Hi! Here’s my assignment. You just 4 out of the 6. Only use the sources provided!! LMK If you have additional questions. It says it should not go past 1500 words total, they won’t read it. Again, let me know if you need extra info!!Answer FOUR of the following SIX multi-part questions: 1. a) Ross writes: “When a plain man fulfills a promise because he thinks he ought to do so, it seems clear that he does so with no thought of its total consequences, still less with an opinion that these are likely to be the best possible. He thinks in fact much more of the past than of the future.” What is Ross arguing here? Explain. [10] b) Explain Ross’ distinction between prima facie duties and actual duty (or, “duty proper”). Use an example involving a conflict of duty to illustrate the distinction. [10] c) How, according to Ross, do we come to know what the prima facie duties are? How, according to Ross, do we come to know what our actual duty is in a given case? [10] 2. a) What is Particularism, and how does it differ from Pluralism? As part of your answer, be sure to explain how the Pluralist is an atomist about reasons for action, while the Particularist is a holist about reasons. Illustrate with an example. [10] b) Brad Hooker attempts to give counterexamples to Particularism. Explain one of Hooker’s counterexamples. (Do not just state the counterexample; be sure to explain it and how – if Hooker is right – it contradicts particularism.) [10] c) Do you agree with Hooker that this is a counterexample to Particularism? Why or why not? [10] 3. a) What, according to Hursthouse’s Virtue Ethics, determines which acts are right and which acts are wrong? [10] b) What are the V-rules, and what function do they have within Hursthouse’s theory? [10] c) Johnson argues that the fact that non-virtuous people ought to do things to improve themselves morally reveals that Virtue Ethics cannot be the correct theory of right action. Explain Johnson’s argument. Use an example to illustrate. [10] 4. Williams argues that Act Consequentialism does not respect the personal integrity of agents. It requires one to always do the act that brings about the best overall outcome, and this seems to mean that it will frequently be morally impermissible to pursue one’s own projects and interests. Specifically, one is only ever permitted to pursue one’s own projects and interests when they happen to align with what is best overall for everyone impartially considered. This – the objection goes – is alienating, and an attack on one’s integrity. [10] a) How might an Act Consequentialist attempt to respond to this objection? [10] b) Scheffler does not think Act Consequentialism has a satisfactory reply to the integrity objection. What does Scheffler say the root problem with Act Consequentialism is (i.e. the problem that explains why it cannot handle the integrity objection)? [10] c) Scheffler’s Hybrid Theory is designed to avoid this problem. Explain how it does so. [10] 5. Consider the following case from a paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson: “Irving is President, and has just been told that the Russians have launched an atom bomb towards New York. The only way in which the bomb can be prevented from reaching New York is by dropping one of our own atom bombs on Worcester [Massachusetts]: the blast of the American bomb will pulverize the Russian bomb. Irving can do nothing, letting all of New York die; or he can press a button, which launches an American bomb onto Worcester, killing all of Worcester.” (Note: the population of Worcester, Massachusetts is around 182,000. The population of New York City is around 8.3 million.) Pick two of the following theories: (ii) Kantianism (either the Formula of Universal Law or the Formula of Humanity) (iii) Rossian Pluralism (iv) Scheffler’s Hybrid Theory a) For each of the two theories you chose, what do you think it would say about the case: what would it tell Irving to do and why? [20 total: 10 for the discussion of each theory’s analysis] b) Which of the two theories you chose, if either, do you think outputs the correct explanation of what Irving should do in this case? Justify your response. [10] 6. Susan Wolf argues that the perfect moral agent – the moral saint – is not someone one should strive to be. The life of a moral saint is not, she argues, a “particularly rational or good or desirable” one. a) Concisely explain Wolf’s argument for this view. [10] b) Wolf’s point is not that it is not in your own self-interest to be a moral saint. Explain why that is not her point. What is she saying instead? [10] c) Wolf writes: “The flaws of a perfect master of a moral theory need not reflect flaws in the intramoral content of the theory itself.” (p. 435) What does Wolf mean by this? Explain. [10]
