Ethics: First Exam
(53 points)

For each multiple choice question, choose the one best answer.  Answer all other questions as directed.  Each multiple choice question is worth one point.   

1.    As presented in the text, the two main divisions in the study of ethics are (1) Theoretical Ethics (or “Metaethics”) and (2) Normative Ethics.  Clearly define and distinguish between Theoretical and Normative Ethics.  (3 points)



2.    Why does belief in Determinism make the study of ethics pointless?  
a.    Determinism teaches that ethics is based purely on feelings.  Because each individual’s feelings are different, there is no             point in looking for universal moral standards.  
b.    Determinism teaches that all human actions are shaped by previous events, and thus people lack free will.  Because one is         not free to choose how one acts, there is no point in thinking about what is right or wrong.  
c.    Determinism teaches that standards of right and wrong are determined by communities, and what is right in one community         might be wrong in another.  Because each community makes its own moral rules, one should only worry about the rules             of one’s own community.  
d.    Determinism teaches that there is no God.  Because there is no God to provide standards of right and wrong and ensure             that they are enforced, it is clear that ethical standards do not exist.  

3.    What is “Doublethink”?  Define it and provide an example of a person engaging in Doublethink.  (3 points)


 
4.    What is the difference between Argument and Rhetoric as those terms are used by Boss?  
a.    Arguments appeal only to proven facts.  Rhetoric appeals only to feelings.  
b.    Rhetoric appeals only to proven facts.  Arguments appeal only to feelings.  
c.    The purpose of Argument is to win someone over to your position.  The purpose of Rhetoric is to discover the truth.  
d.    The purpose Rhetoric of is to win someone over to your position.  The purpose of Argument is to discover the truth.  


5.     Identify the fallacy in each of the following arguments by writing the letter corresponding to the fallacy in the blank before the argument.  (1 point each)
Fallacies:
 
A.    Equivocation.
B.    Appeal to Force
C.    Abusive
D.    Circumstantial
E.    Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
F.    Popular Appeal
G.    Hasty Generalization
H.    Accident
I.    Ignorance
J.    Begging the Question
K.    Irrelevant Conclusion
L.    Naturalistic
M.    Appeal to tradition
 

_________The theory of evolution is obviously wrong.  After all, no one has been able to prove conclusively that it is true.  

_________It is wrong to cause pain to people.  Dentists cause pain.  Therefore dentists are immoral people.  

_________I sure know who I won’t be calling when we go out next Friday if you argue against the policy to allow alcohol on campus.  

_________Of course eating meat is morally acceptable.  People have been doing it for centuries.  

_________Surely you can’t believe that cheating is wrong.  I know you cheated on an exam last semester.  


6.    According to the Ethical Subjectivist, what is the role of moral education?  
a.    To help students clarify the feelings they already have about moral issues.  
b.    To teach students the difference between right and wrong.  
c.    To provide students with logical skills so that they can distinguish between good and bad ethical arguments.  
d.    To ensure that students adopt the ethical standards of their community.  

 
7.    Clearly define and distinguish between Ethical Subjectivism and Ethical Skepticism by doing the following:  
    a.    Outline the common premises that Ethical Subjectivism and Ethical Skepticism share (3 points)



    b.    Present the different conclusions that Ethical Subjectivism and Ethical Skepticism draw from these premises (3 points)



    c.    Identify one fallacy from the list above contained in the argument for Ethical Subjectivism and explain why the argument            contains this fallacy.  (2 points)


 
8.    In her “Critique of Ethical Subjectivism” Boss presents 5 arguments against Ethical Subjectivism.  Outline three of these arguments.  (6 points)  


 
Essay Question (25 points):  

Judith Boss describes a moral dilemma as a situation in which two or more moral values are in conflict.  In other words, a situation in which there are at least two possible ways of acting for which one can make an argument.  Consider the moral dilemma below, and outline three formal arguments to support possible courses of action.  For full credit, each argument must contain at least one statement describing the relevant facts, at least one statement outlining a relevant moral principle, and a conclusion about what ought to be done.  
First, write as if you are an ethical subjectivist, and present a formal moral argument that an ethical subjectivist would make to justify a course of action.  
Second, present two more arguments to justify possible courses of action using any ethical principles that you believe are valid.  
Finally, choose which course of action among those for which you argued is the best and defend your choice.  

The dilemma:
Prosenjit Poddar (PP), a college student, fell in love with a fellow student, Tatiana Tarasoff (TT).  When TT rejected him, PP fell into a deep depression.  He decided to seek treatment at a local hospital when his depression began to interfere with his health and school work.  During the course of treatment, PP confided to a hospital psychologist, Lawrence Moore (LM), that he was going to kill a girl after she returned from spending the summer in Brazil.  Although PP did not name the girl he intended to kill, it is clear to LM that he was referring to TT.  LM feels that he ought to call the police and notify them of the threat PP has made, but is not certain he should act on that feeling.  What should LM do?