Review #1: Questions in this and the following reviews are very similar to the objective questions you may expect on the test. Please, answer all questions.

 

1) 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.

 

2) 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.

 

3) People sometimes have abortions is

a) a description of facts (a factual statement);

b) a moral judgment (statement);

c) a legal judgment;

d) all of the above;

e) none of the above.

 

4) “Under certain circumstances, it is wrong to have an abortion” and “Under certain circumstances, it is right to have an abortion” are both

a) descriptions of facts

b) normative judgments;

c) neither of the above.  

 

5) 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.

 

6) 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 the same thing as law or religion.

 

7) According to the lectures

a) there is only one normative system (one set of norms);

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.  

 

8) 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

 

9) 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.

 

10) 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.

 

11) 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

 

12) 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).

 

13) 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.

 

14) 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.  

 

15) Suppose that some theory maintains that an action is morally right if and only if it brings about a certain desirable balance of benefits and harms. Such a theory 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.

 

16) Suppose that some theory maintains that an action is morally right if and only if it treats everyone with respect, and it is wrong, when it treats someone without respect (e.g., it coerces, manipulates, or deceives someone). Such a theory is a version of

a) consequentialism;

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

c) both a) and b);

d) none of the above

 

Some of the answers:

=======

Answers:

 

1) During the lectures, Stefan

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

 

2) The word “ethics” comes from the Greek word ethos, meaning character or custom... 

c) both a) and b) (i.e., in ethics we mostly evaluate human actions and human character).

 

By the way, sometimes the third area is added; namely, what kind of things/states of affairs are good and bad, especially intrinsically good and bad.

 

3) People sometimes have abortions is

a) a description of facts (a factual statement); 

 

4) “Under certain circumstances, it is wrong to have an abortion” and “Under certain circumstances, it is right to have an abortion” are both 

b) normative judgments;

 

5) To say that a judgment is normative means that

 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. 

 

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

d) none of the above.

 

In class I argued that the best approach to ethics is to develop and weigh the best available reasons for and against doing something, or becoming a certain kind of person.

 

7) According to the lectures

a) there is only one normative system (one set of norms);

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.  

 

Check out the graph at the end of lecture 1.

 

8) 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

 

See the previous question. Also, ethical claims state norms; scientific claims and other observations describe the world. Physics, astronomy, etc. contain description of the world rather than norms.

 

9) 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.

 

In chapter 1, Rachels argues that our feelings are not enough. In addition we must develop arguments that either support those feeling or give reasons to reject them 

 

10) 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.

 

Not-a, because the inner feelings of guilt, shame, pride, etc.  are internal sanctions that come with morality; hence. And not c, because we do not go to prison when we lie. And eternal sanctions are stressed by religions. So, it has to be... 

 

11) 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.

 

HINT: Imagine, S  breaks the law by exceeding by few miles the speed limit. S is not caught. S does not think he did something immoral though he knows he broke the speeding law. Would he/she feel guilty?

 

Generally speaking, when we feel guilty (ashamed, and so on) it is not because we break laws; rather, it is because we also break the rules of morality and/or religion.

 

12) 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).

 

See the lecture outline.

 

13) 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.

 

14) 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.  

 

15) Suppose that some theory maintains that an action is morally right if and only if it brings about a certain desirable balance of benefits and harms. Such a theory 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.

 

The benefits argument, in chapter 1 (baby Theresa case) is a version of this sort of theory.

 

16) Suppose that some theory maintains that an action is morally right if and only if it treats everyone with respect, and it is wrong, when it treats someone without respect (e.g., it coerces, manipulates, or deceives someone). Such a theory is a version of

a) consequentialism;

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

c) both a) and b);

d) none of the above

The respect argument  (also the case of Baby Theresa) illustrate this sort of theory. In particular, Immanuel Kant developed one version of this sort of theory. His idea was that certain actions treat persons merely as a means (to achieve some goal), becaue they are not based on rational consent.