| Introduction to Ethics | Richard Lee |
| Philosophy 2103 sec. 11 | Summer 2007 |
This examination counts as twenty percent (20%) of your course grade.
You may use a 3"x5" card of notes of your own making.
You will be asked to write two (2) essays (worth ten (10) points each). You will have a choice of at least four (4) essay questions. By "essay" I mean a discussion (in complete sentences) that will probably take more than a paragraph or two, but should take no more than a few pages.
As always, cheating will not be tolerated. No help in answering the questions may be received from anyone (except yourself) during the examination.
| E-KND | Explain Euthanasia and the importance of various distinctions among kinds of Euthanasia in the readings and discussed in class. Appealing to points made by authors we read discuss when, if ever, euthanasia is morally permissible. |
| E-VAL | Dan Brock suggests that the moral permissibily of euthanasia is supported by two values. Explain these values and how he believes they support the permissibility of euthanasia. |
| E-KLD | James Rachels in "Active and Passive Euthanasia" argues that killing is morally no worse than letting die. Explain his argument. Critically discuss. |
| G-EUTH | The question is sometimes asked: "Is an action right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is right?" Explore various answers to this question and problems with those answers. |
| G-3PRO | Holt argues that "if the theist ... [holds] that morally good acts are good because they are willed by God, then he faces" three problems. Explain each of these problems and how these follow from that position. |
| R-PF | What does W. D. Ross mean by "prima facie duty?" What is the connection, on Ross's account, between prima facie duties and our actual duty? Explain. |
| R-DUT | List and explain the kinds of prima facie duties Ross thinks we have. Is his list complete? Is there anything on his list that shouldn't be there? Is there any way to compress the list to include fewer divisions. Explain. |
| A-VIOL | Judith Jarvis Thomson begins one example with "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist." Explain this example. What is Thomson trying to prove using this example? Is she successful? Why or why not? Critically discuss. |
| A-EX | In "A Defense of Abortion" Judith Jarvis Thomson uses several examples. These include: the violinist, the tiny house, Smith's coat, Henry Fonda's touch, some example involving chocolates, the burglar, and people seeds. Choose one of these examples other than the violinist. Explain the example. Explain the general point Thomson is trying to make by using the example. (Not just: she's making an analogy with abortion.) Explain how the argument is supposed to work. Critique and evaluate the argument. |
| H-3QUA | Hobbes identifies three principal causes of quarrel. Explain what these are and how they, in Hobbes' view, lead to war. |
| H-GRR | What is the first "general rule of reason" that Thomas Hobbes appeals to in his Leviathan and what are its two branches? Does reason require us to obey this "law?" Critically discuss. |
| S-WRO | Explain Scanlon's view about when an action is wrong. Work through an example showing application of his view. Does his view see reasonable/correct? Critically discuss. |
| W-JAB | According to just war theory, under what circumstances is it morally permissible to go to war? Explain each of the conditions laid out by just war theory for the permissiblity of going to war. |
| W-DIS | Explain the just war principle of "discrimination." State it and provide examples of actions which would be morally acceptable according to it, and also examples of actions which would be morally unacceptable according to that principle. |
| W-DDE | State and carefully explain the principle (or "doctrine") of double effect. Give examples of actions which would be morally acceptable according to it, and also examples of actions which would be morally unacceptable according to that principle. (And explain, of course, how these examples satisfy or violate, respectively, the principle of double effect.) |
| T-PH | Honderich writes: "To claim a moral right on behalf of the Palestinians to their terrorism, as I do, is to say that it is permissible if not obligatory for them to engage in it, which judgement has the support of the Principle of Humanity as set out." What does Honderich mean by "terrorism?" What is this "Principle of Humanity?" What reasons does Honderich offer to support the view that "it is permisible if not obligatory" for Palestinians to engage in terrorism? Critique Honderich's argument. |