PHI 107: Module 1 Notes Module 1 Reading Assignment Waller, B. N. (2011).  Consider ethics: Theory, readings, and contemporary issues (3rd ed.).  Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Chapters 1 and 3. NOTE: Bookmarking pages in this site, especially the resources you access with the link above, is not recommended. Please view Part 1 of the Online Presentation for Module 1. Please view Part 2 of the Online Presentation for Module 1. Thinking about Ethics, Emotions, and Intuitions Chapter 1 Lecture Notes: Thinking about Ethics Ethics and Critical Thinking Ethics requires that we have a definite grasp on the questions to which we seek answers. Understanding ethical questions requires being able to identify which premises are relevant to the conclusion. Changing one's beliefs in light of better arguments or new information is a sign of clear and honest thinking. We must therefore be aware of bad reasoning or fallacies when discussing ethical questions. Bad forms of reasoning include the following: red herring/irrelevant reason, ad hominem, principle of charity, strawman fallacy, and inconsistency. The red herring/irrelevant reason fallacy is a fallacy in which an irrelevant issue is given as a reason for accepting a certain conclusion. For example, if I say “We should ban rated-R movies because murder is wrong,” I have presented an irrelevant reason for banning R-rated movies, as the question is not whether murder is wrong, but whether such movies lead to murder. The ad hominem fallacy is an attack on the arguer as opposed to an attack on the argument itself. If I claim that someone is wrong because they are a bad person, I have committed an ad hominem because I have attacked the character of the arguer, not the reasoning of the argument itself. Arguments stand on their own, regardless of who presents them, and must be evaluated thusly. When engaging in ethical discussions and philosophical discussions in general, it is important to remember the principle of charity. The principle of charity states that you should approach an opponent’s argument as generously and honestly as you can. This means that you should not misrepresent an argument in order to make it more easily defeated. Doing this is called a strawman fallacy, where you defeat an argument by distorting it. Ethical reasoning also requires that one’s beliefs are consistent with each other. If I accept a belief, I must accept all accompanying implications of the belief as well; otherwise my beliefs will suffer from inconsistency, thus rendering them arbitrary and unreasonable. Studying Ethics It is not the intention of this course to make you a better person, but to examine a number of conflicting moral positions and help you see where your views might fit. What kinds of truths are ethical truths? Are they eternal, absolute and universal, and known only by some special power; or are they more common ordinary facts that are part of our world that can be known by ordinary means? Philos.

1. PHI 107: Module 1 Notes
Module 1 Reading Assignment
Waller, B. N. (2011). Consider ethics: Theory, readings, and
contemporary issues (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Pearson. Chapters 1 and 3.
NOTE: Bookmarking pages in this site, especially the resources
you access with the link above, is not recommended.
Please view Part 1 of the Online Presentation for Module 1.
Please view Part 2 of the Online Presentation for Module 1.
Thinking about Ethics, Emotions, and Intuitions
Chapter 1 Lecture Notes: Thinking about Ethics
Ethics and Critical Thinking
Ethics requires that we have a definite grasp on the questions to
which we seek answers. Understanding ethical questions
requires being able to identify which premises are relevant to
the conclusion. Changing one's beliefs in light of better
arguments or new information is a sign of clear and honest
thinking. We must therefore be aware of bad reasoning or
fallacies when discussing ethical questions. Bad forms of
reasoning include the following: red herring/irrelevant reason,
ad hominem, principle of charity, strawman fallacy, and
inconsistency. The red herring/irrelevant reason fallacy is a
fallacy in which an irrelevant issue is given as a reason for
accepting a certain conclusion. For example, if I say “We
should ban rated-R movies because murder is wrong,” I have
presented an irrelevant reason for banning R-rated movies, as
the question is not whether murder is wrong, but whether such
movies lead to murder. The ad hominem fallacy is an attack on
the arguer as opposed to an attack on the argument itself. If I
claim that someone is wrong because they are a bad person, I
have committed an ad hominem because I have attacked the
character of the arguer, not the reasoning of the argument itself.

