Ethical egoism is a form of "normative" ethics. What is the other form, and how do the two differ?
Q. This is not homework. I don't go to school. But ethical egoism has become a big topic on YA in the last few months, more so than last year. There must be a reason it is being taught. Yet no one ever asks questions about the other form of normative ethics. So I thought I would ask. Thank you for any serious answers.
Asked by St. Denis - Sun Feb 21 12:51:32 2010 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Wow, sleddog has been out of school for a while. He even addresses normative ethics as if they didn't exist , and he confuses egoism with egotism. "Logic and ethics are normative and practical sciences, because they prescribe norms or rules for human activities and show how, according to these norms, a man ought to direct his actions." the two forms of normative egoism are "ethical" and "rational". Ethical egoism is done on an individual basis using subjective concepts as the norms. Rational egoism uses the standard of man's life as the objective by which to determine the norms. I don't know why ethical egoism is the only one being discussed in colleges, but a couple of days ago I asked Lee C. Archie, Ph.D., Professor of… [cont.]
Answered by Ardi Pithecus - Sun Feb 21 13:37:28 2010
Q. This is not homework. I don't go to school. But ethical egoism has become a big topic on YA in the last few months, more so than last year. There must be a reason it is being taught. Yet no one ever asks questions about the other form of normative ethics. So I thought I would ask. Thank you for any serious answers.
Asked by St. Denis - Sun Feb 21 12:51:32 2010 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Wow, sleddog has been out of school for a while. He even addresses normative ethics as if they didn't exist , and he confuses egoism with egotism. "Logic and ethics are normative and practical sciences, because they prescribe norms or rules for human activities and show how, according to these norms, a man ought to direct his actions." the two forms of normative egoism are "ethical" and "rational". Ethical egoism is done on an individual basis using subjective concepts as the norms. Rational egoism uses the standard of man's life as the objective by which to determine the norms. I don't know why ethical egoism is the only one being discussed in colleges, but a couple of days ago I asked Lee C. Archie, Ph.D., Professor of… [cont.]
Answered by Ardi Pithecus - Sun Feb 21 13:37:28 2010
How is descriptive business ethics different from normative buisness ethics?
Q. How is descriptive business ethics different from normative buisness ethics?
Asked by Danielle B - Sun Jan 6 19:50:16 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. think you answered that, but go to G7 products if you want an example of desciptive.
Answered by allen w - Wed Jan 9 01:44:01 2008
Q. How is descriptive business ethics different from normative buisness ethics?
Asked by Danielle B - Sun Jan 6 19:50:16 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. think you answered that, but go to G7 products if you want an example of desciptive.
Answered by allen w - Wed Jan 9 01:44:01 2008
What is the difference between descriptive and nomative ethics?
Q. Decriptive ethics-the scientific study of moral beliefs and practices, to descibe how people behave and think when dealing with moral issues and arguments. Normative ethics- the study of principles, rules, or theories that guide our actions and judgements, To determine what actually is morally right or wrong. so in the shortest answer...what would you say is the difference? thanks
Asked by Boo Radley - Tue Feb 3 20:05:13 2009 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is the study of people's beliefs about morality. It contrasts with prescriptive or normative ethics, which is the study of ethical theories that prescribe how people ought to act, and with meta-ethics, which is the study of what ethical terms and theories actually refer to. The following examples of questions that might be considered in each field illustrate the differences between the fields: Descriptive ethics: What do people think is right? Normative (prescriptive) ethics: How should people act? Applied ethics: How do we take moral knowledge and put it into practice? Meta-ethics: What does 'right' even mean? Normative ethics is the branch of philosophical ethics that… [cont.]
Answered by Nicole - Tue Feb 3 20:13:28 2009
Q. Decriptive ethics-the scientific study of moral beliefs and practices, to descibe how people behave and think when dealing with moral issues and arguments. Normative ethics- the study of principles, rules, or theories that guide our actions and judgements, To determine what actually is morally right or wrong. so in the shortest answer...what would you say is the difference? thanks
Asked by Boo Radley - Tue Feb 3 20:05:13 2009 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is the study of people's beliefs about morality. It contrasts with prescriptive or normative ethics, which is the study of ethical theories that prescribe how people ought to act, and with meta-ethics, which is the study of what ethical terms and theories actually refer to. The following examples of questions that might be considered in each field illustrate the differences between the fields: Descriptive ethics: What do people think is right? Normative (prescriptive) ethics: How should people act? Applied ethics: How do we take moral knowledge and put it into practice? Meta-ethics: What does 'right' even mean? Normative ethics is the branch of philosophical ethics that… [cont.]
