Assignments

BONUS CREDIT

Some general points: The credit you will earn for this assignment will be substituted for one of your essays on previous tests. 

 

Please, address in writing one of the casesbelow using both utilitarian theory and Kantian theory. Type your answers and bring them to class during the day the final is scheduled. Do not attach cover pages. 

 

State the principles clearly and indent them! Also, break your papers into paragraphsThat’s just a matter of convenience. But, trust me, it is easier to read your paper when you indent the principles and break your thoughts into well-formed paragraphs

 

CHECK UP LIST

 

Do you have a brief introduction and summary?

 

Utilitarian theory:

  1. Did you offer some general background of utilitarian approach?
  2. Is the principle of utility stated clearly? 
  3. Is the principle explained? 
  • What does it mean to say that utilitarianism is all-inclusive? Who is included into the sphere of morality? 
  • How do utilitarians / consequentialists understand the requirement of impartiality? 
  • Does utilitarianism allow for aggregation of utility and trade offs? Can we sacrifice interests of someone for the benefit of others?
  • What does it mean to maximize utility? Explain how to reason through alternatives! 

A full explanation should include some convincing examples illustrating ideas that you explain.

 

  1. Is the principle applied correctly to the case?
    • Have you considered all relevant alternatives? 
    • Have you considered short and long term utility for all who are affected?
    • Have you shown that your preferred alternative really has desirable consequences? 

 

Kantian theory:  

  1. Did you offer some general background of Kantian approach? 
  2. Is the Categorical Imperative stated clearly?

 

  1.  Is the Categorical Imperative explained? 
  • What does Kant mean by persons?
  • What does it mean to treat someone merely as a means? How is it different from using someone as a means and also as an end? 
  • Explained what autonomy is and how we can violate it (e.g., through coercion or deception).
  • How are these concepts related to informed and rational consent? Give some examples of using someone merely as a means. Explain.

  

  1. Is the principle applied to the case you discuss? 
  • Have you considered all relevant alternatives? 
  • Have you explained what autonomy is and considered how these alternatives affect autonomy?
  • Have you shown that your preferred alternative affects someone’s autonomy as little as possible (if at all)?
  • Have you shown that someone is/is not used merely as a means if one of these alternatives is chosen?
  • Have you considered both explicit and hypothetical consent? 

 

 

Case #1: Consider the following: 

 

John Clark, a graduate student at a major university, wanted to research the emotional needs of families who had a dying relative. He decided that the best way to conduct this research was to work as a participant‑observer in a hospital. He already had training and experience as a counselor, and he added to his qualifications by taking a course to become a nursing assistance. A small community hospital interested in family care allowed him to volunteer for ten hours a week as a nursing assistant and counselor. Clark informed the administration and stuff of his research intentions and received their approval for his work.

 

Working in the intensive care unit and the emergency room, Clark gave basic care, took vital signs, and assisted the nurses. When a critical care patient was admitted to the unit, he was assigned to work with the family. He provided counseling, acted as an information liaison between staff and family during non‑visiting hours, and stayed with the family when they were told of the death.

 

Following each death, he wrote a case history and maintained a check list of common grief reactions. He showed these reports to no one. After a period of three months, he wrote a paper reporting his findings. From this study, the staff developed a course to teach nurses how to deal with the critical care patient's family.

 

The families Clark counseled were only told that he was a nursing assistant and counselor working with the hospital to give special attention to their needs. They responded very positively to the services that he provided. They were not told that a research project was being conducted or that a study would be written.

 

In this case, should Clark and the hospital have obtained the consent of the families to participate in the research? If you think he should ask for consent, when should he do it? When you discuss this case consider, in particular, whether or not it matters morally that the identity of the families is (or is not) revealed?  Please, include the discussion of alternatives (i.e., what Clark can do), the discussion of long and short term utilities (consequences and their value), various rules applicable to this case, consequentialist justification for those rules, and so on.

 

Case #2: Consider the following:

 

Suppose that an automobile manufacturer uses subliminal messages in its television commercials to persuade people to buy its cars. Messages are flashed on the screen so quickly that viewers are not consciously aware of them. Suppose also that the subliminal technique works. That is, they cause customers to choose the advertised car. The adds are very successful, car sales increase significantly. Finally, suppose that the cars turn out to be good ones.  

 

Morally evaluate the act of running the ads. Please, include the discussion of alternatives (i.e., what manufacturer can do), the discussion of long and short term consequences, utilities for all involved, various ways in which customers might use their money. and so on.  Hint: even though the cars are good, does it follow that buying them (and making them to buy them) is the best available option. 

 

Best of luck!

 

QUIZ #8 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 

Please, circle the correct answers. Exactly one answer is best and thus correct. Additional scantrons in the pocket next to my office, FC261. Due May 01 or 02.

 

1) One of the philosophers we studied said the following to justify punishment, “If it ought at all to be admitted, it ought to be admitted … to exclude some greater evil.” Most likely, this philosopher was

a) a consequentialist (e.g., Bentham);

b) a deontologist (e.g., Kant); 

c) both a) and b);    d) impossible to tell. 

 

2) Consequentialists would justify punishment on the grounds of 

a) forward looking reasons (that is, punishing people has good consequences); 

b) backward looking reasons (that is, punishment is a proper retribution for a crime);        

c) neither a) nor b). 

 

3) Most likely, consequentialists would use the following reasons to justify punishment: 

a) Punishment reforms and rehabilitates an offender.

b) Punishment is a form of social defense; that is, it prevents crimes by deterring criminals and incapacitating past and potential offenders.

c) Punishment is a proper repayment for some crime/offense/wrong.

d) a) and b); 

e) all of the above. 

 

4) Most likely, retributivists would use the following reasons to justify punishment: 

a) Punishments bring comfort to the families and friends of the victims and may benefit society in some other way. 

b) Punishment is a form of social defense; that is, it prevents crimes by deterring criminals and incapacitating past and potential offenders.

c) Punishment is a proper repayment for some crime/offense/wrong.

d) a) and b);                               e) all of the above. 

 

5) Sometimes retribution is compared to revenge. In class, Stefan argued that retribution is

a) exactly like revenge; 

b) in some respect it is like revenge, but there are some important differences between them; 

c) neither a) nor b). 

 

6) The following factors are frequently mentioned to distinguish retribution from revenge:  

a) retribution is done for wrong, while revenge may be done for an injury, harm, or slight; 

b) revenge has nothing to do with justice (e.g., it is administered outside of legal system) while retribution must be administered in a just or fair way;  

c) retributivists set some internal limits to the amount of the punishment (punishment must fit the crime) while revenge can be excessive;

d) all of the above;e) none of the above.

 

7) Kant and contemporary Kantians tend to be 

a) retributivists;                        b) consequentialists;

c) both a) and b);    d) none of the above. 

 

8) Some people tend to argue for Capital Punishment on the grounds that CP prevents future crimes, lowers the rate of crime, etc. Stefan and Rachels argue that 

a) there is a very good evidence that CP prevents crimes; 

b) there is no evidence that CP prevents crimes;

c) neither a) nor b)

 

9) One of the main reasons against CPpoints to the fact that it leads to the death of innocent people. Stefan and Rachels argue that 

A) there is very good evidence that many (hundreds of) innocent people were convicted and sentenced to death and also that some of them were killed; 

B) there is no evidence that many innocent people were sentenced to death;      

 C) neither a) nor b). 

 

10) Kantians could argue against CP on the grounds that CP leads to the death of many innocent people which

A) is a great harm and has great disutility;

B) involves using someone merely as a means (for no innocent person would consent to being executed);

C) both A) and B);D) none of the above.

