Ethics Exam Questions

Ethics Exam Questions Kant’s moral theory centers around a type of statement he calls the ‘categorical imperative.’ a). Explain what a categorical imperative statement is and how it differs from hypothetical imperative The categorical imperative is unconditional commands while the hypothetical imperatives are commands that are conditionally on one having a relative desire. A good example of a categorical imperative is “pay tour taxes in full” even though one may be having a desire not to pay taxes, which may save him/her some money but it may not be possible to do so.

A good example for a hypothetical imperative is “if you are sick you should see the doctor” in this case the command only applies to the sick person; therefore, if one is not sick, he/he may choose to ignore the command Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

ETHICS EXAM QUESTIONS

2

b). Explain Kant’s justification for using categorical imperative as a guide to identifying what actions are morally obligatory to us (use examples to improve your response.

From Kant’s perspective, the categorical imperative is required to provide a way of evaluating moral action, thus making a moral judgement. The categorical imperative is not a command to performing a given action. In explaining the categorical imperative, Kant explains the uses of the word ought both in the moral and non-moral way (Scarre, 1998). From the nonmoral perspective, Kant says that ought is used to mean “if you want this do that” while in moral perspective, ought is used to mean “Do this.” Kant characterizes categorical imperative as an objective that is rationally necessary and a principle that is unconditional, and that human must follow irrespective of any natural desires one may have to the contrary. According to Kant, all moral requirements are justified by the principle of the categorical imperative (Kitcher, 2004). c). thoroughly explain and critically discuss one and only one objection to Kant’s use of categorical imperatives Hegel objects the categorical imperative principle and argues that it has no practical application. Hegel focused on the formula of the law of nature, which states that “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.” In this case, Hegel views the formula this formula by Kant to be reduced to an empty formalism and that the moral science is converted into rhetoric about duty for duty’s sake. Hegel holds that the categorical imperative principle applied by Kant does not give any clear guidelines for assessing moral conduct and that it does not offer the moral duties to be adhered to. In other words, he considers Kant’s categorical imperative to be a litmus for testing moral by the presence or absence of any contradiction (Fieser, 2017).

2. What is Kant’s theory of punishment? Describe lex talionis and then explain how Nathanson points out two passages in Kant that contradict the application of that principal. Is there a way to reconcile them, or is it another problem for Kantian ethics?

Kant’s theory of punishment is, in most cases, referred to as purely retributive. “The law of punishment is categorical imperative, and therefore punishment must hold universally with the necessity for all human beings, leaving no one outside the law’s grasp.“ It also holds that there should be no contradictions among a legal maxim that is satisfactory and in case of any contradiction then the maxim leading to them are considered unsatisfactory. Kantian’s theory of punishment holds that punishments should always treat humans as an end in themselves and should never treat human beings as a means of a future goal (Potter, 1998).

Lex talionis means that whatever crime one does should translate to punishment that is equivalent to it. From Kant’s perspective, whatever wrong you do to someone, you do it to yourself. Kant insists on lex talionis as his view of punishment inspires it should be an application of the categorical imperative. According to lex talionis, the punishment that one receives must exactly fit the crime one commits. This is the notion that is used to support capital punishment. To give weight to the statement, Kant said that the punishment should be never too soft nor too much. Therefore, if one is not able to provide an appropriate punishment to a criminal, may be violating the duty to oneself, it may be viewed as lack of integrity (Potter, 1998: Nathanson,).

Respect for the value of human life Kant argues that human beings should be treated with dignity. This means that another person’s desire should not predict the worth of a given person. In this, Kant argues that human dignity should be respected. Nathanson views this contradicting, as killing a person as a

ETHICS EXAM QUESTIONS

3

punishment denies him right to life. Again, by killing a person who kills, then the society does not respect the dignity of human beings. This is contradicting because Kant supports death punishment. From Nathanson perspective, a criminal should not be subjected to inhumane treatment because by committing a crime they do not cease to be human beings (Gern, 2012).

Value of justice Another contradiction is that punishment is inconsistent with the value of justice. From Kant’s perspective, the punishment that one receives should mirror the crime committed for the victim to receive justice. However, this is not applicable to all the crimes. For example, if someone rapes, it is not possible to rape the person as a punishment yet that is what equals to what he did. Another example, if one kills ten people, killing him/her will not be equal to the crime committed; therefore, it can be ruled that justice has not been realized.

