Midterm Exam (Quizzes 1-6)

Some moral theorists object that Mill's Utilitarianism is too impractical, because it takes too much time to calculate all the consequences, and therefore the utility, of a given action. Which statement best describes how Mill responds to this objection? [2]

There are moral 'rules of thumb' that humankind has developed over generations that are justified by the Principle of Utility, and if these rules are followed they will tend to maximize happiness.

Suppose that Rachels' cases of Smith and Jones show that there is no moral distinction between 'X killing Y' and 'X letting Y die' (where X and Y are persons). Which of the following implications is most accurate? [3]

There is no moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia regardless of whether it is voluntary or non-voluntary.

Warren argues that since the fetus meets none of the criteria for being a person, abortion is therefore always morally permissible. What is Warren assuming in making this argument? [5]

Whether the fetus is a person is in fact relevant to the question of the morality of abortion.

The aim of a moral theory is to specify what? [1]

What makes an action right (or wrong).

Which statement best completes the following claim: According to the Humanity formulation of the Categorical Imperative, a right action consists of treating other persons... [Q4]

...as if they are autonomous beings, that is, ends-in-themselves.

Which of the following are reasons why someone who accepts Kant's moral theory would disagree with Utilitaranianism? [Q4]

-Utilitarianism allows pleasure obtained from morally questionable actions to count towards the good. -Because Utilitarianism is an agent-neutral theory, it does not consider the intentions of the person doing an action to be relevant to whether the action is right or wrong. -Since one cannot control all of the consequences of an action, Utilitarianism unfairly makes people responsible for things that are sometimes ultimately out of their control.

1. Dunked in a chlorinated bath 2. Became an attorney 3. Request removal of feeding tube 4. Great pain from cerebral palsy 5. Severely burned [3]

1. Dax Cowart 2. Dax Cowart 3. Elizabeth Bouvia 4. Elizabeth Bouvia 5. Dax Cowart

Suppose you form a maxim and imagine everyone acting on it. According to the Universal Law formulation of the Categorical Imperative, which outcome of universalizing the maxim requires one to reject the maxim? [Q4]

A contradiction in will or a contradiction in conception are sufficient to reject the maxim.

Which statement correctly identifies an implication of Cultural Relativism? (Suppose that Cultural Relativism is the true moral theory.) [2]

A single culture's moral beliefs about some action, A, can vary over time—holding that A is permissible at one time and that A is impermissible at a later time—and yet their beliefs about A are always true.

Suppose a competent, well-informed patient voluntarily states her request to die. She suffers from a malignant liver tumor with a very low probability of recovery, and she's likely to die painfully over the next two months. Identify how a Utilitarian would analyze whether the patient's request should be honored. [2]

Assuming no family members and none of the medical staff are negatively affected, and the patient would have greater overall happiness (due to negating the pain that would occur if the request were not honored), the patient's request should be honored. The answers that say "regardless of the happiness of other people" and "Regardless of how others involved" do not work, for they neglect to consider others. However, Utilitarianism must take into account how the action affects the happiness of others, as the answer "Assuming no family members and none of the medical staff are negatively affected..." does.

Why is it the case that the moral theories of Utilitarianism, and Cultural Relativism, cannot simultaneously be true? (Choose the best answer, the one that logically shows why the two theories are not consistent with each other.) [2]

Because Utilitarianism is a universal theory, whereas Cultural Relativism is a relativist theory. The two theories cannot both be true because if one theory is universal, then by definition it cannot be relative, and vice versa.

Why, or how, does the Valuable Future Theory not rely on the concept of a person? [6]

Because it holds that some entity could, in principle, have a valuable future even though it is not a person. Marquis' VFT does not rely on the concept of a person because there may be some entities that turn out to be non-persons, like some animals or alien creatures, that nonetheless have valuable futures because they have 'futures like ours' filled with experiences, enjoyments, activities, etc. like ours. Also, fetuses may in fact NOT be persons (and Marquis does not want to assume it is), yet they do have valuable futures (at least typically); their potential for this valuable future, just like our potential for our valuable future, makes killing wrong.

