Reference no: EM133380628
Questions
1. Ethical relativism is the idea that
different people have different ideas of right and wrong
different cultures get to make up their own moral rules, and so there are no moral facts that hold for everyone
while cultures often disagree about moral issues, there is nevertheless a set of moral facts that hold for everyone
we ought to be ethical to our relatives
2. If ethical relativism is true, then
it often makes sense to criticize one's own culture
when cultures disagree, there is some objective standard about which they are really disagreeing
your relatives may sue you if you fail to be ethical to them
even rape and mass killings may be right, if they are part of your culture's moral code
3. Cultures sometimes disagree about morality. James Rachels infers that
Some cultures are crazy, while other cultures are sane
ethical relativism is true
disagreement proves nothing, since people disagree about clearly factual matters all the time
morality doesn't really exist, but is an outdated superstition of our anscestors that we should probably abandon
4. Some Nigerian tribes practice twin infanticide--killing one of two newborn twins--although this practice would be condemned in most Western societies. Velasquez (your textbook author) suggests that
the difference between these societies have more to do with their different circumstances than it does with any fundamental moral disagreements
the difference between these societies is evidence that they share very little moral ground
these Nigerian tribes are clearly morally backwards and should be condemned
we could learn from these Nigerian tribes, and we should probably practice twin infanticide ourselves
5. Ethical relativism and (scriptural) divine command theory are similar in that
they both assert that there is something above God that is making up the moral rules
they both assert that, when we make moral judgments, we appeal to a set of universal moral reasons
they both assume that some being, person, or group of people can make up the moral facts
they both ultimately ground morality in the notion of human happiness
6. If (scriptural) divine command theory is true, then
anything that is right is right because God commands it
God commands what is right because it is right
when God commands something, he does so on the basis of a good moral reason
all of the above
7. Suppose you reject both ethical relativism and divine command theory for the reasons associated with the Euthyphro question. Then, you should probably conclude that
God can sometimes get it wrong, and the Bible is not a reliable moral guide
nobody should be the boss of you, and you should be able to make up your own moral rules for yourself
there is something greater than both God and culture that makes up the moral rules--a kind of "super God" that legislates morality
no one makes up the moral facts
8. Ethical egoism is the idea that
people are by nature self-interested
people always ought to be self-interested
ethics requires that one suppress the influence of one's own ego
ethics lies in how the ego manages the war between one's id and superego
9. Suppose it is true that people always do what they want. James Rachels says we should conclude that
people still might not be selfish, if what they want is others' happiness
people are selfish, since they are exclusively attending their own desires
people are enslaved to their desires, when enlightenment requires abandoning desire altogether
people are hopelessly immature, since it's a fact that you can't always get what you want
10. The classical utilitarians Bentham and Mill both believed that while many things are instrumentally good, only pleasure is intrinsically good. This shows that they were both
hedonists
egoists
deontologists
narcissists
11. Bentham and Mill disagreed about how to measure happiness, in that
Bentham claimed that the duration of the pleasure does not matter, while Mill thought it does matter
Bentham denied that we should worry about whether a lower pleasure brings about a later pain, while Mill thought later pains need to be taken into account
Bentham denied that it was possible to enjoy higher pleasures, such as listening to a symphony, while Mill thought such pleasures are possible
Bentham thought that we should be worried simply with the amount of pleasure people have, while Mill was also worried about the quality of the pleasure
12. Whereas act utilitarianism requires performing the act that will bring the greatest happiness for everyone, rule
following the general rules of one's society
following act utilitarianism as a general rule, but being an egoist or a deontologist on certain occasions
following rules which, if followed generally, would tend to make the world a happier place in the long run
following rules which always makes people better off in every instance
13. If you're an act utilitarian, you think that killing is
always wrong, since it always makes the victim worse off
sometimes right, if you're in a particular situation when more happiness can be produced as a result
neither right nor wrong, since a corpse can feel neither pleasure nor pain
always wrong, since it violates an inviolable right to life
14. Probably the most important objection to act utilitarianism is that
it allows us to exploit a minority of people in order to bring about the majority's happiness
it allows for a conflict of rules, without any way of resolving the conflict
it requires us to slavishly honor people's rights, when rights are so frequently an impediment to human happiness
it often requires us to be selfish and to ignore the well-being of everyone else
15. Natural law ethics has traditionally been related to religion in that
just as natural law ethics says that our moral behavior is determined by natural law, so religion says that God predestines our behavior from the beginning of time
natural law ethics says we should follow nature's cues to see what we ought to do, which matches the religious claim that God has designed nature for a purpose
since some religions state that God is the very same thing as nature, natural law ethics is identical to scriptural divine command theory
There really is no reason. The traditional association between these two ideas is a strange accident of history.
16. How might utilitarianism and (traditional) natural law theory treat the topic of suicide?
Sometimes suicide can ease the person's pain, and at those times, the person would have a natural inclination to kill himself. So, both utilitarianism and natural law ethics endorse it.
Since suicide always causes great pain, and since it violates a natural human good, both utilitarianism and natural law ethics would always forbid it.
Utilitarianism might condone suicide on those very rare occasions when it actually makes people in general (the victim, his loved ones, etc.) better off, but it violates a natural human good, so natural law ethics would forbid it.
Neither theory has anything to say on the topic.
17. Kant held that the thing with the most value in the universe (from a moral perspective) is
peace on earth and the brotherhood of man
human happiness
a natural inclination to do nice things, and the pleasure that comes with it
a good will, which does duty for the sake of duty itself
18. Suppose that I am considering lying in a specific situation to get ahead in life. Using the "universalizability" version of the categorical imperative, Kant might say that
it is okay to lie, since most everyone has an inclination to lie in situations like this
it would be clearly wrong to lie, since a world where everyone always lied would also be a world where there would never be any point to lying
since it is not the case that everyone always lies, nor is it the case that everyone always tells the truth, lying in this case is neither right nor wrong
we should consult the directors at Universal Studios and follow their opinion
19. Suppose senators in Party X, currently in the majority, decide to rewrite senate rules in order to give the majority party more power. A Kantian might respond by saying,
"Since it makes you better off, I certainly can't blame you!"
"So long as the new rules make everything run smoothly, I have no objection."
"You wouldn't like it if Party Y played the same stunt, if Party Y were in the majority. So, you had better not do this."
"Since the new rules are likely to upset the members of Party Y, you really should not rewrite them."
20. One implication of Kant's second version of the categorical imperative is that
people have rights that can't be violated, even if doing so will make people in general better off
civilization is evil, since it always involves using people--e.g., using taxi drivers to get you to the airport, or using mechanics to fix your car, etc.
we can't use people, unless doing so would bring about a very important goal
wicked people tend to face a mean end
21. One typical objection raised against Kantian ethics is that
it allows for the exploitation of a minority group in order to preserve the happiness of the majority
it allows for a conflict of duties, with no obvious way to resolve the conflict
it says that our duties always change, depending upon the situation you're in
it requires us to consider the consequences of our actions, when sometimes it is hard to predict what those will be
22. The primary goal of Buddhist ethics is to
bring about peace on earth and the brotherhood of man
do one's duty for the sake of duty alone
improve the lives of the people around you
eliminate suffering through eliminating desires
23. The content of Buddhist ethics involves
a set of absolute rules
a structure of rights to be honored
general guidelines for behavior, that are treated as mere means to a deeper goal
a set of religious rituals that must be performed for fear of punishment in one's next life
24. Which of the following have been given as reasons to be moral?
To please God
To benefit oneself
To secure the benefits of society
All of the above