1. Cultural relativism a theory about the nature oI morality.

Moral truths are deIined by

culture. We shouldn`t criticize but tolerate
2. Main argument Ior Cultural relativism-diIIerent cultures have diIIerent moral codes
a. There are no objective 'truths in morality. Right and wrong are a matter oI
opinions and opinions vary Irom culture to culture.
3. Against the argument Ior CR
a. You can`t argue that some cultures belieIs are morally wrong (holocaust)
b. diIIerent cultures have diIIerent views however that is a halI truth , it should read
diIIerent cultures have diIIerent belieIs but also share some similar belieIs
c. based on the theory there is no room Ior universal truths but some cultures can
share similar belieIs so that would contradict it
4. Three seemingly unacceptable things
a. We can`t criticize our own culture
b. Actions are right or wrong only by the standards oI our society
c. You can`t argue that A is better than B so there is no basis Ior moral progress
5. Can learn Irom CR
a. Not all moral values are an example oI universal moral truths. However cannot
deny there are universal truths
6. Jesse Prinz believes in CR
a. Moral belieIs are Iound on emotion and irrational aspects
b. Historical cases
i. Cannibalism-cannibalism ended with taxation because taxing people was
more proIitable then eating them. Why waste the body. Eat captives, kill
them so they won`t come back, not enslave them because takes to Ieed
them. Cross beneIit analysis
ii. Torture-(sport) popular but went away because increase oI
democratization
1. BeIore it wasn`t obvious but now it is considered morally wrong
2. ShiIt in values
iii. Foot binding-eroticism oI Ioot decay and romantic poems
1. esthetic purposes and has been part oI the culture Ior many yrs
2. they knew it hurt but there attitude toward the acceptability oI that
changed
iv. Plow-women collect berries but are rejected when the plow is introduced
c. Modern
i. Hyper Iair oIIers diIIers between cultural attitudes towards distribution
1. Americans say 50, machiguenga say 26, Gnau and Russains
deny oIIer
2. Distributive justice
a. Equality (china)
b. Equity (america)
c. Need (india)
ii. Voting patterns-predict iI a person votes republican or democrat just by
where they live. Shows there`s no rational thought behind it.
iii. Incest-its bad because we Iind it emotionally wrong
Chapter 3 Subjectivism
1. Simple subjectivism-our opinions about moral issues are based on Ieelings and because
oI this there is no general statement we can make that expresses an opinion that will ever
be veriIiable or true. Moral values are relative to individuals.it states that we are all
incapable oI being incorrect thus it does not make sense since not everyone can be right
a. Problem 1: can`t make sense oI moral disagreements
b. Problem 2:We could never be wrong in our moral judgments iI I disapprove oI
something by saying its wrong, then I do disapprove then how could I be
mistaken
2. Emotivism- Moral language is not Iact stating language - it is not typically used to
convey inIormation. It is used as a means oI inIluencing people's behavior
a. Better than simple subjectivism because there is the possibility oI disagreements
b. Implication that there are no moral truths, everything based on emotions
3. Rachels thinks that emotivism is wrong because it is only backed by emotions and
commands and that moral judgments have to be backed by reasons and Iacts.
4. Moral prooIs and truth in ethics-moral statements are not true in the way scientiIic
statements are true. Moral truths are true when they are backed by the best reasons.
a. "Moral truths are truths oI reason; that is, a moral judgment is true iI it is backed
by better reasons than the alternatives."
5. Moral acceptance oI homosexuality-it is hated based on emotions but it does no real
harm.
6. Larger point oI Rachels discussion oI homosexuality- moral thinking and moral conduct
are a matter oI weighing reasons and being guided by them
a. In Iocusing on attitudes and Ieelings, ethical subjectivism seems to be going in the
wrong direction
b. When we have strong Ieelings, we may ignore reason and opt out oI moral
thinking.
Chapter 4 Morality and religion
1. Divine command theory-what is good is commanded by god. iI x is right, it is
commanded by god
2. Euthyphro argument Does god command it because it is right or is it right because god
commands it?
a. Problem 1: its good because God commands itmakes morality arbitrary because
God would have no reason to command one thing rather than the other since
nothing would be better than anything else prior to God's commanding it
b. Problem 2:iI god commands things because theyre good.then they must;ve been
good beIore god commanded them
3. Natural law theory-reality is a rational order with values and purposes
a. The whole has an overall purpose or direction and the parts have their own
Iunctions or purposed within the grand design
b. Goodnatural and badunnatural
4. Objections to natural law theory
a. Distinction between what is and what ought to be
i. Sex does bring pleasure but that is not the purpose oI it
5. Problem oI basing morality on scripture
a. Is it reliable?
b. Find contradictions in every text
c. Can Iind selective texts to Iit one`s personal belieIs
d. Scriptures Irom the past cannot elaborate on today`s morals
6. Rachels conclusion
a. Religious considerations do not provide deIinitive solutions to the moral problems
that conIront us
b. Morality is an independent matter Irom religion
Existentialism- existence oI the individual person is Iree and responsible, determining their own
development through their acts oI will.
John Paul Sartre-there is no preordained script in liIe. Man is a Iunction oI what he does. He is
thrown into a world where he is responsible Ior this actions and his Iate. Sartre did not believe in
God, and iI God does not exist, the repercussions oI the actions oI man do not exist.
O Existence precedes essence
O Good or bad relies on sticking to preconceived plan
O There is no god; man has to invent themselves
O Man`s only essence is that he is Iree
O To not choose is a choice in itselI
Criticism oI Sartre he is an optimist, why not choose power and success, recipe oI anarchy to
subjectivist
Chapter 5 psychological and moral egoism
1. Psychological egoism-everyone acts Irom the motive oI selI-interest. We always act with
what we perceive to be in our selI-interest.
a. Finding a wallet Iull oI money and keeping it is in one`s selI interest as well sa
Iinding a wallet and returning the money. In the latter case, sense oI honor or
honesty was more important than the money.