Is the following question primarily a question regarding metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics? "How can we be justified that our perceptions match or correspond to real events and objects?" [1]

Epistemology Epistemology concerns our relation to reality, how we can be justified in our perceptions or beliefs, etc. The question clearly emphasizes the justification for there being a match between our minds and the world, or a knowing relation. So the question concerns epistemology. "Metaphysics and epistemology" would be an attractive answer, but having to choose one or the other, epistemology is a clear choice.

Ethics, as one of the main branches of Philosophy, overlaps with questions from what other branches of Philosophy? [1]

Epistemology and Metaphysics

Suppose every competent, conscious patient with a fatal disease has the moral right to end their life-sustaining treatment (that is, they have the right to refuse further medicines or technologies that keep them alive). Suppose further that there is no moral distinction between killing and letting die (that is, suppose that Rachels is right). Given these suppositions, which of the following statements is most accurate? (Ignore the role of the physician in this question: just focus on the rights of the patient.) [3]

Every competent, conscious patient, besides the moral right to end life-sustaining treatment, also has a moral right to active euthanasia. If the killing/letting distinction is no good (as the cases of Smith and Jones, due to Rachels, tried to show), then there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. So if a (competent, conscious) patient has a right to passive euthanasia (ending life-sustaining treatment), then this implies the (competent, conscious) patient has a right to active euthanasia as well.

(T/F) One rival theory about the wrongness of killing that Marquis explicitly discusses and rejects in defending his Valuable Future Theory, is the Utilitarian-based theory that killing does not maximize happiness. [6]

False Marquis explicitly deals with only two rival theories of the wrongness of killing: the desire account (what makes killing wrong is that it kills an entity with a desire to live) and the discontinuation account (what makes killing wrong is that it discontinues the killed entity's past experience). (Note: Tooley defends a version of the desire account.)

(T/F) The official position of the American Medical Association regarding physician-assisted suicide is consistent with (that is, compatible with) the state of Oregon's position on this issue as specified in its Death with Dignity Act? [3]

False Right, Oregon supports physician-assisted suicide, but the AMA does not (the AMA disagrees with any view on which doctors can be involved in killing patients).

Assume the point-of-view of a conscious, competent patient, S, in making decisions about S's own medical procedures. True or False: Mill's Harm Principle is theoretically relevant to assessing decisions at all three levels in the standard hierarchy of medical decision-making: informed consent decisions coming from S, substituted judgments about S, and decisions made in the best interests of S. [3]

False Right, the Harm Principle is only relevant to informed consent decisions--not decisions made by substituted judgment or for the best interests of the patient, because the informed consent level is the only one which applies to competent patients (and the Harm Principle only applies to or protect liberties for individuals that are free, well-informed, and act voluntarily--in other words, individuals that are competent).

(T/F) The conclusion of a valid argument, when its premises are in fact true, is likely to be true, but not guaranteed to be true. [1]

False Right...deductively valid arguments have guaranteed true conclusions (when the premises are true). (Whereas, inductive arguments can only make their conclusions likely, but do not guarantee them.)

True or False: The following argument is valid. "If fetuses have immaterial souls, then this implies that fetuses are persons. But fetuses don't have immaterial souls, so fetuses are not persons." [1]

False This form is always invalid: If P, then Q. Not-P. So, non-Q. (P and Q stand for any statements).

True or False: The argument below is valid. (P1) If embryos are sentient, then they have moral rights. (P2) Embryos do have moral rights. (C1) Hence, embryos are sentient. [1]

False This is a not a valid form or argumentation. Any argument of the form... If X, then Y Y Therefore, X ...is invalid.

