TABLE OF CONTENTS What Do You Think? ..........................................................................................................................1 Review Exercises Solutions .................................................................................................................2
WHAT DO YOU THINK? 1.
Is Socrates correct to suggest that it is wrong to return evil for evil and that two wrongs don’t make a right? Talking Points: Students should be considering this from a principled perspective: are these claims true and good? Students may want to make connections to what they’ve learned from parents or religion, which is great. Counter-examples could be considered: such as the justification of violence used in self-defense.
2.
Do you agree with the idea that living well is more important than merely living? Talking Points: Students should be encouraged to speculate about what makes life worth living. They should also be encouraged to imagine circumstances in which life is not worth living. Counter-examples could be brought up: for instance, the concern about who decides this; or a general prohibition against killing and suicide.
3.
What would you do if you were wrongly convicted of a crime and sentenced to death? Would you try to escape? Do you think Socrates was wise to refuse to escape? Talking Points: Students should be encouraged to imagine themselves into such a circumstance. And should be urged to think of the discussion not merely in practical terms
(i.e., is it possible to escape and can they get away with it?) but more importantly in moral terms–so that ideas about duty, rights, obligations, and responsibilities are on the table. 4.
What basic principles or virtues guide your thinking about these issues? Talking Points: Again, students should be encouraged to go beyond practical concerns. Virtues that may be discussed could include: courage, loyalty, honor, integrity, etc. Key principles might include: obedience to the law and authority, self-preservation (at any cost?), and obligations to friends and family.
REVIEW EXERCISES SOLUTIONS 1. Determine whether the following statements about the nature of ethics are true or false. Explain your answers. a.
Ethics is the study of why people act in certain ways.
b. The solution to moral conflicts and ethical disputes is to accurately describe the way the world actually is. c.
The statement “Most people believe that cheating is wrong” is an ethical evaluation of cheating.
Solution: 1a. True or False (but it depends upon what we mean by “why”) 1b. False (factual descriptions are not the same as normative argument) 1c. False (the claim the “most people” believe it does not make it wrong; the majority could be wrong or mistaken). 2. Label the following statements as either normative (N) or descriptive (D). If normative, label each
as ethics (E), aesthetics (A), law (L), religion (R), or custom (C). a.
One ought to respect one’s elders because it is one of God’s commandments.
b. Twice as many people today, as compared to ten years ago, believe that the death penalty is morally justified in some cases. c.
It would be wrong to put an antique chair in a modern room.
d.
People do not always do what they believe to be right.
e.
I ought not to turn left here because the sign says “No Left Turn.”
f.
We ought to adopt a universal health insurance policy because everyone has a right to health care.
Solution: 2a. N; R 2b. D 2c. N; A 2d. D 2e. N; L 2f. N; E
3. Discuss the differences between the ideas that ethics is subjective and that it is objective. Solution: To say that ethics is subjective is to say that our moral judgments are merely matters of opinion. This view risks becoming relativism. Those who maintain that ethics is objective believe that we can know what is true or false with regard to moral judgments. 4. Explain emotivism and intuitionism in ethical theory.
Solution: Emotivists claim that ethics is merely an expression of emotion (such as saying “yay” or “yuck). Intuitionists claim that ethical objects (like “the good”) can be known through the faculty of moral intuition. 5. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using naturalistic explanations in ethics. Solution: Naturalistic explanations can provide insight into the biological and psychological sources of moral life. But these explanations are merely descriptive. They are unable to provide normative guidance (or else they risk committing the naturalistic fallacy). 6. As they occur in the following statements, label the reasons for the conclusion as appeals to the motive (M), the act (A), or the consequences (C). a.
Although you intended well, what you did was bad because it caused more harm than good.
b.
We ought always to tell the truth to others because it is right to tell the truth.
c.
Although it did turn out badly, you did not want that, and thus you should not be judged harshly for what you caused.
Solution: 6a. C 6b. A 6c. M
Solution and Answer Guide Fiala/Mackinnon, Ethics: Theory & Contemporary Issues, 10th Edition, 2024, Chapter 2: Religion and Global Ethics
TABLE OF CONTENTS What Do You Think? .................................................................................. 1 Review Exercises Solutions ....................................................................... 2
WHAT DO YOU THINK? 1.
