PHI 219 ‘Ethics’ Exam questions

Choose one of the following questions for your FIRST exam

topic.

1. Describe a case in which if you tell someone the truth, their life will be
significantly less pleasant overall; while if you tell them a lie, their life will be
significantly more pleasant overall. What would an act utilitarian and a
proponent of Kant’s theory advice you to do in this case? Whose advise
would you rather take and why?

2. Rawls writes: “The striking feature of the utilitarian view of justice is that
it does not matter, except indirectly, how [the] sum of satisfactions is
distributed among individuals any more than it matters, except indirectly,
how one man distributes his satisfactions over time. The correct distribution
in either case is that which yields the maximum fulfilment…. In itself no
distribution of satisfaction is better than another…. This view of social
cooperation is the consequence of extending to society the principle of choice
for one man, and then, to make the extension work, conflating all persons
into one… Utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between
persons.” (Theory of Justice pp. 26-27)

Give an example that illustrates the objection that Rawls is making, and
explain what it is about utilitarianism that makes it vulnerable to this kind of
objection. Say why Rawls thinks that the Original Position allows him to avoid
this kind of objection. In your view, is Rawls correct that his approach to
justice is superior to the utilitarian’s?

3. Lay out one specific objection to act utilitarianism given in the lectures or
readings (based on the ‘sacrifice of the innocent’, promise-breaking, special
relations, integrity, etc.). Do you think act utilitarianism can give an
adequate response?
If so, then explain this response using an example or two (and perhaps give
an anti-utilitarian rejoinder, with a pro-utilitarian response to it).
If not, then explain whether moving to a more ‘refined’ version of
utilitarianism (like rule utilitarianism or Hare’s two-level theory) would
overcome the objection.

4. Choose two character traits that you believe to be virtues. Define them
and explain how they fit within the best definition of what it is to be a virtue.
Then consider the following question: could one person have both virtues? If
so, imagine a situation in which the virtues seemed to tell the person to act
in two different and incompatible ways, and explain how a virtuous person
would decide what to do in such a situation. If not, what does this say about
the adequacy of virtue theory as an account of the best way to live?
Choose one of the following questions for your SECOND exam
topic.

5. How do MacKinnon and Dworkin understand the phenomenon of sexual

objectification? Evaluate these feminists’ claim that in order to fight sexual
objectification we must eliminate pornography and gender from our societies.

6. Laurie Shrage argues that feminists should oppose prostitution because in

our society it epitomises and perpetuates a number of cultural assumptions
about men, women and sex, which contribute to the oppression of women in
many domains of their lives. Do you find Shrage’s argument against
prostitution convincing?

7. Martha Nussbaum argues that prostitution is problematic in our society

because of the stigmatisation of the prostitute and the bad working
conditions involved in this practice. However, once we get rid of these
problematic features of prostitution, she believes that there is no reason to
consider taking money for sexual services as more problematic from a moral
point of view than taking money for other non-sexual services. Do you agree
with her?

8. H. E. Baber argues that even though being raped is unquestionably

harmful, it is nonetheless less harmful to an individual than having a dull job.
How does she justify this claim? How plausible do you find her position?

9. The idea of something being perverted requires a notion of what is

‘normal’, ‘natural’, or ‘ideal’. Is there any plausible way to understand any of
these terms?