Ethics Test 1page 1

PRINT name clearly ______

Ethics: Test #1

Part I. Multiple Choice. Select the most appropriate choice and mark the corresponding letter on your scantron. Base your answer on the appropriate reading.

Avoid erasures by first marking all answers on this test, then going to the scantron.

  1. Which of the following claims characterize(s) the philosophical approach to ethics, according to the standard view presented in chapter one of the course pack?
  2. Ethical claims must be supported with empirical evidence.
  3. Ethical inquiry must be distinguished from moral inquiry.
  4. The ethically right course of action is the one that is legal in one's own society.
  5. Ethical claims can only be true for the person who makes them.
  6. None of the above.
  7. Philosophical ethics differs from science in that philosophical ethics
  8. is normative whereas scientific claims are empirical.
  9. ultimately relies on personal and subjective beliefs, whereas science uses an objective method.
  10. bases truth on hidden premises.
  11. All of the above.
  12. None of the above.
  13. A hidden premise is
  14. a claim that is not included in an argument but which must be included if the conclusion is to logically follow.
  15. a claim that is not explicitly stated but which is intended by the author.
  16. a claim which contradicts the conclusion the author is trying to reach.
  17. the real motive of an author who hopes to keep it hidden.
  18. All of the above.
  19. “honesty is morally obligatory because it makes people happy.” What is the stated premise in the above argument? (Note that in ordinary language we sometimes state the conclusion first and then the premise, which is the case here. Question 8 is the opposite.)
  20. Honesty really does make people happy. [Corrected in class: “Honesty makes people happy.”
  21. Honesty is morally obligatory.
  22. Happiness is important.
  23. Whatever makes people happy is morally obligatory.
  24. Dishonestyis forbidden by God and will be punished in an afterlife.
  25. Which of the choices in the previous question is the conclusion in the argument? B
  26. Which of the choices in the question is a hidden premise of the same argument? C
  27. Which of the following is a nonconsequentialist argument for paying people who work hard more than people who do not work hard?
  28. Doing so will provide an incentive for people to work hard.
  29. Hard workers produce more and help the economy.
  30. Employers will feel better about themselves if they pay their workers more.
  31. People who work hard deserve higher pay.
  32. None of the above.
  33. “The situation in Darfur does not affect American’s economy, so the United States should not get involved in Darfur.” Which of the following is the conclusion in the above quoted argument?
  34. The U.S. should get involved in a situation only if it affectsAmerica’s economy.
  35. The situation in Darfur does not affect America’s economy.
  36. The health of the US economy should be the guiding principle of American foreign policy.
  37. A nation’smost important priority is its economy.
  38. The United States should not get involved in Darfur.
  39. Which of the choices in question 8 above is a stated premise of the original statement?B
  40. Which of the choices in question 8 above is a hidden premise of the original statement?A
  41. Both utilitarians (consequentialists) and formalists (nonconsequentialists) would agree with which of the following claims (if any)?
  42. The purpose of morality is to promote (bring about) human welfare.
  43. One sometimes is morally required to sacrifice one’s own interests for the good of others.
  44. All human beings have certain basic human rights.
  45. All of the above.
  46. None of the above.
  1. Consequentialists and nonconsequentialists (e.g., Kantians) disagree with each other in their responses to which of the following claims?

(Select the response, if any, that one of the two theories would agree with and the other would disagree with.)

  1. There may be an act which promotes more happiness and reduces more suffering than any other act a person could do and yet it would be morally wrong to perform that act.
  2. All people have certain basic human rights.
  3. We may have greater obligations to someone simply because we made a prior commitment to that person.
  4. All of the above.
  5. None of the above.
  1. A major problem in cost-benefit analysis is
  2. knowing which rights take priority over other rights.
  3. that it does not recognize the moral importance of long-term results.
  4. it overemphasizes equations and ignores differentials. (This is meaningless. If you read the material, have the confidence to reject a choice that doesn’t make any sense.)
  5. that it gives too great a weight to subjective feelings.
  6. None of the above.
  7. In deciding whether a certain medical procedure should be offered, a cost-benefit analysis approach to health care might ask all of the following questions EXCEPT:
  8. How much better off will people be if they are granted this procedure?
  9. How expensive will the procedure be compared to other procedures?
  10. Will people's rights be violated if they are denied the procedure?
  11. If lives are saved by the procedure, what is the average expenditure per life saved?
  12. None of the above. (That is, cost-benefit analysis might ask all of the above.)

Cost-benefit analysis is “applied utilitarianism” and utilitarians (consequentialists) do not believe in moral rights.