Is there a unifying set of moral rules? Talking Points: Students should be encouraged to consider constructing such a list, perhaps by doing some research on codes of ethics, documents such as the UN Declaration, and from religious texts. They should be encouraged to attend to overlap/similarity as well as divergence.
2.
What values would you include as key values in a “global ethic”? Talking Points: Students can be encouraged to construct their own list of global ethical values. They may also be encouraged to consult other lists of ‘global ethics” values such as from the Parliament of the World’s Religions.
3.
Is morality dependent on religious faith? Or can ethical principles be discovered by reason without appealing to religion? Talking Points: This is a difficult question that can be used by instructors as a jumping-off point for Plato’s Euthyphro. Students will likely disagree about this, which is okay as long as
there is civil discussion of the disagreement. Part of the discussion should include the issue of religious diversity (and/or pluralism, as discussed in the chapter). Students should be encouraged to think about “which religion?” and how can we manage religious diversity.
4.
Are there basic principles that would allow us to “agree to disagree” and coexist despite our diversity? Talking Points: With this question the instructor might encourage students to think about the value of toleration (discussed in the chapter) as well as basic principles of civility and civil discourse, which presumably are also part of student life, an academic code of conduct, and the norms of discussion in the classroom. Might be a good opportunity for the instructor to discuss how they will manage diversity and discussions of religion in the classroom and in class activities.
REVIEW EXERCISES SOLUTIONS 1. If you could develop a global ethic, what would its basic values be? Solution: Candidates for shared values of global ethics often include: toleration, hospitality, truthfulness, kindness, justice, moderation, courage, and others. A key to this conversation is trying to understand the degree to which different religions and cultures agree (and disagree) about ethics.
2. Describe the challenge of developing a global ethical perspective in light of religious and national
differences. Solution: Challenges come from the fact that people disagree about many things. Some religions have one God. Some don’t. And some people don’t believe in God. While some pluralists (such as Gandhi) think that there is a convergence of values, others doubt that this is true.
3. What is the history of the idea of universal human rights? How is this history susceptible to the charge that it is Eurocentric? Solution: The United Nations and other organizations that espouse and defend the idea of universal human rights have attempted to find common ground and overlapping consensus about key values. But some worry that the values proposed by cosmopolitan and secular systems of value import assumptions that only make sense with a Christian and European worldview. Key authors cited in the history of secularism and cosmopolitanism are often European authors such as Kant and the ancient Greeks. In reply, one might note that non European thinkers (such as Gandhi and the Dalai Lama) have been actively involved in trying to articulate a shared global ethics. It remains an open question whether the world can achieve consensus that it is not Eurocentric.
4. Explain arguments in favor of the divine command theory of ethics, as well as arguments against that theory. Is it true that if there were no God, then everything would be permitted? Solution: Arguments about the divine command theory of ethics extend back to Plato’s Euthyphro. Is good prior to God? Or is God prior to the good? Since Plato, philosophers have often suggested that ethical inquiry can occur independently of theological speculation. But
some religious people claim that without God, there would be no ethics. This discussion becomes even more complicated when atheists suggest that there actually is no God.
5. Is the humanistic or secular approach to ethics better than religious approaches to ethics? How so? Is the humanistic or secular approach antagonistic to religion? Solution: One argument in favor of secular ethics is that it allows diverse religious people to coexist. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was created as a way of allowing different Christian denominations to peacefully coexist. So secularism can be in the interest of religious people. But some religious people think that when God is set aside, morality is at risk. It is not always true, however, that secularism and religion are antagonistic to one another.
6. What does Socrates mean when he says in Euthyphro that the holy or pious is holy or pious because it is loved by the gods? Do you agree with his argument? Solution: In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates raises the question of whether God loves the good because it is good or whether things become good because God loves them. This is a version of the problem of divine command ethics.
7. Are you optimistic about our ability to develop a global ethical consensus across our national and religious differences? Why or why not? Solution: Some cause for optimism is the fact that institutions such as the United Nations and the Parliament of the World’s Religions exist and are working to build a global ethical consensus. But despite these efforts, there remain significant differences around the globe.
