Question 1

Why does Cahn say that God's existence "does not imply any particular moral precepts"?

Accepted Answer

Steven Cahn, a philosopher, suggests that the existence of God does not necessarily imply any particular moral precepts because the connection between God's existence and moral laws is not inherently obvious or direct. This idea is rooted in the philosophical debate about the relationship between religion and morality, particularly the Euthyphro dilemma, which questions whether something is good because God commands it, or if God commands it because it is good.

Cahn's assertion can be understood in several ways:

1. **Divine Command Theory Critique**: If one subscribes to Divine Command Theory, which posits that moral values are commanded by God, then God's existence would directly determine moral precepts. However, Cahn might argue that this theory faces challenges, such as the arbitrariness objection (the idea that if God commanded something we consider immoral, it would become moral) and the independence problem (the idea that if moral values exist independently of God's will, then God's existence isn't necessary for morality).

2. **Moral Pluralism**: Cahn might be acknowledging the existence of multiple moral frameworks that do not rely on the existence of a deity. For example, secular humanism, Kantian ethics, and utilitarianism are moral systems that do not depend on divine authority to provide their moral precepts.

3. **Interpretation of Divine Will**: Even if one believes that God's existence provides a foundation for morality, there is the issue of interpreting what God's moral precepts are. Different religions and denominations within religions often have varying interpretations of God's will, leading to different moral codes. This suggests that the mere existence of God does not lead to a clear, unambiguous set of moral precepts.

4. **God's Nature and Morality**: Cahn may also be pointing out that the nature of God, as conceived by many theistic traditions, is often beyond human comprehension. If God's nature is inscrutable or His ways are mysterious, then it may be presumptuous to claim that we can know with certainty the specific moral precepts that stem from His existence.

5. **Is-Ought Problem**: Cahn's statement might reflect the philosophical issue known as the is-ought problem, famously articulated by David Hume. Just because something is the case (God exists) does not automatically tell us what ought to be the case (what moral actions we should take). The existence of God (an "is") does not inherently contain information about what we ought to do (moral precepts).

In summary, Cahn's assertion that God's existence "does not imply any particular moral precepts" is a recognition of the complex relationship between the existence of a deity and the derivation of moral laws. It acknowledges the challenges in claiming a direct link between the two and respects the diversity of moral thought that exists both within religious contexts and outside of them.

Question 2

One possibility raised in the Euthyphro is that actions may be good because God says they are good. What problems does Cahn point out with this view?

Accepted Answer

Cahn points out several problems with the view that actions may be good because God says they are good.

First, he argues that this view implies that morality is arbitrary and based solely on God's commands. This raises the question of whether something is good because God commands it, or if God commands it because it is good. If the former is true, then morality becomes arbitrary and subject to the whims of a divine being. If the latter is true, then there must be some standard of goodness independent of God, which undermines the idea that God is the source of morality.

Second, Cahn raises the issue of divine command theory leading to moral relativism. If morality is solely based on God's commands, then different religions or interpretations of God's will could lead to conflicting moral standards. This undermines the idea of objective moral truths and leads to moral relativism.

Finally, Cahn points out that the divine command theory raises the problem of interpreting God's commands. If morality is based on God's commands, then it becomes crucial to accurately interpret what God commands. This raises the question of how we can know what God commands, and whether our interpretations are reliable.

Overall, Cahn argues that the view that actions may be good because God says they are good raises significant problems regarding the nature of morality, the source of moral standards, and the interpretation of divine commands.

Question 3

Holy writings can conflict with one another.

Accepted Answer

Different holy writings from different religions or even within the same religion may have contradictory teachings or beliefs. This is one reason why there are so many different religions and interpretations of religious texts.

Question 4

Cahn argues that actions are right because of God's commands.

Accepted Answer

Cahn, in discussing the Divine Command Theory, actually critiques the idea that actions are right solely because God commands them, suggesting instead that moral principles may exist independently of God's commands.

Question 5

Cahn begins this essay by
A) asserting the existence of God.
B) assuming the existence of God.
C) doubting the existence of God.
D) denying the existence of God.

Accepted Answer

The essay begins with the sentence "Imagine that you woke up one morning to discover that you had been replaced by an exact replica of yourself." This sentence is a hypothetical scenario and assumes the existence of an individual self, which suggests that the author is not denying the existence of God. Therefore, option B, assuming the existence of God, is the best choice.

Question 6

One might think that God had implanted moral standards in human minds. Why does Cahn think this idea is doubtful?
A) Cahn does not believe in God.
B) No one has any moral standards in mind.
C) People's moral intuitions conflict.
D) Implanted standards would prevent any evil behavior.

