WorksheetsPhilosophy 160 • Study Guide for Exam 3
Total questions: 48
Worksheet time: 27mins
Ethics is defined as:
The study of moral principles that govern behavior
The study of physical laws of nature
The analysis of economic systems
The practice of artistic expression
The difference between normative and descriptive disciplines is:
Normative disciplines prescribe how things ought to be, while descriptive disciplines describe how things are.
Normative disciplines describe how things are, while descriptive disciplines prescribe how things ought to be.
Both normative and descriptive disciplines only describe how things are.
Normative disciplines and descriptive disciplines are the same.
The fundamental project of moral philosophy, as specified by Socrates, is to clarify the nature of the good life. How does the moral point of view differ from the prudential and legal points of view?
The moral point of view considers what is right or wrong based on ethical principles, while the prudential point focuses on self-interest and the legal point on laws.
The moral point of view is solely concerned with following laws, while the prudential and legal points focus on personal gain.
The moral point of view is about maximizing pleasure, while the prudential and legal points are about minimizing pain.
The moral point of view is based on tradition, while the prudential and legal points are based on innovation.
To say that x is necessary for y means:
y cannot occur without x.
x cannot occur without y.
x and y always occur together.
x is sufficient for y.
To say that x is sufficient for y means:
If x occurs, y must also occur.
If y occurs, x must also occur.
x and y always occur together.
x is necessary for y.
An argument (in philosophy) is:
a set of statements where some are intended to support another
a personal opinion with no evidence
a heated debate between two people
a rhetorical question with no answer
Define 'validity.' Precisely what sort of form must a valid argument have? Can a valid argument have false premises? Can a valid argument have a false conclusion? Can a valid argument have true premises and a false conclusion?
A valid argument is one in which if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true; it can have false premises or a false conclusion, but not true premises and a false conclusion.
A valid argument must have all true premises and a true conclusion.
A valid argument cannot have false premises or a false conclusion.
A valid argument can have true premises and a false conclusion.
Define 'soundness.' How does soundness differ from validity? What does an argument need in order to be sound?
Soundness means an argument is valid and all its premises are true; validity only requires the conclusion to follow logically from the premises.
Soundness means an argument is persuasive and emotionally appealing; validity means the argument is logical.
Soundness means an argument has a true conclusion; validity means the premises are true.
Soundness means an argument is valid and the conclusion is true; validity means the premises are true.
State CR and explain why there are two possible interpretations of its meaning. Explain how Theological Voluntarism differs from the Divine Advisor View.
CR stands for 'Commanded Response,' which can mean either a response required by divine command or a response inspired by divine advice. Theological Voluntarism holds that moral truths are determined by God's will, while the Divine Advisor View suggests God advises but does not determine moral truths.
CR stands for 'Critical Reasoning,' which only has one interpretation. Theological Voluntarism and Divine Advisor View are identical.
CR stands for 'Cultural Relativism,' which means moral truths are determined by society. Theological Voluntarism and Divine Advisor View both reject divine involvement.
CR stands for 'Conditional Requirement,' which means a requirement based on human law. Theological Voluntarism and Divine Advisor View both support human authority over morality.
One important objection to Theological Voluntarism is that it seems to provide the wrong reasons for the moral statuses of certain actions. State and explain this objection.
It suggests that actions are morally right or wrong solely because God commands or forbids them, making morality arbitrary.
It claims that moral truths exist independently of God's will.
It argues that moral actions are determined by societal consensus.
It proposes that moral status is based on individual feelings rather than divine command.
The point of Socrates' 'Euthyphro Argument' is to show:
that morality is independent of the gods
that piety is simply what the gods love
that all actions are equally moral
that Socrates believes in all the gods
The Problem of Natural Evil refers to:
The existence of suffering and disasters in nature that seem incompatible with an all-powerful, all-good God.
The belief that all evil is caused by human actions.
The idea that natural disasters are always punishments from God.