8. Do you think that all religions are pointing in a similar direction, or are there irreconcilable differences among them? Solution: Some pluralists (such as Gandhi) suggest that all religions (and nonreligions) basically teach the same thing. But this hopeful pluralistic vision runs aground on the reality of religious conflict and the lack of consensus across the globe about culture, religion, and ethics. Other pluralists will argue that it is naïve to hope for complete agreement. Rather, perhaps the best we can do is find a space for toleration and agree to disagree about our religious and ethical differences. 9. What is the value of love, compassion, and the Golden Rule—is this a religious idea or can nonreligious people affirm it? Solution: The value of love is central to the idea of the Golden Rule. Pluralists see it as a key value shared by all religions. And as Eleanor Roosevelt suggests, it is a value that can also be shared by nonreligious people—and that may be connected to the idea of human rights.
Solution and Answer Guide Fiala/Mackinnon, Ethics: Theory & Contemporary Issues, 10th Edition, 2024, Chapter 3: Ethical Relativism
TABLE OF CONTENTS What Do You Think? ................................................................................. 1 Review Exercises Solutions .................................................................... 2
WHAT DO YOU THINK? 1.
Are ethical disagreements inevitable given the diversity of culture, religion, and morality? Talking Points: Students should be encouraged to speculate or do some research on the challenges of diversity. With the opening vignette in mind, this might involve issues in health care—but also education, policing, and so on. The question of “inevitability” may be understood in terms of descriptive reality of relativism. But students may also want to imagine a future in which there are more (or fewer) disagreements.
2.
Can you imagine some values that could (or should) be shared, even in a case like the one described here? Talking Points: This question points toward issues discussed in this chapter (and the prior one) in relation to value pluralism. Shared values in the case discussed here might be care for children and a desire for health. There are also issues of patient autonomy and consent.
3.
How important is cultural competency? In health care? In education? In legal structures? Talking Points: The case under discussion here is a
health-care case. There are other
examples in health care that students could discuss vaccines during the
—for example, disagreements about
COVID-19 pandemic. Most likely, students will have encountered
some form of discussion or even training in cultural competence in their educational experience
.
They may want to reflect on that, even if they were not aware of it at the
time. How has their education reflected this issue? (For example, in communication from schools in multiple languages.)
Similar issues can come up in criminal justice, voting,
and so on.
4.
Is cultural competency a form of relativism? Talking Points: The issue to be discussed in the chapter is whether a commitment to cultural competence is really “relativist” or whether it is a nonrelativist affirmation of diversity and respect for cultures (i.e., tolerance). Instructors may want to push students on this question by asking about the degree to which doctors, teachers, and police might insist on some set of values and criticize cultural values that don’t fit the norm.
REVIEW EXERCISES SOLUTIONS 1. Are there universal, objective moral values? Or are you convinced that relativism is true? Solution: With this question, students are asked to declare whether they agree with objectivism and moral realism—or whether they agree with metaethical relativism. Students should be using those kinds of concepts in their responses—including also using terminology such as skepticism and nihilism. 2. What is the difference between individual relativism (subjectivism) and social or cultural
relativism? Solution: Individual relativism or subjectivism reduces relativism to an individual level—maybe even a matter of taste. The social or cultural version of relativism locates value in some group. The challenge in thinking about social or cultural relativism is found in defining the group. Could a group of friends or a criminal gang define values in their own terms—and would that be coherent or morally acceptable? Even within subjectivism there is the problem of change —what should an individual do when their values change? 3. What is the difference between the descriptive claim that people do differ in their moral beliefs and the metaethical theory of relativism? Solution: The descriptive claim is empirical—and for the most part true. Different cultures do differ in their values and beliefs. But that empirical fact can be distinguished from the metaethical claim that there are no universal or objective moral values. The metaethical claim requires that we think about the existence, grounding, and knowability of values and moral judgments. 4. Do toleration, open-mindedness, and cultural competence depend
on a commitment to
cultural relativism? Solution: Some espouse relativism in an effort to be tolerant. They may embrace relativism in an effort to remain open-minded and to avoid ethnocentrism. But tolerance is typically promoted as a nonrelativistic value,
that is, a value that all people should accept, despite
cultural difference. One could ground tolerance in nonrelativistic commitment to something like liberty or respect for autonomy. 5. How would you know whether a moral disagreement was based on a basic difference in moral values or a disagreement about facts? As an example, consider the issue of climate