Answered by Nicole - Tue Feb 3 20:13:28 2009
What is normative ethics?
Q. What is normative ethics?
Asked by innocentdevilsangel - Tue Jun 27 10:39:27 2006 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Normative ethics is the study of the right thing to do. It is what most people do when they think about ethical matters. This can be contrasted with metaethics - the study of exactly what is happening when we 'do' ethics.
Answered by boringsadlife - Wed Jun 28 09:51:56 2006
Q. What is normative ethics?
Asked by innocentdevilsangel - Tue Jun 27 10:39:27 2006 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Normative ethics is the study of the right thing to do. It is what most people do when they think about ethical matters. This can be contrasted with metaethics - the study of exactly what is happening when we 'do' ethics.
Answered by boringsadlife - Wed Jun 28 09:51:56 2006
Can one of you smart people out there answer this final exam question for me in great detail?
Q. I have a question regarding ethics in my political science class, it is the last question on my take home final that I seem to have trouble with... 1.In a well thought out, and from a comparative analysis perspective, outline and explain the nature, characteristic, application, and ramification of applied ethics, normative ethics, and ethical theories... yes it's a tough one I know!
Asked by Young O - Mon Dec 15 02:11:47 2008 - - 6 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Rephrase wikipedia.
Answered by Chris - Mon Dec 15 02:19:50 2008
Q. I have a question regarding ethics in my political science class, it is the last question on my take home final that I seem to have trouble with... 1.In a well thought out, and from a comparative analysis perspective, outline and explain the nature, characteristic, application, and ramification of applied ethics, normative ethics, and ethical theories... yes it's a tough one I know!
Asked by Young O - Mon Dec 15 02:11:47 2008 - - 6 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Rephrase wikipedia.
Answered by Chris - Mon Dec 15 02:19:50 2008
What do you believe is the meaning of Ethics?
Q. Ethics is define in many ways: ethical - of or relating to the philosophical study of ethics; "ethical codes"; "ethical theories" ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong the philosophical study of moral values and rules Ethics is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality, such as what the fundamental semantic, ontological, and epistemic nature of ethics or morality is (meta-ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), how a moral outcome can be achieved in ... but what do you think it means for you as the individual? Where do you develop your moral compass from? What influences you decisions on what is right and what is wrong?
Asked by OldSchoolLove - Thu Sep 10 13:26:28 2009 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. I think most people get their ideas of person ethics through cultural influences upon them as well as observing the cause and effect of different behaviors. For example our parents and teachers might tell us stealing is bad, and we may also see the negative effects of having something stolen from us or someone we know. We therefore come to the ethical decision that stealing is bad.
Answered by sailormandave - Thu Sep 10 13:30:53 2009
Q. Ethics is define in many ways: ethical - of or relating to the philosophical study of ethics; "ethical codes"; "ethical theories" ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong the philosophical study of moral values and rules Ethics is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality, such as what the fundamental semantic, ontological, and epistemic nature of ethics or morality is (meta-ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), how a moral outcome can be achieved in ... but what do you think it means for you as the individual? Where do you develop your moral compass from? What influences you decisions on what is right and what is wrong?
Asked by OldSchoolLove - Thu Sep 10 13:26:28 2009 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. I think most people get their ideas of person ethics through cultural influences upon them as well as observing the cause and effect of different behaviors. For example our parents and teachers might tell us stealing is bad, and we may also see the negative effects of having something stolen from us or someone we know. We therefore come to the ethical decision that stealing is bad.
Answered by sailormandave - Thu Sep 10 13:30:53 2009
How is my philosopy on ethics so far?
Q. What is good and evil , other than descriptions for virtues and actions? Good and evil are opposing forces that are absolute values (falsely so). Transparently they were conceived from religion and crept into logic for objectivism and into emotions that constitute meaning within subjectivism. The terminology good and evil are untruths; they are too subjective to diagnose right actions and virtue for the objectivist in normative ethics. For example, water is not hot nor cold but to the individual who senses it; while one finds the water hot one may find it cold, a lack of an absolute. For any coherence in what the water or moral is requires measurements to be made for an understanding that can be universally interpreted, a present… [cont.]
