STUDY QUESTIONS FOR FIRST MIDTERM

(Don’t forget to look at the Aristotle questions, too.)

1) Compare Aristotle’s concept of voluntary action with Moore’s. Can someone be blamed for an involuntary action? Explain fully what makes an action morally right, according to utilitarianism? How is hedonism involved in utilitarianism? Does utilitarianism condemn exploitation in all cases? How is egoism different from utilitarianism? What influence does the motive or aim of the doer of an action have the morality of an action, according to utilitarianism? Carefully describe a situation in which a utilitarian would approve some action which non-utilitarians might think to be immoral. Defend or attack the utilitarian conclusion in this case. (No desert islands, please!)

2) Carefully state both forms of Kant's categorical imperative, and explain key terms including maxim, universal law, end-in-itself, means only. Using both forms of the categorical imperative, explain how Kant would evaluate the following conduct (be sure to state the maxim you test in each case):

            a) Olivia spends her life trying to satisfy her husband's every whim, never even considering her own needs or desires, or forming her own opinions. She does this even though her husband Oscar constantly humiliates her. Olivia has no children, and has training in a well-paying profession.

            b) Oscar joins the K.K.K. and tries to organize a political movement to eliminate unemployment for whites by firing all non-whites.

3) The following question and answer came from an interview with U. S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright on the T. V. show "60 Minutes", May 12, 1996:

Question from Lesley Stahl: speaking of US sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?"

Answer from Madeline Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

Using the views of at least 4 authors studied in this course, answer this question about Albright's claim that U. S. policy against Iraq is so valuable that it is worth the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children: Is Albright's claim right, morally speaking? Authors to choose from: Aristotle, Moore, Kant, egoism. (If it matters, you should assume that the civilian causalities are not all the outcome of military action, like bombing water reservoirs and power plants, but result to a large degree from sanctions that prevented Iraq from buying food and medicine in adequate quantities. Note also that Albright does not dispute the numbers, which come from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Agency, December, 1995.)

4) One key characteristic of terrorism is that it tries to protest against or forces changes of actions that were not committed or perhaps even approved by those whom the terrorist kills. Examine the various views about morality we have studied and decide which (if any) of them would be able to find some justification for acts which have this key characteristic, i.e., killing those who are apparently not responsible for the situation which the terrorists oppose.

5) Is there a difference in the morality of two actions, one which kills someone, and the other which lets that person die? Answer from the point of view of Utilitarianism and of Kant.

6) Explain the idea of a “class morality” as this concept appears in Engels, Mao, and Nietzsche. What is the content of “proletarian morality” in Engels and Mao? What is the content of “noble” or “aristocratic” morality in Nietzsche? What is slave morality and how does it differ from the noble or aristocratic morality? What is the difference between bad and evil? Who originated slave morality and why? What are the harmful effects of slave morality? Is Nietzsche an anti-Semite? What is the attitude of these various thinkers to social equality and a classless society? To the rights of workers?

7) What, according to Locke, are a person's natural rights, which ones does she keep when there is a legitimate government? Describe and critically evaluate Locke's arguments for the natural rights to life and liberty. Describe and critically evaluate Locke's argument that a person may have a right to private property without the consent of the community and without violating God's commands. What are the roles of work, getting there first, and money in this argument? What are its controversial or doubtful premises? 

8) What is the role of tacit consent in Locke's theory? Does a social contract have to be entirely written down? What shows that Locke may not be talking about an explicit, datable agreement? Under what circumstances is revolution morally permissible in Locke's theory? What assumptions about human nature does Locke make in his argument that government is necessary, but revolutions are sometimes right?