change discussed in the chapter. Are there other examples you can think of? Solution: Sometimes people disagree about factual claims. Other times they disagree about normative claims. In the climate case discussed here, the two students disagreed about the facts but agreed
that it would be good to improve present conditions and care about future
generations. Other similar examples will be discussed in the second half of the book. For example, with regard to the death penalty there is a factual/empirical question about whether it deters crime—and utilitarians who support the general idea of deterrence (and so agree about moral principles) may disagree about the moral justification of
the death penalty. Or to cite
another example, people may agree about the basic framework of the just war theory
, but
disagree about how it is applied given disputes about facts in a particular war. 6. What is moral realism? How does your understanding about the reality of the external world differ from your intuitions about morality? Solution: Moral realists claim that moral values are objective and real. Perhaps this means that moral values can be seen, known, or intuited (as in G. E. Moore’s intuition of the good). But one may suggest that there is a difference between seeing colors and intuiting moral good. Of course, one could be skeptical about the existence of the material world as well. But given the assumption that we have shared access to the empirical, there is still room for doubt about whether there is a shared intuition or knowledge of moral facts. 7. Why might social critics such as feminists be in favor of or against relativism? Solution: Social critics, such as feminists, may want to avoid judging other cultures in an effort to demonstrate solidarity and support. They may also suspect that the tendency to be judgmental and ethnocentric is a patriarchal tendency. But feminists and other social critics typically want to be able to criticize social formations that they think are unjust or wrong. As
Anita Superson points out, feminists need an objective value system that they can use to criticize patriarchy, rape, oppression and so on.
Solution and Answer Guide Fiala/ Mackinnon, Ethics: Theory & Contemporary Issues, 10th Edition, 2024, Chapter 4: Egoism, Altruism, and the Social Contract
TABLE OF CONTENTS What Do You Think?
1
Review Exercises Solutions
1
WHAT DO YOU THINK? 1. Is it a good idea that schools and universities promote community service? Talking Points: Students should consider their own experience of community service. Did they do it for altruistic reasons, or were they padding their resumes? They should also be encouraged to speculate about why schools and universities think this matters: is it for the public image of the school? Or is there some more altruistic idea behind public service? 2. Is it really altruistic service if it is required? Talking Points: Students should be encouraged to think about the paradoxical possibility of required service. Are there solutions to this? Maybe by requiring it, it eventually develops beyond a requirement to having intrinsic value. Key concepts in this discussion might include the difference between instrumental and intrinsic value. 3. Is it wrong for people to engage in service activities as a way of padding a résumé ?
Talking Points: This may lead students to discuss the question of motivation and intention in ethics, which would be useful. If good outcomes are produced, do the intentions really matter? Students may also want to speculate about other cases in which people do good things for selfish reasons (e.g., in dating, in their families, or at work). 4. Can community service help people learn the value of altruism
even if they are
motivated to participate for egoistic reasons? Talking Points: Here students may want to think about how altruism is learned
.
Is it innate? Or do we learn it through doing it? It might also be of interest to discuss how community service is used as a punishment (and what this tells us about how we think punishment ought to function).
REVIEW EXERCISES SOLUTIONS 1. Explain the basic difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Solution: Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory about our motivations; ethical egoism claims that it is good to be egoistic.
2. Explain how reciprocal altruism is connected to enlightened self-interest. Solution: Reciprocal altruism involves cooperative activity; self-interested parties may find it in their interest to cooperate.
3. Is psychological egoism true, and what must be shown to prove its truth?
Solution: Students may disagree about the truth of psychological egoism. But they should understand that some empirical approach would be needed to demonstrate its truth. They should also recognize the difficulties of isolating our intentions and motivations.
4. How is psychological egoism supposed to provide support for an argument for ethical egoism? What is one problem for this argument? Solution: Ethical egoism may be based
on the claim that we cannot help but be
motivated by egoistic motives. One significant problem involves the challenge of the naturalistic fallacy: just because we are egoistic does not prove that we ought to be so.
5. Summarize the arguments regarding the consistency or inconsistency of ethical egoism. Solution: Key points include the problem of universalizing egoism: can you say that I should maximize my own self-interest while others should do the same? And what happens when our interests conflict?
6. In what sense does the argument for ethical egoism based on economics support not egoism but utilitarianism—in other words, the view that we ought to do what is in the best interest of all or the greatest number? Solution: If we claim that the economy will flourish under laissez-faire capitalism, we may be claiming that this is good for everyone (and will promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number), which is in fact utilitarianism.
