|
|
Introduction to Philosophy: Moral and Political Philosophy (Phil 02) Winter 2009
Instructor: Anthony Hanson anthanson@live.com
Objectives:
The primary objective of this course is to present, compare and evaluate moral and political theories and try to reason clearly about contemporary ethical and political controversies, using these theories. The course will teach the basic skills necessary to critically analyze and evaluate claims and arguments that people make to support moral and political judgments as well as the beliefs that we ourselves hold to be true. The hope is that students will leave the course more sensitive, informed, and better moral and political thinkers, or at least with the tools to become these.
Texts:
Ethics Theory and Contemporary Issues. Barbara Mackinnon, Thomson, Wadsworth, 4th or 5th or 6th Editions.Various web sites on Political Philosophy will be used also.
Class Web Site: http://faculty.deanza.fhda.edu/hansontony/info
Text Supplement – a very valuable resource for help in understanding the text, including interactive quizzes:
http://www.wadsworth.com/cgi-wadsworth/course_products_wp.pl?fid=M20bI&flag=instructor&product_isbn_issn=9780495007166&discipline_number=5
Grading:
Tests- (You will need 6 scantrons)
Test 1 10 points. Week 2
Test 2 10 points. Week 4
Test 3 10 points. Week 6
Test 4 10 points. Week 8
Test 5 10 points. Week 10
(Throw out lowest score above)
Final Exam 25 points. Week 12
Attendance = 10
Paper = 5
Homework Folder = 10
Presentation = 10
No "extra credit"
Total = 100 Final Grade: 90 -100 = A, 80-89 =B, 70-79 = C, 60-69 =D, below 60 =F
Testing - You must purchase from the bookstore, a packet of scantron forms with options a-e as answers. No "make up" tests will be given. You are allowed to throw out the test you get the lowest score on. If you are absent on a test date, you will receive a 0, and that will be your lowest score. You will be given an incomplete or fail if you miss the final exam, depending on the circumstances.
Attendance, Punctuality, Classroom Etiquette - Attendance will be taken every class meeting and your presence in class will be monitored. You get 10 points for perfect attendance. You lose 2 of those points for every hour of missed class and one point for every tardy. Leaving class early without permission counts as a tardy or absence, depending on the time. If you need to leave in the middle of a class, be sure to tell me before class starts, though you may also lose points. Temporarily leaving class during my lectures or student presentations is very distracting and is discouraged. Be prepared to sit in class without leaving unless you have an emergency. If you have obligations that often prevent you from attending class, then you should probably take the class at another time. If you are late, it is your responsibility to see me after class that day so that I can change the roster from an absence to a tardy. If you do not, the record will remain as an absence. Classroom etiquette will also affect your grade. Things such as leaving telephones on, talking in class during lecture, failing to participate in team work, sleeping, leaving class early without a prior explanation, and other disruptive behaviors are impolite and disrespectful. On the other hand, helping your fellow students out when they may need it, positively participating in classroom discussions, and generally having a good attitude toward learning is admirable, and will be reflected in this portion of your score. Please be aware of the drop deadlines in your course catalogue. It is your responsibility to do the paper work to drop the class.
Paper:
Final paper (Between 750-1000 words/4 pages) Consider the paper a take home section of the final exam, though it is comprehensive. It must be typed, double-spaced.
Homework Folder:
Please purchase a cheap flat paper folder to keep weekly writing assignments and answers to selected exercises. Get the kind in which you can remove and insert papers. But do not get the fat 3-ring binder variety. You will turn in your folder on final day for 10 points. Folders that have any assignments identical to other folders will receive a 0. You should do the homework individually. You will turn it homework on due dates stated in class, for my initial. My initial means it was submitted on time. I will then return it and you keep it in your folder to turn in on final exam day for points. Save your homework! If you lose it, you do not get the points!
Presentation:
Groups will be presenting material from selected chapters of the text. Your team will be given one score, and each individual in the team will be given that score (except when there is obvious negligence on the part of a team member.) Therefore your grade on this activity can depend on the work of others. Each group member will also complete a Team Evaluation sheet, in which team members will have the opportunity to evaluate the other members' work on the team project. Your decision to take this class is a tacit or implicit agreement that you accept this grading method.
Academic Honesty:
You are expected to honestly complete the homework, tests, and paper. The failure to do this will result in an ‘F’ and possible administrative action. Plagiarism in the final paper or homework is the most common form of such dishonesty and is easily spotted by an experienced reader of student writing (me).