2. Ethical egoism-everyone ought to act Irom the motive oI selI-interest. we act in the view
oI our selI interest
3. The diIIerence is that one is a psychological view and one is how we ought to act.
4. Psychological egoism can support ethical egoism: The ethical egoist thinks we should
pursue selI-interest because we can`t help but do so. But iI we must pursue selI-interest,
as the premise states, then what`s the point oI saying we should? II psychological egoism
is true, we cant act any other way. In other words, ethical egoism only makes sense iI
psychological egoism is Ialse, i.e., iI we have a genuine choice.
5. This debate is important because iI you reject psychological egoism, then the argument
Ior ethical egoism is unsound because its premise is Ialse.
6. Rachels is talking about Raul Wallenberg because Raul Wallenberg`s acts are a counter
example to psychological egoism.
7. Rachels argues that sometimes people do what they don`t want to do. For example, there
are actions that are a means to an end and actions that are out oI obligation or duty.
8 sychologlcal Lgolsm
a We always acL wlLh whaL we percelve Lo be ln our self lnLeresL
9 LLhlcal Lgolsm
a We acL ln Lhe vlew of our self lnLeresL
10 ulfference beLween sychologlcal and LLhlcal Lgolsm
a Cne ls psychologlcal vlew and one ls a moral vlew on how we oughL Lo acL
11 Pow could LLhlcal Lgolsm be supporLed by sychologlcal Lgolsm
12 Why Lhls debaLe ls lmporLanL Lo eLhlcs
13 8achel's on 8aul Wallenberg
a 8aul Wallenberg acLs are counLer examples Lo sychologlcal Lgolsm
14 roblems wlLh Lhe argumenL LhaL we do whaL we wanL Lo
a We don'L always do whaL we wanL
b uolng whaL you wanL ls noL sufflclenL for an acL Lo be selflsh
13 uo whaL makes us feel good
a sychologlcal 8aul Wallenberg dld whaL he wanLed Lo do
b We don'L always do whaL makes us feel good
c leellng good may be a slde effecL from whaL we do
16 8elnLerpreLlng MoLlves
a SLraLegy LhaL we lnLerpreL every alLrulsm moLlve as our self lnLeresL
17 AlLrulsm ls Self uefeaLlng
a Lveryone ls noL an alLrulsL buL egolsLs and we are all beLLer off Lherefore we should all be egolsLs
18 ArgumenLs
a Cnly cares abouL hlmself
b Lveryone wlll be beLLer off
c aradox argumenL
19 Ayan 8ands ArgumenL
a Cnly have one llfe Lo llve llve for you
b lnsulLlng Lo have someone llve our llves for us
20 8achel's ArgumenLs
a CompleLe alLrulsm wlll noL be a good Lhlng because we cannoL be compleLely selflsh we care
abouL oLhers
21 LLhlcal Lgolsm compaLlblllLy wlLh commonsense morallLy
a lf you lle and are dlshonesL Lhlngs wlll noL go well for you
b MorallLy ls Lhe mosL efflclenL means Lo self lnLeresL
c ln Lhe long run belng known for good characLer wlll beneflL long Lerm goals
22 8achel's ArgumenLs
a 1ake provlslons so oLhers don'L wasLe Lhem on Lhemselves
b As Lhey dle l shall do my besL Lo preserve Lhem so l can eaL Lhem
c AlLernaLlve Lo a moral rlghL
23 LLhlcal Lgolsm ArgumenLs
a Lgolsm wlll clash wlLh commonsense morallLy
b ArblLrary LhaL only your lnLeresL ln Lhe whole unlverse maLLers
Chapter 7-Utilitarianism
1. The principle oI utility (PU) says: In deciding what to do, we should ask what course oI
conduct would promote the greatest amount oI happiness with those involved.
2. What does the utilitarian consider valuable in itselI? The end result. The consequence oI an
action. The balance oI unhappiness to happiness.
3. Consequentialism - Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results oI that
act. The more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act.
4. PU is radical because it doesn`t see any action as right or wrong in itselI
5. Aquinas see animals as a means to an end while to utilitarians, animal interest matters.
Chapter 8 Utilitarian Debate
1. Make two objections against the utilitarian's view oI value!
Only 'Happiness is good and only 'happiness matters. Happiness is the
ultimate good; unhappiness is the ultimate evil (this is known as Hedonism). Hedonism
claims that something is bad because it causes unhappiness, rather than something being
bad because oI its negative outcome. Happiness is a response rather than an outcome.
Utilitarian views do not support the rights oI the individual. II a peeping time takes
pictures oI a woman undressing without her knowledge, then she is not unhappy, thereIore, it is
moral according to utilitarian`s. II she is aware oI it, and the pictures are shared with other people
who enjoy them, this is still moral because the overall happiness is increased.
This does not support backwards looking reasons such as breaking a promise.
It assumes consequences and Happiness are not the only things that matter. This is oIten
not true.

