Reference no: EM132895265 , Length: word count: 1000

Question 1: Most people have opposite intuitive reactions to the two versions of the Trolley Problem (turning to a side track and pushing the fat pedestrian to block the trolley). Should we think about both cases the same way? Why or why not?

Question 2: A principle of non-interference (such as Star Trek's "Prime Directive") is a common feature of science fiction stories involving contact with alien cultures. However, it is very hard to follow a principle of non-interference, especially when one (human or alien) group is clearly damaging the interests of others. Do you think that a principle of non-interference should be absolute, without any exceptions? If not, what kinds of criteria or considerations should guide when to interfere? How would you respond to a challenge that your criteria are merely your own cultural biases?

Question 3: Imagine that you have discovered a Ring of Gyges, or Harry Potter's invisibility cloak. Now apply either Existentialism or Virtue theory. If nobody would know that you were the person who did something, what sorts of things would you likely choose to do? What do you think you SHOULD do? Why?

Question 4: Consider the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental goods. What (if anything) do you think is intrinsically valuable? Explain why.

Question 5: Existentialism declares that we have radical freedom; evolutionary theory claims that various behaviors are wired into our DNA, and other theories note how we are shaped by cultural norms. Using what we have read and discussed so far - and NOT getting into the complicated metaphysics of free will and determinism (whew!) - how much freedom of choice do you think we humans actually have? Put another way, which of the theoretical accounts of freedom/choosing that we have studied makes the most sense to you? Why?

Question 6: Some ethical theories involve a vision of persons or selves as isolated, distinct and non-overlapping. Other theories depict us as inherently interconnected, so that our "self" is partly formed by our relationships, community, environment, or other features in which we are embedded. Which version of "self" makes more sense to you? Why? What are the implications of this conclusion for you when you do ethics?

Question 7: Hobbes and Locke give different accounts of the state of nature, which lead to different ethical conclusions. Which author do you think offers the better account? Explain why.

Question 8: Assess the list of rights granted in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in our slide set). Is this list reasonable and/or realistic? How does the distinction between positive and negative rights affect your assessment? Is there anything you would add? Are there any identified rights that you think are not justified?

Question 9: Do you think that (at least some) non-humans should be granted rights like those in the UN Declaration of Human Rights? If so, what kinds of rights might apply to what kinds of creatures? If not, why not? Focus on ETHICAL rights claims, not legal rights.

Question 10: Compare the notion of ethical detachment as described in Buddhism &/or Hinduism with Existentialism's insistence on authenticity and actively embracing our freedom. Do you think these ideas are completely incompatible, or are there some overlapping insights?