The two contradictions are difficult to reconcile. Most of the criticisms of Kant’s ethics are derived from the two contradictions. Although Kant has tried to defend his ethics, he does not provide satisfactory arguments. For example, for the case of human dignity, he claims that since a murderer does not respect the other’s dignity, his should also not be respected. However, this still does not respect human dignity, which should be respected universally and inherently.

3). According to social contract theory, cooperation between human beings is of central importance for the creation of just society a). Explain what life for human beings is like in the absence of a social contract-that is, in a state of nature. Examples will assist your answer Social contract theory describes the relationship between the rules/laws and the society.

A society without rules and law is not a suitable place to live. Life for human beings in the absence of the social contract theory is would be at risk as people would do things their way without caring about others. Without the theory, life would be stressful as it would be survival for the fittest, whereby the strong ones in the society survive while the weak ones suffer. Without the social contract theory, there would be neither the comforts nor the necessities in human life (Boucher & Kelly, 2003). A good example of the situation of human life is that without rules governing people, killing would be the order of the day as each person cares about their interest. b). Using the concept of the “prisoner’s dilemma explains why social and contract theory argues that cooperation is in our enlightened self-interest.

This is because in the state of nature, there is distrust and each person is focused on selfinterest. Cooperation in the state of nature is not applicable for any person; therefore, humans in the nature state are poised to conflict as each one seeks to satisfy their interest. This is well supported by the prisoners’ dilemma in which no prisoner would trust the other and would choose to cooperate and serve the two years sentence (Axelrod, 1980). c). Explain and critically discuss one and only one criticism of social contract theory One of the criticisms of the social contract theory is that it is historically false. Although the theory holds that it offers the historical origin of the state, it has no foundation in history.

There is nowhere in history where people have lived in a state without the social relationship.

The theory also fails to offer any evidence that society and the state are created by a social contract (Boucher & Kelly, 2003).

4). Huemer and de Marneffe have very different views on the extent society can interfere in individual rights, especially about drug use. After summarizing their positions, tell which one you think is most reasonable, and why you think that is true Marneff’s position regarding human right and drug use are about the harm that the drugs cause on young people. He argues that since the use of recreational drugs is not basic liberty,

ETHICS EXAM QUESTIONS

4

then it is ok to have drug control laws. Although Marneffe believes that the harsh penalties on the drug offenders are currently too heavy, he believes that the society is morally justified and that it is right for the government to punish those who sell and distribute drugs like heroin (De Marneffe, 1996).

Huemer, on the other hand, advocates for drug realization and claims that prohibiting the use of the drug is violating an individuals’ rights. Huemer has the belief that an individual has a right to use drugs or not and if he/she choses to use the drugs the harm will be on him. Huemer believes that prosecution of drug users is not only unjust but also inhuman. Another argument by Huemer against the prosecution of the drug users is on the basis that prohibitionists argue that drug users are driven by drugs to harm themselves in an attempt to cover the fact that people have the freedom to choose what they do to their bodies, provided that they are not harming others (Huemer, 2009).

From Huemer and Marneffe arguments, I think Marneffe is more reasonable. Although Huemer uses other life examples such as how driving can cause harm, same as drugs to people, yet people are set free to drive. His arguments are concentrated on the fact that it is a human’s right to do what they want. His argument is defeated by that of Marneffe when we consider the liberal democracy framework by Rawls. From the framework, the use of drugs is not among the basic liberties; therefore, there is no wrong or injustice is done when the use of recreational drugs is prohibited.

5). What is the definition of virtue theory, as given by Shafer landau? Show how it relates to the function of a human as developed by Aristotle, including Aristotle’s idea of the purpose of a human. Does Shafer Landau’s definition differ in some way from Aristotle’s ideas? If so, is that difference significant? If not, indicate a few points where they are substantially the same Virtue theory of ethics is a theory that holds that moral virtues define the moral of a person. The theory can be understood that right and wrong actions can only be understood regarding the choices made by a virtuous person. In this case, the virtuous person must have a good reason for acting for the action to be considered moral; otherwise, the action does not qualify to be moral (Shafer-Landau, 2017; Grcic, 2013).

Aristotle’s perspective on the virtue ethics is focused on how one can live a good life.

From his perspective, good life aims at Eudaimonia (happiness). Happiness is viewed as living well and flourishing. Aristotle believes that a virtue is a quality that makes a human good in carrying out their function. According to Aristotle, man’s function differentiates him from the other beings; therefore, the functioning of man is an activity of the rational soul, which is by the complete virtue. However, Aristotle holds that possession of virtue does not necessarily make one happy. Nevertheless, by acting rationally by a virtue throughout then, one becomes happy (Grcic, 2013).

