that what people are justified in believing is largely a function of their time and culture.
C) cultural relativism with speaker-relativity.
D) our embrace moral skepticism.

Question 26

Jeske argues that moral judgments ought to be sensitive to the culture of the agent being evaluated because

A) cultural relativism with agent-relativity is true.
B) we must avoid smug, judgmental arrogance.
C) cultural relativism with speaker-relativity is true.
D) culture is relevant to what it is rational for that agent to believe.

Question 27

How does Jeske explain our reluctance to judge other cultures? Is her explanation more convincing than that of the relativist in your view? Why or why not?

Question 28

Jeske claims that rejecting cultural relativism does not entail intolerance and that accepting cultural relativism is actually incompatible with tolerance under certain circumstances. How does Jeske argue for these claims? Are her arguments convincing? Why or why not?

Question 29

In the final section of her essay, Jeske suggests that there is less moral disagreement across time and place than it initially appears. What is the basis for Jeske's suggestion? Do you find her suggestion plausible? Why or why not?

Question 30

Mackie's claim that values are not objective is meant to include which of the following?

A) Moral value
B) Rightness and wrongness
C) Duty and obligation
D) All of the above

Question 31

An error theory is a theory

A) that contains an error.
B) that maintains that all judgments of a certain kind are false.
C) about what errors are.
D) about how to best avoid errors.

Question 32

According to Mackie, what is the difference between scientific disagreement and moral disagreement?

A) There is less disagreement about science than there is about morality.
B) Scientific disagreement results from speculative inferences or inadequate evidence while moral disagreement does not.
C) Most scientific disagreement gets resolved while most moral disagreement does not.
D) All of the above

Question 33

Mackie maintains that the mere occurrence of disagreement shows that

A) there are no objective values.
B) there are no objective truths.
C) moral judgments are purely conventional.
D) None of the above

Question 34

According to Mackie, what best explains variations in moral codes?

A) That they reflect ways of life
B) That they express perceptions of objective values
C) That moral judgments lack descriptive meaning
D) All of the above

Question 35

According to Mackie, if there were objective values, they would have to have which of the following features?

A) They would have to be utterly different from anything else in the universe.
B) We could be aware of them only via some special faculty of moral perception or intuition.
C) Both a and b
D) Neither a nor b

Question 36

Mackie argues that all moral thinking requires input from

A) ethical intuition.
B) emotion.
C) reason.
D) delusion.

Question 37

According to Mackie, what is the moral objectivist's best move in response to the argument
From queerness?

A) To evade the issue
B) To look for companions in guilt
C) To insist that objective values are not queer
D) None of the above

Question 38

According to Mackie, moral judgments

A) are false.
B) lack descriptive meaning.
C) should be treated as expressions of desires.
D) All of the above

Question 39

Which of the following moral claims does Mackie think is true?

A) It is morally good to help a deserving person in need.
B) It is morally wrong to inflict needless suffering for fun.
C) You are morally obliged to do what is best for yourself.
D) None of the above

Question 40

Do you think Mackie succeeds in showing that all moral claims are false? If yes, explain what you think is the best objection to his arguments and why you think it fails to refute Mackie's conclusion. If no, explain why Mackie's arguments fail to establish his conclusion.

Question 41

Compare and contrast moral and scientific disagreement. What does Mackie take to be the most important differences between them? What does he take this to show about each type of disagreement? Do you agree with his assessment? Defend your answers.

Question 42

Explain the companions in guilt response to the argument from queerness. Which of the companions Mackie discusses do you think is most "queer?" Do you think we should be error theorists about this companion? Defend your answers.

Question 43

Case Study
In 1994, a 17-year-old girl named Fauziya Kassindja entered the United States seeking asylum. She had fled her native country of Togo to escape female genital mutilation (FGM). FGM is a permanently disfiguring procedure that UNICEF estimates up to 200 million women have undergone. Though Fauziya's immediate family opposed FGM, her father suddenly died when she was 16. After her father's death, Fauziya's grandfather arranged for her to undergo FGM (read more on HYPERLINK "http://www.pbs.org/speaktruthtopower/fauziya.html" PBS).
Fauziya's mother and sister managed to help her escape to avoid FGM. However, in the United States, Fauziya was imprisoned for two years while the authorities decided what to do with her. She was finally granted asylum but not before becoming center of a controversy about how Americans should regard the social practices of other cultures. A series of articles in the New York Times argued that FGM is a barbaric practice that should be condemned. But others were reluctant to be to make such judgments, worrying that it would be intolerant or imperialistic to condemn other cultures' social practices, even if they were clearly immoral by the standards of American culture.
-Suppose we judge that FGM is morally wrong. Are we making a universal moral judgment or merely applying the standards of our own culture? Does cultural relativism entail that the latter kind of moral judgment is the only legitimate kind?

Question 44

Case Study
In 1994, a 17-year-old girl named Fauziya Kassindja entered the United States seeking asylum. She had fled her native country of Togo to escape female genital mutilation (FGM). FGM is a permanently disfiguring procedure that UNICEF estimates up to 200 million women have undergone. Though Fauziya's immediate family opposed FGM, her father suddenly died when she was 16. After her father's death, Fauziya's grandfather arranged for her to undergo FGM (read more on HYPERLINK "http://www.pbs.org/speaktruthtopower/fauziya.html" PBS).
Fauziya's mother and sister managed to help her escape to avoid FGM. However, in the United States, Fauziya was imprisoned for two years while the authorities decided what to do with her. She was finally granted asylum but not before becoming center of a controversy about how Americans should regard the social practices of other cultures. A series of articles in the New York Times argued that FGM is a barbaric practice that should be condemned. But others were reluctant to be to make such judgments, worrying that it would be intolerant or imperialistic to condemn other cultures' social practices, even if they were clearly immoral by the standards of American culture.
-Do you think there is anything intolerant or imperialistic about issuing universal moral condemnation of practices like FGM? What about other cultural practices that are less extreme but nevertheless seem morally wrong to us? Is cultural relativism more plausible with regard to some cases than others?