PHIL101 Final Test Questions with Verified
Correct Answers
Let's say that I'm in a situation where I can lie to spare someone's feelings, but I've been
brought up to think that lying is always wrong. Which branch of Philosophy would be
interested in theorizing on this scenario?
The branch of philosophy that would have to do with this would be ethics. Ethics is the study
of what is right or wrong, and it has to do with values. A situation where you might be
wondering if it would be okay to lie to someone so you don't hurt their feelings would
involve questioning your values and what you think the right thing to do is. Whichever
decision you make, you're probably questioning your morals to choose what the best thing to
do is.
Here are two questions. Which one poses a metaphysical question? Which one poses an
epistemic question? Explain your answers. 1) Am I justified in believing that other
people have feelings and thoughts?__________ 2) Is the mind separate from the body?
__________
1) epistemology: It has to do with knowledge because you're wondering if your beliefs are
justified.
2) metaphysics: It has to do with reality and what we consider to exist in the real world.
Think about the topic of free will and give an example of a (i) metaphysical question
about it, and (ii) an epistemic question about it. Explain why you made the choices you
made.
1. Does free will really exist? Metaphysics has to do with reality, so for a metaphysical
question about free will you could ask if it's actually real.
, 2. How do I know that I have free will? Epistemology has to do with knowledge, so for an
epistemic question about free will you could ask how you know you do or don't have it.
Even if it is true that morals differ from culture to culture, why doesn't this
automatically mean that there are no objective moral truths?
This doesn't automatically mean that there are no moral truths because
Are there any actions that seem morally wrong regardless of culture? If so, what are
they? What might this say about the relativism/objectivism debate?
One thing that I think is morally wrong regardless of culture is murder. It's illegal in most
places, so that tells me that many cultures don't think it's a moral thing to do. This says that
even if you are a relativist, there are certain things that are just wrong for any culture to do,
regardless of the cultural norms there.
What does it mean to say that ethical relativism leads to "moral equivalence" of all
moral codes, and therefore impedes moral progress?
There is no universal, objectivist moral code. Every culture has different norms and standards
and none of them are better or worse than each other, they're just different. If there's no
ultimate standard of moral rightness, we can't be making progress because there's no standard
that we can work toward.
What is the "problem of injustice" and how does it work as an objection to
Utilitarianism (construct an example that highlights the problem of injustice - it's ok to
use an example that we discussed)?
The problem of injustice is when one or more beings are sacrificed against their will for the
"greater good." For example, if we lived somewhere where everyone was affected by a
certain disease, we could sacrifice one person to find a cure for it and end everyone else's
Correct Answers
Let's say that I'm in a situation where I can lie to spare someone's feelings, but I've been
brought up to think that lying is always wrong. Which branch of Philosophy would be
interested in theorizing on this scenario?
The branch of philosophy that would have to do with this would be ethics. Ethics is the study
of what is right or wrong, and it has to do with values. A situation where you might be
wondering if it would be okay to lie to someone so you don't hurt their feelings would
involve questioning your values and what you think the right thing to do is. Whichever
decision you make, you're probably questioning your morals to choose what the best thing to
do is.
Here are two questions. Which one poses a metaphysical question? Which one poses an
epistemic question? Explain your answers. 1) Am I justified in believing that other
people have feelings and thoughts?__________ 2) Is the mind separate from the body?
__________
1) epistemology: It has to do with knowledge because you're wondering if your beliefs are
justified.
2) metaphysics: It has to do with reality and what we consider to exist in the real world.
Think about the topic of free will and give an example of a (i) metaphysical question
about it, and (ii) an epistemic question about it. Explain why you made the choices you
made.
1. Does free will really exist? Metaphysics has to do with reality, so for a metaphysical
question about free will you could ask if it's actually real.
, 2. How do I know that I have free will? Epistemology has to do with knowledge, so for an
epistemic question about free will you could ask how you know you do or don't have it.
Even if it is true that morals differ from culture to culture, why doesn't this
automatically mean that there are no objective moral truths?
This doesn't automatically mean that there are no moral truths because
Are there any actions that seem morally wrong regardless of culture? If so, what are
they? What might this say about the relativism/objectivism debate?
One thing that I think is morally wrong regardless of culture is murder. It's illegal in most
places, so that tells me that many cultures don't think it's a moral thing to do. This says that
even if you are a relativist, there are certain things that are just wrong for any culture to do,
regardless of the cultural norms there.
What does it mean to say that ethical relativism leads to "moral equivalence" of all
moral codes, and therefore impedes moral progress?
There is no universal, objectivist moral code. Every culture has different norms and standards
and none of them are better or worse than each other, they're just different. If there's no
ultimate standard of moral rightness, we can't be making progress because there's no standard
that we can work toward.
What is the "problem of injustice" and how does it work as an objection to
Utilitarianism (construct an example that highlights the problem of injustice - it's ok to
use an example that we discussed)?
The problem of injustice is when one or more beings are sacrificed against their will for the
"greater good." For example, if we lived somewhere where everyone was affected by a
certain disease, we could sacrifice one person to find a cure for it and end everyone else's
