Review Sheet for Exam 1

 

1. Know some basic logical forms (MP, MT, MMP). Be able to distinguish moral rightness from other types of rightness (legal, etiquettical). Know the relations between the fundamental concepts of the normative ethics of behavior (moral rightness, moral wrongness, moral obligatoriness).
 
2. Be able to state and explain the following theories: 10C, GR, DCT, CR, and EEh. Remember that in order to explain these theories properly, you must be able to provide a definition for each technical term employed in each of these theories. Be able to state any assumptions upon which the coherence of these theories depends.
 
3. Be able to PEE the following arguments:

4. Here's my interpretation of Plato's "Euthyphro" Argument against DCT:

The "Euthyphro Problem" (aka: The Arbitrariness Problem)

  1. Either (a) morally right acts are morally right because God commands them or (b) God commands morally right acts because they are morally right (because of some interesting feature they have).
  2. If morally right acts are morally right because God commands them, then God's commands are arbitrary (and the doctrine of the goodness of God is rendered meaningless).
  3. If God's commands are arbitrary (and the doctrine of the goodness of God is rendered meaningless), then DCT is an unacceptable normative theory.
  4. If God commands morally right acts because they are morally right (because of some interesting feature they have), then there is a standard of moral rightness independent of God's psychology.
  5. If there is a standard of moral rightness independent of God's psychology, then DCT is an unacceptable normative theory.
  6. Therefore, DCT is an unacceptable normative theory. [1,2,3,4,5 SC-MMP]

Be able to provide substantial rationales for premises (2), (3), (4), and (5). The argument is valid, but is it sound? Be able to comment upon whether or not you believe the argument to be sound--that is, whether or not you believe one of the premises to be false. If you do elect to single out one of the premises as false, be able to discuss an objection against the selected premise.