The definition of virtue theory by Shafer Landau’s differs from Aristotle arguments to some extent. From Landau’s perspective, possessing virtue and having a good reason for acting is enough to be good and to be happy. However, one need not only possess the virtue but also act according to it. In this case, virtuous acts have more weight than the virtue itself for one to be considered to be morally right. Aristotle does not add more weight to the reason for acting but on acting by the virtue that one possesses.

6.) Shafer Landau says that virtue theory shares a common problem with divine command theory. What is his argument? In your opinion is it a fatal problem for virtue theory? Why of why not?

ETHICS EXAM QUESTIONS

5

The structure is the common problem that Shafer-Landau points out in both the command theory and the virtue theory, making them possess similar weaknesses. For the virtue ethics, he poses it that some virtuous people do not have any good reason for their actions while others have. He holds that if a virtuous person does not have a good reason for behaving in a particular manner, then that person’s actions are considered arbitrary. However, if that person poses a good reason for behaving in a particular manner, then the reason will determine what is right and what is good and not a mere action. Landau argues that if divine command theory is true, then God’s decisions are reasonable and are arbitrary and that God’s commands must be obeyed. Finally, he adds that if it is true, then morality is still on a firm footing (Shafer-Landau, 2017).

In my opinion, the weakness pointed out by Landau is not a serious issue for the virtue theory. This is because even if someone is forced by the circumstance to do right, the action is what matters irrespective of the driving force. The driving force only gives weight to action but does not determine the meaning of the action. As such, provided one possesses virtue, and he/she acts in accordance with the virtue, then the action is considered morally good. Therefore, when one acts contrary to the virtue, then the action can be considered immoral. It would be better if Landau considers both the action and the driving force to act to decide what is good and bad moral than just focusing on the reason behind a given action.

7). Dobson in his essay on “Virtue theory as a foundation for business ethics” say that Virtue Theory will not work in a business setting. Why does he say that? What is his argument about the relationship of the two, and briefly, is he right? Why and why not?

Dobson believes that virtue theory cannot work in a business setting because businesses operate in a competitive environment; therefore, businesses are forced to adopt immoral practices for them to survive. Businesses, for example, need profits to survive; therefore, it may be difficult for a firm to undertake a virtuous action that will raise the operational cost of the business as it will affect its profits. Considering the capitalist society where businesses operate, it is difficult for businesses not to be profit oriented. In the same way, it is difficult to develop virtues for practice as businesses only operate in a temporary context. In Dobson’s opinion, businesses that are suited for competitive economics cannot truly be virtuous because they must make profits to survive; otherwise, they will be kicked out of the business by the competitors.

Dobson, 1997).

In my opinion, I would say that Dobson is not right in his argument. One of the reasons for this is because he only bases his argument on profit. However, nonprofit firms operate well in the capitalist market. There are also other firms like the Morgan cars that operate by not putting the profits in the forefront, and they can survive in the current market.

ETHICS EXAM QUESTIONS

6

References Axelrod, R. (1980). More effective choice in the prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(3), 379-403.

Boucher, D., & Kelly, P. (2003). The social contract and its critics. In The Social Contract from Hobbes to Rawls (pp. 11-44). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Boucher, D., & Kelly, P. (2003). The social contract from Hobbes to Rawls. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

De Marneffe, P. (1996). Do we have a right to use drugs?. Public Affairs Quarterly, 10(3), 229247.

Dobson, J. (1997, July). Virtue ethics as a foundation for business ethics: A MacIntyre based critique. In International Symposium on Catholic Social Thought and Management Education, Antwerp, Belgium. Retrieved December (Vol. 15, p. 2004).

Fieser, J. (2017). The categorical imperative. Retrieved from https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm Gern, D. (2012). The ultimate hypocrisy (Doctoral dissertation, Emory University).

Grcic, J. (2013). Virtue theory, relativism, and survival. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 3(4), 416.

Huemer, M. (2009). America’s unjust drug war. The Right Thing to Do, 223-36.

Kitcher, P. (2004). Kant’s argument for the categorical imperative. Noûs, 38(4), 555-584.

Nathanson, S. (2011) “An eye for an eye?” Disputed moral issues. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Potter Jr, N. T. (1998). The principle of punishment is a categorical imperative. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=philosfacpub Scarre, G. (1998). Interpreting the categorical imperative. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 6(2).

Shafer-Landau, R. (2017). The fundamentals of ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press