Paley's teleological argument for God compares objects in the natural world to this object. (Don't be late!)

Egoism is this type of moral theory, since it defines moral right and wrong in terms of the effects of the action.

Jeremy Bentham believed that this was the ultimate human good. What a hedonist!

Between "acting from duty" and "acting according to duty", this phrase describes a good act that is performed from the wrong (e.g., selfish) motive.

In ethics, something that tries to give a general account of what makes an act morally right or wrong is called this.

St. Anselm says that existence in reality is greater than this type of existence.

Ethical egoism defines a morally right act as the act that benefits this person. Don't get too big headed!

Utilitarianism is this type of moral theory because it defines the morally right act in terms of the consequences of the act.

"Consequences of an act, be damned!"... This is what is matters for Kant when judging the moral worth of an act.

According to this philosopher, "the unexamined life is not worth living".

David Hume argues that the teleological argument makes an weak inference because it attempts to derive a cause from its known effects without this.

According to Thomas Hobbes, this pre-political state (with no laws or institutions) is described as "nasty, brutish, and short".

The morally right act is the act the generates the greatest pleasure/happiness for the greatest number. At least, so says this principle of morality.

Kant's supreme principle of morality! The principle we respect when we act from duty! A principle that applies to ALL human beings! All three of these describe what Kant refers to as this.

Be careful, divine command theorists! In stating that the morally right act is what God commands, you run into this dilemma (named after one of Plato's dialogues).

"2+2=4" and "a bachelor is an unmarried male" are types of claims we can know this way.

Human beings have a duty to pursue their good! That is why they should never act selflessly, says this argument for ethical egoism.

According to John Stuart Mill, it is better to be a human being unsatisfied than this animal satisfied. That's all folks!

Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative states that the principle or reason on which you act must have this feature.

Science uses empirical observation. Religion uses faith. Philosophy, on the other hand, bases its answers on this.

For many people, intelligent design is replaced by Darwin's theory of evolution because the latter provides a better one of these.

The fact that humans can CAN only act selfishless does not support ethical egoism unless we add in this premise widely accepted by ethicists. (I told you, I don't have an obligation to fast for two weeks to save food!)

According to a popular objection to utilitarianism, utilitarianism fails to give due regard to these. Our founding fathers described them as "unalienable".

Be rational! Because it is the our rationality that gives us this status. (Don't be a tool!)

Besides explaining why evil is permitted by God, the believer in God could also do this to respond to the problem of evil.