  1. Which of the following does NOT mean the same thing as “he should tell the truth”?
  2. he has moral obligation to tell the truth.
  3. he has a right to tell the truth.
  4. he has a duty to tell the truth.
  5. he ought to tell the truth.
  6. All of the above mean the same thing as “he should tell the truth.”

If I have a right to go to the movies, that doesn’t mean the same thing as I have a moral obligation or duty to go to the movies. But if I have a moral obligation to do something, that is the same thing as saying that I ought to do it or have a moral duty to do it. Now if one person has a moral right, then someone else has an obligation; namely, to respect that right. (It gets a bit more complicated, but we’ll discuss this later in the course.)

  1. “Utilitarianism is a bad theory because we can't predict the future and therefore often will not be able to determine easily what the right action is.”

According to the material in the course pack, how should we regard this criticism of utilitarianism?

  1. It is a strong criticism of utilitarianism because it shows that utilitarianism cannot solve conflicts of interest.
  2. It is a weak criticism because it wrongly assumes that an ethical theory needs to determine what actions are right.
  3. It misunderstands utilitarianism because utilitarianism does not only look to the future but also considers what people deserve and are entitled to.
  4. It is a weak criticism because if we use consequentialism, we canalways predict the future accurately.
  5. It is a weak criticism because it is based on the false assumption that a good theory must be simple and easy to follow.
  1. “Utilitarianism is a weak theory because it does not take into account that there is an ethical difference between (a) doing something that results in harm and (b) having something harmful happen because one did not do something one could have done.”

According to the material in the course pack, how should we regard this criticism of utilitarianism?

  1. It is a major criticism of utilitarianism because it points out that the theory does not take into account justice, the way in which goods and harms are distributed.
  2. It is a major criticism of utilitarianism, pointing out that consequentialism disregards what many consider to be a morally relevant difference between acts and omissions.
  3. It is trying to state the criticism based on acts and omissions, but it confuses the issue by introducing the issue of harm, something no utilitarian would consider.
  4. All of the above.
  5. None of the above.
  1. “We have some obligation to keep a promise even when somewhat better results would come about by not keeping the promise, but there may come a point when we are morally required to break the promise; for example, if the bad consequences of keeping it would be catastrophic.” Which positions is expressed in this quoted statement?
  2. This is a Kantian position because it insists on following a rule to keep promises even when the results are worse.
  3. This is a confused and incoherent ethical position, mixing consequences and rules.
  4. This is a nonconsequentialist position, one which believes in a prima facie (non-absolute) rule to keep promises.
  5. This is a consequentialist position based on prima facie (non-absolute) a rule to keep promises which can get outweighed by consequences.
  6. This position is known as a transcendental synthesis and is the view of most modern philosophers.
  7. According to Kant, the clearest example of a morally praiseworthy act is one where a person
  8. acts on kind and generous impulses.
  9. acts in strict obedience to a country’s laws just for the sake of following the law.
  10. does the right thing out of a motive of following correct moral principles.
  11. does the right thing in a way that has a universal influence on others, bringing about a world in which everyone is acting morally.
  12. All of the above.
  13. According to Kant's “super-rule” or categorical imperative, a rule is a good moral rule if it
  14. is one which you sincerely desire that everyone follow.
  15. tries to bring about something good for all people.
  16. is one which treats all people as having worth in themselves and does not allow you to use anyone as an instrument for promoting the good of others.
  17. All of the above.
  18. None of the above.
  19. Williams (excerpt in Sommers volume) considers utilitarianism a flawed theory because, according to him, it does not take into account integrity. What principle does Williams think is involved in this idea of “integrity,” as he uses it?
  20. People have rights that cannot be compromised.
  21. We have the same moral obligation to Indians as we have to other Americans.
  22. People have a special responsibility for what they themselves do, in contrast to what other people do or what they merely allow to happen.
  23. The way goods and harms are distributed is just as important as the total amount of good and harm that result.
  24. Killing one person is just as bad as killing twenty.

For each of the following, mark A if the claim is factual (empirical) in nature; mark B if the claim is normative (ethical). Consequentialist in black; nonconsequentialist in red.

  1. The U.S. Constitution rightly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
  2. South Africa has provided education for more of its black citizens in the last decade than it did in the three previous decades.
  3. The US Constitution provides more protection for free speech than do the laws of Canada.
  4. Criminals deserve punishment, most people agree.
  5. It would be counterproductive to make laws that prohibit abortion; that is, making laws against abortion would not stop abortions from taking place.
  6. There is a greater gap between the incomes of rich and poor in the United States today than there was 40 years ago.
  7. This is an unfair test.
  8. Murderers are punished for their crimes.
  9. If this is a normal Alaskan winter, it ought to snow over 100 inches.
  10. We should ban pornography if doing so would mean that rape crimes in this country would be reduced by at least 10%.
  11. If we banned large campaign contributions, American policy would be different on issues of gun control, logging in national forests, and support for the claims of Palestinians.
  12. We should ban large campaign contributions in order to promote safer streets, protection of wilderness areas, and justice in the Middle East.
  13. Everyone morally condemns the torture of children.

