Hi could you help me to answer these following questions1. What is the difference between empirical and a priori truth? Provide an example of each. Are ethical truths empirical or a priori? Why?  2.

Hi could you help me to answer these following questions

1. What is the difference between empirical and a priori truth? Provide an example of each. Are ethical truths empirical or a priori? Why?

2. The following argument is valid. Is it also sound? Explain why or why not.

    A. It is right to cheat on psychology exams

      B. This is a psychology exam

       C. Thus, it is right to cheat on this exam

3. What is the difference between objective and subjective truths? Do ethical relativists believe there are any objective or subjective truths? Do moral nihilists think there are any objective or subjective truths?

4. One way of distinguishing cultural relativists from subjectivists is in the way the views answer a question about who moral truths apply to. Take, for example, the truth that it is wrong to drive while operating your smartphone. Who does that truth apply to according to cultural relativists? Who does it apply to if subjectivists are correct?

5. One appealing feature of subjectivist views of morality is that they give everyone an equal say about how morality works. How does subjectivism give everyone an equal say?

6. If subjectivist views of morality are correct, moral infallibility is not only possible, but it is true of everyone. What does it mean to be infallible about moral truths? Why is everyone infallible if subjectivists are correct? Why is it troubling to think that we are all infallible about morality?

7. Cultural relativists seemingly have to say that no group of people can make genuine moral progress over time. What is an example of genuine moral progress a group has made, and why will cultural relativists deny that that group made progress?

8. Subjectivist views of morality must tell us that there are contradictory moral truths so that the very same things can be both right and wrong or good and bad simultaneously. Why will subjectivists have to say that? Why is it troubling to say that there are moral contradictions?

9. Cultural relativists face a unique problem regarding contradictions that occurs when someone belongs to more than one culture at one and the same time. What is that problem? Why can cultural relativists not just leave it to the person who simultaneously belongs to multiple societies to decide which society’s rules to follow?

10.  All nihilists accept the idea that there are no moral features in this world. What does that claim mean, and what support is there for thinking that the claim is true? Why must it also be correct to say that there are no true moral judgments if there are no moral features in the world?

11 Error theorists must tell us that there is no moral knowledge. To give two examples, error theorists will say we cannot know that kindness is good or that cheating on ethics exams is wrong. Why can we not know those two things if error theorists are correct?

12. One problem relativist view must own up to is that, if correct, all sides in moral disagreements must be correct. Nihilists, on the other hand, must tell us that no sides in moral disagreements are correct. Why will relativists and nihilists say what they do about disagreements, and why is what both views say regarding disagreements troubling?

13. All moral skeptics accept the idea of moral equivalence. What is moral equivalence, why are skeptics committed to it, and why is equivalence false?

14. One line of argument in favor of divine command theories of morality says that gods are the best candidates for creating the truths of morality. Are divine command theories objectivist or skeptical approaches to morality? Why are gods’ good candidates for being the creators of moral truth?

15. The Euthyphro Dilemma presents two ways of relating moral truths to the commands of gods. What are those two options? How does one of those options challenge the idea that gods are perfectly rational?

16. One way to explain how gods and morality relate is to say that the objective truths are true independently of gods, but that those omniscient gods know what the truths are and then inform us. However plausible that explanation may be, its truth would limit the power of gods. In what way does that explanation limit what gods can do, and why is that limit a problem?