Reading, Lecture and Test Schedule:
Weeks 1-4
CH. 1 Ethics and Ethical Reasoning
CH. 2 Relativism (Test 1)
CH. 3 Egoism
(Test 2)
Weeks 5-8
CH. 4 Utilitarianism
CH. 5 Kant’s Moral Theory (Deontologism) (Test 3)
CH. 6 Natural Law and Natural Rights
(Test 4)
Weeks 9-12
CH. 7 Virtue Ethics
CH. 13 Economic Justice (Test 5)
Presentations on Selected Chapters Due
Final Exam (Comprehensive) Final Day
Paper Due Final Day
Homework Folder Due Final Day
####################################################################
CH. 2 Answers
Answers to the Review Exercises in the Text
1.To say that ethical values or beliefs are relative to individuals that hold them means that they are just the values and beliefs that these individuals do in fact hold, and to say that they are relative to various societies means that these are in fact the values and beliefs of these societies. It also implies that there is nothing beyond these values by which they can be judged to be better or worse than any other individual or societal values.
2. Individual ethical relativism holds that all there is is different individuals with their individually formed and held ethical beliefs. Social or cultural ethical relativism stresses the values and beliefs held by various societies, and implies that individuals should conform to these social values.
3. Ethical relativism goes further and states that this is all there is. There is no objective standard even possible in principle by which the moral beliefs of people can be judged or evaluated.
4. The difference between the first and the second reason for supporting ethical relativism is that the first appeals to the very fact of diversity to argue that there is no objective good, while the second appeals not to a fact of diversity but to the difficulty that we have knowing what is right. The third adds to the first some possible reason why there might be diversity of moral values, namely, that people's circumstances differ.
5. You would need to consider the actual reasons that people had for differing about capital punishment. Do they disagree about basic reasons for capital punishment? Or do they have some common values that they want to see furthered, but simply disagree about the best way to further them?
6. Moral realism is a term or phrase that can be applied to moral philosophies that hold that there is some realm of moral fact. In this it is similar to scientific realism. It differs from scientific realism in that the realm in the latter is nature, whereas moral realists have more difficulty specifying just what the realm of moral fact is.
Questions For Further Thought
1. Do you believe that the fact that people disagree about what is good or right is a good reason to support ethical relativism? Explain why you think so.
2. In what ways do you think that science is different from ethics? Are they alike in any ways? For example, do they both involve being impartial and non-biased?
3.Think about a particular moral argument that you have heard or in which you participated. How did the argument proceed? Did it get settled or did you agree to disagree? What, if any, are the implications of this example for relativism?
4. If there is an objective good, do you think that it is likely to be unitary or plural? For example, is it likely that all morality will be a function of the promotion of one good, such as happiness? Or is it more likely that there are many irreducible moral values, such as happiness, autonomy, privacy, fidelity, etc? If you think there is only one good, what is it? If many, what would you include in your list?
Answers to the Study Questions Preceding the Reading by Midgley
1. “Moral Isolationism” is the position that holds that we can never really understand other cultures well enough to be able to make moral judgments about them. Each culture is thought to be an isolated unit. Moral judgments can only be made about and from within one’s own culture.
2. Yes.
3. No. If we don’t know enough to make a negative critical judgment about another culture, we also don’t know enough to make a positive or favorable judgment about it. You can’t judge what you don’t understand.
4. Moral isolationism would make it impossible to judge our own culture as well as others, according to Mary Midgley. What helps us to understand our own culture is being able to compare it to others. If we thus can’t understand our own culture, we can’t judge it. Rather she believes that it is possible to have some degree of understanding of both our own and other cultures.
5. One person may condemn the practice. Another would object, saying that one shouldn’t judge it so harshly. Then the second person would go farther and explain what makes the practice not only intelligible but also of some positive value. While beginning as a “moral isolationist” this person then exemplifies a position contrary to this view.
6. Midgley believes that there are no unmixed cultures. All cultures, even some of the remote ones studied by anthropologists, have been and most continue to be influenced by a variety of other cultures.
Answers to the Study Questions Preceding the Reading by J. S. Mill
1. Mill states that this moral standard is one which holds that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain.
2. He says that it is not he but the critics who imply that the only type of pleasure of which humans are capable is physical pleasure. He holds that we can experience pleasures or satisfactions related to our specifically human capacities as well as physical pleasures.
