FINAL EXAM due on August 5 (earlier submissions are welcome!)INSTRUCTIONS: Include the questions in the completed Final Exam. Points will be deducted if you ignore this simple instruction. Use only the materials read/studied in this course.
Part One–4 points
eachFrom Week 3, Ch. 3
1. The most common reason for supporting ethical relativism is this: Look and see, we are all so different; diversity is an observable fact! What legitimate objection or question can be raised about this kind of reasoning?
2) Ethical relativists justify their relativism by insisting on the value of tolerance and open-mindedness. But relativism does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with tolerance and open-mindedness. Explain this last (underlined) statement.
3) One of the disturbing implications/consequences of cultural ethical relativism relates to what we normally consider ‘moral opposites.’ What would be an example of ‘moral opposites’ and what is the connection with cultural ethical relativism? This was in the PowerPoint and Instructor’s Notes. But it is also in the reading by Pojman, at the end of Ch. 3 of the eText.
From Week 5 and 6, Chs. 5 and 6
4.Show the contrast between a consequentialist ethical theory and a non-consequentialist ethical theory by explaining how they might view abortion. (Remember that, sometimes, it is how ethical theorists reason out that makes them different. They could agree on the same position but reason out differently. So it is important to show understanding of how they might reason out.)
5) Discuss the following two problems with utilitarian ethical theory: a) the problem that has to do with means and ends; b)the problem of being an affront to human integrity.
6) How can dependence on empirical data as to how people view greater happiness for the greater number be a weakness?
7) Two politicians might agree that all citizens and residents should get stimulus checks from government to help them get through this pandemic. But one may be following a hypothetical imperative and another a categorical imperative. Show that you understand the difference between the two imperatives by imagining how they might reason out for the same position.
8) For Kant, a universalizable maxim is not found by just checking out how many people in the world actually accept it. What’s the problem with saying a maxim is moral based on the large number of people who think it is moral? (Defend what you say by citing examples in history (US or global history.)
9) For Kant, we can never be merely (or only) means to each other’s end. Why did he have to add the word ‘merely?
’10) Kant tells us that an action with high moral worth is not done in order to be happy. But we can and do feel happy when we do the morally right thing. So when we feel happy, is the rightness of what we did gone? (What might Kant or a Kantian say?)
From Weeks 9 and 10, Chs. 8 and 9
11) For Aristotle and Aquinas, nature is ‘rational’. What do they mean? (Aren’t we humans the only ones rational and not really all of nature? But they do make that claim for all of nature!)
12) Aquinas’s natural law ethics is meant to make sense even to those who belong to his religious tradition.
13) Discuss the following the following two problems with classical Natural Law ethical theory a) the difficulty of reading nature; b) the naturalistic fallacy.
14) One strength of Aquinas’ ethics is that it has an objective view of ‘happiness’. What does ‘happiness’ mean for Aquinas and what should be present in a ‘happy life’?
15) How is ‘virtue ethics’ vague, imprecise, and not action-guiding enough?
Part Two: 20 points (Answer only one of the two questions below and use what was learned in this courseespecially notes under arguments for and against certain positions)
1) Discuss what you think is the strongest philosophical argument for keeping abortion legal and the strongest philosophical argument againstit. Where do you stand on the issue and why? [Ch 11]
2) Discuss what you think is the strongest philosophical argument for and the strongest philosophical argument against same-sex marriage. Where do you stand on the issue and why?
