Humanities 2702 Fall 2008 Midterm Exam Answer Key

Transcription

1 Humanities 2702 Fall 2008 Midterm Exam Answer Key Short Answers 1. What are deontic concepts? What are value concepts? What is the difference between a deontic ethical theory and a value-based theory? What is one example of a deontic ethical theory? Deontic concepts deal with issues of right and wrong actions and what is permissible, obligatory or impermissible. Value concepts deal with values of good and bad or good and evil and with what is a moral/non-moral value or what is an intrinsic or extrinsic value. A Deontic ethical theory takes the notion of right and wrong action to be primary and characterizes good and evil/bad in terms of the former. A value-based theory takes the notions of good and evil/bad, or values, as primary and defines right or wrong action in terms of the former. An example of a deontic ethical theory is divine command theory. 2. What is the difference between an intrinsic value and an extrinsic value? Give an example of each. Something has intrinsic value if it is valuable in and of itself. Somethings has extrinsic value if it has value only in relation to something else, most commonly only if it has value in relation to something that has intrinsic value. Life is an example of something with intrinsic value. Money is an example of something that has extrinsic value. 3. In a paragraph, what is the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism? Psychological egoism is the view that in fact all people act according to their own self-interest. It is a descriptive theory. Ethical Egoism, on the contrary, maintains that every should act in their own self-interest whether or not they actually in fact do so. It is a prescriptive theory and a properly ethical theory. 4. What role does a decision procedure play in an ethical theory? A decision procedure in an ethical theory specifies procedures under which one could concretely decide how to act in a given situation based on that ethical theory. 5. What is voluntary active euthanasia? Give one example of this. Voluntary active euthanasia is when a person of sound mind willingly asks to be euthanized and someone actively does something to bring about their death. For example, if someone with inoperable, fatal cancer were to request that a doctor administer a drug which would end his life.

2 Essay Section 1. Explain in detail Divine Command Theory. Make sure to include a detailed discussion of both its criteria of right action as well as its decision procedure. What is the objection that Timmon s raises against D.C.T. (hint: it has to do with 3 qualities that God has and how D.C.T. makes these inconsistent)? Explain one response to this objection. Divine Command Theory (DCT) is the ethical theory that the criteria of what is right and wrong is based on God s commands. That is, if God commands us to do something then that is what one is morally obligated to do. If God forbids us to do something, then that is what is morally impermissible. Thus, for DCT the criteria of right action is what God commands. The decision procedure for DCT must be a method for determining what God commands in each particular situation or in general. Since we do not have any direct access to what God commands we must rely on something more indirect. The typical decision procedures proposed by DCT (and which was included in the readings) is that revelation provides us with the decision procedure, e.g., sacred scripture. Timmon s raises the following objection against DCT: Typical proponents of DCT accept that God is (1) omnipotent (all powerful/creator of everything), (2) omniscient (all knowing/ fully rational ), and (3) omnibenevolent (all good). If DCT was correct then what is right would simply be whatever God commands. This would cause problems for (2) and (3), since if God could, just on a whim, make things right or wrong without any principle guiding him then it would seem that he is neither fully rational (no principle guides him) or all good (since there is no standard other than his whims by which to say he is all good). However, if DCT is wrong and there are principles independent of God by which he determines what is right and wrong then this causes problems for (1), God s omnipotence, since in this case it seems he does not have power/control over these principles and in fact did not create them. Timmon s response to this objection is to argue that God has the utterly free choice to create any world he would like. However, given a world, there are certain ethical principles that must hold in that world. Timmon s gives the example of machines running on oil or something else. If God creates a world in which there are machines running on oil, then oil must be placed in them, but not if he creates a world where machines run on water. So God creates a world with certain beings, e.g., human beings, and then certain ethical principles follow from this, e.g., don t shoot human beings. If the world was populated by terminators, then it would not be wrong for them to shoot each other since it doesn t do any damage. There are other possible responses one could give as well, e.g., that God is intrinsically good and thus whatever he does is for the reason good so that the principles he creates must, of necessity, be good. Etc.