3. The basis is the preference of people who have experienced the pleasures. These people would give a decided preference to intellectual pleasures over sensual pleasures. He admits that sometimes we choose the pleasure that we know to be the lesser pleasure under temptation, and that some people have made themselves incapable of appreciating the higher pleasures by their indolent life. But these exceptions should not count against his argument.
4. The standard is not just the agent's own happiness but the greatest amount of happiness overall. Moreover he notes that it is "the whole sentient creation" that we should be concerned about.
5. The only way we can know this, the sole evidence of it, is that people actually do desire something. This is the key to our knowing that it is good.
6. We know this because happiness is the only thing desired in itself or as an end. All else that we desire is either something that has become a part of happiness or what we think will lead to happiness.
CH. 5 Kant
Answers to the Review Exercises in the Text
1. Kant opposes locating the moral worth of an action in its consequences because he believes that these are not things we can control and morality ought rather to be about things in human control. Another reason is that he thinks that to make the results of our actions the locus of value makes of us instruments for the production of these results. This would be then to make us of but use value when he believes that we have intrinsic value or dignity.
2. No. He rather means that our will or capacity to choose is oriented to the good just because it is good. This would include wishing others well only if this was determined to be good. Then we should do so primarily because we thought this was the right thing to do.
3. Acting "out of duty" means out of a motive or intention of respect for what is right or for the demands of morality. The shopkeeper who charges a fair or even price of all just because he or she thinks this is the right thing to do is acting out of duty.
4. The basic difference between a categorical and hypothetical imperative is that the former describes a kind of obligation that is unconditional or something that I ought to do no matter what. The latter describes a kind of obligation that I have to use the means necessary to attain the objectives or ends that I do happen to have or choose.
a. Hypothetical, because the reason I ought to be honest is to attain the end of others being honest with me.
b. Categorical, because paying my share is not to be done in order to attain some other end or goal or satisfy some desire that I have.
c. Hypothetical, because the reason given is the fact that people do want to be happy, an end. However, if it is fairness that is implied this might be interpreted as a categorical demand to be fair or treat equals equally.
d. Hypothetical, because the reason given is to avoid some bad consequence or result.
5. Moral obligation is the kind that obliges me no matter what I want or who I am. Thus it is universal and necessarily binding on all. The categorical imperative states that I should do only what I can will that all do, and thus exemplifies the universality aspect of the nature of moral obligation.
6. It is because I cannot rationally will false promises as a universal practice that it is not morally permissible. The reason why it is not possible to will it as a universal practice is because if everyone made false or lying promises then no one could. Part of being able to make a promise is saying "I promise" and having others believe me. But this would not be possible if all made lying promises. No one could make a promise, let alone a lying promise.
7. No, it would not be morally permissible to agree to be someone's slave because the second form of the categorical imperative tells me how I ought to treat myself or let myself be treated as well as how I ought to treat others. I ought not let myself be used by others no more than I ought to use others for my own purposes. It would be like agreeing not to be an autonomous person and let oneself be treated rather like a thing to be used.
8. The practical difference between a perfect and an imperfect duty is that the former takes precedence over the latter. Another is that the perfect duty admits of no exceptions whereas in practice we can choose the manner in which we will carry out our imperfect duties. For example we can choose whom to help and how much just so long as it is in the spirit of the duty of benevolence.
Answers to the Study Questions Preceding the Reading by Kant
1. A good will is one that is motivated by the desire or motive to do the right thing just because it is right. Kant also calls this "acting from duty" or "acting out of duty." The motive to do right cannot be wrong. However other things usually thought good can be made bad if they are not accompanied by a good will.
2. People act out of self-interest to benefit oneself or save oneself from harm. People can also act out of inclinations or because they feel like doing something.
3. No. They do not have specific moral worth unless they are done out of a motive to do the right thing. They have no moral worth in they are done out of self-interest or just because one feels like doing them.
4. He means that the feeling of love, called "pathological" because "pathos" means a kind of feeling, cannot be created just by willing or wanting it to exist. However, the will to do good to others whether or not we feel like it can be something we choose.
5. This is the essence of duty, to always try to do the right thing just because it is right.
6. In essence it is that I should only do those things that I could will or choose or accept that all do. If I cannot for some reason rationally choose something as a universal practice, then it is not morally permissible.
