Since the answers provided below are intended as teaching aids, they are usually longer than you could have given while actually taking the exam. Also when I noticed common misunderstandings as I graded your answers I devoted extra attention in the answer I give below to addressing the area of confusion. However, your answers did not need to cover the material as extensively as these answers do, in order to be judged good answers. You needed to show understanding of the essential points, and not to include material contrary to the essential points. Most answers which were judged inadequate were not judged that way due to omission of important material. Usually they were judged to be inadequate due to the fact that they contained incorrect material. Individual answers actually given by students received high scores, in spite of not being exactly like these answers.

Question #1 Question #2 Question #3

Question #4 Question #5 Question #6

Question #7 Question #8 Question #9

1. Distinguish between Master Morality and Slave Morality according to Nietzsche, giving a brief description of each. Explain how master morality can be considered to contribute to, and slave morality can be considered to hinder, the existence and continued development of human beings. Illustrate with examples.

For Nietzsche those types of character traits and behavior apparently promoting the further development of the human species are the traits and behaviors constituting Master morality. Such traits include will to power, and the belief in one's ability to acquire it. Courage, risk-taking, inner strength, and cultivated tastes are further characteristics of the type of person which Nietzsche regards as noble. The nobility is further manifest in lack of hatred, even of enemies, and a mixture of contempt and magnanimity toward lower classes of people. Most people do not possess such characteristics, though they may have more ability to develop them than they realize, if they were not kept in check by the rules of Slave morality. Slave morality is constituted of rules developed for the security and apparent well-being of people lacking nobility. They include emphasis upon equality, and thus fairness, cultivation of altruism, humility and other social rules likely to lead to security and "happiness." Most of all, they include checks upon the power of people with nobility, since such people are feared by people themselves lacking in the traits of nobility. For this reason Nietzsche thinks slave morality is subverting the ability of humans to develop into even more noble beings than they are already capable of being.

Such morality has led, for example, to a welfare society in which people who are apparently not capable of supporting themselves are supported by those elements of society who are capable of greater things. It has led to the creation of labor unions, in order to make sure that those with the capital and power do not fully exploit the laboring classes as they would if they were creating the finer elements characteristic of previous aristocracies.

Not only has biological evolution developed primarily as the result of weaker members of species succumbing to natural forces before they are capable of reproducing, much previous social development can be seen as the result of more powerful societies preying upon less developed social systems. Moreover, the ability of the powerful social systems to prey upon others was in large part the result of powerful leaders organizing the masses into fighting machines, following the orders of the powerful individuals. Now, however, we have the United Nations, which is intended to help and, to an extent, protect societies which, in the past, would have collapsed. The U.N., along with democratic societies placing emphasis upon human rights, would be seen by Nietzsche as the result of the modern dominance of Slave morality.

2. Briefly explain the fundamental idea behind a deontological notion of ethics. Give a brief explanation of ethical absolutism, relating ethical absolutism to deontological ethics. Explain the practical importance of the deontological idea of ethics. Briefly explain three different ways in which philosophers have attempted to "ground" or justify this feature of ethics.

The deontological feature of ethics and of ethical theory focuses upon the action itself. The idea is that there is something intrinsic to a particular type of behavior which makes the behavior either ethically required or (usually) ethically forbidden. What makes the behavior ethically good or bad has nothing to do with whatever might be accomplished by means of the behavior, nor with the circumstances of a particular instance of the behavior. One simply has a duty to do, or not to do certain types of actions, without thinking of possible consequences of these duties.

Ethical absolutism is the idea that certain types of behavior are always bad (or good) no matter what the circumstances of the behavior. It contains the idea that right and wrong in terms of types of behavior do not change. What is right behavior now has always been right behavior. What is ethically right behavior in India is the same as what is ethically right behavior in the United States. This idea is a usual implication of the deontological feature of ethics, which emphasizes the idea that what is ethically right or wrong is due to the type of behavior itself, without any reference to consequences or circumstances of the behavior type.

To the extent that certain features of a society's moral code have important functions or consequences for the society's survival or for the well-being of the society's members, the deontological feature of ethics is extremely important. In most cases the full function or consequences of an ethical rule cannot be understood by most members of the society. So the society's members cannot be expected to adhere to the rule in order to bring about the good consequences, even if they are motivated to do so. Even to the extent that they could understand the importance of the rule to the society's survival or well-being, they would be inclined to put the rule aside when individual cases of acting contrary to it seemed overshadowed by major reasons for breaking the rule. But such an attitude would soon lead to a complete undermining of the rules, and a loss of their important effects for the social system. So the deontological attitude toward ethical rules, at least traditionally, has been essential to the survival of those social systems which have evolved the types of moral rules needed for social survival and well-being.

