Study Guide for Exam #2
To study for Exam #2, write out answers the following questions. Be sure to
answer the questions completely -- don't assume that the reader knows anything
about the topic; don't assume that the reader already knows the details of the
stories that are used in the arguments. Answer these questions so that a friend
of yours -- who knows nothing about philosophical ethics -- would go away knowing
the answers to these questions. Also, be very precise about the words you choose.
After you write down each sentence, read it over and be sure it means exactly
what you want it to mean.
1. (a) State our formulation of utilitarianism (AUh). Be sure to
explain the meaning of the technical terms in the theory. Explain the main idea
of the theory in your own words.
(b) We have seen several defective formulations of utilitarianism,
such as MU (Mill's Utilitarianism), GHP (the Greatest Happiness Principle),
AUx, and AUm (see Handout 7). Pick one of these defective formulations.
Prove that it is not equivalent to AUh. (To do this, you need to come
up with a concrete case -- one that lists several alternatives and their consequences.
Then you need to show that AUh and the defective theory disagree about the moral
status of one of these alternatives.)
(c) Why is AUh a better formulation of utilitarianism than
the defective formulation that you chose?
2. (a) What question is a theory
of value supposed to answer? What question is a theory of welfare supposed
to answer?
(b) What does axiology have to do with the question of whether
God exists? Explain your answer in detail.
(c) Explain the difference between intrinsic value and instrumental
value. Name something that is often thought to be intrinsically good.
Name something that is usually thought to be merely instrumentally good.
Is a theory of welfare supposed to tell us what things are intrinsically good
for people or what things are instrumentally good for people?
3. (a) State Welfare Hedonism.
What computation do you need to perform in order to determine the total amount
of welfare in a person’s life, according to Welfare Hedonism?
(b) Present, Explain, and Evaluate an argument against Welfare
Hedonism (either The Matrix Argument or Kagan’s Deceived Businessman
Argument (p. 157-158)).
4. (a) Does AUh imply that we are always obligated to calculate the utilities
of each of our alternatives before acting? Explain your answer.
(b) Present, Explain, and Evaluate an argument against AUh having to do with
promises (either the Promise-to-the-Dead-Man Argument or Ross's Argument from
Promises).
5. (a) Present, Explain, and Evaluate the Organ Harvest Objection against AUh.
(b) Describe a trolley case that is analogous to the organ
harvest case. Many people think that it is ok to sacrifice the one in
order to save the five in the trolley case, but not in the organ harvest case.
Do you agree? If so, what do you think accounts for the moral difference
in the cases? If not, why do you think people are inclined to think it
is wrong to save the five in the organ harvest case?
6. (a) State the Kantian principle "Respect for Humanity."
Given this principle, what do you think Kant would say about the Organ Harvest
case? Why? What about the Trolley case?
(b) Explain the
Kantian idea of “universalizability,” and its relation to moral
rightness. Describe a case in which Kant’s view seems to yield a
more plausible result than AUh.
(c) Under what conditions can a utilitarian think punishment
is justied? Under what conditions does a Kantian think punishment is justified?
Which view about punishment do you think is more plausible, and why?
Parts of the reading you don't need to know for the exam:
Mill's Proof (pp. 114-119)
The preference theory of welfare (pp. 159-164)
The Total View (pp. 164-171)
Culpability, Fairness, and Desert (pp. 177-182)