7. It might be prudent to make a false promise if it is in my best interest to do so. Yet I can still ask if it is the right thing to do. In order to know if it is the right thing to do I must ask whether I could will that false promises be a universal practice. This would be impossible because if people generally made false or lying promises then no one could make a promise, let alone a false promise. This is because in order to make a promise it must be believed.
8. He describes what it means to be under obligation as an experience of being a subject to a command or demand as a law. It goes against and should have power or dominion over my inclinations or what I want to do. I can say that I want to do X, but believe that I ought not to do it.
9. A rule of skill is a principle telling me what means I should use or what techniques in order to efficiently achieve any end that I choose. A counsel of prudence is advice that is always a bit "iffy" about how to achieve my happiness. A command of morality tells me that I ought to do something no matter what I want or whether it suits my interests.
10. Example 1: I want to know whether I can end my life to escape suffering. I must ask whether I can will this as a universal practice. He says I cannot because it would be using the principle of life promotion, self-interest, to turn back upon itself and end that life. This supposedly would be a contradiction within this principle of life.
Example 2: I cannot will that all make lying promises because it would not be possible for such a practice to exist. As soon as one tries to imagine what it would be like one can see that no one could make a lying promise.
Example 3: I cannot will that people waste their talents for nature has given these talents to be used. It would be a case of a natural instinct turning against itself as in example 1.
Example 4: I cannot will that all be egoists and care for themselves alone because there would be circumstances in which they would want the help of others and then they would have to deny that of themselves. One would have to will that others not help him at the same time that they will that they help him. This is a contradiction in the willing.
11. By an 'end' Kant means something having value in itself and not as a means to another end. Persons are to be treated as ends and not simply as means to be used as things are used.
12. Example 1: Kant regards killing of oneself as a type of using of a person, oneself, to achieve an end, an existence free of pain. This would violate the requirement to treat a person as an end.
Example 2: Kant regards making a false promise as a way of using the person, to get them to agree to something or believe something without their own autonomous knowing consent. This would violate the requirement to treat a person as an end.
Example 3: Kant does not believe that wasting one's talents is a way of respecting ourselves as persons. It does not harmonize with the requirement to treat oneself as a person.
Example 4: By not helping others or being beneficent one is not respecting them as persons. It does not harmonize with the requirement to treat persons as having value in themselves.
Natural Law Theory Ch. 6
.
Answers to the Review Exercises in the Text
1.Natural law theory is a moral theory that holds that there is an objective moral good and bad, right and wrong, that this is knowable by natural human reason, and is derived from human nature and its inherent orientation to its fulfillment and well functioning.
2.Scientific laws of nature are descriptive laws. They tell how we believe nature does behave. The natural law is a prescriptive law. It tells us how we ought to behave.
3.Natural law theory is teleological in that it is based on human nature and its directedness to an end. Human nature has an inherent orientation to right functioning, its end. Thus the theory is teleological or goal-oriented.
4.Various natural law theorists will describe human nature and its essential characteristics differently. Some, however, have stressed the biological characteristics of nutrition and growth, the sentient characteristics of feeling and sense knowledge, the cognitive characteristics of knowing and reasoning, and social characteristics that concern how we relate to each other. What we ought to do is develop these capacities, act in ways characteristic of our species or human nature, and function well humanly.
5.Aristotle's god was not a creator god. Aquinas believed that God created the universe according to a plan and thus, so to speak, put into the natures of things their natural orientation. Their good is to fulfill their natures as this was intended by their creator.
6.One criticism has to do with the issue of whether an ought can be derived from an is. In other words whether the way things are naturally is a good basis for what they ought to be, whether the way things are is good. Related to this is the question of whether natural law theory requires a theistic basis in a belief in a good creator God. Another is how to determine natural species capacities.
7.Natural rights theorists rely on notions about human nature and what is essential for it to function well as a basis for determining what should be considered a basis natural right. Thus if being able to speak one’s mind is an essential requirement for fulfilling one’s human nature, then freedom of speech defined in some way should be considered a natural right.
8.John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Thomas Aquinas provide examples of natural rights theory. One can also find many contemporary examples, often in discussions of a philosophy of law.
9.Natural rights theorists, like natural law theorists, must show why human nature is the basis for moral good and rights. They must also distinguish those things that are essential for human nature and those which are less essential or that are more individual interests or desires than nature’s needs.
