Possible Exam Questions for Ethics Midterm

The exam will be on Wednesday, October 22. You will be asked to answer about 6 of the following questions rather briefly (half a page). You will be able to consult any of the course texts or handouts, but not your notes. Your answers, though, should be in your own words, using only brief quotations from the texts, if any.

1. 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?

2. 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?

3. How does Mill try to “prove” the principle of utility? How successful do you think his proof is?

4. What does it mean to call an imperative “categorical”? Do you agree that moral rules are categorical?

5. 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.

6. 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?

7. 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?

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

9. What, in your opinion, is the most serious or important objection to capital punishment? How might a defender of capital punishment reply to this objection?

10. Some critics of the death penalty emphasize the fact that it is more likely to be imposed on poor people or members of racial minorities. Defenders of the death penalty (like Primoratz and van den Haag) argue that this fact is irrelevant. How so? What do you think?

11. How does a utilitarian approach to the question of whether (and how much) we should help to feed the hungry differ from a Kantian approach to that question?

12. 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.

13. 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?

14. How does van Wyk think we should take history into account when we think about our obligations to the hungry? Is he right?

15. How (i.e., by what argument) would a libertarian like Hospers try to show that affluent people have no obligation to help poor people meet their basic needs? What do you think of this argument?

16. Why does Trudy Govier think that a “permissive” (unconditional) welfare policy is more just than a “Puritan” (conditional) policy? Is she right?

17. Why does Rawls think that we should imagine that people are choosing principles of justice behind a ‘veil of ignorance’? Do you think he is right to argue that a decision made ‘behind the veil’ is more fair than one made with full knowledge?

18. Why does Rawls think that people in the ‘original position’ would choose his two principles of justice instead of libertarian principles? What do you think of these principles?