 

11) Utilitarians could argue against CP on the grounds that CP leads to the death of many innocent people which

A) is a great harm and has great disutility;

B) involves using someone merely as a means (for no innocent person would consent to being executed);

C) both A) and B);D) none of the above.

                     

12) The following are special reasons against CP

A) it is not, and it can hardly be applied fairly (for example, minorities are punished more severely and so are crimes against white folks); 

B) it is expensive (at least 2.5 more expensive than life in prison w/o parole);

C) it may incite criminals to commit capital crimes (e.g., in case someone has a death wish);

D) all of the above;

 

 

QUIZ # 7 -- USING AND THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA 

Please, circle the correct answers. Exactly one answer is best and thus correct. Additional scantrons in the pocket next to my office, FC261. Due April 25 or 26.

 

1) Consequentialists would justify laws on the following grounds: 

==> a) forward looking reasons (that is, it regulates or eliminates some activities); 

b) backward looking reasons (e.g., it allows for punishment that is a proper retribution for a crime);           

c) both a) and b);

d) neither a) nor b). 

 

2) Most likely, deontologists would justify laws on the following grounds: 

a) forward looking reasons (that is, it regulates or eliminates some activities); 

==> b) backward looking reasons (e.g., it allows for punishment that is a proper retribution for a crime);           

c) both a) anmd b);

d) neither a) nor b). 

 

3) In Chapter 7, Rachels addresses the issue of using marijuana from 

==> a) consequentialist (utilitarian) point of view; 

b) deontological (Kantian) point of view; 

c) both a) and b);

d) none of the above.

 

4) In his lectures and outlines, Stef addresses the issue of using marijuana from 

a) consequentialist (utilitarian) point of view; 

b) deontological (Kantian) point of view; 

==> c) both a) and b);

d) none of the above.

 

5) Rachels and Stef argued that our ex-drug czar William Bennet, Ph.D. 

a) provided a clear and good philosophical argument regarding both use and legalization of drugs; 

==> b) did not provide a clear and good philosophical argument regarding both use and legalization of drugs;

c) did not discuss the issue at all;

d) none of the above. 

 

6) Rachels and Stef argued that, to make progress in arguments about marijuana

==> a) it’s best to distinguish questions about legalization from questions about use;

b) there is no need to distinguish these questions because, if something is immoral then it should be illegal;

c) neither a) nor b).

 

7) Rachels argues that there are good consequentialist arguments for 

a) the claim that using marijuana responsibly is morally permissible;

b) we should legalize and regulate using marijuana;

==> c) both a) and b);

d) none of the above.

 

8) Stef argued that there are good _______ reasons for  the claim that using marijuana responsibly is morally permissible and it should be legal

a) consequentialist;

b) deontological;

==> c) both a) and b);

d) none of the above.

 

9) Stef argued (in his lectures and outlines) that marijuana is a gateway drug

a) true;

==> b) false

 

10) The following are consequentialist (utilitarian) reasons for the legalization of drugs

a) a better stuff would be available;

b) we would save money on war on drugs and generate money through taxation;

c) it does not violate anyone’s autonomy;

==> d) a) and b) above;

e) all of the above

 

11) The following are deontological (Kantian) reasons for the legalization of drugs

a) a better stuff would be available;

b) we would save money on war on drugs and generate money through taxation;

==> c) it does not violate anyone’s autonomy;

d) a) and b) above;

e) all of the above.

 

12) Stef argued that the use of drugs should be heavily regulated. In particular, children should not be using them because 

a) they may harm themselves (which is an application of “harm to others principle);

==> b) they may harm themselves (which is an application of paternalism);

c) there is no reason to regulate use for children in a different way than we regulate the use of adults;

d) none of the above.

 

Attendance Quiz / Homework # 6: Deontology and Kant. Please answer all questions. Exactly one answer to each question is best and thus correct. 

 

1) Deontological ethics implies that the moral status of a given action depends on 

a) consequences of this action; 

b) whether a virtuous person would performed that action; 

c) whether or not someone fulfilled one’s duties  

d) all of the above;           e) none of the above. 

 

2) The Greek word deonis an equivalent of an English word 

a) duty;                          b) moral right; 

c) result or consequence;   d) none of the above 

 

3) In one of its formulations, Kant's categorical imperative asserts that 

A) one must always maximize benefits for a client or a patient; 

B) one must always minimize harms for the client or patient; 

C) one must always maximize benefits and minimize harms for the client or patient; 

D) One must not treat any person merely as a means; 

D) none of the above 

 

4) Recall examples leading to the "injustice objection to utilitarianism." Kant could say that 

A) the examples do not take into account long term utility of an action; 

B) the examples do not take into account negative utility; 

C) the examples do not take into account all alternatives; 

D) the examples do not take into account the fact that someone is used merely as a means to maximize utility;                     E) all of the above. 

 

5) A main problem for Kant's ethical theory (discussed in class) is that this theory

A) is not very (or completely) clear about what it means to treat someone merely as a means;

B) allows someone to be treated as a means;

C) allows someone to be treated merely as a means; 

D) does not allow anyone to be treated merely as a means;                  E) none of the above.

 

6) According to the class lectures, a plausible interpretation of the claim that "one is not used merely as a means" is this:

A) one is not harmed; 

B) one has explicitly consented to some form of treatment;

C) a rational and well informed person explicitly consented to some treatment or, at least, a rational and well informed person would consent to some form of treatment; 

D) the action is best for all.

 

7) In class we discussed examples which involve using (sacrificing) one person to help other people. Such examples were used to show that

A) deontological theories are flawed;

B) consequentialist theories may be flawed because they allow for injustice;

C) hospitals must never use triage procedures;

D) all of the above; 

E) none of the above.

 

According to Immanuel Kant, "man and, in general, every rational being exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will. In all his actions, whether they are directed to himself or to other rational beings, he must always be regarded at the same time as an end. [...] Beings whose existence does not depend on our will but on nature, if they are not rational beings, have only a relative worth as means and are therefore called "things"; on the other hand, rational beings are designated "persons," because their nature indicates that they are ends in themselves, i.e., things which may not be used merely as means. Such a being is thus an object of respect and, so far, restricts all [arbitrary] choice. Such beings are not merely subjective ends whose existence as a result of our action has a worth for us but are objective ends, i.e., beings whose existence in itself is an end. Such an end is one for which no other end can be substituted, to which these beings should serve merely as means. For, without them, nothing of absolute worth could be found, and if all worth is conditional and thus contingent, no supreme practical principle for reason could be found anywhere." (Immanuel Kant, "The Categorical Imperative")

 

8) In this passage, Kant draws a sharp distinction between "things" (or "mere things") and

A) special things;            B) animals;

C) humans;                    D) persons; 

D) all of the above. 

 

9) According to Kant's concept of a person, persons are 

A) all and only human beings; 

B) all and only beings that have rational nature; 

C) all and only human beings who have rational nature;

D) it's mysterious what Kant means by persons.

 

Kant also claims that we (and, in general, rational beings) cannot help but to think of ourselves (and, more generally, our rational nature) as an end in itself. 

 

10) Bentham, Mill and other hedonists would reject this claim on the ground that 

A) pleasure and the absence of pain are ends in themselves; 

B) desire satisfaction is the end in itself; 

C) flourishing may be an end in itself; 

D) all of the above;          E) none of the above. 

 

11) According to Kant, a difference between actions (e.g., winking) and mere bodily movements is (e.g., blinking) is that 

A) actions (but not bodily movements) are purposeful or intentional; 

B) actions (but not bodily movements) are based on internal principles that Kant calls "maxims"; 

C) actions (but not bodily movements) may have good and bad consequences; 

D) A) and B);                 E) all of the above. 