Accepted Answer

Cahn thinks this idea is doubtful because people's moral intuitions conflict. There are many examples of situations where different people hold opposite moral beliefs or values. If moral standards were implanted universally by a divine being, then there would not be such moral diversity among different cultures and individuals.

Question 7

Throughout history, diviners, seers, and oracles have claimed to know the will of God. Holy books have also been written to reveal the will of God. What problem does Cahn point out with both oracles and holy books?
A) They have too much influence over believers.
B) They conflict with people's moral intuitions.
C) They conflict with each other.
D) No test is available to check them.

Accepted Answer

Cahn points out that oracles and holy books often conflict with each other, which is a problem because it leads to contradictions and disagreements about what is considered the true will of God.

Question 8

Cahn concludes that
A) a believer is more likely to be moral than an atheist.
B) an atheist is more likely to be moral than a believer.
C) neither an atheist nor a believer is very likely to be a moral person.
D) an atheist can be moral or immoral and so can a believer.

Accepted Answer

Cahn does not make a definitive statement on which group, atheists or believers, is more likely to be moral. Instead, he acknowledges that individuals in both groups can be moral or immoral. He emphasizes the importance of individual choices and actions, rather than group membership, in determining morality.

Question 9

Midgley denies that respecting other cultures requires us to refrain from making negative judgments about them. Is this true? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Midgley denies that respecting other cultures requires...

Question 10

Midgley argues that moral isolationism amounts to "a general ban on moral reasoning." Is she correct about this? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Midgley argues that moral isolationism amounts to...

Question 11

Midgley says that "if we accept something as a serious moral truth about one culture, we can't refuse to apply it-in however different an outward form-to other cultures as well, wherever circumstances admit." Is she saying that there is exactly one universal morality that applies to all cultures? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Midgley says that "if we accept something...

Question 12

Midgley argues that moral isolationism is not actually respectful of other cultures.

Accepted Answer

Midgley argues that moral isolationism assumes that cultures are monolithic and unchanging, and does not allow for any critique or discussion of cultural practices that may be harmful or unethical. This approach ultimately does not respect the complexity or diversity of cultures, and can even lead to cultural imperialism or the imposition of Western values on other cultures.

Question 13

Midgley thinks that moral isolationism is correct.

Accepted Answer

Midgley argues against moral isolationism in her essay "Trying Out One's New Sword". She believes that there are universal moral values that all cultures should adhere to, such as honesty and fairness. Moral isolationism, which suggests that each culture has its own unique set of moral values that should not be judged by outsiders, is problematic because it can lead to a lack of criticism and improvement within a culture.

Question 14

Moral isolationism makes it impossible to praise other cultures.

Accepted Answer

Moral isolationism is the belief that moral principles should not be applied to other cultures. Therefore, if one adhered to moral isolationism, they would not be able to praise or criticize other cultures based on their moral values.

Question 15

According to Midgley, any opinions we form about other cultures are necessarily crude.

Accepted Answer

The answer of According to Midgley, any opinions we form...

Question 16

According to Midgley, it is wrong to impose our beliefs on other cultures only because our culture says it is wrong for us to do so.

Accepted Answer

Midgley argues against moral isolationism, suggesting that refusing to judge other cultures is itself a form of ethnocentrism. She believes we can and should make moral judgments about practices in other cultures, not merely because our culture says it's wrong to impose our beliefs, but because moral reasoning can transcend cultural boundaries.

Question 17

According to Midgley, if we accept a moral standard for one culture, we must also apply it to other cultures, including our own.

Accepted Answer

Midgley argues that if we accept a moral standard for one culture, we must apply it consistently to other cultures and to our own culture, rather than assuming cultural relativism or exceptionalism. By doing so, we can avoid harmful and discriminatory behavior based on cultural biases.

Question 18

Midgley argues that moral isolationism is true for very alien cultures, but not for cultures that overlap with one's own culture, as British culture overlaps with American culture.

Accepted Answer

Midgley criticizes moral isolationism as a whole, arguing against the idea that we cannot understand or judge cultures different from our own, regardless of whether they are very alien or closely overlapping with one's own culture.

Question 19

Midgley thinks it is easy to make a moral judgment about the wrongness of the Japanese practice of trying out one's new sword on a chance wayfarer.

Accepted Answer

Mary Midgley argues that understanding the full context of a culture is crucial before making moral judgments about its practices, indicating that it is not easy to make such judgments without deep understanding.

Question 20

Midgley's primary goal in this chapter is to
A) argue that moral isolationism is false.
B) argue that moral isolationism is true.
C) argue that moral isolationism is incoherent (i.e., that it does not make sense).
D) argue that moral isolationism is true for our culture, but not for others.

Accepted Answer

Midgley argues that moral isolationism is incoherent because it is impossible to consistently hold the view that one's own moral beliefs are true for oneself but not for others.

Quiz 6: Moral Theory