Asked by John J - Wed Feb 4 17:59:20 2009 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. A tad bit light.
Answered by CALDWOOD - Sat Feb 7 13:31:02 2009
Q. What is good and evil , other than descriptions for virtues and actions? Good and evil are opposing forces that are absolute values (falsely so). Transparently they were conceived from religion and crept into logic for objectivism and into emotions that constitute meaning within subjectivism. The terminology good and evil are untruths; they are too subjective to diagnose right actions and virtue for the objectivist in normative ethics. For example, water is not hot nor cold but to the individual who senses it; while one finds the water hot one may find it cold, a lack of an absolute. For any coherence in what the water or moral is requires measurements to be made for an understanding that can be universally interpreted, a present… [cont.]
Asked by John J - Wed Feb 4 17:59:20 2009 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. A tad bit light.
Answered by CALDWOOD - Sat Feb 7 13:31:02 2009
What do you think of this?
Q. What is good and evil, other than the untruthful polar opposites with a rational attachment to the actions and virtues of man? They are objectively innocuous terminology conceived for the analytical purpose of establishing suppression. The terminology good and evil are untruths; they are too subjective to diagnose right actions and virtue for the objectivist in normative ethics. For example, water is not hot nor cold but to the individual who senses it; while one finds the water hot one may find it cold, a lack of an absolute. For any coherence in what the water or moral is requires measurements to be made for an understanding that can be universally interpreted, a present absolute. Humans cannot measure morality as it is beyond human… [cont.]
Asked by Thomas G - Tue Feb 10 20:09:07 2009 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Morality isn't transparent, it only is when we wish to demoralize something to manipulate it for our own selfish need. Good and evil can be measured such as we do with temperature, but not hot or cold but with an absolute, such as how many degrease in Fahrenheit or Celsius, Zero to infinity. To me everything is binary. One or Zero. Yes or No. Good or Evil. There isn't a question thought of, that I couldn't give you a Binary answer too.
Answered by Gothic Bug - Tue Feb 10 20:34:30 2009
Q. What is good and evil, other than the untruthful polar opposites with a rational attachment to the actions and virtues of man? They are objectively innocuous terminology conceived for the analytical purpose of establishing suppression. The terminology good and evil are untruths; they are too subjective to diagnose right actions and virtue for the objectivist in normative ethics. For example, water is not hot nor cold but to the individual who senses it; while one finds the water hot one may find it cold, a lack of an absolute. For any coherence in what the water or moral is requires measurements to be made for an understanding that can be universally interpreted, a present absolute. Humans cannot measure morality as it is beyond human… [cont.]
Asked by Thomas G - Tue Feb 10 20:09:07 2009 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Morality isn't transparent, it only is when we wish to demoralize something to manipulate it for our own selfish need. Good and evil can be measured such as we do with temperature, but not hot or cold but with an absolute, such as how many degrease in Fahrenheit or Celsius, Zero to infinity. To me everything is binary. One or Zero. Yes or No. Good or Evil. There isn't a question thought of, that I couldn't give you a Binary answer too.
Answered by Gothic Bug - Tue Feb 10 20:34:30 2009
enivormental ethics philosophy?
Q. 2: Aristotle suggested that all natural objects, in particular human animals, could be distinguished in terms of a natural and characteristic activity. Explain how Aristotle s theory applies to human animals, i.e. persons. Seemingly, we can extend Aristotle s approach to an entire ecosystem inasmuch as different elements of an ecosystem perform different functions within that system. Is it plausible to reason from such ecological facts to normative conclusions about how the ecosystem should be treated? Explain why or why not.
Asked by steveo - Sun Jan 25 18:59:26 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Ah, are you asking us to write you paper for you?
Answered by d m - Sun Jan 25 19:04:07 2009
Q. 2: Aristotle suggested that all natural objects, in particular human animals, could be distinguished in terms of a natural and characteristic activity. Explain how Aristotle s theory applies to human animals, i.e. persons. Seemingly, we can extend Aristotle s approach to an entire ecosystem inasmuch as different elements of an ecosystem perform different functions within that system. Is it plausible to reason from such ecological facts to normative conclusions about how the ecosystem should be treated? Explain why or why not.