 

12) According to Kant 

A) HypotheticalImperatives link actions with goals we happen to desire while the CategoricalImperative asserts that some actions are absolutely and unconditionally necessary; 

B) The Categorical Imperative links actions with goals we happen to desire while Hypothetical Imperatives assert that some actions are absolutely and unconditionally necessary; 

C) neither of the above 

 

Kant considers the following example: "Another man finds himself forced by need to borrow money. He well knows that he will not be able to repay it, but he also sees that nothing will be loaned him if he does not firmly promise to repay it at a certain time. He desires to make such a promise, but he has enough conscience to ask himself whether it is not improper and opposed to duty to relieve his distress in such a way. Now, assuming he does decide to do so, the maxim of his action would be as follows: When I believe myself to be in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know I shall never do so. Now this principle of self‑love or of his own benefit may very well be compatible with his whole future welfare, but the question is whether it is right. He changes the pretension of self‑love into a universal law and then puts the question: How would it be if my maxim became a universal law? He immediately sees that it could never hold as a universal law of nature and be consistent with itself; rather it must necessarily contradict itself. For the universality of a law which says that anyone who believes himself to be in need could promise what he pleased with the intention of not fulfilling it would make the promise itself and the end to be accomplished by it impossible; no one would believe what was promised to him but would only laugh at any such assertion as vain pretense.”

 

13) In this example, a person would act on the following maxim: "When I believe myself to be in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know I shall never do so." 

A) true B) false 

 

14) Generalized form of this maxim is "Whenever someone believes herself or himself to be in need of money, s/he will borrow money and promise to repay it, although s/he knows s/he shall never do so." 

A) true b) false 

 

15) The following is an act utilitarian reason against borrowing on the basis of false promises:

A) the act of borrowing fails to maximize utility; 

B) a rule allowing for such borrowing would fail to max utility;

C) a rule allowing for such borrowing leads to contradictions; 

D) all of the above; 

E) none of the above. 

 

16) The following is a rule utilitarian reason against borrowing on the basis of false promises:

A) the act of borrowing fails to maximize utility;

B) a rule allowing for such borrowing would fail to max utility; 

C) a rule allowing for such borrowing would lead to contradictions; 

D) all of the above; 

E) none of the above. 

 

17) The following is a Kantian reason against borrowing on the basis of false promises:

A) the act of borrowing fails to maximize utility;

B) a rule allowing for such borrowing would fail to max utility; 

C) a rule allowing for such borrowing would lead to contradictions; 

D) all of the above; 

E) none of the above.

 

18) Kant seems to be an ethical absolutist

A) true; B) false

 

19) In class Stefan mentioned the following reasons that can be used to limit someone's freedom: 

A) someone infringes on the important interests and freedom of others; 

B) someone does something offensive; 

C) someone harms himself; 

D) all of the above;          E) none of the above 

 

20) Paternalistic intervention (action) 

A) extends someone's freedom 

B) limits someone's freedom for the sake of others 

C) limits someone freedom for his/her own sake (i.e., to benefit someone whose freedom is limited) 

D) all of the above 

E) none of the above.

 

21) The following philosophers are deontologists

A) Bentham and Mill;      

B) Kant and Ross; 

C) Aristotle and Aquinas   

D) all of the above;

E) none of the above

 

 

THE SECOND TEST will be this coming Monday or Tuesday, depending when your class meets. The material for the 1st test: Rachels, Chapter 5, 6 (on the Prisoner's Dilemma), 7, and 8, lectures 3-4 (including reviews for these lectures and additional resources); homeworks 4-5. Objective questions will be very similar to questions on these reviews and homework.

 

There will be one essay question. I will give you at least two options and you will write on one of them.

Essay Topic #1:

  1. Critics claim that utilitarianism is too demanding. Briefly state and explain the act utilitarian principle and explain why critics raise this problem.
  2. What are supererogatory acts? Define and explain this concept using a clear and appropriate example. In your example, clearly identify both an obligatory act and a supererogatory act. Explain!
  3. Can there be supererogatory acts if act-utilitarianism is true? Why or why not? Explain both the utilitarian theory and its implications for the problem of supererogatory acts.
  4. Sketch some theory (a version of deontology or some modification to utilitarian theory) that would allow for supererogatory acts. Explain!

 

Essay Topic #2: Suppose that a surgeon discovers that there is a perfect match between one of his patients and five other people who need organ-transplants. If he releases his patient, these five people will die. He can kill his patient, however, harvest his organs and use them to save these five people. What should he do?

  1. Briefly state and explain the act utilitarian principle.
  2. Explain what this principle seems to imply about this case. Is this implication plausible or not?
  3. Consider how a consequentialist could respond to this problem. In particular, consider all relevant alternatives that the doctor has (including hidden. Furthermore, consider both the short and the long term consequences of doctor's actions. How do they help a consequentialist to deal with the problem of justice?
  4. Briefly explain how a deontologist, who base his ethics on the idea of respect, could handle this case. In particular, what does it meant to treat someone with respect and not to use him/her merely as a means? 

 

Essay Topic #3:

  1. What is (counts as) an intrinsic value. Define this concept and give an example of something that is intrinsically valuable. Explain your example.
  2. What is (counts as) an instrumental value? Give an example of something that has instrumental value only but does not have intrinsic value. Explain your example.
  3. Is it true that only pleasure is intrinsically good and only pain is intrinsically bad? Explain. In your answer, explain the isolation test and then apply this test to some convincing examples of intrinsically good things.
  4. Mill claims that some pleasures are more valuable than others, they have higher quality. Using a convincing example, explain what he means by this and his reasons (arguments) for his claim.

 

A REMINDER ABOUT THE 1st TEST: The date for the test is postponed one week to February 26 or 27 (depending on when your class meets). The material for the 1st test: Rachels, Chapter 1-2, lectures 1-2 (including reviews for these lectures and additional resources); homeworks 1-3. Objective questions will be very similar to questions on these reviews and homework.

 

There will be one essay question. I will give you  two options and you will write on one of them.

Option 1: Baby Theresa case from chapter 1.  

  • A) What is the "benefits and no-harms" argument? What are the premises of this argument? What is its conclusion?
  • B) Is the benefit argument valid and sound? What are internal problems for consequentialism? How can a consequentialist solve these problems? What seems to be the most plausible statement of the core consequentialist idea. 
  • C) What is an argument "from respect" (that ought NOT to use persons merely as a means)? What are the premises of this argument? What is its conclusion?
  • D) What does it mean to use someone merely as a means? How does it apply to this case?

Option 2: What is Cultural Ethical Relativism (CER)? How is it different from Ethical Objectivism (Universalism)? What is Ethical Absolutism? 

  • How 5 theses / claims (mentioned by Rachels and discussed in class) help us to understand this view?
  • What do these theses imply? (Be prepared to explain each thesis using convincing examples).
  • How can we argue in support CER? How good/bad are these arguments? 
  • How can we argue against CER? How good/bad are these arguments?

 

 

Attendance Quiz #5: Utilitarianism, and Intrinsic Value (& few issues related to Kant and deontology). Please answer all questions using the provided scantrons. Due next time in class.

 

1) Mill maintains that

A) utility is the foundation of morality

B) duties are foundations of morality

C) moral rights are foundations of morality;

D) B) and C) only; E) all of the above.