7. Explain how the prisoner’s dilemma can be used in discussions of egoism and cooperative endeavor. Solution: The prisoner’s dilemma shows that self-interested and noncooperative behavior can produce worse outcomes for those who are self-interested—and that it would be better if the self-interested parties cooperated.
8. How does the social contract provide a response to the challenge of egoism? Solution: The social contract involves an agreement among self-interested parties— an agreement that guarantees that they won’t cheat or take advantage.
9. How would care ethicists respond to the debate about egoism and altruism? Solution: Care ethics is critical of the impartial viewpoint, while also emphasizing a relational view of the self. They might suggest that human beings are relational and that there is not as much choice between egoism and altruism as we might suspect.
10.
How does the discussion of evolution (in Pinker) inform our understanding of the conflict between egoism and altruism? Solution: Pinker suggests that there is an evolutionary basis for cooperation, which helps to ground reciprocal altruism and other forms of altruism in naturalistic explanations.
Solution and Answer Guide Fiala/Mackinnon, Ethics: Theory & Contemporary Issues, 10th Edition, 2024, Chapter 5: Utilitarianism
TABLE OF CONTENTS What Do You Think? ................................................................................. 1 Review Exercises Solutions .................................................................... 2
WHAT DO YOU THINK? 1.
Is human population growth a problem? Talking Points: Students should be asked to imagine the kinds of problems caused by overpopulation. They should also imagine benefits of a growing population. Negatives could include traffic, environmental issues, disease control. Positives could include innovation, creativity, the importance of human life itself.
2.
Should we take steps to limit population growth? What kinds of steps? Talking Points: This is a normative question. Not only should students imagine steps to be taken (including birth control, abortion, education, and empowerment of women), but they should also provide a justification. What moral ideas are being used in their thinking? This could push toward a conversation about eugenics—both positive (creative breeding) and negative (involving mandatory euthanasia campaigns).
3.
Should the primary focus of ethics and social policy be the well-being of everyone, or should it be the rights and freedoms of individuals? Talking Points: The problem here is that if people have a right to reproduce,
overpopulation may result. But how do we justify limiting a person’s right to reproduce? This is a typical challenge for utilitarianism. Might also point toward a consideration of the “tragedy of the commons” as discussed in environmental ethics (and related collective-action problems). 4.
Do you think it is possible to promote general happiness for everyone (including future generations) without violating the liberty of some people? Talking Points: Here students may speculate about creative possibilities. Maybe paying people not to have children? Or some other non–liberty-violating incentive program. Of course, they will likely still need to discuss the possibility of balancing liberty/rights with utilitarian concerns. This could open up to a discussion of other such conflicts: pandemic restrictions and vaccinations, pornography and censorship, freedom of speech, and so on.
REVIEW EXERCISES SOLUTIONS 1. State and explain the basic idea of the principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle. Solution: The principle of utility says that we should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. 2. What does it mean to speak of utilitarianism as a consequentialist moral theory? Solution: Utilitarianism is focused on outcomes and results. It is not primarily interested in the abstract value of an act or the intentions behind the act
.
3. What is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental good? Give examples of each. Solution: Instrumental goods are useful for producing something else, such as happiness. For utilitarianism there is only one intrinsic (or noninstrumental) good, which is happiness (or pleasure). As an example, consider reading. It is good insofar as it makes us happy (and is thus an instrumental good). But this implies that reading is not good in itself, since the only
thing that is good in itself on this account is happiness. 4. Which of the following statements exemplify consequentialist reasoning? Can all of them be given consequentialist interpretations if expanded? Explain your answers. a.
Honesty is the best policy.
Solution: Could be consequentialist, if it is focused on happiness produced by honesty. b.
Eduardo has the right to know the truth.
Solution: The idea of a “right” to know the truth sounds like a non-consequentialist idea. c.
What good is going to come from giving money to a homeless person on the street?
Solution: The question of charity, as asked here, focuses on consequences. d.
There is a symbolic value present in personally giving something to another person
in need. Solution: The “symbolic value” of something may be understood in instrumental terms, that is, that this thing inspires others to do something similar. e.