The argument that evil does not exist in the world.
State CR (our formulation of cultural relativism as a criterion). Explain the technical terms associated with this theory. Then explain the main idea behind CR in your own words.
CR (Cultural Relativism) is the view that moral standards are culturally defined, and no one culture's ethics are superior to another's. Technical terms include 'cultural norms', 'moral standards', and 'relativism'. The main idea is that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture.
CR (Cultural Relativism) is the belief that all cultures have the same moral standards. Technical terms include 'universal ethics', 'absolute morality', and 'objectivism'. The main idea is that morality is the same everywhere.
CR (Cultural Relativism) is the theory that only individual opinions matter in ethics. Technical terms include 'subjectivism', 'personal values', and 'individualism'. The main idea is that morality is based on personal choice.
CR (Cultural Relativism) is the idea that laws are the only source of morality. Technical terms include 'legalism', 'statutory ethics', and 'jurisprudence'. The main idea is that morality is determined by legal systems.
Which of the following best explains the three main objections to Cultural Relativism (CR) discussed in class: the argument based on the case of Fauziya, the slavery advice argument, and the moral progress argument?
They show that CR cannot account for moral progress, gives problematic advice about slavery, and fails in cases like Fauziya's.
They support CR by showing it is universally applicable.
They argue that CR is the only way to respect cultural differences.
They demonstrate that CR is always morally correct regardless of context.
CR really implies that the morality of tolerance is not absolute but depends on cultural context.
It means tolerance is always morally right.
It implies that tolerance is morally wrong in all cases.
It suggests that tolerance is a universal moral value.
It means the morality of tolerance depends on cultural context.
Plato thought that it would not be in your interests (i.e., it would not promote your well-being) to use the Ring of Gyges because:
it would corrupt your soul and lead you away from true happiness
it would make you physically invincible
it would guarantee you political power
it would allow you to avoid all consequences for your actions
State Hobbes's Rule-Egoism, including the five main Laws of Nature.
Hobbes's Rule-Egoism emphasizes self-preservation and includes the five main Laws of Nature: seek peace, defend yourself, keep covenants, show gratitude, and be accommodating.
Hobbes's Rule-Egoism focuses on altruism and includes the five main Laws of Nature: love others, avoid conflict, share resources, forgive enemies, and seek harmony.
Hobbes's Rule-Egoism is about collective welfare and includes the five main Laws of Nature: obey authority, respect tradition, promote equality, avoid risk, and seek justice.
Hobbes's Rule-Egoism centers on personal gain and includes the five main Laws of Nature: pursue wealth, dominate others, avoid responsibility, reject cooperation, and seek power.
The Case of 'the Fool' puts pressure on Hobbes to explain why we always ought to follow the Laws of Nature. Even if he is correct that we always should do this, his theory seems to provide the wrong reasons for the moral statuses of certain actions. That is, it gives us bad explanations for why certain actions would be wrong. Why is this a problem?
Because Hobbes' theory fails to provide adequate moral justification for why certain actions are wrong.
Because Hobbes' theory always leads to the right moral conclusions.
Because Hobbes' theory ignores the existence of moral laws.
Because Hobbes' theory only applies to political actions.
State AU (act utilitarianism). Explain the technical terms associated with this theory. Explain the main idea behind AU in your own words.
Act utilitarianism is the theory that an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number, focusing on individual acts.
Act utilitarianism is the theory that rules should be followed to maximize happiness.
Act utilitarianism is the belief that only intentions matter, not consequences.
Act utilitarianism is the idea that happiness should be distributed equally regardless of actions.
Which of the following best summarizes the objections to Act Utilitarianism (AU) based on the Case of the Organ Harvest, the Small Southern Town, the case of Grandpa, and the Nearest and Dearest Objection?
They show that AU can justify morally questionable actions if they maximize overall happiness.
They demonstrate that AU always leads to the best moral outcomes.