2. objections to consequentialism
a !usLlce lalse 1esLlmony
b 8lghLs eeplng 1om Case
c eople have Lhe rlghL Lo smoke ln Lhelr own space

3. Argue against the view that morality requires strict impartiality!

This idea is too demanding, Under this idea, you must be impartial to even yourselI. Instead oI
treating yourselI to a day at the theater, you should use the money or time to help increase the
utility oI others. Also, this view makes personal relationships with Iriends or Iamily immoral. You
shouldn`t value one person more than another.

4. DeIend the utilitarian against the objections (6-8)
The Iirst deIense at the examples used against utilitarianism are oIten Iar-Ietched or IanciIul.
The second line oI deIense is that utilitarianism should not be applied to individuals but used as a
guideline Ior choosing general rules oI society.


5. What does the utilitarian think about euthanasia? What does he think about abortion?

II euthanasia serves to beneIit those involved (a sick patient who has a year to live but is in
constant pain) then it is right. II someone wants an abortion, then a Ietus, which is not selIaware,
will not experience any unhappiness, The mother may experience unhappiness but it is assumed
that the overall outcome would be better, iI the mother cannot aIIord to support the child, or iI
the child was known to have severe disabilities iI born. Utilitarian`s may accept abortion as long
as the end result yields happiness.

ChapLer 9absoluLe rules and ChapLer 10kanL