 

2) According to Mill's "Greatest Happiness Principle":

A) actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, but reverse of happiness has nothing to do with the evaluation of acts;

B) actions are wrong in proportion as they tend to promote unhappiness, but happiness has nothing to do with the evaluation of acts;

C) actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness;         D) none of the above

 

3) Mill maintains that happiness is the function of

A) pleasure only;  

B) the absence of pain only;

C) pleasure and the absence of pain;

D) none of the above

 

4) Critics of utilitarianism maintained that “To suppose that life has ... no higher end than pleasure -no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit- [is] a doctrine worthy only of swine”. Mill

A) agreed that utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy only of a swine;

B) distinguished higher pleasures (related to intellect, imagination, and moral sentiments) from lower pleasures that humans share with animals;

C) maintained that higher pleasures have greater value (are more valuable) than lower pleasures;

D) B) and C);                             E) all of the above

 

5) When challenged how we know that higher pleasures are more valuable than lower pleasures, Mill replied what follows:

A) we do not know it, it's just an assumption;

B) we know it because that's what the Bible say;

C) we know it because competent people (i.e., those who experienced both kinds of pleasures) almost universally maintain that higher pleasures are more valuable;

D) none of the above.

 

6) The view about happiness assumed by Bentham and Mill is identical to the view about happiness (eudaimonia, flourishing) assumed, e.g., by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas;

A) true; B) false

 

7) Eudaimonism is

A) a version of consequentialism;

B) a version of deontology;

C) a view that only pleasure is intrinsically good and only pain is intrinsically bad;

D) the view that happiness (flourishing) is intrinsically good and that happiness is not exactly the same as pleasure;

E) none of the above

 

8) Something has intrinsic value if it has

A) value in itself;

B) value as a result of being caused by something good;

C) has extrinsic (instrumental) value; has value as a means to something

D) all of the above;                  E) none of the above

 

9) The isolation test allows us to determine that

A) one cannot be used merely as a means;

B) one can travel alone in a space-ship;

C) something has intrinsic value;

D) all of the above;                  E) none of the above.

 

10) John Stuart Mill is

A) quantitative hedonist, i.e. he believes that only the amount of pleasure and pain are morally relevant

B) qualitative hedonist; i.e., the believer that both the quantity of pleasure and pain and their quality are morally relevant.              C) neither of the above

 

11) According to pluralism, as this view was explained in in outlines

A) many different ethical norms are all equally valid and so, ethical relativism is true;

B) both consequentialist and deontological ethical theories are morally correct;

C) many different things have intrinsic value;

D) correct moral decisions fulfill plural standards.

 

12) Suppose that John lives on a desert island. One day he discovers a treasure hidden there by pirates. Though he is now wealthy, he cannot use any part of this treasure. Suppose that John concludes that this discovery has no value to him; it is not a benefit, it did not improve his life, it did not add anything valuable to the world. It follows that he thinks that

A) pleasure only is intrinsically good;

B) pleasure and happiness are both intrinsically good;

C) pleasure, happiness, and having treasure are all intrinsically good;

D) the treasure is not intrinsically good (even though, in some situations, it can have instrumental value)

E) none of the above.

 

13) Suppose that George lives on another desert island. One day he experienced a particularly beautiful sunset. At the same time, he experiences a particularly gorgeous rising of the full moon. While he observes both heavenly bodies hovering above a quiet bay he concludes that his life has been enriched, he experienced something beautiful, something valuable. It follows that George thinks that

A) pleasure only is intrinsically good;

B) pleasure and happiness are both intrinsically good;

C) arguably, the experience of beauty and perhaps even beauty itself are intrinsically good;

D) none of the above.

 

14) Suppose that some action causes suffering to one person but more pleasure to many other people. According to utilitarian ethics this action

A) is morally right as it produces some positive utility;

B) may be wrong as there may be some other act that produces at least as much pleasure but less pain

C) neither A) nor B)

 

15) Critics maintain that, according to act utilitarian standards

A) too many actions (including some trivial ones) would count as supererogatory;

B) no action would count as supererogatory because we do not really know what the consequences of any act are;

C) no action would count as supererogatory because act utilitarianism always requires of us to do very best action (i.e., one that maximizes utility);

D) none of the above.

 

16) Rule-utilitarians would

A) evaluate each action directly, no matter to what kind this action belongs;

B) set up a system of rules that are based on utilitarian considerations;

C) use that system to evaluate actions as belonging to various kinds (e.g., an act of lying, an act of stealing, an act of killing; and act of violating justice);

D) B) and C);                             E) all of the above.

 

17) According to utilitarianism, the consequences of a right action

A) can include some negative utility.

B) can include some positive utility

C) can include short term utility;

D) can include long term utility;

E) all of the above.

 

18) The following is the best statement of the principle assumed by act-utilitarianism:

A) An action is morally right if and only if it brings about more pleasure than pain;

B) An action is morally right if and only if it brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number;

C) An action is morally right if it maximizes social (total) utility;

D) They are all equally good because they all really mean the same.

 

19) According to utilitarianism, in order to know that an action is right or wrong we must know

A) the value of consequences of doing this action;

B) the value of consequences of the alternative actions;

C) that justice was not violated;

D) A) and B);                            E) all of the above.

 

20) The "injustice objection" (discussed in class, lecture outlines and the book) is a common objection to

A) Utilitarian ethical theory;

B) Kant's ethical theory;

C) A) and B);                             D) none of the above.

 

 

21) Recall examples leading to the “injustice objection to utilitarianism". Utilitarians could reply that critics

A) do not take into account long term utility;

B) do not take into account all alternatives;

C) do not take into account the fact that someone is used merely as a means to maximize utility;

D) A) and B) above;                E) all of the above

 

22) Kant could reply that these examples

A) do not take into account long term utility;

B) do not take into account negative utility;

C) the examples do not take into account all alternatives;

D) do not take into account the fact that someone is used merely as a means to maximize utility;

E) all of the above

 

23) Rachels offers the following explanation of what it can mean to use someone merely as a mean (revisit Chapter 1):

A) typically, it involves violating their autonomy through manipulation, trickery, deceit, or coercion;

B) when we cannot violate someone’s autonomy in such a way (because she has no autonomy), it may involve violating someone’s interests or preferences;

C) A) and/or B);                      D) none of the above.

 

24) Autonomy can be defined as ability to decide for oneself how to live one's own life, in accordance with one's own values and desires (see, Rachels p. 3). Stefan argued in class that autonomy includes several features, including

a) ability to understand future including various possible courses of action and what they lead to;

b) ability to compare those different courses of action;

c) ability to choose one in accordance with one's own values;

d) all of the above;                          e) none of the above.

 

25) Allegedly, utilitarianism is too demanding. That is, according to utilitarian ethics:

A) there are too many supererogatory acts;

B) there are no supererogatory acts because we always have to do our best (maximize total utility);

C) both A) and B).

D) none of the above.

 

26) For Kant, ethics is based on

A) the categorical imperative(s);

B) the hypothetical imperative(s)

C) both A) and B); D) none of the above.

 

HOMEWORK #4 (Ethics of Egosim): Please answer all questions using scantrons distributed in class. Exactly one answer to each question is best and thus correct.

 

 

1) The following theories are versions of consequentialism

a) ethical egoism only

b) ethical altruism only

c) utilitarianism only

d) any normative theory based on duties or rights

e) ethical egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism.

 

2) Rachels in his book and Stef in class distinguished two forms of egoism; namely

A) radical egoism and moderate egoism;

B) act egoism and rule egoism;

C) psychological egoism and ethical egoism

D) none of the above.

 

3) The main thesis of psychological egoism is that

A) everyone always acts motivated by his or her own self‑interest

B) everyone always ought to act in his or her own self‑interest

C) both A) and B)

D) none of the above.

 

4) Psychological egoism is a theory about

A) how we act; hence it is a descriptive theory (part of the descriptive ethics);

B) how we ought to act; hence it is part of normative ethics;

C) both A) and B);

D) none of the above.