All of the following are normative claims. Mark A if the reason given is consequentialist in nature, mark B if the reason given is nonconsequentialist, and mark C if it is (according to the course pack) a clearly inappropriate basis for ethical decision-making. (You are not being asked to judge or comment on whether or not an argument is strong in its content, only to classify the reason given.) Nonconsequentialist in RED; consequentialist BLACK; “inappropriate” BLUE

  1. People who commit crimes should be punished because doing so will act as a deterrent, discouraging other potential criminals.
  2. Alcoholics whose behavior causes liver disease should not be given liver transplants because livers are a scarce resource and they won’t do as much good if given to alcoholics as to non-alcoholics.
  3. Racial discrimination is morally wrong because it violates the principles of the Constitution.
  4. We should adopt a policy of not giving liver transplants to alcoholics because that will send a message to other people that they will not be treated with scarce resources for a disease that they themselves caused.
  5. Spouses have a moral obligation not to engage in extramarital sex because doing so creates an atmosphere of deception in marriage.
  6. The United States has a greater moral obligation to help South Africa than Bosnia because it was past American actions that caused many of the problems in South Africa.
  7. In awarding contracts, the U.S. government should give special preference to African-American owned businesses to compensate for a past history of racial discrimination against African-Americans in this country.
  8. We should not fund treatment of liver cancer caused by smoking because people who cause their own disease have no moral claim to publicly-funded treatment.
  9. We have a greater duty to help our parents than to help poor people in Africa because we know that the money we give to our parents will surely help them, whereas when we give to charities, we have no evidence that the money really does any good.
  10. We should not give preferential treatment to members of minority groups who have been discriminated against in the past because doing so will have a negative effect on truly outstanding, successful people who are members of those minorities, making it appear that they succeeded only because they were given special preferences.
  11. Doing a dangerous experiment on an infant is immoral, even if this is the only way to save many other innocent people, because such an act would lead to parents not trusting doctors and not taking their children for medical care when it is needed.
  12. Doctors should not perform abortions because doing so violates the Hippocratic Oath.

Part II. Short Essay (5 points). Please think through each answer first, then print or write legibly in ink in your scantron blue book. Base your answers on reading and class. Keep your answers as short as possible.

Respond to the following characterization of philosophical ethics in no more than one paragraph. If possible point out and comment on the truth of any hidden premises. Be sure to comment on the bolded part.

“It is generally impossible to come to 100% certainty about ethical matters; therefore,ethics is purely subjective and there is no way of saying that any ethical claim is any better or more worth believing than any other ethical claim.”

The premise is true—we cannot reach 100% certainty in ethics—but the bolded conclusion in this statement represents a complete misunderstanding of ethical inquiry. The hidden premise here, which is false, is that “the only way of saying that one ethical claim is better or worthy believing than another ethical claim is by reaching 100% certainty.” This is not true in ethics (and it’s also not true in science). In ethics (and in science), we can use a form of reasoning to show that some claims have better evidence in their favor. In ethics the “evidence” is reasoned argument. [This is all you would need for full credit, and you don’t need to say anything about science.] The best arguments are those that can withstand criticism.

If the quoted statement were correct it would imply the absurd conclusion that all of the claims below are equally worthy of belief and that there is “no way of saying” that any of them is “better” than any other.

  • Whether a person is sentenced to prison after being charged with a crime should depend on whether he or she is guilty.
  • Whether or not a person should be sentenced to prison after being charged with a crime should depend on whether he or she is able to bribe the judge.
  • The only morally just war is one that is necessary to defend a nation’s survival.
  • The only morally just war is one that is against a peaceful country and which has as its primary aim the killing of as many children as possible.
  • Abortion is morally okay whenever the woman chooses.
  • Abortion is morally permissible (okay) only when the woman’s life is in danger.
  • Abortion is morally wrong only when it would save the mother’s life.
  • Abortion is morally permissible only when the mother has blonde hair.
  • Abortion is morally okay only when both parents wantthe child to live and the fetus appears to be perfectly healthy.
  • Abortion is always morally permissible and abortion is never morally permissible. [If reasoning has no place in ethics, then the fact that this claim contradicts itself would not matter, which of course is absurd.]

This question gets to “the most important point in the course.” For further elaboration on the issues raised, listen to the 22-minute lecture, “reasoning in ethics” on Ctools, Resources, February 11.