Answers to the Study Questions Preceding
the Reading by John Locke
1. In their natural state men have a perfect freedom to act as they choose and to dispose of their possessions and selves as they think fit. They are also equal, no one having more power than another and no one being higher in status than another, and all having basically the same faculties.
2. To repeat, they are equal in that none are of higher status than the others. By nature they have the same rank and species and nature has given all the same faculties, for example, to reason, feel, hope, and dream.
3. Although in the state of nature one has freedom to dispose of self and property as one wishes, he does not have license or absolute liberty. There are laws of nature which reason decrees, and among these are the law which says that we should not harm others in their life, health, liberty or possessions. Moreover, we should preserve our own lives as well.
4. It is because we are all equally members of the human species by nature that we ought to follow the laws just mentioned.
5. A law of nature would not be a law if there were no power to enforce it. Thus Locke holds that people have a right to enforce these laws including the right to punish those who violate them so as to prevent the violation of the laws. These punishments serve two purposes: reparation and restraint.
6. Locke seems to agree that we need a civil government to enforce the laws of nature because if each did this himself each would tend to be partial to himself and not restrain himself or punish himself. On the other hand Locke also recognizes that governments are also made up of individuals who likewise may be partial and less than reasonable.
7. Rulers of independent governments are to one another as individuals in a state of nature. Their dealings with each other thus should be like that between individuals within a nation, i.e. based on respect for each as equal individuals. Within societies, however, where there are agreements or compacts to act in certain ways, these actions are governed by the agreements.
Answers to the Review Exercises in the Text
1.One basic difference is that most other theories help us determine what is the right or good thing to do, whereas virtue ethics asks us to think about what kind of person we want to be.
1.Intellectual virtues are mental skills whereas moral virtues are traits of character.
2.Virtues are habits in that we develop them by practice. Just as other habits incline us to act in certain ways, so also do virtues.
3.Kindness, courage, perseverance, loyalty, and honesty are just a few of the character traits that have been regarded as virtues.
4. According to Aristotle, virtue is a mean between extremes of too much and too little of some trait. Courage is the mean between rashness and cowardice, and honesty is a mean between too much forthrightness and deceitfulness.
5.In the example of the drug, Amy may be seen to have exemplified the feminine perspective because she was concerned about the personal aspects of the case. She also thought that the answer might be found in thinking about the effects on the individuals. Jake might be seen to exemplify the masculine perspective in that he took a rather impersonal approach by trying to reason it out, and he thought in terms of rights of the parties in a way that exemplified more the public sphere than the private.
6.Among the stereotypical masculine virtues are a tendency to emphasize the fair and just, the universal and impartial, and the rights and autonomy of individuals. Among the stereotypical feminine virtues are a tendency to emphasize the personal and concrete, relationships, and feeling.
7.Androgyny is the manifestation of both stereotypical masculine and feminine traits.
8.The issue is whether the traits that are beneficial are a function of what it is helpful to be like because of key elements of one’s society and what is beneficial because it is something essential for functioning well as a human being no matter what one’s society is like.
9.The problem addressed by Foot relates to the notion of what a virtue is. If it is a habit, then it would seem that the person who finds it easy to be courageous has developed the virtue. However, this also depends on how threatening the situation is and also the stage of one’s development of some virtue.
Answers to the Study Questions Preceding
the Reading by Foot
1.She means that the virtues generally benefit one and enable a person to be better than otherwise.
2.Health and strength are excellences of the body and memory and concentration excellences of the mind. Virtue is an excellence of some other sort.
3.While one wants to think that virtue is a matter of being right intentioned or having a good attitude, there are cases in which it seems that it is results rather than intentions that count, as when does harm without intending it or people who mean well but don’t do well.
4.The wise man knows the right means to certain ends and thus wisdom seems a matter of knowledge. But the wise man also knows the value or worth of those ends. He knows their importance for human life. And furthermore he values them, a matter of will and not just knowledge.
5.Deliberate or voluntary mistakes does not count against skills or arts, as in her example of a deliberate spelling mistake, but it does count against virtue, as in her example of someone being deliberately uncharitable.
6.Virtues are corrective in the sense that they help us in cases in which natural human passions, for example for safety or pleasure, tempt us not to stand firm or refuse the pleasure. They are about things that are difficult to do.
7.Charity and Justice are different in that they have to do rather with a deficiency of motivation than temptations of the passions. They help us be as concerned about others’ good and rights as our own.
