When we find ourselves in a position of regret regarding inconsistent or dishonest behavior, we have three options for choices we can make which one of these is not one of the choices listed in Anderson and Caldwell
Added by Charles R.
Step 1
Step 1: Identify the context of the question, which involves understanding the options presented by Anderson and Caldwell regarding dealing with regret from inconsistent or dishonest behavior. Show more…
Show all steps
Your feedback will help us improve your experience
Akash M and 52 other Psychology educators are ready to help you.
Ask a new question
Labs
Want to see this concept in action?
Explore this concept interactively to see how it behaves as you change inputs.
Key Concepts
Recommended Videos
Williams: "The Amoralist" 5. Williams argues that to be consistent, the amoralist a. must be selective about which moral considerations she genuinely heeds b. must pretend to subscribe to moral considerations c. must not remain indifferent to moral considerations d. must not be motivated by moral considerations e. some of the above 6. The conceptual difference between an Amoralist and an Immoralist is a. merely verbal: both defy/flout/dismiss the authority of morality as such b. that only the amoralist defies/flouts/dismisses the motivational authority of morality c. that only the immoralist defies/flouts/dismisses the authority of morality d. None. Both are moral 7. The amoralist is said to be potentially unrecognizably human insofar as a. she, unlike most people, proves consistently to be a parasite on society as we know it b. she, unlike most people, cannot dislike being disrespected or treated unfairly c. she, unlike most people, consistently resists being motivated to act and be the way people actually act and are d. all of the above e. none of the above 8. Williams can be said to float an ad hominem characterization of the amoralist in order to do what? a. to prove that we're not wrong in our commitment to morality b. to assuage our doubts about our commitment to morality c. to prove the amoralist wrong in her lack of commitment to morality d. to show she's foolish in her arguments for moral indifference 9. Short of being unrecognizably human or a psychopath, the amoralist is instead characterized by Williams as a "gangster". Williams' point in doing so is a. To cite a baseline case for getting a glimpse of what moral considerations need to get off the ground. b. To provide an alternative model to morality that remains relatively attractive. c. To suggest that the difference between being fully moral and being an amoral gangster is a difference of degree, not of kind. d. All of the above e. None of the above
Akash M.
Aparna S.
Many people might be surprised that tests and standards of any kind can be applied to disputes about morality and moral issues. One of the discussion stoppers is stated as below: "People disagree about morality, so how can we reach an agreement on moral issues?" What is the logical flaw in this way of thinking? 1. Fails to recognize that experts in many areas disagree on key issues in their fields 2. Fails to distinguish between the act of judging and being a judgmental person 3. Fails to distinguish between descriptive and normative claims about morality. 4. Options 3 and 4 5. Options 2 and 3
Recommended Textbooks
Psychology Openstax
Myers' Psychology for AP
Psychology
Transcript
Watch the video solution with this free unlock.
EMAIL
PASSWORD