Answers should be at least 5 sentences please.

PHIL 1102: Introduction to Ethics Exam 2 guide Exam information The second exam will take place at 10:30 am on Monday, May 7. You will have fifty minutes to complete the exam . You will not be permitted to use notes, the textbook, or any other material during the exam time. Please bring a writing utensil with you. The format of the second exam will b e the same as that of the first, in that I will select 6 -8 of th e questions below for the exam. Like the questions on the guide for Exam 1, t he questions be low are designed to be answered in short paragraphs of around 4 -6 sentences. I will be available during my regularly scheduled contact hours between now and the exam if you would like to speak with me about the questions or answers you have drafted. Pleas e let me know if you would like to meet but are not available during my office time. Question list 1. One of the trolley cases we discussed had to do with organ donation. In the case, there are five people whose lives could be saved if they were to receive he althy transplanted organs, and another person whose organs could be transplanted to the first five. If we assume that all six people are typical individuals like you and I – they have jobs, family, and so on – how will a consequentialist/utilitarian argue in favor of giving the healthy person’s organs to the other five? How can the Kantian humanity principle argue in favor of taking that person’s organs? 2. Consequentialists/utilitarians endorse the idea of impartialism. What is impartialism, and how can it b e used against the idea that we can favor some people because of their ethnicity/ethnic identity? 3. Suppose that you save up several hundred thousand dollars for retirement over your working life . The money is enough for you to retire comfortably; you could pay your bills, take up a hobby, travel a bit, and so on. It is also an amount of money that you could divide evenly and give a thousand dollars away to a few hundred people. How can utilitarians argue that you should the money for yourself, and how can t hey argue that it would be better for you to give the money to those other people? 4. An important part of the utilitarian view of right action is the difference between gross and net effects. Utilitarians will say that right actions are those that create th e greatest gross, rather than the greatest net, outcomes. What is the difference between gross and net outcomes, and why is it better to aim for the greatest net rather than the greatest gross outcomes? [Note that this question differs from that on the ori ginal version of this guide.] 5. It might sound reasonable to say that we are absolutely required to be tolerant of how other people think or act. Consequentialists/utilitarians are non -absolutists about morality , as are virtue theorists . What is absolutism? How can utilitarians argue that it is not absolutely wrong to be intolerant? How can virtue theorists argue for that conclusion? PHIL 1102 (Spring 2018 ): Exam 2 guide Page 2 of 2 6. One of the challenges to consequentialist/utilitarian theories is that they require us to do some things that we think are merely optional; to use the lingo, they make some supererogatory actions into moral obligations. For example, consequentialists/utilitarians will likely say that we are required to give some of our excess income to charity, where we might think that giving to charity is just optional. Why will consequentialists/utilitarians argue that we must give to charity? 7. One problem that consequentialist/utilitarian theories face is that they must say that we can act wrongly even when we mean to do the right thing. The Kantian principle of universalizability has the opposite effect; if correct, the principle would say that we have done the right thing so long as we meant to do so.

Why do consequentialists/utilitarians face that problem, and why do Kantians escape it? 8. The utilitarian idea of creating the greatest overall happiness implies that any creature that can experience happiness is morally eligible (or as Shafer -Landau puts it, they are part of the ‘moral community’). The Kantian humanity principle also gives a n account of moral eligibility by giving two criteria for being a ‘human being’ (i.e., being eligible/part of the moral community) . What is an example of a living being that the utilitarian will say is morally eligible (or part of the moral community) that the Kantian will say is morally ineligible, and why is that creature eligible by one account and ineligible by the other? 9. The Kantian principle of humanity allows us to direct what other people do under some, but not all, circumstances. There is a meanin gful sense in which I am directing what you do right now, since you are writing responses to questions I gave to you. Why does the humanity principle permit me to direct your actions on this exam? 10. We have discussed the difference between act -centered and agent -centered moral theories a few times in class. Utilitarian and Kantian theories fall into the first category, while virtue and feminist theories fall into the second. How do act - and agent -centered theories differ? Why is Kantian theory act -centered, and why are virtue and feminist theories agent -centered? 11. Virtue and feminist theories are pluralist views of morality, in that they say that there isn’t just one moral standard that distinguishes right from wrong, but instead that there are many such stan dards. Both theories can say, for example, that being honest is right, and that being compassionate is as well. One problem for pluralist theories is that having multiple standards for rightness can create conflict between standards. What is an example in which the two standards just mentioned – ones in favor of honesty and compassion – can give conflicting answers?