(T/F) Marquis' strategy in arguing that abortion is immoral is to identify the particular feature of fetuses that makes it wrong to kill them, whether or not this particular feature is what makes killing adults and children wrong. [6]

False This is false, because Marquis' strategy is to identify in general what makes killing adults wrong.

(T/F) According to Utilitarianism, whether an action is right or wrong depends entirely on how much happiness it produces for those people that believe Utilitarianism is correct. [2]

False Whether an action is right, according to Utilitarianism, has nothing to do with what people believe about morality. What matters, and the only thing that matters, is producing maximum happiness.

(T/F) Both the moral theories of cultural relativism and utilitarianism postulate that the same moral rules hold true for all cultures. [2]

False Yes, cultural relativism says moral truths are relative to cultures, where utilitarianism is a universal (culturally universal) theory of moral truth.

According to Tooley's view, in order for an entity to have a right to not be tortured, the entity needs to have a self-concept. [6]

False Yes, the statement is false because on Tooley's theory if something can feel pain that gives it right to not be tortured (e.g., a kitten has a right to not be tortured), but feeling pain does not require a self-concept. (In order to have a serious 'right to life', however, the kitten would need a self-concept.)

(T/F) Warren argues that since fetuses have the potential to possess some of the five criteria she claims are important for being a person, abortion is not morally permissible. [5]

False Yes. Potential persons are not actual persons for Warren, and the rights of actual persons always trump the rights of potential persons.

Tooley argues that the debate over the morality of abortion comes down to what he calls the Potentiality Principle. How does Tooley argue against the Potentiality Principle? [6]

He argues that considerations of "moral symmetry" falsify the Potentiality Principle. Tooley clearly does believe that fetuses have the potential to be persons or beings with a serious right to life. So he agrees to the fact of potentiality. But what he does is argue that the mere potential of the fetus now to be a person (something with serious right to life), does not give it rights now. He does this by trying to show, when we assume the intentions are the same, there is a moral symmetry between NOT starting a process that would give something a serious right to life, and stopping that same process once it is started so long as the process had not actually produced something with a serious right to life yet.

Which of the following is a moral duty, according to Kant's moral theory? [Q4]

Help others sometimes.

Suppose that someone objects to Utilitarianism by arguing that it is too degrading to humans, because it allows, in principle, that a pig's life could possibly contain more happiness than a human's life. Which of the following best captures the essence of Mill's response to this objection? [2]

Humans, unlike pigs or other non-human animals, are capable of a higher, intellectual type of pleasure. Yes, Mill distinguishes between higher (intellectual) and lower (bodily) pleasures, unlike prior views of Utilitarianism (such as the view due to Bentham) which made no such distinction. Given the distinction--which has been challenged and I address on the handout concerning Utilitarianism--Mill contends that humans are capable of higher pleasures, thus the theory is not 'too degrading' to humans.

It is important to be familiar with the time line of fetal development in order to discuss possible points at which the fetus becomes a person (e.g., first movement, nervous system development, viability). [5]

If Y ought to do action A for X, this does NOT necessarily mean that X has a right to A from Y.

Suppose someone argues that since adults are persons now they must have also been persons when they were fetuses, and since it is wrong to kill a person, it would be wrong to kill a fetus. What is the most problematic feature of this argument? [5]

It assumes that individual entities do not change from one kind of thing to another kind of thing over time. The main problem is the assumption that individuals don't change kinds over time (e.g., like a caterpillar becomes a butterfly). The other answers identify problems for different arguments.

According to the "human fetus argument' for the conservative view on abortion, the fact that a fetus is genetically human implies that the fetus has a right to life and therefore abortion should not be done. What assumption does this argument make that makes it ineffective in establishing its conclusion? [5]

It assumes that the fetus having human genetics implies that it is a human person. The human fetus argument, as discussed on the handout analyzing various common abortion arguments, equivocates in its use of the term "human", first using it to mean genetically human and then to mean human person.

