Moral Objectivism to Moral Scepticism

¶ … Moral Objectivism to Moral Skepticism (a) According to Kant, what is the difference between "a posteriori" knowledge and "a priori" knowledge? What kind of knowledge would the statement "All triangles have three sides" be? What about the statement "The 44th U.S. President is African-American"? A posteriori knowledge is knowledge 'after the fact' or knowledge based upon experience, versus a priori knowledge, which is knowledge which can be based upon pure, deductive reasoning (Johnson 2014).

The idea that all triangles by definition have three sides can be known a priori, based upon mathematical, deductive logic. However, the statement that the 44th U.S. President is an African-American requires experience to understand, given that the president's race (regardless of what that race might be) does not logically flow from the condition of being president.

(b) Upon a Utilitarian account, would the statement "The assassination of MLK was wrong" be an example of a priori knowledge or a posteriori knowledge? Given your response, why couldn't the statement be an example of the other kind of knowledge according to the utilitarian? Utilitarians are consequentialists and determine the ethics of statements solely by experience. It would be a posteriori knowledge given that all forms of knowledge are a posteriori to utilitarians.

(c) According to Kant, would the statement "The assassination of MLK was wrong" be an example of A priori or A posteriori knowledge? Given your response, why couldn't the statement be an example of the other kind of knowledge for Kant? For Kant, this moral statement would be a priori, or based upon transcendent moral ideals. Certain moral ideas such as assassination is wrong are unchanging. Q2. (a) Why is lying wrong according to Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative (i.e.

formula of humanity)? You must state Kant's principle in your response. The categorical imperative states that an action is moral if it would be good as a universal law of nature and good for all people (including the actor him or herself) and if the action does not treat a person as a means vs. An end (Johnson 2014). Lying is not a good principle as a universal concept and honesty is necessary for moral interactions between all people.

(b) Why is the practice of using employees NOT necessarily a violation of… Using employees is not necessarily using individuals as a means to an end if they are treated ethically and employees benefit from the arrangement. The workplace must be ethical in a way that the employer would not mind being an employee there him or herself. (c) Imagine you are living in Nazi Germany: you are hiding Jews in your basement, and a Nazi soldier is at your door.

He asks you if you know where any Jews are hiding.

Given Kant's definition of a person as a "rational being" -- as well as Ossian's emphasis on being in the "right mind" from our last discussion -- how might one try to argue that a Kantian can consistently claim that it would be morally permissible to tell the Nazi a "lie"? Lying is acceptable in this instance because it preserves the higher principle of sustaining life, which must be obeyed at all times and the liar would want someone to lie for him or herself in the same instance, if persecuted him or herself.

It is also not using another human being as a means to an end. (c) In your own view, would this be a satisfactory response? Why or why not. Regarding the Nazi instance, yes, but it becomes more complicated in the instances of social white lies. This may preserve face and the other person's feelings but few people would state they want to be lied to about something, even if they might be offended if not lied to and the lie makes social interactions more pleasant. Q3.

(a) What is the difference between moral objectivism and moral skepticism? Is Mackie a moral objectivist or a moral sceptic? Explain. Moral objectivism states that there are certain moral principles which must be adhered to across all societies. It does not define what those moral principles are but states that they exist. It also suggests that there is a benefit in having universal moral principles in general, versus ethical relativism. Mackie argues that all values are inherently subjective.

What we consider moral comes from our actions and what our society tells us is moral vs. objective logic so Macie would fall in the moral sceptic camp. (b) In your assigned reading, Mackie presents his "argument from queerness," which has two components: The argument from metaphysical queerness and the argument from epistemic queerness.

Consider the following quote, in which he introduces both parts: "If there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe.

Correspondingly, if we were aware of them, it would have to be by some special faculty of moral perception or intuition, utterly different from our ordinary ways of knowing everything else." Mackie argues that if there were objective moral entities they would be very strange or 'queer' in nature, versus the ones which people actually believe exist. Also, to know such unchanging principles outside of one's cultural context by instinct would go against how knowledge is known in any other way. (b.

cont) What is the argument from metaphysical queerness? What is the argument from epistemic queerness? Metaphysically, the substance of these moral principles.