exam 2

In explaining an idea/theory, did I also mention objections or problems with the theory?

When explaining an objection to a theory, did I also explain the theory itself?

Did I answer every part of the question?

Did I fully explain any concepts, ideas, thought experiments, arguments, etc... necessary for a layperson to understand your answer to the question?

Did I base my answers on what I learned from class (the lectures, the textbook, our discussions, related coursework, etc...)?

Did I provide reasons for my own claims (backed up my claims with evidence, logic, or sensible assumptions (depends on the context*)?

As a shorthand (rough guide), did I write 2 paragraphs (6 to 10 sentences each) or more?

Did I use examples to illustrate points, theories, objections, or concepts?

Did I organize my ideas?

Did I reference course material (textbook, readings, canvas links)?

For Awesome Answers: Did I cite the textbook or primary readings? Did I draw connections between course subject matter and my life/literature/culture/society/other parts of the course material/etc...? Did I write a minimum of 3 to 4 long/detailed paragraphs or more?

Questions on next page

Section 1 Kantian

Chp 13/12 (4th/5th)

1.What is a “maxim” for Kant? What role do maxims play in Kant’s ethics? Provide an example of a maxim and explain how it would figure in the moral assessment of an action in Kant’s view.

2.Explain what Kant means when he says that the human being is an “end in itself.” What does this imply about how human beings are to be treated?

3.Is it ever morally acceptable to lie? What does Kant say? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

4.Under what conditions does an act have moral worth, according to Kant? Give an example to illustrate this idea. Do you find Kant’s position plausible? What do you think is the strongest objection to it?

Chp 14/13 

1.A number of popular TV shows and films in recent years (e.g., The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Da Ali G Show, Borat) have gotten big laughs by involving unsuspecting people in interviews, conversations, and other interactions that the shows’ producers and viewers know to be absurd hoaxes. What do you think Kant would make of this trend in comedy? If you are familiar with any shows of this type, it might be helpful to develop your answer with reference to specific examples.

2.Suppose if you tell one lie, (and thereby treat a rational agent as a mere means), you may prevent five other people from being used as mere means. Should you tell the lie? Would it violate the categorical imperative? Why or why not? How might this case be used as an objection to Kant?

3.You may either repay a debt you owe and your family will starve to death, or you may break your promise and feed your family. Which choice would you make? How would O’Neill evaluate your decision?

Section 2 Utilitarian Ethics

Chp 15/14 

1.  Mill mentions those who object to utilitarianism on the grounds that it holds humanity to an excessively high moral standard. Why might someone make this argument? How does Mill respond to it? What is your view: Are the requirements of utilitarianism excessively demanding? Why or why not? 

2.  Someone who saves a person from drowning in the hopes of being paid for it is acting morally according to Mill. Why does he say this? Would Kant agree? Do you? Why or why not? 

3.  What is the greatest happiness principle? On what does it make the rightness of our actions depend? Do you think it provides a reliable guide to our moral obligations? Why or why not? 

4.  What is the only thing that is desirable for its own sake according to Mill? How does he argue for this claim? Do you agree with him? Can you supply a counterexample? 

Chp 16/15

1.  With the cruise ship you’ve been traveling on sinking fast, you and several of your shipmates scramble toward one of the few available lifeboats. Eight of you manage to make on it board; the problem is, the boat can seat only six safely. If all eight remain on the boat, it will sink, and everyone will drown. No one volunteers to leave, but the man next to you recommends ganging up to throw overboard the two heaviest passengers, sacrificing their lives to spare the other six. Would a utilitarian agree to this plan? Why or why not? How about you? That is, would you help push two passengers into the sea? 

2.  Do you find utilitarianism’s moral standards too demanding? Why or why not? 

3.  Which of the objections Pojman/My PPT “Problems of Utilitarianism” discusses do you think is the most powerful challenge to utilitarianism? Can you provide a better reply than that offered by Pojman/My PPT?

Section 3 Virtue Ethics/Ethics of Care

Chp 17/16

1.  Can you think of any examples of feelings or actions that might be morally right for one person but not for another? What would Aristotle say about this?