Tooley suggests that infanticide is important to discuss when thinking about the morality of abortion. Why? [6]

It forces one to specify, even more so than when considering abortion, the exact nature of persons.

Consider this argument: "If Darwin is right that evolution by natural selection occurs, then all species are the product of natural forces. Darwin is right that evolution by natural selection occurs. Therefore, all species are the product of natural forces." Which statement best describes the above argument? [1]

It is a valid argument.

What action was Dr. Kenneth Edelin accused and initially found guilty of? (Choose the most accurate, specific answer.) [5]

Manslaughter

The Valuable Future Theory, as discussed by Don Marquis, requires that which of the following claims is true? [6]

None of these choices accurately identify requirements of VFT. -According to VFT, embryos have a valuable future just like fetuses. -VFT says nothing about whether a mother's future is more valuable (besides, in non-life-threatening pregnancies, the choice isn't between which of two valuable futures should be chosen). VFT neither requires nor implies anything about cultural relativism; it presents an objective claim about the morality of abortion.

According to the Moral Symmetry Principle (as advanced by Tooley) which of the following is most accurate? (Let A be an action that can start C, where C is a causal process that will lead to an entity, E, with a serious right to life; B is an action that can stop C, once C has started, thus preventing E from coming into existence.) [6]

Not doing A, and doing B, are morally equivalent provided that the intentions are the same for both actions.

The Universal Law formulation of the Categorical Imperative states that: [Q4]

One should act only on those maxims that one can will to become universal laws.

Which of the following statements accurately describe a consequence or implication of cultural relativism? [2]

Over time, contradictions can arise in the beliefs of a single culture. Any contradictory beliefs between different cultures are equally true.

Which statement best characterizes English's graded view of the moral justification of abortion? [5]

Sometimes late-term abortions are justifiable, and sometimes early-term abortions are justifiable.

In the documentary, "Living Old," it is suggest by some individuals that they wish to have the right to end their life by voluntary active euthanasia. One physician states he does not know if he would ever exercise this right, but that he definitely wants it available. Which moral principle below most directly and explicitly supports the idea that people have a moral right to voluntary active euthanasia (or, for that matter, physician-assisted suicide)? [3]

The harm principle

In discussing the ethics of suicide, Kant states that "we see at once that a system of nature of which it should be a law to destroy life by means of the very feeling whose special nature it is to impel to the improvement of life would contradict itself, and therefore could not exist as a system of nature..." What is the most accurate way to characterize the conclusion in the argument above? [Q4]

The intention to commit suicide creates a contradiction in conception.

In assessing whether we are morally obligated to help someone in need of charity, Kant suggests that a universal law could exist in accordance with this principle or maxim: "I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only I do not wish to contribute anything to his welfare or to his assistance in distress." Yet, Kant contends that we should not accept this maxim. What is the best explanation of why we should not accept it, according to Kant? [Q4]

The maxim leads to a contradiction in will.

(T/F) Supposing that Cultural Relativism is true, if the people of a specific culture, C, believe that euthanasia is morally permissible, then that is a moral truth for people in C regardless of what other cultures believe about the morality of euthanasia. [2]

True

(T/F) What is wrong with lying, according to Kant's moral theory, is that when you form the maxim that permits you to tell a lie, you are willing that there exists a universal law that is inherently contradictory: you are holding, essentially, that it is okay to attempt to deceive the person you lie to, while also holding that it is impossible for you to deceive the person you are lying to. [Q4]

True

(T/F) Whereas Mill's Utilitarian moral theory contends that only the the consequences or results matter in assessing the rightness of actions, Kant's moral theory contends that both the intentions (that is, the reasons or the maxims) and the consequences for the well-being of humanity matter in assessing the rightness of actions. [Q4]

True

Kant argues, in the assigned selection, that if a person "destroys himself in order to escape from painful circumstances, he uses a person merely as a means to maintain a tolerable condition up to the end of life. But a man is not a thing, that is to say, something which can be used merely as a means, but must in all his actions be always considered an end in himself." True or False: In the above passage, Kant is arguing that it is morally wrong to commit suicide. [Q4]

