QAs

Strategies for Answering Discussion and Essay Questions

Chapter 2

II: Strategies for Essay Questions in Chapter 2 (See page 72-73 in the textbook)

1. Another example of a discussion stopper would be a remark to the effect, “Morality and

ethics are really about religion, so questions about morality only apply for those who have

religious beliefs.” Here, the suggestion is that morality is tied exclusively to religious beliefs

and that moral issues cannot be debated independently of those beliefs. When we examined

the connection between religion and morality, however, we saw that religion was as one of

many perspectives from which moral issues could be examined. And we saw that the religious

approach to these issues was very different from the approach taken by (philosophical) ethics,

which we defined as “the philosophical study of morality.” For example, we saw that

philosophical ethics analyzes a moral system from the point of view of ethical theories and

logical argumentation.

Unfortunately, it is very easy to fall victim to one or more of the four discussion stoppers that

we identified in Chapter 2, because, at first glance, each stopper seems to have some merit.

Upon closer inspection, however, we saw why each also is conceptually flawed.

2. If you approach this problem from a utilitarian perspective, you will want to do what is best

for the majority of employees and for the company itself. So, if laying off 5% of the

workforce would help to bring about more desirable ends for the greatest number of

employees affected by the decision, then a utilitarian would favor Proposal # 2. A

deontologist, on the other hand, will want to choose whichever option is fair to all of the

employees (not just the majority). As such, the deontologist would likely favor Proposal # 1,

since everyone would receive a 5 percent cut in pay. In Kant’s deontological scheme,

Proposal #1 would be the right course of action because the principle behind that proposal is

“universalizable” in the sense that it can be applied to everyone in the corporation, without

exception. And, a Kantian would argue that such a principle would treat each employee as an

end-in-him/herself, as opposed to a means to some end.

3. In this scenario, you encounter a genuine ethical dilemma. It is a dilemma because you

must choose between one of two undesirable options: lying or breaking a promise. A

utilitarian would most likely choose lying in order to save the life of her friend. However, we

saw that utilitarianism, as a moral principle, also allows some individuals to be treated as

means to the ends of others. So utilitarianism is not a fully satisfactory ethical theory, and

many philosophers reject solutions to ethical dilemmas that are based solely on utilitarian

principles.

David Ross’s scheme of Act Deontology offers an alternative strategy for approaching this

kind of dilemma by asking us to look at the “situation” or “circumstances,” as opposed to

consequences, in deciding which course of action to take. Ross points out that we would have

to be omniscient to know whether a particular action would necessarily lead to a desirable

outcome (consequence). So, in Ross’s scheme, the pursuit of desirable outcomes or

consequences – i.e., the utilitarian model – cannot be our guiding principle in ethical

deliberation. On the other hand, Ross’s scheme also requires that we use a form of ethical

intuitionism (similar to mathematical intuitionism) in each situation to “weigh” between the

various “prima facie duties” in order to arrive at the correct decision for that particular

situation. And, as we noted in Chapter 2, this aspect of Ross’s theory has been controversial.

4. We saw that each of the four traditional ethical theories had its own particular strengths and

weaknesses, and that none of these theories, individually, could withstand certain kinds of

criticisms. However, we also saw the clever way in which Moor’s theory of “just

consequentialism” is able to combine the best aspects of both the utilitarianism and

deontological ethical theories, while managing to avoid some of weaknesses of each theory.

Moor’s theory also presents us with a concrete, two-step strategy for deliberating on how to

proceed in the case of each ethical issue. You may want to review that strategy, described on

page 66 in the textbook.