Asked by steveo - Sun Jan 25 18:59:26 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Ah, are you asking us to write you paper for you?
Answered by d m - Sun Jan 25 19:04:07 2009
Should we accept marijuana based on the scientific facts?
Q. We all know that marijuana has a very negative connotation to it however in my contemporary ethics class (yes I've already started!) we discussed whether or not it should be legalized and whether or not it has negative affects. According to the research, there's very little chemical and biological damage that occurs to the body. Really, the worst thing that happens is going to jail. Looking at the facts, I can't help but feel that maybe it should be legalized. When looking at the Netherlands, they have the most open attitudes towards marijuana but their teen population has the lowest usage. They seem to prefer a more realistic normative approach compared to the US. I'm not trying to advocate drug use here, or am I saying that we should… [cont.]
Asked by Orchideye - Tue Aug 28 22:11:33 2007 - - 7 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Not only does marijuana have little negative effects, it also have some positive medical benefits. It's one of the few anti-nausea remedies that is compatible with cancer treatments and is an effective glaucoma treatment. It's illegal now just because of political reasons, so yes, we should legalize it. The "War on Drugs" just criminalizes people who lead otherwise productive lives, overburdens the criminal justice system, and creates a culture of violence that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Answered by smartsassysabrina - Tue Aug 28 22:20:28 2007
Q. We all know that marijuana has a very negative connotation to it however in my contemporary ethics class (yes I've already started!) we discussed whether or not it should be legalized and whether or not it has negative affects. According to the research, there's very little chemical and biological damage that occurs to the body. Really, the worst thing that happens is going to jail. Looking at the facts, I can't help but feel that maybe it should be legalized. When looking at the Netherlands, they have the most open attitudes towards marijuana but their teen population has the lowest usage. They seem to prefer a more realistic normative approach compared to the US. I'm not trying to advocate drug use here, or am I saying that we should… [cont.]
Asked by Orchideye - Tue Aug 28 22:11:33 2007 - - 7 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Not only does marijuana have little negative effects, it also have some positive medical benefits. It's one of the few anti-nausea remedies that is compatible with cancer treatments and is an effective glaucoma treatment. It's illegal now just because of political reasons, so yes, we should legalize it. The "War on Drugs" just criminalizes people who lead otherwise productive lives, overburdens the criminal justice system, and creates a culture of violence that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Answered by smartsassysabrina - Tue Aug 28 22:20:28 2007
Should the USA and other Western nations teach secular morality to students in public school?
Q. Should we force our students to learn a set of ethics and moral principles which gets its authority from a source beside God or culture? Or, at least should we teach them about the different systems of normative ethics? Personally, I don't like the idea of having nation of people who think a person's sense of right and wrong depends on their opinions or God entirely rather than on logic and reasoning. If people only view right and wrong in this way, then they might allow for under-represented, under-privileged class to continue to be oppressed because most people in society would not care about them. If we based morals entirely on what the general population believed then Civil Rights would have no justification and Segregation would… [cont.]
Asked by the+university_guy - Fri Jun 12 01:07:12 2009 - - 10 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Yeah I believe there should be some form of ethical education in public schools, basic common law and physcology. I would normally agree with what Ethan above me has said; unfortunately there are a few parents who don't care enough to instill morals in their children.
Answered by unknown - Fri Jun 12 01:13:45 2009
Q. Should we force our students to learn a set of ethics and moral principles which gets its authority from a source beside God or culture? Or, at least should we teach them about the different systems of normative ethics? Personally, I don't like the idea of having nation of people who think a person's sense of right and wrong depends on their opinions or God entirely rather than on logic and reasoning. If people only view right and wrong in this way, then they might allow for under-represented, under-privileged class to continue to be oppressed because most people in society would not care about them. If we based morals entirely on what the general population believed then Civil Rights would have no justification and Segregation would… [cont.]
Asked by the+university_guy - Fri Jun 12 01:07:12 2009 - - 10 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Yeah I believe there should be some form of ethical education in public schools, basic common law and physcology. I would normally agree with what Ethan above me has said; unfortunately there are a few parents who don't care enough to instill morals in their children.
