Answer all questions using scantrons distributed in class. Pleased use pencils. Exactly one answer to each question is best and thus correct. Due Wednesday, Oct 18, in class. Please keep a copy for your file.1. Suppose that an action has a positive balance of utility (it brings about more positive utility than negative utility)
A) this action must be morally right, according to utilitarians
B) this action may be morally wrong, according to utilitarians
C) unclear, for utilitarians are not precise enough about how to calculate utility.2. Suppose that some action harms someone significantly, and yet this person gave an explicit consent to be so treated; according to the most plausible interpretation of Kant's ethics explained in class:
A) this action must be morally right (because it involves an elements of consent)
B) this action must be morally wrong (because it harms someone significantly)
C) this action may be wrong, because it harms someone significantly and consent alone is not enough to justify the action
D) none of the above3. A positive right may be roughly characterized as
A) a right to be helped or offered some goods or benefits
B) a right not to be interfered with
C) any right correlated with prima facie duties
D) none of the above.4. Some examples of positive rights discussed in class and/or by Shaw are the following
A) the right to free speech and the right to free assembly
B) the right to health service and legal protection
C) all of the above
D) none of the above5. In his article, Gert does not offer any detailed explicit criticisms of the following:
A) utilitarianism
B) the Golden Rule
C) Kant's imperative
D) the Ten Commandments
E) all of them are criticized6. The following is not on Gert's list of moral rules
A) Do not kill.
B) Do not deceive.
C) Do not steal.
D) Do not cheat.
E) All of the above are on his list7. According to Gert, an action that causes an agent (or her loved ones) some serious harm
A) must be irrational
B) is rational provided that the agent has any reason to do this act
C) is rational provided that the agent has an adequate reason to do this act
D) none of the above8. According to Gert, an action that violates some moral rule
A) must be morally wrong
B) is morally permissible if and only if the agent has some reason to do this act
C) is morally permissible if and only if an impartial rational person would publicly allow that violation
D) all of the above
E) none of the above9. Gert argues in his paper that
A) adultery is morally wrong
B) extramarital sex is morally wrong
C) giving to charity is morally required
D) all of the above
E) none of the above.10. Gert thinks that rationality and prudence are one and the same thing
(A) TRUE (B) FALSE11. Gert thinks that rationality is simply a theory of efficiently achieving one's goals
(A) TRUE (B) FALSE12. We may find what is intrinsically valuable by
A) finding out that something is a necessary means to a valuable end
B) trying various things and finding out whether they are pleasant or not
C) performing a "mental experiment" in which we conceive of something in isolation from its results and causes
D) none of the above13. According to classical utilitarians
A) Pleasure is the only intrinsic good while pain is the only thing intrinsically bad
B) there are many different things which are intrinsically valuable (good or bad)
C) neither A) nor B)14. Gert defines a good or a benefit as something a rational person would not avoid for yourself and friends unless one had some reason to.
(A) TRUE (B) FALSE15. Gert rejects the view that we all agree on what the goods (benefits) are and what bad things (evils, harms) are; that is, he rejects the view that we all have the same basic values.
(A) TRUE (B) FALSE16. Gert
A) maintains that pleasure and pain are the only intrinsic values
B) there are many different basic goods and several different basic evils
C) neither A) nor B)17. Pluralism is a view that
A) many different ethical norms are all equally valid
B) many different things have intrinsic value
C) correct moral decisions fulfill plural standards18. Universalism implies that
A) Some basic moral norms apply to all similarly situated people in all cultures at all times
B) Correct moral norms are extremely simple and admit to hardly any exception
C) A) and B)19. Universalism is incompatible with
A) Belief relativism
B) Cultural / ethical relativism
C) both
D) neither
ANSWERS AND REVIEW
1. ---> (B)
Utilitarianism requires maximization of utility. In other words, utilitarianism requires choosing the action, out of the available alternatives, which produces the most utility and not simply some positive utility. There may be many actions that have positive utility (see the tables/matrixes of utility we discussed earlier) and, according to utilitarianism, most of them may be wrong.2. ---> No answer (free pass)
I intended to give the following option : "(*) it may be wrong, because consent, even explicit consent, may not be enough to justify the action" This would be the correct answer. For, according to the most plausible interpretation of Kant's ethics, we need to have informed and rational consent.Here are a few additional ideas related to this question. First, it is good to demand that the consent is rational. For example, Trokosi and people who join various cults may sometimes give consent. This does not justify the action of others if this consent is not informed and rational.
Second, we must allow that the consent is hypothetical. Sometimes people cannot give a consent and yet we must act (e.g., the patient in ER is unconscious and we must do something BEFORE he regains consciousness). The best (only) way to handle such cases is by asking what the patient WOULD consent to., if this patient were rational, informed, conscious, etc. This point is not directly relevant to the question #2, so it is a side issue (so far as this question goes). But this issue is nevertheless very important.
