PHIL 2306 Quiz #1

Rachels offers the following explanation of what it can mean to use someone merely as a mean: A) in typical cases, it involves violating their autonomy through manipulation, trickery, deceit, or coercion; B) when we cannot violate someone's autonomy in such a way (because she has no autonomy), it may involve violating someone's interests or preferences; C) A) and/or B); D) none of the above.

A) and/or B): - in typical cases, it involves violating their autonomy through manipulation, trickery, deceit, or coercion; - when we cannot violate someone's autonomy in such a way (because she has no autonomy), it may involve violating someone's interests or preferences;

According to Rachels, killing may be justified if A) someone has no future because she is going to die soon anyway; B) someone is not conscious and cannot gain or regain consciousness; C) killing him or her would save others; D) A, B. and C taken together; E) none of the above.

A, B, and C take together: - someone has no future because she is going to die soon anyway; - someone is not conscious and cannot gain or regain consciousness; - killing him or her would save others;

Autonomy can be defined as ability to decide for oneself how to live one's own life, in accordance with one's own values and desires (see, Rachels p. 3). Stefan argued in class that autonomy includes several features, including a) ability to understand future including various possible courses of action and what they lead to; b) ability to compare those different courses of action; c) ability to choose one in accordance with one's own values; d) all of the above; e) none of the above

All of the above: - ability to understand future including various possible courses of action and what they lead to; - ability to compare those different courses of action; - ability to choose one in accordance with one's own values;

Suppose that, indeed, everyone should be given exactly the same rights as everyone else. It would follow that: A) because some people have a right to vote, my 6 year old granddaughter should have a right to vote; B) because some people have a right to drink, my 15 year old granddaughter should have a right to drink; C) because some people have a right to drive, a blind person should have a right to drive; D) all of the above; E) none of the above

All of the above: - because some people have a right to vote, my 6 year old granddaughter should have a right to vote; - because some people have a right to drink, my 15 year old granddaughter should have a right to drink; - because some people have a right to drive, a blind person should have a right to drive;

The following are slippery slope arguments: A) even if smoking weed is OK, in a long run it may lead to using other drugs, which is morally terrible; B) even if gay people unions are innocuous, they may undermine the sanctity of marriage and, in a long run, such unions may undermine the social order; C) even if killing Baby Latimer seems permissible, it may undermine the rule prohibiting killing and cheapen human life and in a long run it may lead to killing many people; D) all of the above; E) none of the above.

All of the above: - even if smoking weed is OK, in a long run it may lead to using other drugs, which is morally terrible; - even if gay people unions are innocuous, they may undermine the sanctity of marriage and, in a long run, such unions may undermine the social order; - even if killing Baby Latimer seems permissible, it may undermine the rule prohibiting killing and cheapen human life and in a long run it may lead to killing many people;

Stefan argued in class that the following may count as exceptions to the moral requirement prohibiting killing: A) it is an act of necessary self-defense; B) it is an act of defending others who are in danger; C) it is an act of just war; D) all of the above; E) none of the above.

All of the above: - it is an act of necessary self-defense; - it is an act of defending others who are in danger; - it is an act of just war;

This argument assumes that if we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, we ought to do so. Stefan offered in class the following criticisms of this assumption: A) it is a garbled statement of consequentialism because it does not tell us what to do when out action harms someone; so, careful consequentialists might reject this assumption; B) it is a garbled statement of consequentialism because, when each of two or more actions benefits someone (to various degrees) and neither harms anyone, it requires performing each of these actions; so, again, consequentialists might reject this assumption; C) this principle may be false because morality may be a matter of treating everyone with respect, and not using anyone merely as a means, rather than a matter of bringing about good consequences; so, non-consequentialists might reject this assumption; D) all of the above; E) none of the above.

All of the above: - it is a garbled statement of consequentialism because it does not tell us what to do when out action harms someone; so, careful consequentialists might reject this assumption; - it is a garbled statement of consequentialism because, when each of two or more actions benefits someone (to various degrees) and neither harms anyone, it requires performing each of these actions; so, again, consequentialists might reject this assumption; - this principle may be false because morality may be a matter of treating everyone with respect, and not using anyone merely as a means, rather than a matter of bringing about good consequences; so, non-consequentialists might reject this assumption;

Following Rachels, Stefan argued in class that A) we must base our ethical views simply on our feelings; B) we must not base our ethical views simply on feelings because our feelings may be unreliable and irrational; C) we must not base our ethical views simply on feelings because various people have different feelings about the same issues; D) B) and C); E) none of the above.

B) and C): - we must not base our ethical views simply on feelings because our feelings may be unreliable and irrational; - we must not base our ethical views simply on feelings because various people have different feelings about the same issues;

According to Rachels, the following views violate the Principle of Impartiality: A) racism; B) sexism; C) Both A) and B); D) none of the above.

Both A) and B): - racism; - sexism;

Rachels assumes that Baby Theresa would not be harmed because A) she cannot feel anything so, in particular, we cannot cause her any suffering; B) she does not have any interests or preferences; so we cannot thwart her interests and preferences; C) both A) and B); D) none of the above.