True

Suppose someone argued (i) that there must be a precise cut-off point for when the fetus is a person or not, but since (ii) infants are in fact persons (as such, the fetus will certainly become a person when it becomes an infant), but (iii) we cannot say when the fetus is NOT a person, we should conclude that fetuses are persons from the moment of conception. True or False: In response to the argument above, Jane English would contend that person-hood is vague and complex, and gradually develops over time. [5]

True

According to Utilitarianism, all pleasures and pains should be counted up in determining what action is right, regardless of the kind or type of entity that is experiencing the pleasure/pain.[2]

True All sentient creatures are in the sphere of moral concern, according to Utilitarianism. The phrase "type of entity that is experiencing the pleasure/pain" indicates that only entities that can have such experiences are included in the sphere of moral concern. Therefore, the question clearly excludes rocks and other inanimate, non-sentient entities.

(T/F) The valuable future theory, as discussed by Marquis, does not exclude the possibility that some non-human animals may also have valuable futures that give them rights. [6]

True Marquis' VFT does in fact imply that any entity (human or not) that has a 'future like ours' also has a right to that future--that is, that it would be wrong to kill it.

(T/F) Suppose someone argues as follows: "If we allow patients to have the right to physician-assisted suicide, then the role of the doctors will keep expanding as they get more and more power, causing the moral center of medicine to collapse, and eventually resulting in unjust patient deaths." One way to challenge this type of argument is to demonstrate that communities can institute specific and rigorous policies, such as those in the state of Oregon, that can help ensure that the granting of the right to physician-assisted suicide does not destroy the moral center of medicine. [3]

True Right, this is a slippery slope type of argument, and one way to respond to or challenge this type of argument is to show that measure can be put in place to prevent the 'slide' toward something unacceptable.

Suppose that one objects to the Moral Symmetry Principle by saying that positive duties are more important than negative duties. True or false: Tooley responds to this objection by emphasizing that when motives/intentions are the same in two actions, then there is no difference between them even though in one you do something positive while in the other you refrain from doing something. [You can assume the results of the two actions are the same too.] [6]

True This issue is addressed in section V of his essay and on my corresponding handout. On the handout, interpreting Tooley, I say "When motivation and outcome are the same in two cases, there is no morally relevant difference in doing v. allowing, or acting v. refraining to act, or purposefully killing X v. purposefully disallowing X's existence." Intentionally doing something to hurt x and intentionally allowing x to be hurt are morally the same (if the results are the same). That is, positive actions (doing something) and negative actions (allowing something) are equally morally serious, if all other factors are equal. Compare Rachels from Unit 2.

(T/F) The point of Thomson's hypothetical story of a child growing without limit in your house, in which you have no escape so that the child will eventually crush you to death, is to demonstrate that you have a right to defend your life (i.e., kill the child) even if others (third parties) aren't allowed to help you. [5]

True Thomson uses this story to try to prove that we should not base our judgments about the morality of abortion (at least not in all cases) on what third parties (e.g., doctors) are or are not allowed to do. You have a right to self-defense if the fetus' growth will likely kill you, Thomson claims.

(T/F) Doing moral reasoning, or presenting arguments concerning ethical issues, involves both trying to get straight about the facts of the situation or issue, and offering some moral rule or principle that illuminates those facts. [1]

True Yes. For example, suppose it is a fact that chimpanzees are non-human persons (because of their sophisticated psychological and sociological structures), and it is wrong to violate the rights of any person (human or non-human)...therefore it is wrong to violate the rights of chimpanzees.

Assume the Harm Principle is true. What does the Harm Principle imply about your actions? [3]

Your self-regarding actions are protected from interference by society. Your other-regarding actions may be regulated by society to protect others from harm.