 

5) One argument in support of psychological egoism is that we are always motivated by our strongest desires. So, we always try to act in self-interest. The following objections to this argument were discussed in class and in the book:

A) sometimes we are motivated by something else than our desires (e.g., we are motivated by a sense of duty);

B) even when we are motivated by our desires, those desires may other‑regarding;  

C) A) and B);

D) none of the above.

 

6) Suppose that John genuinely cares for others. For example, he wants people to live in peace and harmony. His desire seems to be

a) self-regarding;

b) other regarding;

c) both a) and b);

d) none of the above.

 

7) It seems that animals

a) always act in a selfish way;

b) sometimes act in the interest of others;

c) sometimes are motivated by some sense of proto-“fairness” or proto-“justice”;

d) b) and c)

e) none of the above.

 

8) Stef argued in class that

A) psychological egoism is true because we are always motivated by self‑interest;

B) psychological egoism is false because we are sometimes motivated by the interest of others, sense of duty, etc.;

C) it’s impossible to tell whether psychological egoism is true or false.

 

9) The main thesis of ethical egoism is that

A) everyone always acts in his or her self‑interest;

B) everyone always ought to act in his or her self‑interest;

C) both A) and B);

D) none of the above.

 

10) Ethical egoism is a theory about

A) how we act, hence it is part of descriptive ethics;

B) how we ought to act; hence it is part of normative ethics;

C) both A) and B);

D) none of the above.

 

11) Ayn Rand juxtaposes (creates a sharp contrast) between

a) ethical egoism and ethical altruism;

b) ethical egoism and ethical utilitarianism;

c) ethical altruism and utilitarianism;

d) all of the above.

 

12) Ayn Rand

a) rejects the ethics of altruism and accepts the ethics of rational egoism (that she calls “objectivism”);

b) accepts the ethics of altruism and rejects the ethics of egoism;

c) rejects both the ethics of egoism and the ethics of altruism and accepts some other ethical theory;

d) none of the above.

 

13) One possible objection to Ayn Rand's argument is that her argument is based on false dichotomy (dilemma). Namely

A) she falsely assumes that altruism implies that we always ought to sacrifice ourselves for others;

B) she falsely assumes that egoism implies that we never should sacrifice ourselves for others;

C) she ignores a possibility that we should reject both egoism and altruism and accept some other ethical theory (i.e., a theory that sometimes we should act in self-interest and sometimes we should do things for others);

D) all of the above.

 

14) One argument in support of ethical egoism assumes that "the best way to promote everyone's interest is to adopt the policy that each of us ought to pursue exclusively our own interests". The following are objections to this argument discussed in class and the book:

a) it’s not really an argument for ethical egoism for, ultimately (at the level of basic principles), it assumes that we ought to promote everyone’s interest and be motivated by the principle of beneficence;

b) it's not true that when we pursue our own interest only, then it always leads to fulfilling the interests of all;

c) both a) and b);

d) none of the above.

 

15) The following are good examples of the rules of common sense morality (offered by Rachels and Stefan in class):

A) tell the truth and do not deceive;

B) keep your promises;

C) avoid harming others; 

D) a) and b);  

E) all of the above.

 

16) Some people argue that Ethical Egoism and the common-sense morality go hand in hand because, when we follow rules of the common sense morality, is always beneficial to the agent. Rachels

a) accepts this argument;

b) rejects this argument on the ground that sometimes it is not advantageous to the agent to follow the rules of common sense morality;

c) does not discuss this argument;

a) none of the above.

 

17) Racism and sexism are most similar to

A) ethical altruism;

B) utilitariansim;

C) ethical egoism;

D) all of the above;

E) none of the above.

 

18) Rachels argues that

A) egoism satisfies the principle of impartiality, and so it's a good theory;

B) egoism satisfies the principle of impartiality, and so it's a bad theory;

C) egoism fails to satisfy the principle of impartiality, and so it's a good theory;

D) egoism sees to violate the principle of impartiality, and so it's a very serious problem for this theory.

 

19) A Prisoner’s Dilemma is

a) the 4th part of Coppola’s epic “God Father”;

b) what prisoners experience when they leave a prison and have a choice to look for a job or to continue on the path of crime;

c) a game theoretical devise that raises some important questions about how we ought to act;

d) b) and c);

e) none of the above

 

20) According to Rachels, Prisoner’s Dilemmas show that

a) if people follow the ethics of egoism, they do less well than they could have don otherwise;

b) unconstrained egoism is self-defeating;

c) both a) and b);

d) none of the above.

 

21) According to Rachels and Stef, we could resolve the Prisoner’s dilemmas by

a) rejecting egoism and allowing religion to control our lives;

b) rejecting egoism and adopting ethical rules requiring cooperation and coordination;

c) both a) and b);

d) none of the above.

 

ATTENDANCE QUIZ #3 (Relativism): Exactly one answer to each question is best and thus correct.

 

1) According to Diversity Thesis

A) as a matter of fact, different societies have different moral codes;

B) the moral code of a society determines what is right within that society;

C) there is no objective or universal standard that can be used to judge one society's code as better than another's;

D) the moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many;

E) it is mere arrogance for us to judge the conduct of other people; we should be tolerant about ways of other cultures.

 

2) According to Relativity Thesis

A) as a matter of fact, different societies have different moral codes;

B) the moral code of a society determines what is right within that society;

C) there is no objective or universal standard that can be used to judge one society's code as better than another's;

D) the moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many;

E) it is mere arrogance for us to judge the conduct of other people; we should be tolerant about ways of other cultures.

 

3) According to Thesis about Rejection of Universalism

A) as a matter of fact, different societies have different moral codes;

B) the moral code of a society determines what is right within that society;

C) there is no objective or universal standard that can be used to judge one society's code as better than another's;

D) the moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many;

E) it is mere arrogance for us to judge the conduct of other people; we should be tolerant about ways of other cultures.

 

4) Some people argue that moral disagreements are very widely spread.

A) Stefan and Rachels agreed with this claim;

B) Stefan and Rachels argue that, although there are some moral disagreements, there are less widely spread than it seems;

C) there are no moral disagreements;

D) none of the above.

 

5) Stefan argued in class that some apparent moral disagreement are really

A) disagreements about non-moral values (e.g., religious or legal norms);

B) disagreements about facts;

C) disagreements about concepts;

D) all of the above.

 

6)  Stefan argued in class that sometimes people change their minds (and some ethical debates are resolved) when we clear the facts. In particular, the following facts may be relevant in the debate about Capital Punishment (that is, sometimes people change their minds when they discover this sort of facts)

A) how likely it is that a convicted murderer, if not executed, may be released and commit more crimes.

B) how many innocent people are killed when we have CP;

C) do we administer it fairly (do poor people and members of minorities are as likely to be executed as rich white folks);

D) how much more expensive is CP comparing to the life in prison;

E) they are all relevant

 

7) Ethical absolutists believe that

A) correct moral rules are extremely simple, they allow for no exceptions

B) correct moral rules can be complex but they apply to all similarly situated people;

C) people never differ in their opinions about morality

D) all of the above;

E) none of the above

 

8)  Every ethical universalist (objectivist) must believe that

A) correct moral rules are extremely simple

B) some basic moral rules, however complex they are; are applicable to all similarly situated people

C) people never differ in their moral views

D) all of the above;  

E) none of the above.

 

9) Every ethical universalist must believe that

A) correct moral principles are easy to discover;

B) we have already discovered correct moral principles;

C) each culture knows what the correct moral principles are; 

D) all of the above;  

E) none of the above

 

10) Ethical universalism is incompatible with

A) Ethical absolutism; 

B) Ethical Relativism

C) Utilitarianism;  

D) Deontology

E) none of the above

 

11) Suppose that abortion is condemned as immoral in Catholic Ireland but is practiced as a morally neutral form of birth control in Japan. According to the ethical relativist

A) abortion is wrong in Ireland but morally permissible Japan;

B) abortion is wrong both in Ireland and Japan;

C) abortion is right both in Ireland and Japan;

D) it's impossible to tell whether abortion is right or wrong;

E) none of the above.