Traditionally the most common way of grounding ethical rules has been in some type of command by a divine being. Philosophers have called the validity of such accounts into question, but not all philosophers have totally rejected this method of justifying ethical rules. Particularly the natural law tradition tends indirectly to ground ethical rules in God's commands by positing a natural order, imposed by God, upon the world, and everything in it. Humans are expected to act in accord with this natural order in specific areas in which it would be possible for them to deviate. The same natural faculty which enables humans to deviate from the natural order that automatically guides most features of the world enables humans to understand that there are specific instances in which they should not deviate, in spite of the fact that they have the power to deviate.

A closely related method of grounding the deontological feature of ethics is that of Aristotle who regards at least certain ways of being as those which follow from the essence of humans. Though Aristotle emphasizes the importance of developing the right character, one does this by acting in accord with the type of behavior apparently required by the true function, or essence, of humans.

Since Kant the most common method of justifying the deontological feature of ethics has been through emphasizing the rational character of humans. Since humans are capable of acting rationally--that is, acting on the basis of thought-out reasons for their behavior--the fact that the reasons must be general seems to imply that only those reasons which can be extended to all rational beings would provide grounds for the truly rational methods of acting. Moreover, by virtue of their capability for moral agency, humans can be regarded as the only beings with moral standing. This seems to imply that humans should never be treated as mere means to the ends of another person.

3. Briefly state the first formulation of Kant's categorical imperative. Explain what a "maxim" is. Explain why rationality seems to require action in accord with this imperative. Illustrate with an example.

Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative states that one should always act on the basis of a maxim which one can [rationally] will to be a universal law. A maxim is the principle of action or behavior underlying any individual action on the basis of an imperative. An imperative is a formulation of an objective reason for behaving in a certain way.

If one is acting rationally, one must be acting on the basis of an imperative, in the sense that one could give a reason why one is doing what one is doing. Rational behavior of any kind must occur in accord with hypothetical imperatives--in the sense that the imperative, or reason, provides the explanation of why the behavior is undertaken. The assumption is that one will always be trying to accomplish something by the action, and the explanation works by providing the connection (usually a causal connection) between the immediate behavior, and what one hopes to accomplish. It is the nature of reasons (of any sort) to be general. When reasons are given as justifications for behavior, the reason works as a justification by relating the individual action being undertaken to some general knowledge of how things work, so that one can see that the particular action one is taking is the rational way to accomplish what one wants to accomplish. This makes the rationality of the imperative contingent upon the fact that one wants to accomplish the particular "goal" or effect to which the behavior leads. Such imperatives, whose rationality depends upon a desired goal, are called hypothetical imperatives.

If the particular maxim, formulated as a hypothetical imperative, upon which one is currently acting, is a reason for engaging in the particular behavior, it must also serve as a reason for anyone else to engage in the same behavior, provided the circumstances of the other person's behavior are relevantly similar to the circumstances of the immediate behavior, and provided that the other person wants to accomplish what the first person wants to accomplish. This is a demand of logical consistency, and follows from the mere fact that one gives a reason for behaving in a certain way.

Some maxims, however, would contradict themselves, were they made into universal laws of behavior, or universal reasons for acting in certain ways. For example, were one to justify an individual instance of breaking a contract by saying it would not be in one's financial best interest to adhere to the terms of the contract, one would be acting on the basis of the maxim to break contracts whenever it is in one's financial interest to do so. Were everyone to act on the basis of such a maxim however, it would soon become impossible to break a contract, because contracts would no longer be used if it were understood to be OK to break them whenever doing so served the financial interest of the person breaking the contract. At that point it would, of course, become impossible to break a contract whenever it is one's financial interest to do so. For similar reasons, pretending to be someone's friend in order get the person to help you secure a job, would lead to conditions under which trust would be eroded and the pretense could no longer work.

So the Categorical Imperative could be stated as a universal requirement of rationality upon agents using hypothetical imperatives. If your justification for a particular behavior is a logically valid justification, the same justification must work for anyone else. If the justification can't work for all other people (assuming relevant similarities of circumstances), it can't be a valid justification.

4. Briefly state the second formulation of Kant's categorical imperative. Explain its intuitive accuracy. Explain different ways in which one can violate this imperative, illustrating with at least three different types of examples.