8.Circumstances can play a role in that they make the temptation more forceful, as for example when one is poor the temptation to steal or when helping another will cost one something. So also the very fearful might find it more difficult to face some danger. Nevertheless, according to Foot, the virtuous person even in these cases finds acting virtuously easier than he or she otherwise would.
9.In some cases ordinary behavior, as looking out for oneself, is natural and requires no virtue and we do not morally praise the one who does so. But in cases in which for some reason we are inclined not to take care of ourselves, being dejected, for example, doing so may require virtue and be praiseworthy.
10.Someone who does a bad action, as in her murderer example, might indeed show courage. However, according to Foot in this person courage is not a virtue. So also some chemical may be poisonous but not in some case act as a poison in this case not acting characteristically as a poison.
Group Presentation – Moral and Political Philosophy
Choose a chapter from chapters 8 -19, but not 13. Then from that chapter pick one of the Readings. Your task is to give a presentation that clearly explains the reading. A Power Point presentation is preferable, but you can also use overhead transparencies. (In both cases use at least 14 font size.) You presentation should include the following:
1.Visuals – (which you'll have with Power Point or overhead)
2.A clear presentation of of the issue the paper deals with.
3.A clear presentation of the position the author takes on the issue.
4.A clear presentation of the arguments or reasons the author gives in support of their position.
5.Your own evaluation of the author's arguments. Do you think the author gives good arguments or bad ones? Why?
6.A quiz or test or some kind of activity that evaluates how well your “students” understood your presentation.
7.Otherwise, feel free to be creative with your presentations- for example, they could also include skits, videos or methods.
If you do a Power Point Presentation, you should bring a lap top, and also a flash drive as back-up.
A team evaluation form will be handed out after your presentations, and you will rate yourself and your other team members on the contribution you made to the presentation. The team will generally get one score, though lower points may be given in cases where students do not contribute adequately.
The Presentations are due March 18, at 1:30.
Final Paper Assignment Phil. 2 (5 points)
General Requirements: Think of the final paper assignment as an extension of the final exam. It requires you to write a minimum three page essay. It should be typed, double spaced, standard one inch margins, with size 12 font.
Content: In your paper, you should summarize the views of each ethical theory/approach we covered in class, viz. ethical relativism, ethical egoism, natural law/rights, utilitarianism, Kantianism (deontologism), virtue theory. It should explain each theory/approach in a clear way, covering any points you think are important, using examples where you think they might make things more clear, making comparisons or contrasts as you go and pointing out problems with the theory if they apply. It should be a continuous essay that flows smoothly (for example no separate numbered sections for each theory). Imagine your reader is intelligent and informed but not familiar with moral philosophy. Keep direct quotes to a minimum, and do not plagiarize since I can easily find sources on the internet. In fact, you should not use any outside sources, since all you need for this assignment is in the text. Due day of Final Exam.
##############################################
Final Exam Review
Answer the following questions to review for the final exam.
According to act utilitarianism, if it produces more net utility or pleasure to give money that I had promised to return to a friend, to famine relief instead, then I ought to give it to the relief fund. T/F
The following is an example of the reasoning of a rule utilitarian: “ If the practice of lying is bad, then one ought not lie now, even if this case to lie would actually bring about better consequences.” T/F
Mill argues the only people qualified to determine that higher pleasures are better than lower ones are those who have indulged in the very lowest, animalistic pleasures. T/F
In class we discussed all the following types of problems with utilitarianism, except a. Application b. Anthropological Analysis c. Ends and Means d. Ignoring Intentions e. Personal Integrity.
The Pleasure Machine thought experiment was discussed in the context of refuting: a. psychological egoism b. relativism c. Hobbes’ state of nature d. hedonism e ethical egoism
According to Kant, the moral worth of an act is determined by its consequences. T/F
The reason why it is wrong to make a lying promise, according to Kant, is because if everyone did that, the results would be bad. T/F
According to Kant, to act with a “good will” means to do what will benefit others. T/F
According to Kant, an obligation or “ought” is categorical when it is something we ought to do in order to achieve some ends or goals that we have. T/F
In virtue ethics the primary goal is a. to be properly motivated. b. to be a good person c. to be just d. to be industrious e. to have a good will.