Answered by unknown - Fri Jun 12 01:13:45 2009
How is this for a start?
Q. The problems with morality consist with poor terminology that are made due to convenience in the ability of untruths to create seemingly strong but false premises; good and evil are too subjective to diagnose right action virtues for objectivist in normative ethics. For example, water is not hot or cold but to the individual who senses it; while one finds the water hot one may find it cold, a lack of an absolute. For any coherence in what the water or all mater or the possible to conceive a measurement must be made for an understanding that can be universally interpreted, a present absolute. As for water, morals are mixed in with untruths by using the convenient terminology as good and evil . Subjectivism is wrong, because it relies… [cont.]
Asked by John J - Wed Feb 4 15:05:35 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. It's a good start for an essay definitely not a good start for a novel. You're coming off a little haughty - the language seems unnecessarily complex for such simple concepts. Also water can be objectively determined as hotter or colder than the human body, which is a relative constant among humans. Water that is 60 degrees will never be considered hot, and water that is 100 degrees will never be considered cold. Now, whether or not a person likes or dislikes the water is where it's subjective. But, objectively speaking, the temperature of water when compared to the human body is only very slightly subjective.
Answered by hp_resource - Wed Feb 4 15:13:15 2009
Q. The problems with morality consist with poor terminology that are made due to convenience in the ability of untruths to create seemingly strong but false premises; good and evil are too subjective to diagnose right action virtues for objectivist in normative ethics. For example, water is not hot or cold but to the individual who senses it; while one finds the water hot one may find it cold, a lack of an absolute. For any coherence in what the water or all mater or the possible to conceive a measurement must be made for an understanding that can be universally interpreted, a present absolute. As for water, morals are mixed in with untruths by using the convenient terminology as good and evil . Subjectivism is wrong, because it relies… [cont.]
Asked by John J - Wed Feb 4 15:05:35 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. It's a good start for an essay definitely not a good start for a novel. You're coming off a little haughty - the language seems unnecessarily complex for such simple concepts. Also water can be objectively determined as hotter or colder than the human body, which is a relative constant among humans. Water that is 60 degrees will never be considered hot, and water that is 100 degrees will never be considered cold. Now, whether or not a person likes or dislikes the water is where it's subjective. But, objectively speaking, the temperature of water when compared to the human body is only very slightly subjective.
Answered by hp_resource - Wed Feb 4 15:13:15 2009
Atheists: Are you a secular humanist?
Q. Just curious. We've got a lot of atheists in R&S and I was wondering how many were secular humanists, like myself. In case you are, and didn't know it, I copy-pasted the affirmations below from the Council for Secular Humanism website. 1. We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems. 2. We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation. 3. We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life. 4. We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights… [cont.]
Asked by 3.14159265 - Wed Sep 2 13:28:02 2009 - - 25 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Now that I read that - apparently I am edit: For those that insist on hounding every question addressed towards atheists in order to spew how you think atheism is a religion - No, this does not mean atheism is a religion. Not all atheists are secular humanists, not all secular humanists are atheists, and not all secular humanists agree with every single one of those points.
Answered by Alicia - Wed Sep 2 13:34:13 2009
Q. Just curious. We've got a lot of atheists in R&S and I was wondering how many were secular humanists, like myself. In case you are, and didn't know it, I copy-pasted the affirmations below from the Council for Secular Humanism website. 1. We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems. 2. We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation. 3. We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life. 4. We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights… [cont.]
Asked by 3.14159265 - Wed Sep 2 13:28:02 2009 - - 25 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Now that I read that - apparently I am edit: For those that insist on hounding every question addressed towards atheists in order to spew how you think atheism is a religion - No, this does not mean atheism is a religion. Not all atheists are secular humanists, not all secular humanists are atheists, and not all secular humanists agree with every single one of those points.
Answered by Alicia - Wed Sep 2 13:34:13 2009
Who has a problem with the following "Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles" and why?
Q. The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems. We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation. We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life. We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities. We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state. We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means… [cont.]
Asked by Weird Darryl - Wed Dec 12 22:05:21 2007 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Sounds fantastic to me. Good ethics are reasoned, not dictated from an ancient book. What science may be able to do in a couple of centuries will make us look primitive by comparison.