Kant's second formulation of the Categorical Imperative states that one should always treat humanity, in one's own person or in that of another, as an end, never as a means only. Kant believes it is clear that any rational being exists as an end in itself, and for this reason should never be used merely as a means to an end, but should always be considered also as an end. A rational being is considered as an end by being allowed to make her own decisions. Thus the basic way of treating a rational being merely as a means to an end is by subverting the autonomy of the rational being. This is basically done in two different ways. One way is through coercion, as when one forces another into an automobile as one is kidnapping the individual with the intention of using the individual as a means to collect ransom. Another type of coercion may involve threats to fire the individual from a job if she does not submit to various sexual demands. A much more common method of subverting the autonomy of people and thus using them as a means to one's ends is through various forms of deception. When a salesperson convinces a person that they will lose weight by buying and using some device which there is no reason to think will work as the person says it will, the salesperson is simply using the person who wishes to lose weight as a means to his own profit. Likewise, if a person pretends to be another person's friend, simply in order to get the person to buy something, or to help with something, the deceiver is using the other person. (On the other hand if the first person actually befriends the other person, possibly originally with the intention of getting help, but really does become the person's friend, no use necessarily takes place. Any time one gets help from another person with no deception or coercion taking place, the help is being given freely by the person giving it--assuming the person is competent to make the type of decision required to provide the help. This does not involve using the person as a means only.)

5. Explain Hume's idea that such features of ethics as justice, benevolence, and the cultivation of other virtues result from the fact that humans feel sympathy.

Hume thinks people are naturally sympathetic, meaning they have a natural tendency to share feelings. Consequently, we tend to feel ill at ease, or genuinely unhappy, when we are in the presence of other people who are suffering for some reason. Of course, not everyone feels equal amounts of such sympathy. Some people may be quite willing to cause considerable suffering, particularly to strangers, in order to get something from them, etc. But usually the unhappy victims have friends, who feel unhappy along with the people who were robbed, or in some other respect abused. And some types of abuse or unfair treatment may reduce the victims to a state in which they suffer for years, thus causing discomfort in the people around them.

Hume thinks this is a major reason societies tend to enact social rules to protect people from abuse. Rules of justice, cultivation of virtues of benevolence, and other general rules of morality are developed and incorporated into the social order due to the utility of such rules in generally reducing unhappiness in the social order, because when anyone is victimized, many people are likely to feel the discomfort. Of course, if such tendencies toward sympathy were universally strong, we would not need the rules, since everyone would be directly reluctant to treat other people in ways that make them unhappy.

6. Explain basic features of Hobbes' idea of the nature of human beings, as well as what he means by the "state of nature." Explain why Hobbes thinks rationality requires that we become willing to abandon many of the freedoms we would have in the state of nature. How does this lead to ethics?

Hobbes thinks people are naturally completely self-interested. He also thinks people without a social system would be living in what he calls a "state of nature," and that they would be rational beings in this state. In this state of nature there would be no restrictions upon what anyone can do to another. Since humans are basically equal in physical and mental strengths, he believes no one could possibly feel secure in a state of nature. Living conditions, in such a state, even for those with above average strengths, would be miserable and short.

Consequently, Hobbes thinks rationality would require the creation of a type of social order in which there are restrictions on people's behavior, since those are the only conditions under which one could feel secure and could hope to have a decent life. In order for such social conditions to come into existence everyone would have to give up freedom to engage in any type of behavior that one is unwilling to allow to others. He thinks this social order containing restrictions on behavior would come into existence by means of a kind of social contract in which everyone agrees to forego various freedoms for the sake of security. Such a social order would need some kind of monarch or ruler, Hobbes thinks, in order to make sure the rules are followed, and to punish transgressors. By means of the original agreement creating the social order the monarch would be granted the power to do whatever was necessary to keep the peace.

Since each individual is regarded as agreeing, for his own good, to be part of this social order, it is incumbent upon him to obey whatever rules the monarch enacts. This is the beginning of what we now regard as morality, which comes basically from the obligation to follow through on what one has, at least implicitly, agreed to do.

7. According to Mill, what is the first principle of morality? When should one make use of the first principle? What are the principles one uses to guide one's behavior at other times? Give examples.