Third, the option C) I actually gave (contrary to my intention) implies that the wrongness of the act depends on two factors: namely, that the harm is done and that the person gives/fails to give the right sort of consent. This makes Kant's views look too much like a version of consequentialism. Consent is crucial for Kantians and not harms/benefits.3. --> A
4. -->B
Shaw (p. 30) suggests an interesting reason in support of the idea that we have moral rights. Namely, certain goods and interests may be crucial and vital for individual. If someone were to be deprived of them, we may expect that the society would defend and protect such an individual.
Shaw is emphatic about the significance of moral rights: "they provide grounds for making moral judgments that differ radically from utilitarianism's grounds" (p. 30). As we might say, moral rights "trump" utilitarian considerations.5. ---> A
Gert says several things that might be used as a basis for criticism of utilitarianism, but he himself does not directly and explicitly criticize this theory. For example, ethical theory may have to provide/create room for supererogations and ideals. Gert's theory explains how it is possible. Utilitarians have problems with explaining how supererogatory acts are possible (for they require that we always maximize utility). In addition, classical utilitarians (Bentham and Mill) adopt a very simple theory of intrinsic value (they are hedonists). This theory is not plausible.6.--->C
Gert does not have a rule prohibiting stealing.
In his book he argues that such a rule is not necessary. The reason is that stealing is already covered by other rules. For example, people who lose their property are displeased and suffer. Also, the acts of stealing violate the rule requiring of us to obey the law (stealing is illegal), etc.7.--->C
If you cause harm, your action still may be rational, so "A" is incorrect. "B" is also incorrect, in order to justify causing harm, an agent must have adequate reason.
Consider a slightly different question. Suppose that you know that an action is irrational. What can you infer about this action (according to Gert)? His theory associates irrationality with harms. If no harm is done, then the action is rational. So, first of all, if you know that the action is irrational you know that it causes some harm. But you know even more about irrational action. In particular, you know something about the reasons the agents has or lacks. Does the agent have a reason to do act that is irrational act? (Yes? No? Maybe?) Is this reason good enough/adequate?8.--->C
This question mirrors question #7.
Again, think about this problem from another perspective. Suppose you know that the action is immoral. What do you know about this action? On Gert's view, an immoral action must violate some rule. But what else? How does this question relate to what Gert says about exceptions to rules?9. ---> E
He does not comment at all on A) and B). If he were to comment on them, he might say that (given some circumstances) adultery and extramarital sex may be immoral. For example, they may involve pain, deception, lying, etc.
Giving to charity is what he would consider an ideal (an action that goes beyond the call of duty).10. --->B
We considered in class the cases of parents that sacrifice themselves for their children. On Gert's theory, such acts of self-sacrifice may be rational. So, rationality cannot be the same thing as prudence (self-interest).11. ---> B
Gert rejects an instrumental (Humean) theory of rationality. Suppose I want to cut off my hand, so I win $1 bet (and this is my final objective). Suppose I win the bet, and get $1. I would achieve my objective and yet my action would still be insane (irrational).12. --->C
G. E. Moore employed the isolation test to show that things other than pleasure can be intrinsically good. In class we offered some arguments that, e.g., the experience of beauty and factual knowledge may be intrinsically valuable. These arguments were based on comparing two situations that differ in just one detail. We were trying to discover whether this one difference is relevant in so far as value goes.13.--->A
In addition, classical utilitarians equate happiness with pleasure. Mill distinguishes higher and lower pleasures. Hence he is a qualitative utilitarian. Bentham is a quantitative utilitarian.14. --->A
He also gives a list of basic goods.15.---> B
He accepts this view. He thinks that all rational people value the same things. (In private conversations he said that this includes nearly 99% of people. The rest are people who are insane, brainwashed, etc.)16.---> B
See his list.17. ---> B
I am a pluralist. I think that pleasure is intrinsically good but so are some other things; e.g. happiness, knowledge, the experience of beauty, and perhaps even beauty itself.
Gert has serious pluralistic tendencies. If his BASIC goods are the same things as INTRINSIC goods, then he is a pluralist, too.18.---> A
Please notice (and remember) that universalism does not imply that we know what those basic, universally correct, norms are. Universalism allows that these norms may be hard to discover.
Absolutism is a view that basic norms are very simple.19.--->B
Universalism permits that people may have various views about morality. So, belief relativism can be reconciled with universalism.
Universalism would say that when people differ in their views some of those views must be incorrect.
So, universalism is a view that CORRECT basic principles are universally valid.
Top of this page Philosophy home Stef's home page Andy's home page Professional Ethics Environmental Ethics . . . . . .