They argue that AU is the only ethical theory that values individual rights.
They prove that AU never conflicts with personal relationships.
A being must have which two capacities in order to count as a person according to Kant?
Rationality and autonomy
Empathy and creativity
Physical strength and intelligence
Emotional sensitivity and intuition
For Kant, one ought to let others make their own choices for themselves because:
Individuals possess autonomy and rationality, which must be respected.
People are incapable of making rational decisions.
Letting others choose prevents societal chaos.
Kant believed in absolute freedom without moral constraints.
State CI2 (the Formula of Humanity). What does it mean to treat someone as an end-in-themselves? What four things (a)-(d) does Kant say are required to treat individuals as ends-in-themselves? (Be prepared to explain (c) one's imperfect duty of self-perfection in some detail.)
CI2 (the Formula of Humanity) states that one should act so as to treat humanity, whether in oneself or in another, always as an end and never merely as a means. Treating someone as an end-in-themselves means respecting their autonomy and rationality. Kant says this requires: (a) not using others merely as means, (b) respecting others' autonomy, (c) promoting one's own self-perfection, and (d) promoting the happiness of others.
CI2 (the Formula of Humanity) states that one should always act in self-interest. Treating someone as an end-in-themselves means prioritizing personal happiness. Kant says this requires: (a) seeking pleasure, (b) ignoring others' autonomy, (c) focusing on self-enjoyment, and (d) disregarding others' happiness.
CI2 (the Formula of Humanity) states that one should treat humanity as a means to an end. Treating someone as an end-in-themselves means using others for personal gain. Kant says this requires: (a) manipulating others, (b) denying autonomy, (c) neglecting self-improvement, and (d) ignoring others' happiness.
CI2 (the Formula of Humanity) states that one should act so as to maximize utility. Treating someone as an end-in-themselves means calculating the greatest good. Kant says this requires: (a) maximizing pleasure, (b) minimizing pain, (c) promoting utility, and (d) disregarding autonomy.
Perfect duties differ from imperfect duties in that:
Perfect duties are always binding, while imperfect duties allow for discretion.
Perfect duties are optional, while imperfect duties are mandatory.
Imperfect duties are always binding, while perfect duties allow for discretion.
Perfect duties and imperfect duties are identical in moral philosophy.
A true moral dilemma in ethical theory is:
A situation where two moral principles conflict and no matter what you choose, you violate one principle.
A situation where there is a clear right and wrong answer.
A situation where personal interests always outweigh moral principles.
A situation where all choices are morally acceptable.
Pluralism’s principles include autonomy, benevolence, and justice. Which principle is concerned with respecting individuals’ ability to make their own choices?
Autonomy
Benevolence
Justice
Equality
How does Singer approach moral standing? What trait does he believe determines whether a creature has moral standing, or not? Explain his reasoning. Why does Singer reject the sort of view that is held by Kant and Warren?
Singer believes that the capacity to suffer determines moral standing, and he rejects Kant and Warren's views because they focus on rationality rather than sentience.
Singer believes that rationality determines moral standing, and he agrees with Kant and Warren's views.
Singer believes that species membership determines moral standing, and he supports Kant and Warren's views.
Singer believes that moral standing is determined by social status, and he rejects Kant and Warren's views because they focus on suffering.
Singer thinks that it is (usually) morally wrong to kill animals for food because:
He believes animals have interests and suffering should be minimized.
He thinks animals are less intelligent than humans.
He argues that eating animals is unhealthy for humans.
He believes animals do not feel pain.
The most extreme possible positions on abortion, pro- and con-, are absolute pro-choice and absolute pro-life. Why are both these positions considered untenable?
Because both ignore the complexities and moral nuances involved in abortion decisions.
Because both are fully supported by all legal systems worldwide.
Because both positions are based solely on religious beliefs.
Because both allow for unrestricted abortion at any stage.
John T. Noonan’s argument against abortion is based on the idea that fetuses are persons.
