1. Please briefly explain the "counter-example" method for
assessing moral claims. What example does
our author use?
2. What are the three criteria of adequacy for moral theories? Please briefly explain each.
3. How does Mary Anne Warren argue for the view that the rights of animals are "weaker" than
the rights of humans?
Ans 1-)  The opposite of moality isn't immorality.   The opposite is amorality. A great example of an amoralist is Frederich Nietzshe. He saw every form of morality as being inherently limiting. No god can force us into morality, science doesn't offer any moral clues, and any human concieved ethics that has ever existed is factually incorrect. He was a perspectivist, so any so-called fact is an interpretation, and since it is open to interpretation, just about anything can be justified. The only “evil” Nietzsche would say exists is the limiting of the self and putting others first.   It is basically an elaboration on the idea that “nothing is true, then all is permitted Ans 2-)   The criteria of adequacy for moral theories are (1) consistency with considered moral judgments, (2) consistency with our experience of the moral life, and (3) workability in real-life situations. Worldviews are composites of theories, including theories of morality. 1. Criterion 1 asserts that within a moral theory, there should be a consistency with our moral judgements. Moral judgements, according to more dominant moral theories, are usually achieved when one puts aside biases and self-interests to make a moral decision.  2. Ethics requires consistency in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consis ... See the full answer