It is only fair that you give him a chance to compete for the position.
Solution: Discussions of “fairness” are usually non-consequentialist, asking us to think about an abstract value such as equality or justice. f.
If I do not study for my ethics exam, it will hurt my GPA.
Solution: This is a straightforward focus on the consequences of studying. g.
If you are not honest with others, you cannot expect them to be honest with you.
Solution: This principle of reciprocity seems to be about the consequences of something like honesty. 5. Is utilitarianism a hedonist moral theory? Why or why not? Solution: Hedonistic theories focus on pleasure. Utilitarianism is hedonistic in a very basic sense. But as discussed in the chapter, it focuses on complex questions about measuring pleasure, and in Mill’s case, it asks us to consider qualitative differences among pleasures. 6. Using utilitarian calculation, which choice in each of the following pairs is better, X or Y? a. X makes four people happy and me unhappy. Y makes me and one other person happy and three people unhappy.
b. X makes twenty people happy and five unhappy. Y makes ten people happy and no one unhappy. c.
X will give five people each two hours of pleasure. Y will give three people each four hours of
pleasure. d. X will make five people very happy and three people mildly unhappy. Y will make six people moderately happy and two people very unhappy. Solution: Probable answers (depending on how one calculates the utilities—but notice that the calculation must simplify and make assumptions about intensity, duration, likelihood, fruitfulness, and so on): a. X b.
X—but depends
on how we evaluate the negative utility of unhappiness
in comparison with the happiness involved.
7.
c.
Y
d.
X—but depends on the intensity of the unhappiness and happiness
What is Mill’s argument for the difference in value between intellectual and sensual pleasures? Solution: Good answers will refer to the Socrates vs. pig comparison, while also explaining the idea of qualitative differences among pleasures. 8.
Which of the following is an example of act utilitarian reasoning, and which is an
example of rule utilitarian reasoning? Explain your answers. a.
If I do not go to the meeting, others will not go either. If that happens, there would
not be a quorum for the important vote, which would be bad. Thus, I ought to go to the meeting. b.
If doctors generally lied to their patients about their diagnoses, patients would lose
trust in their doctors. Because that would be bad, I should tell this patient the truth. c.
We ought to keep our promises because it is a valuable practice.
d.
If I cheat here, I will be more likely to cheat elsewhere. No one would trust me then.
So I should not cheat on this test.
Solution: Probable answers a.
Act utilitarianism
b.
Rule utilitarianism
c.
Rule utilitarianism—if the idea of a “valuable practice” is pointing toward
some general principle of practice that will be repeated. d.
Rule utilitarianism
Solution and Answer Guide Fiala/Mackinnon, Ethics: Theory & Contemporary Issues, 10th Edition, 2024, Chapter 6: Deontological Ethics and Immanuel Kant
TABLE OF CONTENTS What Do You Think?
1
Review Exercises Solutions
1
WHAT DO YOU THINK? 1. Do we always have a duty to obey the law—even an unjust law? Talking Points: Students should consider the question of conscientious objection in multiple contexts, including the examples mentioned: soldiers, nurses, etc. They might be encouraged to compare with similar case in Chapter 1 (the case of Socrates) and the issue of civil disobedience (in Chapter 2). The main point here is to get students to think about duty. What are our duties? And what do we do when there are conflicting duties and when duty seems to run counter to utilitarian concern for the common good. 2.
Are you concerned about the consequences of disobedience, especially if it becomes widespread? Talking Points: Students should be encouraged to question the issue of whether social order is their primary concern. The point is to get them to think about the difference between consequentialism and deontology (non-consequentialism). It might be useful here to follow up with the legendary problem directed toward Kant of whether lying can be justified when the Nazis come looking for Jews hidden in the attic. Would it be OK for the one hiding Jews to lie to the authorities in this case? Is
that example a matter of consequences–or a matter of conflicting duties?
3.
Does the context matter? For example, whether it is a soldier or a nurse who refuses? And what about tax refusers such as Thoreau? Talking Points: Here students might want to dig into the specifics of cases. Can soldiers disobey in an unjust war? (How would they know, and should they be punished?) And what about nurses who refuse to participate in abortion or euthanasia (assuming these are legal activities). What kinds of duties to soldiers and nurses have: to provide care, to obey, or to their own sense of integrity? The tax refuser case can open to the question of general disobedience. It might useful here to introduce Kant’s idea of “argue but obey” = that we have a duty to obey but that we should be free to dissent, so long as we obey. Is this idea coherent? Is it a result of the kind of deontological theory that Kant proposes? From Kant’s perspective there are also the two questions of (1) can it be universalized? and (2) does it respect persons as ends in themselves?