He argues that abortion is morally wrong because fetuses are persons with a right to life.
He claims that abortion is acceptable if the mother’s life is at risk.
He believes that personhood begins only after birth.
He states that abortion is a personal choice and not a moral issue.
Which of the premises of Noonan’s argument does Thomson attempt to refute in her article? Describe in detail how Thomson’s “Famous Violinist” thought-experiment is supposed to refute this line.
Thomson attempts to refute the premise that a fetus’s right to life always outweighs a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, using the “Famous Violinist” thought-experiment to illustrate that being attached to another person against one’s will is not morally obligatory.
Thomson attempts to refute the premise that abortion is always morally permissible, using the “Famous Violinist” thought-experiment to show that moral obligations are absolute.
Thomson attempts to refute the premise that a fetus is not a person, using the “Famous Violinist” thought-experiment to argue that personhood is irrelevant to abortion.
Thomson attempts to refute the premise that pregnancy is always voluntary, using the “Famous Violinist” thought-experiment to show that pregnancy can be involuntary.
According to Thomson, in which cases is abortion morally acceptable, particularly regarding her concept of “nonvoluntary pregnancies” and the cases it covers?
Abortion is morally acceptable in cases of nonvoluntary pregnancies, such as rape or failed contraception.
Abortion is only morally acceptable when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life.
Abortion is never morally acceptable according to Thomson.
Abortion is morally acceptable only in cases of voluntary pregnancies.
A utilitarian might criticize Thomson’s position by arguing that the morality of abortion depends on maximizing overall happiness. Are there cases where Singer would think that abortion is morally okay, but Thomson would think it is wrong?
Yes, because Singer’s utilitarianism focuses on consequences, while Thomson’s rights-based approach may prohibit abortion in some cases.
No, both Singer and Thomson always agree on the morality of abortion.
Yes, because Thomson’s utilitarianism is stricter than Singer’s.
No, Singer always thinks abortion is wrong, while Thomson always thinks it is okay.
Which of the premises of Noonan’s argument does Warren ultimately reject? Explain her personhood thought experiment involving a space traveler who lands on an unknown planet, and the traits indicative of moral personhood that she uses this thought experiment to identify.
Warren rejects Noonan’s premise that biological humanity is sufficient for personhood, using her space traveler thought experiment to identify traits such as consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity to communicate, and presence of self-concepts.
Warren rejects Noonan’s premise that all fetuses are persons because they have potential for rational thought, using her space traveler thought experiment to identify traits such as physical appearance and genetic similarity.
Warren rejects Noonan’s premise that moral personhood is determined by social acceptance, using her space traveler thought experiment to identify traits such as ability to form social bonds and emotional responses.
Warren rejects Noonan’s premise that personhood is based on legal status, using her space traveler thought experiment to identify traits such as citizenship and legal rights.
How many of these traits does an entity need to be a person, on Warren’s view? If a being lacks all these features, what can we safely conclude, according to Warren?
All of the traits are required; lacking all means the entity is not a person.
Only one trait is required; lacking all means the entity is still a person.
At least three traits are required; lacking all means the entity is still a person.
None of the traits are required; lacking all means the entity is still a person.
Assume that 1st and 2nd trimester fetuses lack all the traits mentioned by Warren. Even if we assume this, which other premise(s) in her argument might be problematic, and why?
The premise that only beings with all five traits have moral rights may be problematic because it excludes some humans with diminished capacities.
The premise that fetuses have the same moral status as adults is problematic because it ignores developmental differences.
The premise that all living organisms have moral rights is problematic because it is too broad.
The premise that Warren's traits are irrelevant to moral status is problematic because it contradicts her argument.
How does Warren respond to the objection that fetuses are “person-like”? Warren argues that being person-like is not sufficient for having full moral rights; actual personhood is required.
Warren argues that being person-like is not sufficient for having full moral rights; actual personhood is required.
