Critical Reasoning Skills For Evaluating Disputes in Cyberethics

Emily Merten
Homework 2
1. Explain how the following three moral approaches differ: (1) the moral code of the
Greeks in Homer's day, (2) the moral code of Socrates, and (3) Plato's approach to
solving problems of morality.
Homer’s moral code was “help to friends and harm to enemies.” Since Homer was
predicting a change of morality, he made Achilles seem like a “savage.” There was no
reason to parade him around.
Socrates believed that no person should do evil, but that goodness was hard to find in
people. He questioned his friends in attempt to make the right choice.
Plato focused on answering the question of what was good. How can goodness be
determined? This lead to moral standards, showing that people cannot know what is
good unless they see an example of goodness itself. Therefore, they cannot know what
is better unless they know goodness.
2. What is the difference between egoism and altruism? Describe a problem faced
when adopting each as a moral code.
Egoism is acting based on what benefits you, while altruism is acting based on what will
benefit others. A problem with egoism is that not everyone has the same beliefs or the
basic needs in life. If I think going to Disney World is going to benefit me the most, my
neighbor will probably not have the same idea of what will benefit them. The interests of
others are very different.
A problem with altruism is that we do not know for sure what can benefit others. If I
believe that my quiet neighbors need some loud music in their life, that is not going to
benefit them in anyway.
3. What, in your own words, is Kant's categorical imperative?
Kant’s categorical imperative makes one think what would happen if the entire world did
what we were contemplating. If the entire world did this, would it still be good? If no,
then it’s probably not a good choice.
4. What is utilitarianism, and what are some objections to it?
Utilitarianism is the idea that morality and happiness are essentially the same thing. If
we are moral, then we are happy. If we are happy, then we must be making moral
choices. An objection to this is that too much “happiness” can lead to pain. This can
also be interpreted as happiness being pleasurable instead of moral.
"Critical Reasoning Skills for Evaluating Disputes in Cyberethics"
5. Look up the distinction between descriptive and normative claims and explain the
distinction in your own words.
Descriptive claims are either true or false claims. Normative claims are something that
should be true, but are based on judgements.
6. Explain the difference between valid and invalid arguments. Are all valid arguments
good arguments? Are all invalid arguments bad arguments?
If the assumed truth of the premises can prove the conclusion is true, the argument is
valid. If the assumed truth can logically be proved false, then it is invalid. I don’t think all
valid arguments are good or that all invalid arguments are bad.
7. How do we show that an argument is invalid? How do we show that an argument is

unsound?
We show an argument is invalid by making a counterexample where the conclusion can

be proven false, even when the premises remain true. We show that an argument is
unsound by testing the premises in the real world. If all premises are true, the argument
is sound. If one or more premises are false, the argument is unsound.
8. Identify the fallacy committed in each assertion below:
(a) You should not use a pirated copy of Microsoft Office because Bill Gates said that
doing so is wrong.
(b) Online piracy is obviously wrong, as pirates were notorious for their ruthlessness.
(c) Tom could not possibly be correct in holding that file-sharing is unethical since he is
a terrible person.
(d) Most people think that it is unacceptable for internet providers to sell our data to
third parties. Therefore, it is wrong to do so.
(e) Artificial intelligence is dangerous because computers that can think for themselves
are dangerous.

Critical Reasoning Skills For Evaluating Disputes in Cyberethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Reasoning Skills For Evaluating Disputes in Cyberethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Reasoning Skills For Evaluating Disputes in Cyberethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emily Merten

3. What, in your own words, is Kant's categorical imperative?

4. What is utilitarianism, and what are some objections to it?

"Critical Reasoning Skills for Evaluating Disputes in Cyberethics"

7. How do we show that an argument is invalid? How do we show that an argument is

We show an argument is invalid by making a counterexample where the conclusion can

8. Identify the fallacy committed in each assertion below:

You might also like