Homework Help- How can we explain or justify our moral judgments that appear to be inconsistent or even consistent?
EQ08)-
How can we explain or justify our moral judgments that appear to be inconsistent or even consistent?
Can we grant that whether one appears to be consistent or
inconsistent at a lower level, a moral agent is actually doing
her best trying to be consistent in maximizing the
ever-elusive “highest good” at a higher level?
Explain your thoughts on it as elaborately as you can.
================================================================
(EQ09)
Why do we need to probe into human nature in our study of
Ethics?
================================================================
(EQ10)-
What are the four major human attributes? How do they differ
from one another in terms of their respective modes, values,
and so forth?
================================================================
(EQ11)-
Why is the notion of “function” so important in being
“rational”?
================================================================
(EQ12)
Who reversed the long-held traditional conception of the
relationship between reason and emotion?
================================================================
(EQ13)
What aspect of our human nature is attributed as the ultimate
source of value conflicts between Kantianism & Utilitarianism?
================================================================
(EQ14)
What was the epoch-making period in history that marked
the transition from religious ethics to secular ethics?
================================================================
(EQ15)-
Who are the so-called trio in Contractarianism from the Age of
Enlightenment?
================================================================
(EQ16)
Given that secular ethics has to come up with its own basis
for morality as something equivalent to what was occupied by
divine authority in religious ethics, how does the so-called
“Contractarianism” achieve that?
================================================================
(EQ17)-
How does the “game-theoretic” account of the State of Nature
in terms of the celebrated “Prisoners’ Dilemma” model help
illustrate the contractarian argument?
Is it a fair assessment that the model effectively captures
the discrepancy between individual rationality and collective
rationality (i.e., Pareto-optimality) in the absence of
civilized order based on moral consent? Explain your answer.
Is it a plausible interpretation from this account that after
all, there is a “convergence” of moral maxim between religious
ethics and secular ethics? Explain your answer.