Answered by Dalarus - Wed Dec 12 22:34:00 2007
Q. The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems. We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation. We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life. We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities. We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state. We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means… [cont.]
Asked by Weird Darryl - Wed Dec 12 22:05:21 2007 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Sounds fantastic to me. Good ethics are reasoned, not dictated from an ancient book. What science may be able to do in a couple of centuries will make us look primitive by comparison.
Answered by Dalarus - Wed Dec 12 22:34:00 2007
Philosophy Exam Please Help!?
Q. Hi Everyone, I have a philosophy exam tomorrow and I need major help. I'll write out the questions and I need the answers. I really appreciate if someone can help me. 1. Which of the following are non-consequentialist theories A. Egoism, utilitarianism B. Act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism C. Egoism, the divine command theory D. the divine command theory, the kantian theory E. the categorical imperative theory, egoism 2. The difference between ethics and anthropology is that one tries to discover what people should do, while the other is. A. Imaginative B. Descriptive C. Experimental D. Prescriptive E. Normative 3.Ethical egoism is the theory that A. people always seek their own pleasure B. only pleasure is worth having for it's… [cont.]
Asked by Kathryn - Tue Dec 8 22:51:23 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. 1) D 2) B 3) D 4) C 5) B 6) A 7) A 8) C 9) B 10) A 11) E 12) C 13) A 14) C 15) E 16) E 17) A (though it might be E) 18) E 19) B 20) B I might be a little rusty on some, though I'm pretty confident on most of them :).
Answered by Layla - Tue Dec 8 23:26:10 2009
Q. Hi Everyone, I have a philosophy exam tomorrow and I need major help. I'll write out the questions and I need the answers. I really appreciate if someone can help me. 1. Which of the following are non-consequentialist theories A. Egoism, utilitarianism B. Act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism C. Egoism, the divine command theory D. the divine command theory, the kantian theory E. the categorical imperative theory, egoism 2. The difference between ethics and anthropology is that one tries to discover what people should do, while the other is. A. Imaginative B. Descriptive C. Experimental D. Prescriptive E. Normative 3.Ethical egoism is the theory that A. people always seek their own pleasure B. only pleasure is worth having for it's… [cont.]
Asked by Kathryn - Tue Dec 8 22:51:23 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. 1) D 2) B 3) D 4) C 5) B 6) A 7) A 8) C 9) B 10) A 11) E 12) C 13) A 14) C 15) E 16) E 17) A (though it might be E) 18) E 19) B 20) B I might be a little rusty on some, though I'm pretty confident on most of them :).
Answered by Layla - Tue Dec 8 23:26:10 2009
What do you think of these reasons for people not liking the gays?
Q. 1.) It is considered an aberration from social and natural norms regarding genitilia and male/female relations 2.) This aberration causes trouble in societies norms, particularly because society has a set course of ettiquette and ethics in place for normal sexuality. 3.) Homosexuality changes the ways people can relate to you thus putting awkward social interaction with mainstream society. Further explanations: You can have decent social interaction with people who are open-minded but they still can't relate to you as similar to themselves putting you at the opposite corner but still friend. An example would be female/male friendships. Most of these types of relationships aren't the same as male/male friendships. It isn't viable to… [cont.]
Asked by Tovas - Tue Jul 28 04:43:41 2009 - - 7 Answers - 0 Comments
A. So in other words, people don't like us because of the way we do it? Well then don't think about it. By the way, I am sure what bigoted people think up in their sick minds, is worse than anything we actually do. Edit; Tovas, I did not say I was talking to you. A little self centered aren't you? I was talking to bigots in general. It is strange you took this personally. Maybe this hit close to home. Sorry you may be a bigot and not know it.
Answered by joe o - Tue Jul 28 04:53:49 2009
Q. 1.) It is considered an aberration from social and natural norms regarding genitilia and male/female relations 2.) This aberration causes trouble in societies norms, particularly because society has a set course of ettiquette and ethics in place for normal sexuality. 3.) Homosexuality changes the ways people can relate to you thus putting awkward social interaction with mainstream society. Further explanations: You can have decent social interaction with people who are open-minded but they still can't relate to you as similar to themselves putting you at the opposite corner but still friend. An example would be female/male friendships. Most of these types of relationships aren't the same as male/male friendships. It isn't viable to… [cont.]
