Final Exam Study Questions, Introduction to Philosophy, SP-06

Egoism

Utilitarianism

Callicott, Environmental Ethics, and Animal Liberation

  • What are some of the differences between "environmental ethics" and "animal liberation or animals rights?"
  • Explain what it means to say the land ethic is "holistic" and not "individualistic" and that it is "inegalitarian" and not "egalitarian."
  • What is "Leopold's Maxim"? What is Leopold's "reappraisal slogan?"
  • What is "moral extensionism" and how might someone argue it is arrogant?
  • What is Callicott's view of the difference between domestic and wild animals?
  • Does Callicott favor "animal liberation," animal activists concern with animal pain, and vegetarianism? For each, explain why or why not?

Ethics of Respect (Kant's non-consequentialism)

  • What is the difference between an hypothetical and a categorical imperative?
  • What does Kant mean when he says that moral rules must be universalizable? Give an example of a rule of action which is not universalizable and explain why it is not (hint: is it self-defeating and/or reversible?)
  • What does it mean to say moral rules are absolute? What did Kant think about this and why?
  • Does consistency in application of moral rules imply absolute moral rules? Why or why not? If one allows that there are some exceptions to moral rules, can one still be committed to the universalizability criterion?
  • What does Kant mean when he says that we must treat humanity as an end in itself, and never as a mere means? Give an example of treating humanity as a mere means and then as an end in itself.

Retributivist and Utilitarian Justifications for Punishment

  • Explain the retributivist and the utilitarian view of punishment. What are their views about punishment considered just in itself? (Good? Bad? Why?) What rationales would each give for punishment and what sorts of punishment would each accept? Explain the arguments each would use against the other's views. In your own judgment, whose views are better? Why?
  • In what way is the retributivist view of punishment a Kantian approach to punishment?
  • Explain why some think that punishment shows respect for the person punished? Is there any way that execution can be seen as respecting the person to be executed?

Social Contract Theory

  • Explain the origin of the state and government according to the social contract theory. How does the theory justify state authority? Why does state authority need to be justified? What is authority?
  • What is the social contract theory of morality? Define and explain it.
  • Why might a proponent of the social contract theory worry about the objection that the social contract is a fiction? How might such a proponent respond to this objection?
  • What is the difference between an implicit and explicit consent?
  • How could someone who held to the social contract theory of morality argue that they have no moral obligation to obey the anti-drug and anti-sex laws?
  • Explain how the social contract theory of morality could morally justify the civil disobedience on the part of blacks in this country in the 1960's.
  • According to the social contract theory of morality, is it morally wrong to murder another human being in a state of nature? Explain why or why not.
  • Explain why Rachels thinks the social contract theory has problems accounting for our obligations to animals, infants, and severely retarded people. (Hint: consider the role of reciprocity in the theory.)

Liberty-Limiting Principles (Feinberg)

  • What are the four liberty limiting principles (or reasons for making laws) that Feinberg discusses? Why are they called "liberty limiting principles"?
  • Which of the liberty limiting principles would a proponent of the social contract theory accept and why?
  • What is the harm principle? What is it meant to justify?
  • Give the best example you can think of of a harmless immorality, and explain why it is immoral and show how it is harmless.
  • Define Legal Moralism. Give examples of laws which you think are most plausibly justified by legal moralism and explain why. Give examples of "morals laws" which you think are clearly unjustified and explain why. Do you think legal moralism is a justifiable liberty-limiting principle? Why or why not? What are some of the arguments for it? Against it? What does Feinberg think about this? What is the "tyranny of the majority?"
  • What is the difference between offense and harm? Give examples.
  • Explain what the offense principle is. Give examples of laws which you think are most plausibly justified by the offense principle and explain why. Give examples of laws aimed at preventing offensive behavior which you think are clearly unjustified and explain why. Do you think the offense principle is a justifiable liberty-limiting principle? Why or why not? What are the arguments for it? Against it?
  • Explain what constraints on the offense principle must be in place for Feinberg to accept it.
  • Define Legal Paternalism. Give examples of laws which you think are most plausibly justified by legal paternalism, and explain why. Give examples of laws which you think are clearly unjustifiably paternalistic and explain why. Do you think legal paternalism is a justifiable liberty-limiting principle? Why or why not? What are the arguments for and against it?
  • Explain what Feinberg has in mind when he defends "weak paternalism?"

Feminism and Feminist Ethics

  • Define feminism as we did in class.
  • What is the difference (as defined in class) between gender personality and sex. Should each sex take on a single gender? What does "androgynous" mean? Is this a good ideal? Why or why not?
  • Do you think that there are important psychological differences between the men and women? Do these differences justify differences in sex roles, that is, differences in what kind of jobs and duties each sex has (or is encouraged to have)?
  • According to Rachels, do feminists think that men and women are psychological different?
  • What criticism was made of Kohlberg's stages of moral development by proponents of feminist ethics?
  • What is feminist ethics? How is it different from a more male approach to ethics? Describe some of the differences between an ethics of care and an ethics of principle. Do you think these are importantly different ways of pursuing ethics? Do you think that women tend toward one and men toward the other? Do you think either is a more developed or mature way of doing ethics?
  • Why does Rachels argue that feminist ethics does well with our ethical relations with family and friends, but poorly with our ethical relations with strangers?
  • Evaluate the claim that there is empirical proof that women are subordinate by nature: "Just look around and you will see the majority of women playing subordinate roles. Its obvious that women tend to naturally be better suited than men for the domestic role, just look at women and men in our society today and you will see what I mean. Generally speaking, women are better cooks, they know better how to take care of the baby, they tend to be more emotional and family oriented, and so on."
  • What is evolutionary psychology and how is it used to argue that men and women are different by nature?
  • Does significant sexism continue in American society? Why or why not? As forcefully as you can, argue that the tradition of wives taking their husband's name is sexist. Now argue as forcefully as you can that it isn't. Which argument do you think is stronger and why?
  • How might men's ideas about sexually attractive women contribute to the subordination of women?
  • Is it wrong to treat women as "sex objects," that is, to "sexually objectify" them? What does this mean?

Virtue Ethics and Rachels' Theory

  • What is a virtue? What is a vice? Define each and give examples.
  • What does Aristotle mean when he says virtue is a mean? Explain this using an example.
  • Explain how virtue ethics is different from an ethics of duty or right action.
  • Does Rachels think the virtues are the same for everyone or does he think virtues are culturally relative?
  • How will a defender of virtue ethics answer the question about how we should act?
  • Explain the notion of impartiality and some problems with impartiality as an ethical ideal.
  • Why is it important to treat people as they deserve to be treated? What facts about a person are relevant in determining what she deserves? Consider: her native intelligence, her fortunate social circumstances, and her own past behavior.
  • Describe and explain Rachels' own moral theory (what he calls "morality without hubris"). In what way is it utilitarian; in what way is it Kantian? Is this a good theory? Why or why not?
  • What does Rachels think about the practice of rewarding people because of the superior natural endowments they possess? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?