Philippa Foot believes virtues benefit others and ourselves. a. true b. false
Philippa Foot believes that bravery requires that one is very fearful but controls that fear. a. true b. false
Foot disagrees with Kant and believes a philanthropist who is compassionate by nature is more virtuous than the philanthropist who forces himself to act from duty. a. true b. false
Foot believes that for any action to be virtuous, that action must involve having a temptation that you correct with a virtue. a. true b. false
Foot believes that the virtue of justice is the same as the virtue of temperance in the sense they both require correcting an emotional impulse. a. true b. false
This philosopher thought virtue was the mean between two extremes: a. Aristotle b. Foot c. Nozick d. Rawls e. Kant.
On the issue of the unity of the virtues, Foot thinks one can show virtue – like courage - in the commission of an evil action. a. true b. false
Utilitarianism is an end state view of justice a. true b. false
In the end state view, any two structurally identical distributions is just, regardless of how you get there. a. true b. false
According to a process view of economic justice a distribution of goods is just so long as the process by which people attain them is just. a. true b. false.
Robert Nozick believes in the process view of economic justice. true b. false.
The natural law theorist who originates and emphasizes the notion of telos is: a. Aristotle b. Aquinas c. Locke
For John Locke, we have no rights unless we live in a society that gives us legal rights. a. true b. false.
How many versions of Kant's Categorical Imperative did we discuss in class? a. one b. two
c. three d. four
If you apply the universalization test to an Imperfect duty, failing to perform that duty would lead to a contradiction in what we would want, but not a purely logical contradiction. a. true b. false.
Charity is a Perfect duty. a. true b. false.
As discussed in class, it makes sense to say that if any act can be universalized via the Categorical Imperative, then it is morally required. a. true b. false
As discussed in class, it makes sense to say that if any act fails the universalization test, then it is morally wrong. a. true b. false
According to Kant, people are morally required to develop their talents. a. true b. false.
Natural Law is descriptive a. true b. false
Which moral theory commits the Naturalistic Fallacy? a. Kant's theory b. Natural Law Theory
Social Darwinism is the view that people should do all they can to help others. a. true b. false.
According to natural law theory the good for humans is developing their natural inclinations.
“People often find it difficult to do what is right” is a descriptive statement. A. True B. False
All disagreements about moral issues result from disagreements about normative claims. A. True B. False
A valid argument must always have true premises. A. True B. False
All valid arguments are good arguments: A. True B. False
Whether death penalty saves money, since the state does not have to support prisoner's for the remainder of their lives, is a what sort of issue ?: A. Normative B. Factual C. Conceptual
Whether a human fetus is a person at some specific stage of development is what sort of issue?A. Normative B. Factual C. Conceptual
Ethics is that branch of philosophy that seeks to discover what different moral beliefs different people do in fact have. A. True B. False
Which of the following best describes Ethics? a. A form of the “golden rule.” b. A branch of philosophy that uses reason to support positions. c. A body of beliefs about right and wrong handed down form one generation to the next. d. Behavior that is agreed upon to be moral by the majority.
Logicians call a good argument a. A correct argument. b. A sound argument. c. A winning argument. d. A fair argument.
Plato's Euthyphro is about: a. Humans’ relationship to the gods b. How Gods are wiser than humans c. The question of capital punishment d. The nature of goodness.
Different moral theories emphasize one of three elements of behavior: A. Motive, Act, Consequence B. Motive, Intention, Consequence C. Motive, Act, History D. Motive, Act, Virtue. E. Motive, Benefit, Consequence.
Individual relativism says that I cannot be objectively mistaken in my moral judgments. T/F
Moral realism (objectivism) says that one should never lie in any situation. T/F
Psychological egoism provides good logical support for ethical egoism. T/F
As discussed, that there is uncertainty in many moral matters, is a good reason to be a relativist. T/F
Match the theories with the claims:
a. individual relativism b. cultural relativism c. psychological egoism d. individual ethical egoism e. universal ethical egoism
As discussed, this theory implies that Martin Luther King Jr. is no more objectively moral than the serial murderer, Charles Manson.
This view seems to have the problem that moral reformers would always be evil.
As discussed, this view contains a “tolerance paradox” where we are supposed to believe “tolerance is good” is both true, but not really true.
The example of Lincoln and the pigs was meant to illustrate this view.
This view says each person is morally infallible (can't be wrong about moral judgments).
As mentioned in class, the lifeboat scenario seems to show a contradiction in this theory.
Discuss
|
|
|