Mill regards the greatest happiness principle as the first principle of morality. According to this principle the ultimate aim of morality is "an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality . . . for all mankind." This principle is to be used, according to Mill, when one is evaluating rules of conduct. As one goes about one's ordinary life one makes use of those rules of conduct which have so far been generally accepted as leading to this goal. Such rules include the Golden Rule, the cultivation of a type of character rich in virtues held for their own sake, benevolence, self-sacrifice (to the extent that it leads to the happiness of others), and generally all those principles of behavior which advanced societies tend to regard as characterizing ethically good behavior. If there is dispute concerning whether a particular rule or a particular type of behavior, should be considered part of ethically good conduct, the rule or behavior should be evaluated according to the greatest happiness principle.

The greatest happiness principle can be formulated in such a way that it seems to imply a rule of action itself. It can be expressed as the general principle always to act in such a way that one brings about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. But Mill makes it clear that he does not expect people to use, in the sense of think about or calculate, this rule in their daily lives. He thinks the way to act in accord with the rule is to act in accord with those rules of ethical behavior which the society has developed as ethically intelligent ways of conducting oneself.

8. Make sense of Sartre's notion that at least in the case of human beings "existence precedes essence." Explain the importance of this to our usual idea of "objective" ethics.

Sartre lays out what he considers to be the logical implications of a coherent atheism. He does not think any feature of the world or of our lives was designed to be a certain way, nor to fulfill a purpose. Consequently no natural feature of the world, including humans, has an "essence" providing a basis for determining how it must be in order to be a "good one." Rather the world simply has developed in all the different ways it has. Part of what has developed are thinking beings--humans. These beings then impose essences upon things as they think of them.

Humans may also be regarded as creating their own "essences." But this only means they must constantly make choices. As humans make choices they must realize that there is no objective, independent, criterion or limit to their choices. Their choices are totally free, in the sense that they are always made only by the individual agent with no independent basis for being considered right or wrong. What can be considered somewhat wrong is the state that many people fall into of living in an inauthentic manner. This involves believing they are not actually making choices, and thus of not being willing to accept responsibility for the choices they are, in fact, making.

Part of this responsibility involves the fact that in each of our choices we are not just creating our own "essence" we are involved in the creation of an essence for all humankind. Each choice we make is a choice made not just for us, but for a person in the situation in which we see ourselves as being at the moment of the choice. So it is a choice not just for how we are to be, but for how any choosing being (rational being) should be (according to us) under the circumstances existing at the moment of our choice.

9. Relate Aquinas' idea of natural law to Aristotle's idea of human excellence. (This will require a brief explanation of each idea.)

The natural law tradition tends indirectly to ground ethical rules in God's commands by positing a natural order, imposed by God, upon the world, and everything in it. Aquinas refers to this natural order as eternal law. Humans are different from any other type of being in that humans have "free will." This free will enables humans to deviate in important respects from the eternal law. Humans are also different by virtue of being rational. Human rationality enables humans to understand that there are specific instances in which they should not deviate from the eternal law, in spite of the fact that they have the power to deviate. Natural Law is the term Aquinas uses for those circumstances under which deviation from eternal law would be possible, but humans can use their intellects to determine that in those types of cases, they should not deviate--that remaining consistent with the requirements of the eternal law requires a certain type of conduct. Thus, sexual intercourse is used throughout the eternal order as a means of reproduction. Consequently, if one engages in sexual intercourse, while interfering with the natural process in such a way that reproduction can no longer result from the sexual intercourse, one can be seen to be deviating from an important feature of the eternal law. In this particular case, many natural law theorists regard the possible deviation as an instance in which rationality can reveal that the deviation should not take place.

On the other hand, diseases of different types may be regarded as a natural process by means of which a particular population of a type of living thing is made to change so as better adapt to the natural environment. It does this by causing many individuals in a given population to die before they are able to reproduce, thus eliminating the susceptibility to the diseases well as other possible weaknesses of the individuals which succumb to the disease. Humans are capable of interfering with that process by using medications or inoculations and thus stopping people from dying of the disease. That type of interference is usually regarded by natural law advocates as not being rationally excluded.

Aristotle's idea that all beings have a telos, or purpose they are naturally designed to fulfill, is similar to Aquinas' idea that everything is the way it is due to an eternal plan. The telos, or function, is the result of the being's true essence. But the essence is not only descriptive. It also provides the basis for an account of how the particular being should be, in order to be a good being of its particular type. For humans this means the best humans are those that make proper use of their intellects. Thus being the particular type of being a human being is carries with it the implication that there are ways of behaving which will be in accord with the requirements of one's essence. Developing the habits or tendencies to engage in these types of behaviors is a way of acting in accord with one's true nature.