PHIL 1020 Fritz Midterm Auburn Exam-
Graded A
From the perspective of ethics, why is it important that Psychological Egoism be proven
to be false? - ANS-Because nearly all conceivable moral theories will require that we do
actions for reasons other than self interest
(T/F) The existence of altruism would make the theory of psychological egoism false -
ANS-True
(T/F) In order for the Argument for Paradigmatic cases to work as a successful
argument against ethical egoism, it has to be the case that ethical egoism will
sometimes require that we torture or kill innocent people. - ANS-True
The Argument from Expected Benefit states that because we can reasonably expect to
benefit from any action we take, psychological egoism must be true. One way that this
argument is mistaken is that: - ANS-It does not respect the difference between aiming
for (intending) some result and knowing that the result might reasonably follow from an
act.
(T/F) Psychological Egoism is a normative theory. - ANS-False
Which of the following rights does the ethical egoists think is most important? - ANS-
Ethical egoists don't believe in rights.
In response to the objection that we can't always (at all times) be motivated by the idea
that doing good for others and so Utilitarianism is too demanding, the book states that
we should remember that: - ANS-Utilitarianism is a standard of rightness and not a
decision procedure.
In response to the objection that Utilitarianism must fail because we can't precisely
measure well-being or pleasure, John Stuart Mill argues that: - ANS-Some pleasures
are more valuable than others and so ought to be weighed more heavily.
If a person believes that measure is the only thing of intrinsic value they are most likely
a: - ANS-Hedonist
An ethical theory that is meant to mainly give us a method of reliably guiding our
decisions is: - ANS-A decision procedure
, To say that Utilitarianism is impartial is to say: - ANS-(All of the above)
That is does not allow you to place special importance on the happiness of your loved
ones.
It is impartial to the kinds of things that people desire to make themselves happy.
That it places no special importance on the happiness of the agent (the person doing
the action)
Act consequentialists believe all actions are morally neutral and that no actions are
intrinsically wrong. This means that: - ANS-They never claim that a particular type of
action is always morally wrong.
The fact that Utilitarianism must sometimes require that we let the guilty go free is an
example of: - ANS-The Problem of Injustice
What is wrong with the Golden Rule according to Kant? - ANS-Its too weak because it
makes morality depend upon the moral agent's desires.
According to Kantian Deontology, in order to test whether you are being fair and
rationally consistent, the best rule to use is - ANS-The Principle of Universalizability
Why would Kant say it is wrong for someone to kick my dog? - ANS-Because they do
not respect me, as her owner
How would Kant Defend the death penalty for a person guilty of premeditated
murderer? - ANS-He deserves treatment equal to the way that he treated his victim
What reason would a deontologist offer for the wrongness of slavery? - ANS-It violates
the autonomy of the enslaved person by merely treating them as a means to an end.
(T/F) According to deontology, it is possible to wrong yourself. - ANS-True
(T/F) In Kantian deontology, you are a moral patient if and only if you are a moral agent.
- ANS-True
Which of the following are virtues of Deontology? - ANS-(All the above)
It explains and justifies the practice of holding people morally praiseworthy.
It can justify and explain the existence of negative rights.
it offers a justification for why we punish people.
In defense of their position, psychological egoists claim that purportedly altruistic actions
are really done so that the actor can avoid feeling a guilty conscience, and since lack of
a guilty conscience is a benefit, anything done to avoid a guilty conscience is done out
of self interest. Why is this a bad argument? - ANS-In order for this argument to work, it
must be that many people do care about the welfare of others (in order to even have a
conscience). And this claim undermines psychological egoism.
Graded A
From the perspective of ethics, why is it important that Psychological Egoism be proven
to be false? - ANS-Because nearly all conceivable moral theories will require that we do
actions for reasons other than self interest
(T/F) The existence of altruism would make the theory of psychological egoism false -
ANS-True
(T/F) In order for the Argument for Paradigmatic cases to work as a successful
argument against ethical egoism, it has to be the case that ethical egoism will
sometimes require that we torture or kill innocent people. - ANS-True
The Argument from Expected Benefit states that because we can reasonably expect to
benefit from any action we take, psychological egoism must be true. One way that this
argument is mistaken is that: - ANS-It does not respect the difference between aiming
for (intending) some result and knowing that the result might reasonably follow from an
act.
(T/F) Psychological Egoism is a normative theory. - ANS-False
Which of the following rights does the ethical egoists think is most important? - ANS-
Ethical egoists don't believe in rights.
In response to the objection that we can't always (at all times) be motivated by the idea
that doing good for others and so Utilitarianism is too demanding, the book states that
we should remember that: - ANS-Utilitarianism is a standard of rightness and not a
decision procedure.
In response to the objection that Utilitarianism must fail because we can't precisely
measure well-being or pleasure, John Stuart Mill argues that: - ANS-Some pleasures
are more valuable than others and so ought to be weighed more heavily.
If a person believes that measure is the only thing of intrinsic value they are most likely
a: - ANS-Hedonist
An ethical theory that is meant to mainly give us a method of reliably guiding our
decisions is: - ANS-A decision procedure
, To say that Utilitarianism is impartial is to say: - ANS-(All of the above)
That is does not allow you to place special importance on the happiness of your loved
ones.
It is impartial to the kinds of things that people desire to make themselves happy.
That it places no special importance on the happiness of the agent (the person doing
the action)
Act consequentialists believe all actions are morally neutral and that no actions are
intrinsically wrong. This means that: - ANS-They never claim that a particular type of
action is always morally wrong.
The fact that Utilitarianism must sometimes require that we let the guilty go free is an
example of: - ANS-The Problem of Injustice
What is wrong with the Golden Rule according to Kant? - ANS-Its too weak because it
makes morality depend upon the moral agent's desires.
According to Kantian Deontology, in order to test whether you are being fair and
rationally consistent, the best rule to use is - ANS-The Principle of Universalizability
Why would Kant say it is wrong for someone to kick my dog? - ANS-Because they do
not respect me, as her owner
How would Kant Defend the death penalty for a person guilty of premeditated
murderer? - ANS-He deserves treatment equal to the way that he treated his victim
What reason would a deontologist offer for the wrongness of slavery? - ANS-It violates
the autonomy of the enslaved person by merely treating them as a means to an end.
(T/F) According to deontology, it is possible to wrong yourself. - ANS-True
(T/F) In Kantian deontology, you are a moral patient if and only if you are a moral agent.
- ANS-True
Which of the following are virtues of Deontology? - ANS-(All the above)
It explains and justifies the practice of holding people morally praiseworthy.
It can justify and explain the existence of negative rights.
it offers a justification for why we punish people.
In defense of their position, psychological egoists claim that purportedly altruistic actions
are really done so that the actor can avoid feeling a guilty conscience, and since lack of
a guilty conscience is a benefit, anything done to avoid a guilty conscience is done out
of self interest. Why is this a bad argument? - ANS-In order for this argument to work, it
must be that many people do care about the welfare of others (in order to even have a
conscience). And this claim undermines psychological egoism.