2. Arguments stand on their own, regardless of who presents them,
and must be evaluated thusly.
When engaging in ethical discussions and philosophical
discussions in general, it is important to remember the principle
of charity. The principle of charity states that you should
approach an opponent’s argument as generously and honestly as
you can. This means that you should not misrepresent an
argument in order to make it more easily defeated. Doing this is
called a strawman fallacy, where you defeat an argument by
distorting it.
Ethical reasoning also requires that one’s beliefs are consistent
with each other. If I accept a belief, I must accept all
accompanying implications of the belief as well; otherwise my
beliefs will suffer from inconsistency, thus rendering them
arbitrary and unreasonable.
Studying Ethics
It is not the intention of this course to make you a better person,
but to examine a number of conflicting moral positions and help
you see where your views might fit. What kinds of truths are
ethical truths? Are they eternal, absolute and universal, and
known only by some special power; or are they more common
ordinary facts that are part of our world that can be known by
ordinary means? Philosophers have taken various stands with
regard to moral truths. Socrates saw morality as eternal,
unchangeable truths known through pure reason, whereas
Thomas Hobbes held morality to be a collection of self-
interested agreements that contributed to a more peaceful
society.
The question of how we know or recognize ethical principles is
an epistemic question. Some might hold that moral insight
requires some sort of divine revelation, special intuition, or
sublime reason. Others view moral knowledge as stemming from
our natural capacity for reason, sympathy, or general social
concern. When we think of an individual's morality, we
can group it into two broad categories: one who holds that

3. morality somehow transcends the natural world and thus must
be discovered by rational beings, or one who believes morality
is confined to the natural world and is created by rational
beings.
God’s Commands and Ethics
One of the most common views of ethical principles is that they
are tied to the commands of a divine being. This view is
referred to as theological volunteerism or the Divine Command
theory of ethics. Theological volunteerism holds that a law or
principle is right if and only if it is willed or commanded by
God. Something is good because God wills it to be so, not
because God recognizes it to be good.
Theological volunteerism raises serious questions about the
relationship between ethics and religion. If ethics is based on
God's commands, there are two questions we might ask about
the nature of these command: 1) Is something
moral/ethical/right because God commands it, or 2) does God
command something because it is moral? If a person believes
the first to be true, then there is not much room for moral
reflection or critical evaluation of moral principles. On the
other hand, if one takes the second claim to be true, then the
implication is that there are moral standards that are, in some
sense, independent of God.
This is important because the first view renders moral principles
arbitrary, since God could have commanded other moral
principles instead. For example, if something is right only
because God says it is, then anything could have been right if
only God had commanded it to be so, including murder,
stealing, etc. The second view, in contrast, diminishes God’s
omnipotence because God must command something if it is
morally right and could not have done otherwise. If God has to
do something, then he is not infinitely powerful, as he is forced
to follow rules.

4. The intersection of religion and ethics raises another
fundamental distinction in ethics, namely, the difference
between moral motivation and moral justification. It is possible
that the person of faith endorses theological volunteerism
because of the possibility of divine punishment. Although this
may provide one with a motive for obeying God's commands, it
does not justify the commands themselves. One may be
motivated to act in accordance with certain rules without
reflecting on whether the rules are ones that ought to be
followed. I may refrain from murder not because I believe that
murder is bad, but only because I do not wish to suffer
punishment in the afterlife. However, saying that murder is bad
because murderers will suffer punishment in the afterlife does
not justify murder as being wrong.
Chapter 3 Lecture Notes: Ethics, Emotions, and Intuitions
Follow Your Reason or Follow Your Heart?
At times it appears our moral sensibilities may be a better guide
to what constitutes the right action. Consider the example of
Huck Finn: although Huck’s moral code tells him that helping
Jim escape is morally wrong (since Jim is the rightful property
of Miss Watson), he still chooses to help his friend. We judge
Huck’s decision to be correct, but the fact that it was based on
emotion rather than reason may give us some pause. Although
reason is not perfect, it is still our best guide to ethical
principles.
The tension discussed in the Huck Finn example is exemplified
by the competing views of David Hume and Immanuel Kant.
Although Hume and Kant agree that morality is not something
to be empirically discovered, they differed on the implications
of this scientific worldview. For Kant, morality derives from
pure abstract reasoning. On the other hand, Hume accounted for
morality by appealing to feelings as the source of our ethical
preferences.
Objective and Subjective Feelings
There is an ongoing debate over the nature of feelings.

