PHIL 1100 – Ethics (honors)
Fall 2021
Prof. Chris Heathwood
University of Colorado Boulder

Study Guide for Exam 3

For Exam 3, you are responsible for two main topics:

• Rossian Pluralism, including
• The Concept of a Prima Facie Duty
• Ross's List of Prima Facie Duties.
• Rossian Pluralism (RP)
• Ross's Argument from Promises against AU
• Is Deontology Irrational?
• Slave Reparations, including
  
• Robinson's Thesis
• Robinson's Main Argument
• the rationale for the key premise
• Horowitz's objections
  

To prepare for the exam, re-read any readings that 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, so that you will know what questions you need to ask during the review session.

Study Questions

Rossian Pluralism

1. Define 'prima facie duty'.  Illustrate the idea by means of an example of your own invention.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. Present Ross's list of seven basic prima facie duties.  For each duty, say in a sentence what the duty is.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. State Rossian Pluralism (RP).  Illustrate the theory by applying it to an example of your own invention.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. Recall the claims we called Absolute Fidelity and Moderate Fidelity.
   
   (a) Give a good counterexample to Absolute Fidelity that doesn't refute Moderate Fidelity, and explain why it doesn't.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   (b) Now present the best counterexample that you can think of to Moderate Fidelity and explain whether you think it ultimately refutes it and why. 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. Consider this case: "Suppose that the fulfilment of a promise to A would produce 1,000 units of good for him, but that by doing some other act I could produce 1,001 units of good for B, to whom I have made no promise, the other consequences of the two acts being of equal value" (Ross, p. 34).
   
   (a) What does Rossian Pluralism imply that the agent in this case should do – keep the promise to A or break it so as to produce more total benefit?
   
   
   
   (b) Why?  Thoroughly explain everything that is at issue in the agent's decision here.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   (c) What does Act Utilitarianism imply that the agent in this case should do – keep the promise to A or break it so as to produce more total benefit?
   
   
   
   (d) Who is right (Ross or the utilitarian) and why?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Slave Reparations
   
   
   1. What is Robinson's Thesis as we formulated it in class?
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   2. What is the main moral principle that is at work in Robinson's Argument for Slave Reparations, as we formulated it in class?
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   3. What moral principle that we had earlier studied in our course does this principle most resemble?
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   4. Explain the initial puzzle for applying this principle to slave reparations.  That is, why might it initially seem unlikely that this principle could be used to support a pro-slave-reparations position.  (There are two aspects to the puzzle.)
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   5. What is the second premise in Robinson's Argument for Slave Reparations, as we formulated it in class?
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   6. Explain the rationale for that premise.
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   7. Describe in detail the analogy that we presented in class that is supposed to help explain how Robinson's view could be true.
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   8. Pick one of Horowitz's objections that you think Robinson has a good response, explain the objection, and then explain the response Robinson could give. 
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   9. Is Robinson's argument sound?  If not, explain why it fails?  If yes, come up with the best objection that you can to it and then explain why that objection fails.