3 2. Explain in detail the natural law theory of ethics. Explain in detail the principle of forfeiture. Explain in detail the principle of double effect (including the four conditions necessary for double effect to apply). How would these two principles apply to the bombing of Dresden if: (1) It was done solely to shorten the war by destroying Nazi factories in Dresden and (2) It was done to terrorize the citizens of Nazi Germany? In other words, analyze situations (1) and (2) using the two principles. Natural law theory believes that ethical principles are built into human nature by their creator (although, there is some possibility of a natural law theory without a creator). These natural laws or natural moral principles are manifested in the end/purpose/telos/function of human beings and can be gleaned from our natural inclinations. Some of these are: Life, procreation, knowledge, and sociability. Natural law theory is an absolutist morality meaning that the natural laws are inviolable. However, there seem to be many cases where natural laws conflict, e.g., when someone is trying to kill me and I kill them in self defense. In this case, the value of my life and the value of my attacker s life come into conflict. Therefore, natural law theory must specify how these conflicts are to be resolved. It does so using two principles: (1) The principle of forfeiture states that whenever someone threatens to violate the natural rights of someone, e.g., right to life, then they forfeit their own natural rights. Thus, if someone tries to kill me, they forfeit their own right to life and I am justified in killing them only to prevent them from killing me (or someone else.) (2) The principle of double effect comes into play when a particular action is intended to preserve someone s natural rights, but at the same time has bad effects. There are four criteria that an action must satisfy if it is to fulfill the principle of double effect and be justified: (i) The act itself is permissible, (ii) The bad effect cannot be avoided, (iii) the bad effect is not a means to the permissible end of the action, and (iv) the proportionality requirement, i.e., that the good of the action is proportionally better than the bad effect. In the case of the bombing of Dresden. If it is done to shorten the war by destroying the factories in Dresden then it satisfies principles (1) and (2). The Nazi regime (and Nazis) forfeited their right to life by trying to kill others. And, (2i) Shortening the war is itself permissible), (2ii) this cannot be done without destroying the factories that produce weapons, but this means that some innocent people will be killed, (2iii) the killing of innocent people is not a means to the end of shortening the war (in this case), i.e., the death of innocents is merely a side-effect, and (2iv) The number of innocent deaths occurring as a result of the bombing of Dresden is outweighed by all the life that will be preserved by shortening the war.

4 If Dresden is bombed in order to terrorize people, this could fail either the forfeiture principle, but most likely it would fail either 2i or 2ii or 2iii. So it could fail on many different accounts. 3. There are two main stages in James Rachels critique of cultural relativism: (1) A critique of the argument for cultural relativism, i.e., the cultural differences argument, and (2) three consequences of the thesis of cultural relativism which Rachels believes should lead any reasonable person to reject it. In your essay first explain in detail the thesis of cultural relativism and then explain in detail (1) and (2) above. Cultural relativism is the thesis that all ethical principles and values are relative to a culture. Thus, what is right or wrong depends upon what culture you are talking about. Something that is right in one culture may be wrong in another and viceversa (and not just believed to be right or wrong, but actually right and wrong). In other words, there are no absolute principles of right and wrong. (1) Rachels thinks the most common and popular argument for cultural relativism is what he calls the cultural differences argument: (i) Different cultures have different (and sometimes contradictory) beliefs about what is right and wrong Therefore, there simply is no fact of the matter about what is right or wrong - what is right or wrong is relative to a culture. Rachels demonstrates that this argument is invalid. That is, even if the premise was true (and it could very well be), the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Simply because different cultures have different beliefs about what is right or wrong does not prove that there really is no fact of the matter about what is right or wrong. In other words, one or both of the cultures can simply be wrong about what is right or wrong. Analogous example: From the mere fact that if one culture believed that the world was flat and one culture believed that the world was round, one cannot conclude that there is no fact of the matter about whether the world is flat or round. (2) The three consequences of cultural relativism that Rachels thinks would make any reasonable person reject it are: (i) We could not judge one culture to be inferior to any other: Since C.R. argues that there is no absolute, cross-cultural principles of right or wrong, one cannot compare the ethics of one culture against another. Something may seem horribly wrong in another culture (the holocaust), but that is simply wrong for us, i.e., in our culture. In that culture (Nazi Germany), it is right. (ii) The notion of moral progress (even within the history of one country) no longer makes sense if C.R. is true. For example, in the culture of pre-civil war America, slavery was acceptable. One may believe that we have morally Progressed since slavery is no longer acceptable in America. However, if C.R. Is true then this is wrong. According to C.R., slavery was right in the culture Of pre-civil war America and is wrong in America now, but there is no absolute ethical principles which would allow us to judge the former worse

5 than the latter. (iii) Finally, if C.R. was true we could simply inspect our own culture to find out what is right and wrong. This seems false, since it seems that we have to do more to find out what is really right and wrong than just look at what our culture thinks is right and wrong. That is why we debate ethical issues all the time, instead of just inspecting what is acceptable to our culture or not.