Asked by Tovas - Tue Jul 28 04:43:41 2009 - - 7 Answers - 0 Comments
A. So in other words, people don't like us because of the way we do it? Well then don't think about it. By the way, I am sure what bigoted people think up in their sick minds, is worse than anything we actually do. Edit; Tovas, I did not say I was talking to you. A little self centered aren't you? I was talking to bigots in general. It is strange you took this personally. Maybe this hit close to home. Sorry you may be a bigot and not know it.
Answered by joe o - Tue Jul 28 04:53:49 2009
i need someone to help me with my philosophy homework...plz...anyone.. .i'm desperate!!!!?
Q. I have 2 papers due on mon. the first one is on Utilitarianism:(I have 2 answer a question)okay here it goes= "Jeremy Bentham tried to estabilsh an objective criterion 4 ethics by making ethical decisions scientifically verifiable. In what ways is his hedonistic calculus an attempt to make ethical decision making "scientific"? Does he succeed in developing a "science" of morality? What r some of the drawbacks of using the hedonistic calculus? Give an example of an ethical dilema that might be difficult to solve using the calculus.---OKAY, NOW 4 the second question=it's on duty theory: Is the categorical imperative a practical guide to morality? Kant argues that sticking to the rule is better than breaking it. Is he right,or can u give an… [cont.]
Asked by RITESPIRIT - Thu Nov 29 05:05:45 2007 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Bentham is advocating a kind of 'point scoring' system where an action that creates widespread happiness will score high, but the scores for actions will get lower depending on the amount of happiness spread (the general happiness principle). We could say of Kant that never to lie could create a dangerous situation for someone (like if an axe murderer asked me where you live and I tell them). Kant would say to tell the truth (and ultimately get you killed) is still the appropriate action.
Answered by soppy.bollocks - Fri Nov 30 00:15:42 2007
Q. I have 2 papers due on mon. the first one is on Utilitarianism:(I have 2 answer a question)okay here it goes= "Jeremy Bentham tried to estabilsh an objective criterion 4 ethics by making ethical decisions scientifically verifiable. In what ways is his hedonistic calculus an attempt to make ethical decision making "scientific"? Does he succeed in developing a "science" of morality? What r some of the drawbacks of using the hedonistic calculus? Give an example of an ethical dilema that might be difficult to solve using the calculus.---OKAY, NOW 4 the second question=it's on duty theory: Is the categorical imperative a practical guide to morality? Kant argues that sticking to the rule is better than breaking it. Is he right,or can u give an… [cont.]
Asked by RITESPIRIT - Thu Nov 29 05:05:45 2007 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Bentham is advocating a kind of 'point scoring' system where an action that creates widespread happiness will score high, but the scores for actions will get lower depending on the amount of happiness spread (the general happiness principle). We could say of Kant that never to lie could create a dangerous situation for someone (like if an axe murderer asked me where you live and I tell them). Kant would say to tell the truth (and ultimately get you killed) is still the appropriate action.
Answered by soppy.bollocks - Fri Nov 30 00:15:42 2007
What do you think of this?
Q. What is good and evil, other than the untruthful polar opposites with a rational attachment to the actions and virtues of man? They are objectively innocuous terminology conceived for the analytical purpose of establishing suppression. The terminology good and evil are untruths; they are too subjective to diagnose right actions and virtue for the objectivist in normative ethics. For example, water is not hot nor cold but to the individual who senses it; while one finds the water hot one may find it cold, a lack of an absolute. For any coherence in what the water or moral is requires measurements to be made for an understanding that can be universally interpreted, a present absolute. Humans cannot measure morality as it is beyond human… [cont.]
Asked by Thomas G - Mon Feb 9 19:28:46 2009 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Your face and my ass.
Answered by zyfoxmaster - Mon Feb 9 19:45:59 2009
Q. What is good and evil, other than the untruthful polar opposites with a rational attachment to the actions and virtues of man? They are objectively innocuous terminology conceived for the analytical purpose of establishing suppression. The terminology good and evil are untruths; they are too subjective to diagnose right actions and virtue for the objectivist in normative ethics. For example, water is not hot nor cold but to the individual who senses it; while one finds the water hot one may find it cold, a lack of an absolute. For any coherence in what the water or moral is requires measurements to be made for an understanding that can be universally interpreted, a present absolute. Humans cannot measure morality as it is beyond human… [cont.]