Warren agrees that being person-like automatically grants full moral rights.
Warren believes that all living beings, including fetuses, have full moral rights.
Warren claims that fetuses have more moral rights than actual persons.
How does Warren respond to the potentiality argument (i.e., the claim that fetuses have moral rights because they are potential persons)? What “potential persons” does she think it would be morally okay to kill?
She argues that potential persons do not have the same moral rights as actual persons, and it would be morally permissible to kill potential persons if their continued existence poses a threat to actual persons.
She agrees that potential persons have full moral rights and should never be killed under any circumstances.
She believes that all potential persons have greater moral rights than actual persons and should always be protected.
She claims that only potential persons who are close to becoming actual persons have moral rights and should not be killed.
Warren’s position on infanticide is that:
Infants are not persons and do not have full moral rights, so killing infants is not always morally wrong according to Warren.
Infants are persons and have full moral rights, so killing infants is always morally wrong according to Warren.
Infants have partial moral rights, so killing infants is sometimes morally wrong according to Warren.
Infants are considered persons after birth, so killing infants is never morally permissible according to Warren.
State and explain the three positions on the wrongness of killing that Marquis rejects. Why does he reject each of these views?
According to Marquis, when is killing considered wrong, and what does his view imply about the moral status of abortion? State Marquis’s argument for why abortion is typically morally wrong.
Killing is wrong because it deprives an individual of a valuable future; therefore, abortion is typically morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of a future like ours.
Killing is wrong only if it causes pain; therefore, abortion is wrong only if the fetus feels pain.
Killing is wrong because it violates social norms; therefore, abortion is wrong if society disapproves of it.
Killing is wrong because it disrupts family structures; therefore, abortion is wrong if it affects the family.
In what cases could abortion be permissible, given the logic of Marquis’s position?
Abortion may be permissible if the fetus does not have a valuable future, such as in cases of severe fetal abnormality.
Abortion is always permissible regardless of the fetus's future.
Abortion is never permissible under any circumstances.
Abortion may be permissible only if the pregnancy endangers the mother's life, regardless of the fetus's future.
Why does McMahan deny that fetuses have valuable futures-like-ours? Why does he say that “no actual human person was ever a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus”? (Hint: this relates to his view that you or I would cease to exist if we entered a permanent vegetative state.)
Because he believes that personal identity is tied to psychological continuity, and fetuses lack this continuity.
Because he thinks fetuses have the same moral status as adults.
Because he argues that fetuses are already persons with valuable futures.
Because he believes that fetuses possess consciousness from conception.
According to King, why is it sometimes morally acceptable to break laws, and what characteristics of a law suggest that it would be morally okay to break that law?
Because unjust laws degrade human dignity and breaking them can show respect for true justice.
Because all laws are meant to be challenged regularly.
Because breaking any law demonstrates courage and independence.
Because laws that are unpopular should be ignored.
Why does King believe that segregation ordinances common in the Deep South in the 1950s-60s were unjust?
Because they degraded human dignity and denied equal rights.
Because they promoted economic growth.
Because they encouraged cultural exchange.
Because they improved public safety.
According to King, when one breaks unjust laws, how must one go about it?
One must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.
One must do so secretly to avoid punishment.
One must encourage others to break laws as well.
One must break laws only if forced by others.
According to Leiser, which of the following is NOT one of the four interpretations of the idea that homosexuality is unnatural?
It is unnatural because it does not occur in nature.
It is unusual.
It involves using one’s genitalia contrary to their proper function(s).
It is unnatural because it is a choice.
Some people believe that marriage is intrinsically procreative or involves “comprehensive union,” and that this shows that same-sex marriages are impossible or impermissible. What might defenders of same-sex marriage say in response to these arguments?
They argue that marriage is about love and commitment, not just procreation or comprehensive union.
They agree that same-sex marriage is impossible.
They believe marriage should only be for procreation.
They think comprehensive union is the only valid basis for marriage.
