PART BPlease response to these two original posts below..docx
- 1. PART B Please response to these two original posts below. When responding to these posts, please either expand the thought, add additional insights, or respectfully disagree and explain why. Remember that we are after reasons and arguments, and not simply the statement of opinions. Original Post 1 "What is moral relativism? Why might people be attracted to it? Is it plausible?" First of all, moral relativism is the view that moral truths are subjective and depend on each individual's standpoints. Based on this, everyone's moral view is legitimate. This can be attracted because it sounds liberating and there is no need to argue for a particular position. Moral relativism seems convincing in some cases. For example, some people are okay with giving money to homeless people, thinking that it's good to provide for the people in need. Some people, on the other hand, claim that they can work to satisfy their own needs. Moral relativism works well in these cases because they all seem legitimate. However, there are cases that moral relativism does not seem reasonable. For example, child sacrifice in some cultures seems cruel and
- 2. uncivilized to most people. Hence, moral relativism is not absolutely true. Original Post 2 “Is your death bad for you, specifically, or only (at most) for others? Why might someone claim that it isn’t bad for you?” I'd start off by acknowledging what the two ancient philosophers, Lucretius and Epicurus, outlined about death. They made the point that death isn't necessarily bad for you since no suffering takes place and that you yourself don't realize your own death. In this way, one could make the claim that death isn't intrinsically bad for you. Another perspective I wanted to add was the influence of death (both on you and others around you). Specifically, the event of death itself may not be bad for you, but the idea of impending death could impact one's life. Some may live freely, totally care- free, accepting of death and enjoy life in the moment. Others may be frightened by the idea of death that they live in constant fear and hence death causing their mental health to take its toll. In this way, I'd argue that death could, in fact, be bad for you. One common reason for being afraid of death is the fear of being forgotten. Not to mention the death of an individual certainly affects others; death doesn't affect one's life but also all that is connected to it. Focusing back to the point, it's clear that the
- 3. very idea of death directly affects the concerned individual. The fact that those who live in fear of death are looking for legacies and footprints to leave after they leave this world is telling of how death could be arguably bad for you before it even happens. PART A Pick one or more questions below and write a substantive post with >100 words. Please try to provide evidence(s) to support your idea(s). Questions: • Do we have a duty to work out where we stand on ethical issues? Why can’t we just defer to experts like we do in other domains (like theoretical physics)? • What is moral relativism? Why might people be attracted to it? Is it plausible? • What is moral scepticism, and how is it different from moral relativism? Is it any more (or less) plausible than moral relativism? • What is the three-way distinction between normative ethics, applied ethics, and meta-ethics? Can you give an example of an applied ethical debate?
- 4. • Is your death bad for you, specifically, or only (at most) for others? Why might someone claim that it isn’t bad for you? • If death isn’t bad for the person concerned, then does this mean that we shouldn’t grieve their passing? Would such grieving then be solely about you, and not about the person who has died? • We don’t care that we didn’t exist for a long time before we were born. Does it follow that we shouldn’t care that we will cease to exist after we die? • Can you be harmed even after your death (e.g., if someone tells lies about you)? If so, does that mean that the ‘badness’ of death can’t just be understood in terms of your own suffering? • What is the distinction between intrinsicand extrinsicgoodness? Can you give an example of each? • How might we make sense of the ‘badness’ of death by arguing that while it is not intrinsically bad, it is extrinsically bad? • Why isSisyphus’s life held to be meaningless? Is it?
- 5. • What is the perspective known as sub specie aerternitatis? Why might life seem meaningless when viewed from this perspective? • Would God’s existence necessarilyconfer meaning on our lives? If not, why not? • What is the distinction between finaland instrumental(or non-final) value? Can you give an example of each? • How does the distinction between final and instrumental value differ from the intrinsic/extrinsic goodness distinction? Can you give an example of something that is finally valuable but not intrinsically good? • How might we make sense of the meaning of life in terms of final value? • What is hedonism? How does ethical hedonismdiffer from psychological hedonism? • What is utilitarianism, and why is it a form of hedonism? • How would an ethical hedonist account for the meaning of life? Could one lead a life full of pleasure that was nonetheless meaningless? Would appealing to ‘higher’ pleasures make any difference here?
- 6. • What is the experience machine? Is a life lived in the experience machine meaningful? • What is eudaimonia? What are the virtues? What role does the latter play in the former? • Why according to virtue ethics is a life lived in the experience machine meaningless? • How might a virtue ethics account for the meaning of life?