5. Subjectivists hold that feelings are not subject to reason and,
therefore, cannot be a source of truth. Objectivists hold that
feelings can be the source of non-rational (not irrational) moral
truths.
Although subjectivism and objectivism are both based on
feelings, their effect on an ethical debate is quite different.
Subjectivists essentially hold that statements such as “x is
wrong” are equivalent to “I believe x is wrong.” This reduction
puts one’s ethical feelings on par with aesthetic judgments such
as “I like chocolate;” consequently, this limits, if not
eliminates, ethical debate. If all ethical discussion is subject to
the individual, then ethics will differ person to person and there
can be no or limited debate about it. On the other hand, the
objectivist holds that that lack of appropriate feelings about a
moral issue is objectively wrong. Feelings are a source of
ethical truth for the objectivist.
Sentimentalism
For sentimentalists, feelings are an essential element of ethical
decision making and ethical behavior. This is not to say that
reason has no place in ethics, but only that reason alone is not
enough. Sentimentalism, it should be stressed, is not the same
as intuitionism.
Although there is some debate on the matter, sentimentalists
generally agree that feelings are important for both moral
motivation and objective moral truth. According to
sentimentalists, if you only believe in feelings as moral
motivators but not sources of ethical truth, then you are simply
a non-objectivist, not a sentimentalist.
One variety of sentimentalism is moral sense theory. Moral
sense theorists hold that feelings are not constitutive of
objective moral truth, but are guides to an objective moral truth.
Moral sense theorists often draw analogies with aesthetic
judgments. The feelings one has when looking at Niagara Falls,
the Grand Canyon, or the Sistine Chapel indicate that there is
some objective underlying beauty. Similarly, our feelings,
though possibly mistaken, also indicate an underlying moral

6. truth. As noted in the text, the source of these feelings has been
variously attributed to God’s design or Darwinian fitness. This
sentimentalist approach has been adopted by several care
ethicists who emphasize the importance of human relations not
only in morality, but also as a means of maintaining social
cooperation.
One of the main problems with sentimentalism is the evaluation
of feelings. Sentimentalists often recommend a spectator’s
perspective on feelings, whereby one imagines what others may
be feeling, even if they do not have or have never had those
feelings themselves. This emphasis has led to the contemporary
version of sentimentalism often referred to as
“neosentimentalism.” Neosentimentalism holds that we must
carefully consider whether one’s feelings are appropriate,
justified, and worthy of endorsement after reflecting upon them.
Thus, when taking guidance from one’s feelings, the key
question is not what you feel, but what you would feel if you
were fully informed.
Intuitionism
Intuitionists distinguish themselves from sentimentalists by
holding that ethical truths are known not by reason or feeling,
but by a special power of intuition. Intuitionism requires that
we pay careful attention to detail, a clear conceptual
understanding of the language of morality, openness to our
moral experiences, and unbiased consideration of all relevant
factors.
One major question that is raised by intuitionism is exactly
what it is we intuit, that is, what types of intuitions we have.
Intuitionists differ on the topic, but whether it is a rule, a
general principle, or a number of principles, all agree that they
are self-evidently known. This leads to the further question of
which intuitions we should trust. According to W. D. Ross, we
should trust intuitions of the “best people.” Of course, who the
best people are is a matter of great debate. Additionally, there is
the problem of determining what to do in cases of a conflict of
intuitions. Here again the intuitionists provide little guidance.