Both A) and B): - she cannot feel anything so, in particular, we cannot cause her any suffering; - she does not have any interests or preferences; so we cannot thwart her interests and preferences;

Following Rachels, Stefan argued that A) Slippery slope arguments are always sound; they prove their conclusions; B) Slippery slope arguments are sound when they merely claim that it is inevitable that certain moral rules will be undermined; C) It is not enough to claim that some action may undermine moral rules and society; rather, it is necessary to provide good evidence that those bad results would occur; D) none of the above.

It is not enough to claim that some action may undermine moral rules and society; rather, it is necessary to provide good evidence that those bad results would occur;

Theories assuming that morality is the matter of bringing about desirable results (bringing about benefits and avoiding harms) are versions of A) consequentialism; B) deontology; C) both A) and B); D) none of the above.

consequentialism;

Theories assuming that morality is a matter of fulfilling one's duty are versions of A) consequentialism; B) deontology; C) both A) and B); D) none of the above.

deontology;

Rachels argues that impartiality requires of us to assume what follows: A) each individual's interests are equally important; no one should get special treatment; B) the same ethical principles and rules are applicable across the board, to all similarly situated individuals; no one is above or below of morality; C) neither A) nor B).

each individual's interests are equally important; no one should get special treatment;

According to Rachels, the rule prohibiting killing A) is absolute, that is, it admits to no exceptions; B) is not absolute; that is, it admits to some exceptions; C) neither A) nor B).

is not absolute; that is, it admits to some exceptions;

In class, Stefan argued that Roman Catholic views about killing are best understood as being based on the following principle: A) it is absolutely wrong to kill an innocent person; B) it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent person; C) we always have to act in a way that brings about the best balance of benefits and harms; D) All of the above; E) None of the above.

it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent person;

In the example of Tracy Latimer (Sec 1.4), the president of the Saskatoon Voice of People with Disabilities argued as follows: A) it is absolutely wrong to intentionally kill an innocent person; B) it is absolutely wrong to treat a person merely as a means to save this person suffering; C) it was wrong to kill her because handicapped people should be treated equally, i.e., they should be given the same rights as everyone else; D) none of the above.

it was wrong to kill her because handicapped people should be treated equally, i.e., they should be given the same rights as everyone else;

In class Stefan argued that the traditional Christian ethics can be best understood as prohibiting a) all cases of killing (including when killing is accidental or unintended); b) murder; c) both a) and b); d) all of the above.

murder

Stef argued in class that A) all cases of killing are acts of murder; B) murder is wrongful killing; so, since some cases of killing are not wrong, they do not count as acts of murder; C) A) and B; D) none of the above.

murder is wrongful killing; so, since some cases of killing are not wrong, they do not count as acts of murder;

Stefan offered an interpretation of the court's reasoning based on the assumption that A) neither of the twins would be killed; B) neither of the twins would be killed intentionally; C) both of the twins would be saved; D) None of the above.

neither of the twins would be killed intentionally;

Parents objected to their surgical separation of Jody and Mary because they believe that it is absolutely wrong to kill an innocent human being. Their reasoning is overruled by the court. Rachels claims the court reasons as follows: A) neither of the twins would be killed; they would merely be separated from each other; B) neither of the twins would be killed intentionally; C) both of the twins would be saved; D) none of the above.

neither of the twins would be killed; they would merely be separated from each other;

The argument for separating Mary and Jody (section 1.3 of Rachels book), based on the idea that we should save as many as we can, is based on the assumption that it is A) permissible to bring about overall good consequences; B) impermissible to treat any person without respect (i.e., to use her merely as a means); C) wrong to kill a person; D) none of the above.

permissible to bring about overall good consequences;

Rachels argues that our feelings are important but, also, they must be guided by the following: A) correct religious views; B) correct laws; C) reason, including the principle of impartiality (and other ethical principles); D) all of the above; E) none of the above.

reason, including the principle of impartiality (and other ethical principles);

Following Rachels, Stefan argued that justice (as equality) requires that: A) all people ought to earn exactly the same salary and all of us should pay the same taxes; B) all people ought to have exactly the same rights; C) similar cases ought to be treated similarly, but relevantly different cases may justify a different treatment (e.g., granting people different rights); D) all of the above; E) none of the above.

similar cases ought to be treated similarly, but relevantly different cases may justify a different treatment (e.g., granting people different rights);

Slippery slope considerations (discussed in the book and lectures) attempt to establish that A) when you use a slope, it is best to grease it; B) parents ought to watch their children playing, because they can slide on a slippery slope and hurt themselves; C) some actions that are reasonably innocuous may undermine our moral values and lead to terrible things; D) all of the above; E) none of the above.

some actions that are reasonably innocuous may undermine our moral values and lead to terrible things;

The Argument that we should not use people merely as a means (sec 1.2) is an attempt to show that A) we ought to transplant Baby Theresa's organs because it has overall good consequences (it benefits someone without harming anyone); B) we ought not to transplant Baby Theresa's organs because it would involve using her merely as a means; C) we ought not to transplant Baby Theresa's organs because it would kill her; D) none of the above.

we ought not to transplant Baby Theresa's organs because it would involve using her merely as a means;

The "Benefits Argument" (Section 1.2 of Rachels' book) is an attempt to show what follows: A) we ought to transplant Baby Theresa's organs because overall it has good consequences; B) we ought not to transplant Baby Theresa's organs because it would involve using here merely as a means; C) we ought not to transplant Baby Theresa's organs because it would kill her; D) none of the above.

we ought to transplant Baby Theresa's organs because overall it has good consequences;