2.  Aristotle claims that “virtue is a kind of mean.” What does he mean by this, and how does he argue for it? Is this an illuminating way of thinking about the virtues?

3.  Do you have to be a virtuous person to perform a virtuous action? If you do, does this present a problem for Aristotle’s account of how virtue is acquired? If you do not, explain how it is possible for someone who lacks a particular virtue—courage, for example—to do something courageous. 

4.  What role does education play in the good life, according to Aristotle? What sorts of education and training does he think are required if we are to become virtuous? Do you agree?

Chp 18/17

1.  Driver suggests that virtue ethics is intuitively appealing because we often deliberate about moral problems by reflecting on what admirable people would do. Do you agree that such reflection is useful when resolving moral dilemmas?

2.  Driver considers the objection that virtue ethics is not action-guiding. Present the objection and her reply. How compelling is the objection? Must a moral theory always give agents clear instruction on how to act?

3.  What is the doctrine of the mean? Offer your own example of a virtue that can be modeled on this doctrine and an example of one that cannot be adequately modeled.

4.  The virtuous person does the right thing and is happy to do so. It comes easily. The “continent” person does the right thing but it requires effort. Should we think more of the person that wants to be moral or the person who overcomes a desire not to be moral?

Section 4 Social Contract Theory (Hobbes and Rawls)

Chp 20/19

1. What does Hobbes mean by the “war of every man against every man”? Is it possible to escape this condition? If so, how?

2. What is Hobbes’s conception of human nature? Given this account of human nature, what does he think life would be like in the absence of government? Do you agree with him about this? Why or why not?

3. Do you think everyone has a natural right to all things? Why or why not? What does Hobbes say about this?

Chp 21/20

1. Rawls states, “Injustice, then, is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit of all.” Do you agree with this claim? Why or why not? How does this conception of injustice manifest itself in Rawls’s theory?

2. Can you think of an example of a current social policy that people in the original position would not agree to adopt? How about one they would? In explaining your answer, be sure to make reference to Rawls’s two principles of justice.

3. Try to put on the veil of ignorance and imagine yourself in the original position. Are the principles Rawls identifies the same as those you would choose? Why or why not?

Section 5 Abortion (Thompson/Warren/Marquis)

Chp 24 (Thompson)

1. Do laws prohibiting abortion require pregnant women to act as Good Samaritans? Why or why not? What does Thomson say?

2. Explain the purpose of Thomson’s violinist example. Is it an effective way to present her defense of abortion? Why or why not?

3. On what premise does most opposition to abortion rest, according to Thomson? What does Thomson think of this premise? What role does it play in her argument?

4. Explain the different accounts of the right to life that Thomson discusses. Which does she ultimately decide is correct? Do you find her account plausible? Why or why not?

Chp 25 (Warren)

1. Does the question of abortion’s moral status hinge on whether a fetus is considered a person? In your answer, be sure to explain what you mean by “person” and compare your view to those of Warren and Thomson.

2. What standard anti-abortion argument does Warren discuss? What is her objection to this argument? Do you think it is a good one?

3. What does Warren think Thomson’s violinist case is capable of proving? What criticisms does she raise for Thomson’s position? Do you agree with her assessment?

4. What is the moral community, and who does Warren think belongs to it? What reasons does she give for her view? Do you find her account compelling? Why or why not?

Chp 26 (Marquis)

1. Is it presumptively wrong to kill a fetus to save the life of the pregnant woman? What would Marquis say about this? Do you agree?

2. Do some fetuses have more valuable futures than others? Why or why not? What implications does your answer have for the abortion debate? In explaining your position, be sure to make reference to Marquis’s argument about the immorality of abortion.

3. What two considerations does Marquis argue support the claim that killing a being with a valuable future is wrong? How much support do these claims lend to Marquis’s central claim? What other considerations, if any, may lend additional support to Marquis’ conclusion?

4. Marquis argues that both the typical anti-abortion argument and the typical pro-choice argument feature a similar mistake. What is that mistake? What is Marquis’s argument for the wrongness of abortion? Does it avoid the mistake he claims is present in the other arguments?