7. Required Audio:
Media Index. Please listen to the Audio to Go (located under
Course) listed below.Rule Nonconsequentialist Theories
Constructing a Personal Moral System
NOTE: If you are having difficulty accessing the above
material, please click on the PHI 107 Pearson Instructions.
Required Presentations:
Chapter 1
Chapter 3
[INSERT TITLE HERE] 2
Running head: [INSERT TITLE HERE]
[INSERT TITLE HERE]
Student Name
Allied American University
Author Note
This paper was prepared for [INSERT COURSE NAME],
[INSERT COURSE ASSIGNMENT] taught by [INSERT

8. INSTRUCTOR’S NAME].
Directions: Please provide detailed and elaborate responses to
the following questions. Your responses should include
examples from the reading assignments, if possible. Each
response should be at least one half of one page in length and
utilize APA format.
1. What is the difference between moral motivation and moral
justification?
2. Explain the difference between natural morality and
transcendent morality.
3. What is the difference between a moral judgment and an
aesthetic judgment?
4. What does it meant to be an "objectivist" regarding moral
feelings?
5. Describe the difference between sentimentalism and
intuitionism. Does one theory seem more plausible than the
other? Explain.
6. Describe the difference between objective and subjective
sentimentalism. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each
position?
[INSERT TITLE HERE] 3
Running head: [INSERT TITLE HERE]

9. [INSERT TITLE HERE]
Student Name
Allied American University
Author Note
This paper was prepared for [INSERT COURSE NAME],
[INSERT COURSE ASSIGNMENT] taught by [INSERT
INSTRUCTOR’S NAME].
PART I
Directions: The following problems ask you to evaluate
hypothetical situations and/or concepts related to the reading in
this module. While there are no "correct answers" for these
problems, you must demonstrate a strong understanding of the
concepts and lessons from this module's reading assignment.
Please provide detailed and elaborate responses to the following
problems. Your responses should include examples from the
reading assignments. Responses that fall short of the assigned
minimum page length will not earn any points.
1. You are facing a moral quandary, and you want advice.
You must choose either of two advisors, but not both. One is
Brenda, who is a very clear and careful thinker, but whose

10. feelings and affections seem limited (you sometimes have the
impression that she really cares about no one except herself).
The other possible source of advice is Brandon: warm and
caring, but he quickly become muddled when trying to think
carefully. Whom would you choose as your moral advisor?
Please explain why. Your response should be at least one half
of one page in length.
2. You are a hospital patient, and you have your choice of
physicians, both of whom are superbly qualified medical
professionals. One is dedicated Dekisha; the other is joyous
Christina. Whom would you choose? Does your choice have
any relevance for the question of which one is "morally better?"
Your response should be at least one half of one page in length.
3. "Acting morally is like swinging a golf club: when it
seems easy and natural and comfortable, then you know you
have it right." Is that true? Your response should be at least
one page in length.
4. You have often heard of someone refusing to perform a
certain action because “It just does not feel right,” thus
correlating negative feelings about an action with the morality
of said action. Construct a scenario where the opposite occurs,
i.e. where an action that is generally held to be morally right
may produce a bad feeling in the doer. You may be creative in
your response, but be sure to clearly state your argument for
why you think the action may produce a bad feeling even
though it is morally correct. Your response should be at least
one page in length.
5. As a child, you most likely have been told by a parent to
do something “Because I said so.” Suppose such a situation
occurred as an adult, where a boss or another authority figure
told you the same thing? How might you respond, assuming you
will not get in trouble? There is no one right answer, but be sure

11. to give a clear and reasoned justification for your response.
Your response should be at least one half of one page in length.
6. Consider the rule “Do not cut in line.” Why do you follow
this rule? Are you acting morally by doing so? Your response
should be at least one half of one page in length.
7. Suppose that there is a person who always does what is
right, but only because they do not want to get into trouble.
This person believes that murder, stealing, etc. is okay and
would do these things if they were allowed to. Is this person a
moral person? Why or why not? Your response should be at
least one page in length.
PART II:Journal
Please describe what aspect of this week’s lesson you found
most interesting and why. What effect, if any, did it have on
your moral/ethical outlook? Your response should be at least
one half of one page in length.