 

12) The same example. According to Ethical Universalism

A) abortion is wrong in Ireland but morally permissible Japan;

B) abortion is either wrong both in Ireland and in Japan or right both in Ireland and in Japan, provided that people in these societies are in similar circumstances;

C) it's impossible to tell whether abortion is right or wrong;

D) none of the above.

 

13) Suppose that two cultures fundamentally disagree about morality. According to cultural relativism

A) each culture is correct;

B) at most one culture is correct;

C) no culture is correct;

D) none of the above.   

 

14) One argument for CER argues that Relativism is true because there are no clear ways to justify ethical views and resolve ethical disagreements. In class, Stefan

A) accepted this argument;

B) rejected this argument on the ground that ethics has nothing to do with justification;

C) rejected this argument on the grounds that, in fact, we know how to argue about morality and, furthermore, frequently different ethical theories and principles imply the same ethical assessment of various cases; 

D) none of the above.

 

15) If we ought to be tolerant, then

A) relativism must be true;

B) universalism can be true;

C) neither of the above.

 

16) If Cultural Relativism is true, then

A) we must be tolerant are respectful of other cultures;

B) we sometimes may be required to be intolerant and disrespectful of other cultures because our culture may require of us to be intolerant;

C) neither of the above.

 

17) An ethical universalist must reject the following

A) sometimes people and culture differ in their opinions about morality;

B) when people and cultures differ in their opinions about morality, then all of them are correct;

C) both A) and B);  D) none of the above.

 

18) If Cultural Ethical Relativism is true, then

A) moral progress is impossible

B) no moral reformer  is ever correct

C) we do not have a basis for resolving inter‑cultural conflicts

D) we cannot learn ethics from other cultures that disagree with our moral views;  E) all of the above

 

19) According to Stef, a respect for other cultures implies that

A) we must become relativists because only relativists can respect other cultures;

B) we may be universalists, because universalist can respect other cultures

C) both A) and B); 

D) none of the above.

 

20) Stefan argued in class that

A) someone who is a relativist about one issue (e.g., laws or standards of beauty) must be a relativist about all issues (e.g., morality);

B) someone may be a relativist about one issue (e.g., laws) but  NOT a relativist about all issues (e.g., morality);

C) one must not be a relativist about anything;

D) none of the above.

 

21) Rachels argues that

A) no ethical values are universal;

B) some ethical values are universal because things just happen this way;

C) some ethical values are universal because (among other things) a culture could not survive and flourish without accepting those values; 

D) none of the above.

 

22) Rachels claims that the following may be an universal value that can be used to asses various social arrangements and practices

A) the practice is legal;

B) the practice is consistent with the true religion;

C) the practice promotes, rather than hinders, the welfare of the people affected by it

D) all of the above;  

E) none of the above.

 

ATTENDANCE QUIZ #2 (What Is Morality): Please, answer all questions on the scantrons distributed in class. Save this sheet for your file and for the review before tests. Exactly one answer to each question is best and thus correct. Due 2/12 or 13, depending on when your class meets.

1) “People commit suicides” is

A) a description of facts;

B) a normative judgment;

C) neither A) nor B.

 

2) “Some people think it is permissible (right) to commit a suicide” is

A) a description of facts;

B) a normative judgment;

C) neither A) nor B.

 

3) “Under certain circumstances, it is wrong (or it is right) to commit a suicide” is

a) descriptions of facts

b) normative judgments;

c) neither of the above.  

 

4) To say that a judgment is normative means that

a) it merely describes facts (how things are);

b) it tells us how things ought to be, what kind of actions we ought to do, what kind of people we ought to be, and so on, and so forth.

c) none of the above.

 

5) According to the lectures, the following are some of many normative systems:

a) ethics and law;

b) etiquette, religion, and codes of professional behavior

c) geography, physics, astronomy;

d) a) and b);          e) all of the above

 

6) Stef argued in his lectures that rational people and societies

A) would try reduce all normative systems to one super‑system (so all normative systems would completely overlap);

B) would try to keep various normative systems at least partially independent;

C) neither A) nor B)

 

7) In ethics, such terms as "obligatory" and "forbidden;" "right" and "wrong" are primarily used to evaluate

A) actions;            B) people;

C) situations and outcomes.

 

8) In ethics, such terms as "virtuous" and "wicked" are primarily used to evaluate

A) outcomes and situations;

B) people and their character

C) both A) and B);  D) neither A) nor B)

 

9) According to the lectures

a) there is only one normative system;

b) there are many different kinds of normative judgments and many different kinds of normative systems (e.g., morality, law, religion) and these systems do not overlap at all;

c) there are many different kinds of normative judgments and many different kinds of normative systems and these systems overlap partially but not completely;

d) none of the above.  

 

10) Following Rachels, Stefan argued in class that

a) moral judgments are based on good reasons (by contrast, religious judgments are sometimes grounded in faith);

b) religious judgments are based on good reasons (by contrast, moral judgments are grounded in faith);

c) both moral and religious judgments are grounded in faith;                    d) none of the above.

 

11) According to the concept of morality outlined by Stef in his lectures and outlines, the main kinds of external sanctions that come with morality is/are the following:

a) the inner feelings of guilt, shame, pride, etc.

b) disapproval and anger of others, social ostracism;

c) prison terms and fines;

d) eternal sanction (going to hell or heaven);

e) none of the above.

 

12) In class, Stef characterized law as a system distributing

A) only internal sanctions; e.g., feelings of guilt, shame, pride, etc. (so, for example, we feel guilty when we speed);

B) only external sanctions; e.g., fines, prison terms, even capital punishment; etc.;

C) both internal and external sanctions;

D) none of the above

 

13) In class, Stefan argued that morality can be distinguished both from law and from religion along the following lines

a) morality is more formal and precise than either law or religion;

b) morality is less formal and precise than either law and religion (e.g., the system of law is based on the authority of courts that give laws interpretation; religion is based on the authority of religious figures such as the Pope, and so on);

c) neither a) nor b).

 

14) Stef emphasized in class that, ideally, ethical inquiry is best understood as a process of

a) debate, when the point is to defeat and humiliate the opponent;

b) rational deliberation, when the point is to discover the best reasons supporting or refuting some position;

c) a game that philosophers play which has very little practical importance;

d) both a) and b); e) all of the above.

 

15) Stef argued in class that rational people and societies would try to

a) outlaw all forms of immoral behavior; e.g., lying and cheating;

b) outlaw all forms of sinful behavior, e.g., if extramarital sex is sinful it should be illegal;

c) keep morality, law, and religion at least to some extent separate;

d) a) and b);                          e) none of the above.  

 

16) A theory maintains that an action is morally right if and only if it brings about a certain desirable balance of benefits and harms is a version of

a) consequentialism;

b) non-consequentialism (e.g., deontology);

c) virtue ethics;

d) all of the above;              e) none of the above.

 

17) According to Kantian ethics an act is morally right if and only if

A) it brings about the desirable balance of utility

B) it treats everyone with respect, i.e., does not involve treating anyone merely as a means;

c) both a) and b);                 d) none of the above

 

18) Suppose that a certain argument is valid. It means that

A) it must have at least one true premise;

B) it must have all true premises;

C) its conclusion must follow from the premises;

D) its conclusion must be true.

 

19) Suppose that a certain argument is sound. You can infer that

A) this argument may be invalid;

B) this argument is valid but it may have a false premise; 

C) this argument has all true premises but it may be invalid;

D) this argument is valid and has all true premises.

