PHIL 3100 -- Ethical Theory
Fall 2018
Prof. Chris Heathwood
T.A. Julia Uhr
University of Colorado Boulder

 

Study Guide for Final Exam

 

The final exam will come in two parts and will take place over two class periods.  Part 1 will consist of very-short-answer questions (e.g., multiple choice, true/false).  Part 2 will consist of short-answer questions (questions that can usually be answered in a sentence to a paragraph).  Those will be similar to the sorts of questions below.  Both parts are in-class, closed-note, and closed-reading exams.  For Part 2, you will need to bring a bluebook.

Part 1 will take place in class during the last week of classes.  Part 2 will take place during our allotted Final Exam period.  See syllabus for specifics.

For both parts of the final exam, you are responsible for all the topics and all of the readings that we have done since the midterm.  To get a reminder of all of the topics and readings that we have covered, look at the course schedule on the syllabus.  The exam will emphasize more what we did in class than what was discussed in some reading but not discussed in class.

To prepare for the exam, re-read any readings that you found challenging, study your reading notes, including your answers to reading questions, study your class 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.

Let me emphasize the importance of actually writing out answers to these questions.  We often think we understand something -- until we try to put it in writing.  Only then do we realize we don't really understand it.  If you don't write out your answers, you won't know what you don't know.

Another excellent way to prepare for the final exam is to supplement your individual work on the material with group study.  Try to arrange a study group with one or more of your classmates.

 

Study Questions

 

Introduction to the Normative Ethics of Behavior

  1. What is the fundamental project of the normative ethics of behavior?
  2. What is the difference between a mere moral principle and a full-blown moral theory?
  3. Carefully state a sample theory in the normative ethics of behavior that is based on a popular ethical precept.  It could be based on the golden rule, the platinum rule, the Ten Commandments, something else ... .
  4. Present a clear and convincing counterexample to this theory.

Utilitarianism

  1. (a) Carefully state act utilitarianism of a hedonistic sort (AUh).  Be sure to define all the technical terms.
    (b) Illustrate AUh by explaining how it implies these two things: that it would have been wrong for my doctor to give me my 2004 appendectomy without anesthesia, but it would not have been wrong for a doctor in the 1800s, before the invention of anesthesia, to give their patient an appendectomy without anesthesia.  In doing so, you may find it useful to make charts listing alternatives and hedonic utilities.
  2. State a defective formulation of act utilitarianism and explain why it is defective.
  3. Explain the Promise-to-the-Dead-Man objection to AUh.  Doing so will require telling the story behind the objection, and presenting the relevant line-by-line argument.  Also give the rationales for both premises.  (In devising line-by-line formulations of this argument and the arguments below, you might find page 18 from this set of slides helpful.)
  4. Explain the Footbridge objection to AUh.  Doing so will require telling the story behind the objection, and presenting the relevant line-by-line argument.  Also give the rationales for both premises.
  5. Explain the Punish-the-Innocent objection to AUh.  Doing so will require telling the story behind the objection, and presenting the relevant line-by-line argument.  Also give the rationales for both premises.
  6. Explain the Demandingness objection to AUh using the case of the cabinetmaker.  Doing so will require telling the story behind the objection, and presenting the relevant line-by-line argument.  Also give the rationales for both premises.

Rights Theory

  1. Explain the difference between a negative right and a positive right.  Give a possible example of each.
  2. (a) State and explain the Utilitarianism of Rights theory (UR), one that includes only negative rights.
    (b) Apply this theory to Footbridge and explain how it gets the desired result.
    (c) What does UR say is the right thing to do in the Punish-the-Innocent case, and why?
    (d) Is UR unreasonably demanding?  Discuss.
  3. (a) State and explain our Nozick-inspired Rights Theory (NRT).  What doctrine on the topic of who has rights does this theory endorse?  Explain this doctrine in detail.  What rights does this theory recognize?
    (b) What does NRT say is the right thing to do in the Punish-the-Innocent case, and why?
    (c) What does NRT say is the right thing to do in the Promise-to-the-Dead-Man case, and why?
    (d) Is NRT unreasonably demanding?  Explain.
    (e) Is NRT unreasonably undemanding?  Explain the Underdemandingness objection to NRT using the case of Singer's shallow pond.  Doing so will require telling the story behind the objection, and presenting the relevant line-by-line argument.  Also give the rationales for both premises.
    (f) Adding positive rights to NRT appears to solve the underdemandingness problem.  Explain how.  But it creates a serious problem in a case like Footbridge.  Explain that problem.

Ross's Theory of Prima Facie Duties

  1. Define 'prima facie duty' and 'prima facie wrong'.  Illustrate the ideas by means of examples of your own invention.
  2. (a) Present Ross's list of seven basic prima facie duties.  For each duty, say in a sentence what the duty is.
    (b) It seems prima facie wrong to humiliate someone.  How would Ross explain this (and in particular which of his prima facie duties would he appeal to)?
    (c) Adultery -- including adultery that isn't discovered -- seems morally objectionable.  How would Ross derive this result?
    (d) One argument in favor of paying reparations for slavery to present-day African Americans appeals to the premise that present-day African Americans are worse off today as a consequence of past policies of the U.S. government.  What Rossian prima facie duty could one appeal to, in conjunction with this premise, to derive the result that slave reparations are prima facie required.  How would this derivation go?
    (e) How does Ross derive the prima facie duty to tell the truth?
  3. (a) State Rossian Pluralism (RP).  Explain the basic idea of the theory in your own words.
    (b) Illustrate the theory with the promise/accident example.
  4. 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?  Explain.
    (b) What does AUh imply that the agent should do in this case?  Explain.
  5. In class we laid out an argument against Ross' theory that contained this premise: If we all successfully follow Rossian Pluralism, we'll be less happy as a whole than if we all successfully follow Utilitarianism.  Give a thorough and detailed rationale for this premise.