ethics exam 2
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Colorado, Boulder *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1001
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
7
Uploaded by DrTreeWallaby30
Utilitarianism
#1
Carefully state Act Utilitarianism (AU). Be sure to define all three technical terms.
An act is morally right if and only if it maximizes hedonic utility.
- Hedonic Utility is the amount of pleasure minus the amount of pain an act would cause
- An act Maximizes Hedonic Utility when no alternative action has a greater HU
- Two acts are Alternatives to each other if the agent can perform one or the other, but not both
#2
One attractive feature of AU is supposed to be that on AU "everyone matters equally."
Nevertheless, if we have the choice of giving the last dose of life-saving medicine to either a
9-year-old who needs it or a 90-year-old who needs it, then, provided that the case is otherwise
normal, AU will imply that we should give it to the 9-year-old.
a.
Explain thoroughly why AU will imply this.
The hedonic utility of saving the 9 yr old far outweighs the hedonic utility of saving the 90 yr
old. The 9-year-old has the potential to live a long and happy life (many decades) whereas the 90
yr old has only the potential to happily live less than a decade. Many decades of happiness far
outweigh the happiness of a single decade.
b.
Explain how this is nevertheless consistent with the thought that the 90-year-old matters
just as much as the 9-year-old. To do this, you'll need to explain the precise sense in
which "everyone matters equally" on AU.
Since everybody matters equally, then the hedonic utility of everyone's time is also equal. There
is no difference in hedonic utility between a year of the 9 yr olds life and a year of the 90 yr olds
life, so let’s assign the value of 1 point of hedonic utility to each year lived. It is likely the
9-year-old will live at least another 70 years while the 90-year-old is unlikely to live more than
10 more years. Based on the point system, 70 > 10, so the 9-year-old should receive the
medicine.
#3
a.
Lay out in detail the story behind the Promise-to-the-Dead-Man Argument against AU.
The grandson and the grandfather are on a deserted island with enough coconuts to survive. The
grandfather makes the grandson promise to bury his body when he passes away. Instead, when
the grandfather dies, the grandson uses the corpse as fishing bait so that he can eat better meals.
The grandson has no remorse for his actions and no one will ever find out.
b.
Now state that argument in a valid, line-by-line, premise-conclusion form.
P1: If AU is true then the grandson is not morally obligated to bury the body
P2: The grandson is morally obligated to bury the body
C: Therefore AU is not true.
c.
In your opinion, is this a sound argument? If your answer is Yes, give a rationale for each
premise (that’s the reason the premise is supposed to be true); do this separately for each
premise. If your answer is No, say which premise is false and why, and then give a
rationale for the other premise (unless you think that it too is false, in which case explain
why).
P2 is false because according to AU, there is no rule about how breaking a promise is morally
wrong; it only states that the HU must be maximized. In this situation since the grandson has no
remorse, and is very happy with the new meals he is having, the grandfather can’t be unhappy
because he is dead, and he is isolated on an island with no one to judge whether the hedonic
utility of using the body as bait outweighs the HU of being unhappy eating the coconuts.
#4
a.
Lay out in detail the story behind the Footbridge Argument against AU.
There are five people tied to the railroad track and you are standing on a footbridge with a fat
man. You can push the fat man onto the track and stop the train and save the 5 people on the
track, sacrificing the fat man, or you can do nothing and let the 5 people die.
b.
Now state that argument in a valid, line-by-line, premise-conclusion form.
If AU is true then it is ok to push the fat man over to save five.
But it is not ok to do that
Therefore AU is false
c.
In your opinion, is this a sound argument? If your answer is Yes, give a rationale for each
premise (that’s the reason the premise is supposed to be true); do this separately for each
premise. If your answer is No, say which premise is false and why, and then give a
rationale for the other premise (unless you think that it too is false, in which case explain
why).
Yes. P1 is true because the happiness of one person is not greater than five if everyone is equal –
this follows AU. P2 is true because it is never ok to violate someone else’s free will and by
pushing the fat man you are thus not allowing him to choose to save the five people instead you
are using him as an object to save the 5 people. The conclusion is thus true because all the
premises are true.
#5
a.
Lay out in detail the story behind the Punish-the-Innocent Argument against AU.
Serial killer on loose – he commits suicide – copycat emerges and is unfindable bc of cover –
police find the best way to stop it is to blow the cover by framing an innocent man – public
execution
b.
Now state that argument in a valid, line-by-line, premise-conclusion form.
If AU is true then it is ok for police to authorize frame up
But it is not ok ^^
AU is false
c.
In your opinion, is this a sound argument? If your answer is Yes, give a rationale for each
premise (that’s the reason the premise is supposed to be true); do this separately for each
premise. If your answer is No, say which premise is false and why, and then give a
rationale for the other premise (unless you think that it too is false, in which case explain
why).
Sound – P1 framing the innocent man weighed to be the highest hedonic utility – follows AU. P2
– It is wrong to lie – even in AU it could hurt a lot more ppl and hurt
#6
a.
Lay out in detail the story behind Rachels's Demandingness Argument against AU.
Suppose you are a cabinetmaker, not getting rich but making a comfortable living; you have two
children that you love; and on weekends you like to perform with an amateur theater group. In
addition, you are interested in history and you read a lot. How could there be anything wrong
with this? But judged by the utilitarian standard, you are leading a morally unacceptable life.
After all, you could be doing a lot more good if you spent your time in other ways.
b.