Asked by Thomas G - Mon Feb 9 19:28:46 2009 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Your face and my ass.
Answered by zyfoxmaster - Mon Feb 9 19:45:59 2009
What do you think of this?
Q. What is good and evil, other than the untruthful polar opposites with a rational attachment to the actions and virtues of man? They are objectively innocuous terminology conceived for the analytical purpose of establishing suppression. The terminology good and evil are untruths; they are too subjective to diagnose right actions and virtue for the objectivist in normative ethics. For example, water is not hot nor cold but to the individual who senses it; while one finds the water hot one may find it cold, a lack of an absolute. For any coherence in what the water or moral is requires measurements to be made for an understanding that can be universally interpreted, a present absolute. Humans cannot measure morality as it is beyond human… [cont.]
Asked by Thomas G - Tue Feb 10 20:26:54 2009 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. ...morality, moral are words man created to have control and establish a good or bad, just or evil... ...those who distrust and do not believe all the above will simply say im living day to day doing my best to enjoy life to its fullest...
Answered by Deja Vu! - Tue Feb 10 21:02:43 2009
Q. What is good and evil, other than the untruthful polar opposites with a rational attachment to the actions and virtues of man? They are objectively innocuous terminology conceived for the analytical purpose of establishing suppression. The terminology good and evil are untruths; they are too subjective to diagnose right actions and virtue for the objectivist in normative ethics. For example, water is not hot nor cold but to the individual who senses it; while one finds the water hot one may find it cold, a lack of an absolute. For any coherence in what the water or moral is requires measurements to be made for an understanding that can be universally interpreted, a present absolute. Humans cannot measure morality as it is beyond human… [cont.]
Asked by Thomas G - Tue Feb 10 20:26:54 2009 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. ...morality, moral are words man created to have control and establish a good or bad, just or evil... ...those who distrust and do not believe all the above will simply say im living day to day doing my best to enjoy life to its fullest...
Answered by Deja Vu! - Tue Feb 10 21:02:43 2009
What do you think of this?
Q. What is good and evil, other than the untruthful polar opposites with a rational attachment to the actions and virtues of man? They are objectively innocuous terminology conceived for the analytical purpose of establishing suppression. The terminology good and evil are untruths; they are too subjective to diagnose right actions and virtue for the objectivist in normative ethics. For example, water is not hot nor cold but to the individual who senses it; while one finds the water hot one may find it cold, a lack of an absolute. For any coherence in what the water or moral is requires measurements to be made for an understanding that can be universally interpreted, a present absolute. Humans cannot measure morality as it is beyond human… [cont.]
Asked by Thomas G - Mon Feb 9 20:11:22 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Good word choice.
Answered by Chloe - Mon Feb 9 20:16:21 2009
Q. What is good and evil, other than the untruthful polar opposites with a rational attachment to the actions and virtues of man? They are objectively innocuous terminology conceived for the analytical purpose of establishing suppression. The terminology good and evil are untruths; they are too subjective to diagnose right actions and virtue for the objectivist in normative ethics. For example, water is not hot nor cold but to the individual who senses it; while one finds the water hot one may find it cold, a lack of an absolute. For any coherence in what the water or moral is requires measurements to be made for an understanding that can be universally interpreted, a present absolute. Humans cannot measure morality as it is beyond human… [cont.]
Asked by Thomas G - Mon Feb 9 20:11:22 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Good word choice.
Answered by Chloe - Mon Feb 9 20:16:21 2009
From Yahoo Answer Search: 'Normative ethics'
Fri Jul 30 17:22:21 2010 [ refresh local cache ]
[Hide]▼
hindustantimes.com
Wed, 26 May 2010 18:14:18 GMT+00:00
Hindustan Times Hence, philosophical analysis refers to intellectual and reflective method for attempting to comprehend the underlying principles and to discover normative ...
uncommondescent.com
Barry Arrington
Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:34:46 GM
In other words, descriptive ethics are necessarily relative (ie situation-dependent), whereas . normative ethics. are necessarily absolute (ie situation-independent). And, as several commentators in this thread have pointed out ...
[Hide]▲