 

20) During the lectures, Stefan

a) distinguished ethics from morality and provided a precise definition of each;

b) said that, following a standard philosophical practice, he will use the words “ethics” and “morality” (“ethical” and “moral,” “unethical” and “immoral”) interchangeably;

c) neither of the above.

 

21) The word “ethics” comes from the Greek word ethos, meaning character or custom. The etymology of this word suggests that the following are the main areas of ethical inquiry:

a) individual character, including what it means to be "a good person;"

b) the social rules that govern and limit our conduct, especially the ultimate rules concerning right and wrong, which we call morality;

c) both a) and b);                 d) none of the above.

 

22) Stefan argued in class that, in order to know what morality requires of us

a) we must know what law requires of us;

b) we must know what religion requires of us;

c) both a) and b);

d) none of the above because morality is not exactly the same thing as law or religion.

 

23) Theories that assume that what is morally right and wrong is a function of benefits and harms are forms of 

a) consequentialism;           b) deontology;

c) a) and b)                           d) none of the above

 

24) Theories that assume that we ought to fulfill our duties are forms of 

a) consequentialism;           b) deontology;

c) a) and b)                           d) none of the above

 

25) According to Rachels, impartiality requires of us  

a) to treat everyone in exactly the same way;

b) to take into account interests of everyone and treat similar interests similarly;

c) a) and b) above;

d) none of the above.

 

26) “Supplementary arguments” frequently used in ethics are based on the following ideas:

a) relevantly similar cases ought to be treated similarly while relevantly dissimilar cases can be treated differently;

b) when we have good reasons or proof that doing A will put us on the “slippery slope” leading to doing something terrible, we ought not to do A;

c) we ought to bring about the best balance of benefits and harms and we must not treat anyone merely as a means;

d) a) and b);

e) all of the above. 

 

ATTENDANCE QUIZ/HOMEWORK #1: (Rachels chapter 1)

Please, answer all questions on the scantrons distributed in class. Save this sheet for your file and for the review before tests. Exactly one answer to each question is best and thus correct. Due 2/07-08 (depending when your class meets).

Few general rules: A) Do the homework on your own. B) After you arrived at answers, feel free to compare them with answers provided by others (study groups are good). C) Have your answers ready at the beginning of next class; we will review them immediately. D) Turn the answers in in person; this is how I check the attendance. E) If you cannot attend the class, send the answers via e-mail before the class: stefan.sencerz@tamucc.edu .

 

 

1) The “Benefits Argument” (Section 1.2 of Rachels’ book) is an attempt to show what follows:

 

A) we ought to transplant Baby Theresa’s organs because overall it has good consequences;

B) we ought not to transplant Baby Theresa’s organs because it would involve using here merely as a means;

C) we ought not to transplant Baby Theresa’s organs because it would kill her;  D) none of the above.

 

2) This argument assumes that if we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, we ought to do so. Stefan offered in class the following criticisms of this assumption:

A) it is a garbled statement of consequentialism because it does not tell us what to do when out action harms someone; so, careful consequentialists might reject this assumption;

B) it is a garbled statement of consequentialism because, when each of two or more actions benefits someone (to various degrees) and neither harms anyone, it requires performing each of these actions; so, again, consequentialists might reject this assumption;

C) this principle may be false because morality may be a matter of treating everyone with respect, and not using anyone merely as a means, rather than a matter of bringing about good consequences; so, non-consequentialists might reject this assumption;

D) all of the above;                 E) none of the above.

 

3) Rachels assumes that Baby Theresa would not be harmed because

A) she cannot feel anything so, in particular, we cannot cause her any suffering;

B) she does not have any interests or preferences; so we cannot thwart her interests and preferences;

C) both A) and B);                  D) none of the above.

 

4) The Argument that we should not use people merely as a means (sec 1.2) is an attempt to show that

A) we ought to transplant Baby Theresa’s organs because it has overall good consequences (it benefits someone without harming anyone);

B) we ought not to transplant Baby Theresa’s organs because it would involve using her merely as a means;

C) we ought not to transplant Baby Theresa’s organs because it would kill her;  D) none of the above.

 

5) Rachels offers the following explanation of what it can mean to use someone merely as a mean:

A) in typical cases, it involves violating their autonomy through manipulation, trickery, deceit, or coercion;

B) when we cannot violate someone’s autonomy in such a way (because she has no autonomy), it may involve violating someone’s interests or preferences;

C) A) and/or B);                      D) none of the above.

 

6) According to Rachels, the rule prohibiting killing

A) is absolute, that is, it admits to no exceptions;

B) is not absolute; that is, it admits to some exceptions;

C) neither A) nor B).

 

7) According to Rachels, killing may be justified if

A) someone has no future because she is going to die soon anyway;

B) someone is not conscious and cannot gain or regain consciousness;

C) killing him or her would save others;

D) A, B. and C taken together;  E) none of the above.

 

8) Stefan argued in class that the following may count as exceptions to the moral requirement prohibiting killing:

A) it is an act of necessary self-defense;

B) it is an act of defending others who are in danger;

C) it is an act of just war;

D) all of the above;                 E) none of the above.

 

9) Stef argued in class that

A) all cases of killing are acts of murder;

B) murder is wrongful killing; so, since some cases of killing are not wrong, they do not count as acts of murder;

C) A) and B;                           D) none of the above.

 

10) Theories assuming that morality is the matter of bringing about desirable results (bringing about benefits and avoiding harms) are versions of

A) consequentialism;               B) deontology;

C) both A) and B); D) none of the above.

 

11) Theories assuming that morality is a matter of fulfilling one’s duty are versions of

A) consequentialism;               B) deontology;

C) both A) and B); D) none of the above.

 

12) The argument for separating Mary and Jody (section 1.3 of Rachels book), based on the idea that we should save as many as we can, is based on the assumption that it is

A) permissible to bring about overall good consequences;

B) impermissible to treat any person without respect (i.e., to use her merely as a means);

C) wrong to kill a person;       D) none of the above.

 

13) Parents objected to their surgical separation of Jody and Mary because they believe that it is absolutely wrong to kill an innocent human being. Their reasoning is overruled by the court. Rachels claims the court reasons as follows:

A) neither of the twins would be killed; they would merely be separated from each other;

B) neither of the twins would be killed intentionally;

C) both of the twins would be saved;

D) none of the above.

 

14) Stefan offered an interpretation of the court’s reasoning based on the assumption that

A) neither of the twins would be killed;

B) neither of the twins would be killed intentionally;

C) both of the twins would be saved;

D) None of the above.

 

15) In class, Stefan argued that Roman Catholic views about killing are best understood as being based on the following principle:

A) it is absolutely wrong to kill an innocent person;

B) it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent person;

C) we always have to act in a way that brings about the best balance of benefits and harms;

D) All of the above;                E) None of the above.

 

16) In the example of Tracy Latimer (Sec 1.4), the president of the Saskatoon Voice of People with Disabilities argued as follows:

A) it is absolutely wrong to intentionally kill an innocent person;

B) it is absolutely wrong to treat a person merely as a means to save this person suffering;

C) it was wrong to kill her because handicapped people should be treated equally, i.e., they should be given the same rights as everyone else;  

D) none of the above.

 

17) Suppose that, indeed, everyone should be given exactly the same rights as everyone else. It would follow that:

A) because some people have a right to vote, my 6 year old granddaughter should have a right to vote;

B) because some people have a right to drink, my 15 year old granddaughter should have a right to drink;

C) because some people have a right to drive, a blind person should have a right to drive;

D) all of the above;                 E) none of the above.

