Possible Exam Questions for Ethical Inquiry Mid term

Note: I will choose several questions from this list to be answered quite briefly and one or two questions to be answered at greater length.

1. Clearly there can be important differences between the ethical beliefs that prevail in one culture and those that prevail in some other cultures. What might one say, if one wanted to acknowledge this fact without accepting the doctrine of cultural relativism?

2. I have tried to suggest that ethics is not as shot through with controversy and indeterminacy as is often claimed. What do you think?

3. Why does James Rachels think that subjectivism is unacceptable as a theory of ethics?

4. What is the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism?

5. What is the best argument against ethical egoism, according to James Rachels? Do you think it’s a good argument?

6. How does J. S. Mill try to justify his view that some pleasures are qualitatively better than others? What do you think of this view?

7. How does Mill answer the objection that utilitarianism is impractical, because we don’t have time to calculate the effect of our actions on the general happiness? Does his answer succeed in rebutting the objection?

8. According to some utilitarians, the only ultimately good thing is happiness, and happiness is a state of mind. What are some criticisms that have been leveled against this view? What do you think about it?

9. What is the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism?

10. What do you think is the most important criticism that can be made of utilitarianism? Do you think there is any way to save the theory, or does this criticism show that it is no good? (Explain.)

11. What is the difference between a ‘hypothetical imperative’ and a ‘categorical imperative’, as Kant uses these terms?

12. According to Kant there is only one Categorical Imperative (though it can be formulated in several different ways). In plain English, explain the meaning of the so-called “universal law formulation” of the Categorical Imperative.

13. How can the Categorical Imperative be used as a test for whether an action is morally right? (What steps should one go through to apply this test?) Do you think this is a good way to determine if an action is right or wrong?

14. What does Kant mean by saying that we should regard persons as “ends-in-themselves” and not merely as means? What do you think of this idea?

15. What problem is raised for Kant’s theory by the apparent fact that we sometimes face conflicting obligations?

16. What reasons might a utilitarian have for opposing the legalization of euthanasia?

17. Why, according to Rachels, do utilitarians generally support the practice of euthanasia?

18. Explain and assess Peter Singer’s argument for the claim that people in affluent countries like the US should be doing a lot more to help feed the world’s hungry people.

19. Why does Garret Hardin think it would be a bad idea to try to feed the world’s hungry people? What do you think of his case?

20. How does a Kantian approach to the question of whether or not we ought to feed the hungry differ from a utilitarian approach?

21. Briefly, what is the retributive theory of punishment? What do you think about this theory?

22. How does a utilitarian approach to the problem of capital punishment differ from a Kantian approach?

23. Hugo Adam Bedau says, “the lesson taught by capital punishment is not what its retributivist defenders infer from their theory. Far from being a symbol of justice, it is a symbol of brutality and stupidity.” What reasons does he give for this view?

24. How does Ernest van den Haag try to rebut the claim that we should abolish capital punishment because it is not being applied fairly (to use his terminology, it is “maldistrbuted”)?

25. Anthony Amsterdam presents evidence to show that the death penalty is applied in a racially discriminatory way. What conclusion does he think we should draw from this fact? Why does he think the Supreme Court was wrong to say that this evidence was irrelevant in the McClesky case?