Now state that argument in a valid, line-by-line, premise-conclusion form.
If AU is true, then the cabinetmaker is leading a morally unacceptable life.
But the cabinetmaker is not leading a morally unacceptable life
So AU is not true
c.
In your opinion, is this a sound argument? If your answer is Yes, give a rationale for each
premise (that’s the reason the premise is supposed to be true); do this separately for each
premise. If your answer is No, say which premise is false and why, and then give a
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
rationale for the other premise (unless you think that it too is false, in which case explain
why). (Recall that giving the rationale for the if-then premise in this argument involves a
certain complication not found in the in-then premises in the other arguments against
AU.)
P1– true bc according to AU it is a selfish way to lead life doing only what you want instead of
pursuing the benefit and good of humanity. P2 – true because it is the opinion of others that you
are leading a morally unacceptable life, and AU states that we are to make the world as good as
we can make it; that is always subjective to the agent of the action so it is morally acceptable if
you find it to be.
Marquis on Abortion
#7
a.
What is Marquis's main thesis?
****It is prima facie seriously wrong to kill a normal human fetus.
b.
Explain what is meant, in that thesis, by saying that an act is
prima facie
wrong.
To say that an act is prima facie wrong is to say that there is a moral reason against doing it, but
that reason can be outweighed or overridden by competing moral reasons.
c.
What level of seriousness is involved in "seriously wrong"? You can answer this by
using an analogy (i.e., it is the same level of wrongness as what?).
As wrong as killing an innocent adult
d.
What work is the term 'normal' doing?
‘Normal’ is meant to rule out severely disabled fetuses
#8
a.
What is Marquis's theory of why killing you or I would be wrong? Be sure to explain
what is meant by the main technical term in it.
Killing an individual is prima facie seriously wrong when doing so would deprive the individual
of a future like ours.
A
“Future Like Ours
” is a future containing activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments
that are either valuable for their own sake or are means to something else that is valuable for its
own sake
b.
Consider the view that what makes killing you wrong is that you are
human
and it's
always wrong to kill a human. Explain the way, having to do with fictional creatures like
E.T., Frodo, Neytiri, etc., in which Marquis's theory is superior to this theory.
i) FLO Theory doesn’t hold that being biologically human is itself a morally significant category.
ii) FLO Theory is compatible with the view that it is wrong to kill some nonhuman animals
iii) FLO Theory explains why it is prima facie seriously wrong to kill children and infants
#9
a.
State Marquis's Main Argument in premise-conclusion format.
P1. It is prima facie seriously wrong to kill an individual in doing so would deprive it of a future
like ours.
P2. Killing a normal human fetus would deprive it of a future like ours.
C. Therefore, it is prima facie seriously wrong to kill a normal human fetus.
b.
Give the rationale for the premise that mentions the fetus.
For this premise to be true, we are thus assuming that a fetus is an individual. Since the fetus is
an individule FLO theory aplies to the fetus thus making the statement true.
#10
a.
What is Paske's Personhood Theory of the wrongness of killing? Be sure to explain what
is meant by 'person' (you can use our definition from class).
Theory: Killing an individual is prima facie seriously wrong only when it destroys a person. A
person is a being with the capacities:
a.
To reason
b.
To respond to reason
c.
To use language
d.
To have a self-concept
e.
To make and understand moral claims
b.
What does it imply about abortion and why?
This theory implies that abortion is not seriously wrong because a fetus is not a person as it does
not possess the qualities above. **keyword missing: PERMISSIVE**
#11
Describe in full detail Paske's "cat person" thought experiment. Which premise in Marquis's
Main Argument is this example supposed to be a counterexample to? Explain how.
Paske’s cat person experiment is a made-up situation in which there is a kitten that has been
injected with a serum, and in nine months this cat will fully develop into a ‘cat person’. It will
possess the person qualities that humans have. There is an antidote to the serum. If it is
administered, the kitten will develop as it originally would. Assume that the kitten would have a
better life as a cat person than a typical cat.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
P1. If the FLO Theory is true, then it is wrong to inject the kitten with the antidote.
P2. But it is not wrong to inject the kitten with the antidote.
C. Therefore, the FLO Theory is not true.
#12
Explain one of the problem cases for Paske's theory of the wrongness of killing and why it is an
apparent problem for the theory.
One of the problem cases for Paske’s theory of the wrongfulness of killing is that according to
his theory, it is ok to kill newborn babies. Killing newborn babies is ok according to his theory
because babies do not have the capacity to be a ‘person’: babies have none of the 5 traits
discussed in class that define a being to be a person (the ability to reason, respond to reason, use
language, have a self-concept, and make and understand moral claims).
One problematic case for Paske’s theory of the wrongfulness of killing is the case of individuals
who have lost their personhood due to severe brain damage. According to Paske, a person is a
being with certain defining characteristics, including having the capacity to reason, to have a
self-concept, to understand and make moral claims, and more. Following this theory would make
humans in a coma, not people.
The problem with this theory is that it implies that there is nothing wrong with killing someone
who has lost these characteristics of personhood. However, it does not seem to be acceptable to
kill someone in a brain-dead or vegetative state, or even suffering from dementia.
Furthermore, Paske’s theory does not provide a clear way to deal with beings that have the
potential to develop qualities of personhood, such as a fetus or infant. If personhood is defined
by certain capacities, it is unclear exactly when an individual gains these capacities and becomes
a person. This ambiguity makes it difficult to determine the moral status of fetuses, people in a
coma, etc.