 

18) Following Rachels, Stefan argued that justice (as equality) requires that:

A) all people ought to earn exactly the same salary and all of us should pay the same taxes;

B) all people ought to have exactly the same rights;

C) similar cases ought to be treated similarly, but relevantly different cases may justify a different treatment (e.g., granting people different rights); 

D) all of the above; E) none of the above.

 

19) Slippery slope considerations (discussed in the book and lectures) attempt to establish that

A) when you use a slope, it is best to grease it;

B) parents ought to watch their children playing, because they can slide on a slippery slope and hurt themselves;

C) some actions that are reasonably innocuous may undermine our moral values and lead to terrible things;

D) all of the above; E) none of the above.

 

20 The following are slippery slope arguments:

A) even if smoking weed is OK, in a long run it may lead to using other drugs, which is morally terrible;

B) even if gay people unions are innocuous, they may undermine the sanctity of marriage and, in a long run, such unions may undermine the social order;

C) even if killing Baby Latimer seems permissible, it may undermine the rule prohibiting killing and cheapen human life and in a long run it may lead to killing many people;

D) all of the above;                 E) none of the above.

 

21) Following Rachels, Stefan argued that

A) Slippery slope arguments are always sound; they prove their conclusions;

B) Slippery slope arguments are sound when they merely claim that it is inevitable that certain moral rules will be undermined;

C) It is not enough to claim that some action may undermine moral rules and society; rather, it is necessary to provide good evidence that those bad results would occur;

D) none of the above.

 

22) Following Rachels, Stefan argued in class that

A) we must base our ethical views simply on our feelings;

B) we must not base our ethical views simply on feelings because our feelings may be unreliable and irrational;

C) we must not base our ethical views simply on feelings because various people have different feelings about the same issues;

D) B) and C);                          E) none of the above.

 

23) Rachels argues that our feelings are important but, also, they must be guided by the following:

A) correct religious views;     B) correct laws;

C) reason, including the principle of impartiality (and other ethical principles);

D) all of the above;                 E) none of the above.

 

24) Rachels argues that impartiality requires of us to assume what follows:

A) each individual’s interests are equally important; no one should get special treatment;

B) the same ethical principles and rules are applicable across the board, to all similarly situated individuals; no one is above or below of morality;

C) neither A) nor B).

 

25) According to Rachels, the following views violate the Principle of Impartiality:

A) racism;                               B) sexism;

C) Both A) and B);                 D) none of the above.

 

26) In class Stefan argued that the traditional Christian ethics can be best understood as prohibiting

a) all cases of killing (including when killing is accidental or unintended);

b) murder;

c) both a) and b);                     d) all of the above.

 

27) Autonomy can be defined as ability to decide for oneself how to live one's own life, in accordance with one's own values and desires (see, Rachels p. 3). Stefan argued in class that autonomy includes several features, including

a) ability to understand future including various possible courses of action and what they lead to;

b) ability to compare those different courses of action;

c) ability to choose one in accordance with one's own values;

d) all of the above;                  e) none of the above.

========================

 

A video to possibly watch in class (or at home), starting at about 53:45): http://www.cultureunplugged.com/documentary/watch-online/play/5076/Innocents-Lost.

You may find many additional details on the web. Please, google "Trokosi". Here are some additional you-tube clips worth watching:

Homework Quiz #8 (Environmental Ethics / Animal Rights): Exactly one answer to each question is best and thus correct. Answer on the scantrons distributed in class. PLEASE: do this homeworks on the same scantron as the homework #7 STARTING WITH QUETION #51.

51. Both Peter Singer and Tom Regan argue that

A) in general, it is morally permissible to experiment on animals and to raise them for food, we just have to do it humanely;

==> B) in general, it is wrong to experiment on animals and to raise them for food (and if we do it, it would be an exception to a rule);

C) it is never permissible to experiment on an animal.

D) none of the above

 

52. According to Singer, the most fundamental principle of equality can be stated as follows:

A) Only factually identical beings ought to be treated equally.

B) Only beings with comparable mental abilities ought to be treated equally.

==> C) The interests of every being that has interests are to be taken into account and treated equally with the interests of any other being.

D) All of us have certain basic equal rights, e.g., the right to life.

E) All of the above.

 

53. According to Tom Regan, the most fundamental moral principle can be stated as follows:

A) Only factually identical beings ought to be treated equally.

B) The interests of every being that has interests are to be taken into account and treated equally with the interests of any other being.

==> C) No being who is a subject of a life and thus has inherent value (and thus moral right) can be treated with disregard for this being’s rights (especially the right not to be harmed), and this includes animals.

D) All of the above.

E) None of the above

 

54. According to protracted humanism (homocentrism) the natural environment and animals ought to protected and respected because

==> A) such protection is good for current and future humans;

B) such protection is good for animals;

C) humanistic attitudes include natural landscapes;

D) all of the above.

E) none of the above.

 

55. The following philosophers would accept the main tenets of protracted humanism (homocentrism)

A) St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas

B) Kant and Hobbes

C) Singer and Regan

==> D) A) and B);

E) all of the above

 

56. According to Individualistic Extensionism the following beings have moral standing (are directly protected by the rules of morality):

A) only current and future humans;

==> B) both humans and other sentient beings (animals);

C) humans, animals, natural landscapes and other non-sentient parts of environment;

D) none of the above.

 

57. The following philosophers would accept the main tenets of individualistic extensionism

A) St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas

B) Kant and Hobbes

==> C) Singer and Regan

D) A) and B);

E) all of the above

 

58. According to eco-centrism (global extensionism) the following beings have moral standing (are directly protected by the rules of morality):

A) only current and future humans;

B) both humans and sentient animals;

==> C) humans, andimals, natural landscapes and other non-sentient parts of environment;

D) none of the above.

 

59. Peter Singer position is

==> A) a version of consequentialism based on the view that the satisfaction of interests is good while frustration of interests is bad (pleasure is good and pain is bad);

B) a version of deontology based on the idea of respect for rights;

C) both A) and B);

D) none of the above

 

60. Tom Regan position is

A) a version of consequentialism

==> B) a version of deontology based on the idea of respect for beings who are a subject of a life and their rights

C) both A) and B);

D) none of the above

 

61. Augustine, Aquinas and Kant argue that

A) we do not have any direct obligations to animals or nature and we can do with them whatever we feel like doing, no limitations

==> B) we do not have any direct obligations to animals or nature but we must not be cruel to animals for if we are cruel to animals we may become cruel to humans

C) both a) and b);

D) none of the above

 

62. Imagine that the last person on a desert Island decides to take care of her pet because she thinks it is her obligation to this animal. This example seems to show that 

A)  indirect environmental strategies are morally correct (that is we do not have any direct duties to animals or nature);

==> B) indirect environmental strategies are morally incorrect (that is, we may have some direct obligations to animals)

C) living on a desert island is not that bad if one has enough water and food

D) none of the above

 

63. According to the argument from the “marginal cases” we ought to take care of seriously mentally handicapped people when they suffer. This argument attempts to show that

A) animals are not at all like humans; thus, we do not have any duties to them (they do not have a moral standing);

==> B) humans who are only marginally like us have a moral standing (we have some obligations to them); thus, similarly, animals may have a moral standing (moral constraints are not directly linked with someone’s intelligence);

C) neither A) nor B)

D) all of the above

 

64. If we have obligations to Neanderthal men, future humans who may have different genetic material, and even Extra Terrestrial beings, then

==> A) moral standing does not depend on someone’s being a human being, a member of our species (Homo Sapiens);

B) moral standing depends on someone’s being a human being, a member of our species;

C) Neither A) nor B.

 

65. Stef argued in class that one reason to care about natural environment is that some natural objects are beautiful, and beauty has intrinsic value, and we have a reason to protect something which has an intrinsic value.

==> A) true; 

B) false.