III. Central Examples/Case Analysis [40 pts.] (i) Choose ONE question from Part
ID: 3465886 • Letter: I
Question
III. Central Examples/Case Analysis [40 pts.] (i) Choose ONE question from Part A OR ONE question from Part B (ii) Your aim should be to convince me that you know what you're talking about. (iüi) Be sure to NUMBER YOUR RESPONSE to correspond with the numbers below. PART A: Central Examples 1. Singer's Solution to World Poverty First, using standard argument form, numbering the premises and conclusion, state the central argument of Singer's "A Singer Solution to World Poverty." Second, state why the argument is best thought to he valid Third, staté whether or not it is best believed to be sound. (HINT. In doing the third part you'll want to mention counterexamples to conditionals. If you've claimed it unsound, then peovide a counterexample to the conditional. Ifyou've claimed it sound, then explain why the conditional has no counterexample.) Fourth, what is the upshot of the evaluation of the argument for our moral assessment of life for most in the developed countries? Last, to which moral theory does Singer subscribe? 2. Metacthics, First, what is metacthick? Sesond, choose one form of relativism and one form of nihilism. Explain each of them. Third, what is ethical objectivism? Fourth, using the two following statements and one if-then statement you'll supply, t a modus ponens argument in support of moral cultural relativism:different societies have different moral codes; 'there is no one true moral code'. Evalu ate the argument for validity and soundness. What is the upshot of the evafuation for this way of trying to support moral cultural relativism? 3. Justification in Science and Ethics Scientists might think that moral theories are difficult to justify but scientific theories are easy to justify. For this reason, some scientists initially think that moral theory isn't worth doing. Show that this reason is NOT a good one for disimissing ethics by explaining (0) the logical form of empirical confirmation (and its main problem) AND (i) wnderdetermination of theory by vidence (HINT: a good example of underdetermination involves Ptolemy Copernicus). In doing this, be sure to make clear precisely what is underdetermined (i.e, what is it that is made difficult to determine?). Last, be sure to briefly state how consideration of underdetermination and the logical form of confirmation provides an antidote to our initial skepticism about the worth of trying to justify moral theoriesExplanation / Answer
ysed Part B:
Tracing the Moral Responsibility of General Motors in Air Pollution:
According to the report, The launch of Cadillac Deville and Seville models by General Motors posed some major environment concerns with respect to the violation of the Clean Air Act which involved the company taking a pledge or an assurances for delivering quality goods and services without causing irrevocable damage to the environment. However, the company’s action of hiding about its deviation from the air pollution standards and launching the new technology invites much ethical criticism and it presents a precarious case of the company’s responsibility towards the environment and society.
Firstly, from a utilitarian moral perspective, General Motors appears to have taken an ethically immoral stand in the launch of new technology. This is because when we compare the profits made my the company in launching an advanced model of the Cadillac with the effects of increase in Air pollution, we can see that the company’s action falls short of the utilitarian principle of greater good for the greater number. Thus, a recovery from the harm caused to the collective society and environment would entail that the GM management considers enhancing positive outcomes for others in society rather than their own profit margin and sale of cars and retrieve the Cadillac models from the market so a strong to ensure greater pleasure for others. From this position, morality is a matter of the consequences of an action and thus, GM would appear as both responsible for the causes as well as resolving the issue.
Secondly, the case of GM Motors can be analysed critically from the point of view of deontology. In Deontological theories (derived from the Greek word for duty, deon), morality is premised on certain duties, or obligations. and thus the actions by GM can be judged as either intrinsically right or wrong regardless of the consequences that may follow from those actions. In this light, the introduction of new technology in their vehicles makes the actions by the company executives violate the previous agreement with the clauses of the Clean Air Act, which serves as the source for moral norm here. Thus, as an agent of the environmental norms, GM has a duty to act in accordance with a moral norm, irrespective of the (potentially beneficial) effects of acting otherwise. Instead, the decision of focus on justifying their violation makes the GM an irresponsible agent which caused air pollution and therefore had to take the full responsibility in the form of financial remittance or fine as well as retrieval of the faulty launched Cadillac range.