4.
How do we know what our duty is, especially when there is an apparent conflict between the duty to obey the law and the duty to avoid supporting injustice? Talking Points: Here we encounter the idea of a conflict of duties that will return toward the end of the chapter with the discussion of Ross’s idea prima facie duty. It might help to have students imagine lists of conflicting duties. The further question is how we know what our duties actually are. Again Kant’s two questions can help–
and this might open the door to the idea of a categorical imperative that helps us define our duty. The question that arises (with Ross in mind) is whether there is one conclusion or many about what the categorical imperative requires in specific cases. Finally, it is worth getting students to think about the problem of using happiness as a guide here: duty and happiness are not necessarily the same thing: happiness is empirical/psychological but (for Kant) duty is not.
REVIEW EXERCISES SOLUTIONS 1. Explain why we might not want to locate an action’s moral worth in its consequences. Solution: Deontological theories of ethics focus on the intention behind an action as well as on the nature of the act itself. This focus makes sense if you think intentions matter and if you think that there is a set of commands or duties that must be followed and obeyed despite the consequences. Moreover, as Kant might suggest, we have control over our intentions in a way that we do not with regard to consequences, which is why Kant thinks that the focus of moral judgment should be on the will.
2. When Kant refers to “a good will” or “good intention,” does he mean wishing others well? Explain. Solution: Kant is talking about a will or intention that is oriented toward the moral law, that is autonomous, and that is good out of respect for morality (and for other
persons). The idea of “wishing others well” is more focused on consequences, and for Kant, this is less important than the purity of the will itself.
3. What does Kant mean by “acting out of duty?” How does the shopkeeper exemplify this? Solution: This means acting because of respect for the morality of things. It is not because of fear of punishment or hope of reward—but rather because doing your duty is simply the right thing to do. The shopkeeper example provides three possibilities. (1) Doing our duty because it is in our interest (e.g., the shopkeeper hopes customers will keep coming back if we treat them fairly). (2) Doing our duty because of natural inclination or sympathy (e.g., the shopkeeper likes her customers and feels friendly toward them). (3) Doing our duty because we know it is the right thing (e.g., the shopkeeper is fair because the moral law commands it). The last of these is what Kant means by acting out of duty.
4. What is the basic difference between a categorical and a hypothetical imperative? In the following examples, which are hypothetical, and which are categorical imperatives? Explain your answers. Solution: Hypothetical imperatives are about prudential means for obtaining an end. Categorical imperative is the moral law: based on universality and respect. a.
If you want others to be honest with you, then you ought to be honest with
them. This is Hypothetical. It is based on a desire for others to be honest. b.
Whether or not you want to pay your share, you ought to do so.
This is Categorical. It is a statement of a rule that always ought to be followed. c.
Because everyone wants to be happy, we ought to consider everyone’s
interests equally. This is Hypothetical. It is based upon the desire for happiness. d.
I ought not to cheat on this test if I do not want to get caught.
This is Categorical. It is based on the desire not to get caught.
5. How does the character of moral obligation lead to Kant’s basic moral principle, the categorical imperative?
Solution: Kant thinks that morality is universally obligating. Morality requires us always to do our duty, without undue regard for changing circumstances and uncontrollable consequences.
6. Explain Kant’s use of the first form of the categorical imperative to argue that it is wrong to make a false promise. (Make sure that you do not appeal to the bad consequences as the basis of judging it wrong.) Solution: A false or lying promise begins from a maxim that says something like, “when in trouble, make a false promise.” But if everyone believed this and behaved accordingly, it would make promising impossible—since no one would actually be making genuine promises and no one would believe any promise that anyone made.
7. According to the second form of Kant’s categorical imperative, would it be morally permissible for me to agree to be someone’s slave? Explain. Solution: Although Kant was not an abolitionist with regard to slavery, his theory can be used to criticize slavery. The second form of the categorical imperative tells us to respect persons as ends in themselves and to no use persons as means only.