PHIL 3100 -- Ethical Theory
Fall 2019
Prof. Chris Heathwood
TA: Megan Kitts
University of Colorado Boulder

 

Study Guide for Midterm

 

The midterm exam will come in two parts and will take place over two class periods.  Part 1 will consist of very-short-answer questions (e.g., multiple-choice, true/false).  Part 2 will consist of short-answer questions (questions that can usually be answered in a sentence to a paragraph).  Those will be similar to the sorts of questions below.  Both parts are in-class, closed-note, and closed-reading exams.  For Part 2, you will need to bring a bluebook.

For the midterm, you are responsible for all of the material and all of the readings we have studied so far in the class.  To get a reminder of all of the topics and readings that we have covered, look at the course schedule on the syllabus.  The exam will emphasize more what we did in class than what was discussed in some reading but not discussed in class.

To prepare for the exam, re-read any readings that you found challenging, study your reading notes, including your answers to reading questions, study your class notes, study the lecture slides, and, most importantly, write out your answers to the questions below, as if it were the exam.  Do this before the review session, so that you will know what questions you need to ask.

Let me emphasize the importance of actually writing out answers to these questions.  We often think we understand something -- until we try to put it in writing.  Only then do we realize we don't really understand it.  If you don't write out your answers, you won't know what you don't know.

Another excellent way to prepare for the Midterm is to supplement your individual work on the material with group study.  Try to arrange a study group with one or more of your classmates.

Study Questions

Introducing Metaethics

  1. (a) What is it for a property to be subjective, as we use the term in this class?
    (b) Give an example (not from ethics) of a subjective property and explain why it is subjective.
    (c) What is it for a property to be objective, as we use the term in this class?
    (d) Give an example (not from ethics) of an objective property and explain why it is objective.

  2. (a) Explain the difference between realism and anti-realism in metaethics.
    (b) Explain the difference between cognitivism and non-cognitivism in metaethics.
    (c) Explain the difference between reductionism and non-reductionism in metaethics.
    (d) Explain the difference between naturalism and non-naturalism in metaethics.

    (In all of your answers, be sure to define any technical terms that need defining.)

  3. Answer TRUE or FALSE to each of the following and then ALSO explain your answer:

    (a) All cognitivists are realists.
    (b) All realists are cognitivists.
    (c) All non-cognitivists are anti-realists.
    (d) All non-cognitivists are subjectivists.
    (e) Some subjectivists are realists.
    (f) Some naturalists are reductionists. (Use our definition of 'naturalism' from class rather than Huemer's definition.)
    (g) Some intuitionists are naturalists.
    (h) All reductionists are anti-realists.
    (i) No nihilists are reductionists.
    (j) All reductionists are cognitivists.

Non-Cognitivism

  1. (a) Explain the difference between an analytic truth and a synthetic truth.  Give two examples of each.
    (b) Explain the difference between a priori and empirical knowledge.  For each of these ways of knowing, give two examples of propositions that can be known that way.
    (c) What is empiricism?
    (d) Ayer thinks that moral claims are not equivalent to any empirical claims, nor are any moral claims analytic; this makes it hard for an empiricist to account for moral knowledge.  What is Ayer's solution to this problem?

  2. State and explain Non-Cognitivism as we explained it in class.

  3. When stating a metaethical theory, it is best to include a semantic, a metaphysical, and an epistemological component.  In class, we didn't do this for Non-Cognitivism.  So do that now:
    (a) What view on moral semantics (or the meaning of moral terms) does the Non-Cognitivist hold?
    (b) What view on moral metaphysics (or the nature of moral properties) does the Non-Cognitivist hold?
    (c) What view on moral epistemology (or how we gain moral knowledge) does the Non-Cognitivist hold?

Constructivism / Subjectivism

  1. (a) State a simple individualistic Subjectivist theory.  Just the semantic component of such a theory is fine.
    (b) State Moore's No-Disagreement Argument against this view, and give the rationale for each premise.

  2. (a) State a simple Cultural Relativist theory.  Just the semantic component of such a theory is fine.
    (b) Can Moore's No-Disagreement Argument be modified to apply to this view?  If so, state the modified argument and give the rationale for each premise.  If not, explain why it can't be made to work against this theory.

  3. (a) State and explain a constructivist (or, in Huemer's terminology, a subjectivist) metaethical theory that avoids Moore's No-Disagreement Argument.  Just the semantic component is fine.
    (b) Explain why it avoids the argument.

  4. Ayer discusses "the subjectivist view that to call an action right, or a thing good, is to say that it is generally approved of" (Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic, p. 104). 
    (a) State the arbitrariness argument against this view as we presented it in class.  Be sure to explain what the term 'arbitrary' means in the argument.
    (b) There are four inferences in this argument.  Explain each one.

Reductionism

  1. (a) What is reductionism in metaethics?
    (b) What is analytic reductionism?
    (c) What is naturalism in metaethics?  (Be sure to define any key technical terms in your statement of naturalism.)
    (d) State Analytic Reductive Utilitarianism (our sample version of reductionism).
    (e) Can there be a form of reductionism that is not a form of naturalism?  If so, give an example.  If not, why not?
    (f) What is the doctrine of moral supervenience? 
    (h) Can ethical reductionism explain why this doctrine would be true?  If so, what is the explanation?

  2. (a) State Ayer's "Open Question" Argument against Analytic Reductive Utilitarianism.
    (b) Give the rationale for each premise.

Intuitionism and Nihilism

  1. (a) What do intuitionists and nihilists agree about and what do they disagree about?
    (b) What is a non-inferentially justified belief?  
    (c) Give a putative example of a non-inferentially justified belief that is justified on the basis of perception.  Explain why this is a non-inferentially justified belief.
    (d) Give a putative example of a non-inferentially justified belief that is justified on the basis of rational intuition but that is not a moral or evaluative belief.  Explain why this is a non-inferentially justified belief.
    (e) Give two examples of moral or evaluative beliefs that, an intuitionist might say, can be justified non-inferentially, on the basis of rational intuition.
    (f) Do intuitionists believe that these propositions (your answers from part (e)) are a priori or empirical?  Explain.
    (g) Do intuitionists believe that these propositions (your answers from part (e)) are analytic or synthetic?  Explain.
    (h) Is Intuitionism consistent with Empiricism?  Explain.

  2. (a) State the Argument from Disagreement against Intuitionism.
    (b) Give the rationale for each premise.
    (c) How well does Nihilism explain the phenomenon of moral disagreement.  In other words, if nihilism is true, would widespread moral disagreement be all that surprising?  Explain. (Here I am not asking you to consider what follows if Nihilism is true and we all know it to be true, but rather what follows if Nihilism is true and everything else is the same -- in particular, everyone still holds lots of moral beliefs.)
    (d) Discuss what you take to be the Intuitionist's strongest response to the Argument from Disagreement.