PHIL 1100 - Ethics
Study Guide for Exam #3
For Exam #3, you are responsible for four main topics:
You are responsible for seven readings:
The first part of the exam will contain multiple-choice/true-false/very-short-answer questions. The second part of the exam will contain short-answer questions similar to the Study Questions below.
To prepare for the exam, re-read any readings you found challenging, study your notes, study the lecture slides, and, most importantly, write out your answers to the questions below, as if it were the exam. Do this before the review session in lecture, so that you will know what questions you need to ask.
Some questions below ask you to Present, Explain, and Evaluate some argument. Review the 'How to PEE' document on the website to be sure you know exactly what these questions are asking you to do.
(a) State the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE).
(b) Explain the cases Magistrate and Driver. Illustrate the DDE by showing how it is supposed to explain why it's wrong for the magistrate, but right for the driver, to kill one so as to save five.
(c) State the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing (DDA). (You can state it either as Foot does or in the other way we did it in class.)
(d) Illustrate the DDA by showing how it is supposed to explain why it's wrong for the magistrate, but right for the driver, to kill one so as to save five.
(e) Explain the cases Switch and Footbridge. Then state "the Trolley Problem."
(f) Explain why the DDA apparently cannot solve the Trolley Problem.
(g) Be prepared to discuss a possible solution to the Trolley Problem.
(This involves being prepared to explain the possible solution, explain whether in your opinion it succeeds or fails, and why.)
(a) Present, in line-by-line format, Norcross' Argument for Vegetarianism.
(b) According to one objection to Norcross' Argument, purchasing and consuming factory-raised meat is not morally on a par with Fred's behavior because whereas Fred directly harms his puppies, purchasers of factor-raised meat do not directly harm the farm animals. Describe a variant of the Fred case that suggests that this objection fails, and explain why it suggests this.
(c) Be prepared to give your own evaluation of Norcross' argument. If you think it is unsound, be prepared to present your objection to it. If you think it is sound, be prepared to defend it against an objection of your choosing.
(d) Present the Ben Franklin Argument for the permissibility of eating fish. (No need to give rationales for the premises.)
(e) Present an objection to the Ben Franklin argument.
(a) Present and explain Marquis' main argument. This will require identifying his main thesis, explaining what is meant by 'prima facie', identifying his theory of the wrongness of killing, and explaining how that works (including explaining what is meant by 'future like ours').
(b) Why, according to Marquis' theory of the wrongness of killing, would it be wrong for me to kill you?
(c) (i) Explain the "Failure to Conceive" Objection to Marquis' argument against abortion. (ii) Explain why it fails.
(d) What is Paske's personhood account of the wrongness of killing? Be sure to explain what is meant by 'person' (you can use our definition from class, if you like), and to give helpful examples of persons and non-persons.
(e) Why, according to Paske's theory of the wrongness of killing, would it be wrong for me to kill you?
(f) What does Paske's personhood account of the wrongness of killing imply about abortion, and why?
(g) Present, Explain, and Evaluate Paske's "Cat Person" Argument Against Marquis' FLO Theory.
(a) (i) Present and Explain the Standard Anti-Abortion Argument as we formulated it in lecture. (ii) Which premise of this argument do most defenders of abortion try to attack? (iii) Which premise does Thomson call into question? (iv) How does she call it into question?
(b) Present Thomson’s Positive Argument for the permissibility of abortion.
(c) (i) According to the Responsibility Objection to Thomson’s Positive Argument, what is the morally relevant difference between a typical unwanted pregnancy and Famous Violinist that is supposed to undermine P2. (ii) Present a case that suggests that this difference is indeed a morally relevant difference. (iii) Evaluate this objection to Thomson’s argument.
(d) Be prepared to give your own evaluation of Thomson’s Positive Argument. If you think it is unsound, be prepared to present your objection to it. If you think it is sound, be prepared to defend it against an objection of your choosing.