Possible Exam Questions for Ethics Midterm
The
exam will be on Wednesday, Oct. 25. You
will be asked to answer several of the following questions rather briefly (half
a page); others will be presented as multiple choice questions. 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? Which approach is better?
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? Which approach is better?
12. Explain and assess Peter
Singer’s argument for the claim that people in affluent countries like the
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?