7.6 Non-consequentialism, rights, distributive justice, the Ten Commandments

Instructions

Use these questions to check your understanding of non-consequentialist approaches, theories of rights, distributive justice and the Ten Commandments.

Required

1

Keep your promises.

Required

1

Ima Rossian thinks that we ought to keep a promise

Required

1

According to Ima Rossian, one essential defect of utilitarianism is that it ignores

Required

1

Ima Rossian says that the right action is always the action that produces the greatest total of intrinsic goodness.

Required

1

You promise to go to Suzy's party. But you need to break this promise to drive a sick friend to the hospital. So you ought to break the promise. Ross's prima facie view says that you ought to break the promise because

Required

1

Make up for any harm you've done to another.

Required

1

Improve your virtue and knowledge.

Required

1

Ima Rossian rejects utilitarianism because

Required

1

Don't harm others.

Required

1

Upset distributions of pleasure or happiness that don't accord with merit.

Required

1

Ima Rossian gives us principles that we can apply in a mechanical way in any situation to tell us how we ought to act.

Required

1

If act A would produce the most good, then, according to Ima Rossian,

Required

1

Nonconsequentialism is the view that

Required

1

A "prima facie" duty is

Required

1

Return good to those who have done good to you.

Required

1

Ima Rossian suggests that we should, when we face conflicting prima facie duties,

Required

1

Ross's prima facie view holds that the basic moral principles say that we ought, other things being equal, to do or not to do certain kinds of things. So what matters in ethics is, not just consequences, but also what kind of thing we do.

Required

1

Do good to others.

Required

1

Ima Rossian thinks that we have duties to do good to others (beneficence) and not harm others (nonmaleficence). She interprets "good" and "harm" in terms of

Required

1

According to Ima Rossian, one essential defect of utilitarianism is that it ignores

Required

1

Are both of these norms "exceptionless" (in the sense used in the book)? "Never kill an innocent person." "Never kill someone except in self-defense or mercy killing."

Required

1

Our text suggests that we should take a norm more strictly if

Required

1

No consistent moral system can have more than one exceptionless norm. If you have two exceptionless norms, they'll sometimes conflict -- and thus lead to contradictions.

Required

1

Some say that there can't be exceptionless duties, because any norm (even one against killing the innocent) should be violated if we need to do this to keep Dr Evil from torturing everyone and destroying the world. How could we answer this objection?

Required

1

A negative right is

Required

1

Jones believes that: (1) government should take over the coal industry in order to run it more effectively; (2) the automotive industry should remain private, since competition is crucial for this industry; (3) the government should insure adequate health care for everyone by a combination of regulations on companies and government provided insurance for those who would otherwise not be able to get insurance. Jones believes in

Required

1

The right to freedom of religion

Required

1

Libertarians don't believe that the government should help provide for positive rights, like the right to universal health care. The reason they give for this is that

Required

1

The right to property

Required

1

A legal right is

Required

1

A human right is

Required

1

The right to a decent standard of living

Required

1

Libertarians tend to believe that

Required

1

The right to adequate housing

Required

1

The right to adequate health care

Required

1

A positive right is

Required

1

The right to education

Required

1

The right to life

Required

1

The right to free speech

Required

1

Socialists tend to believe that

Required

1

Egalitarians say that doctors

Required

1

The equal liberty principle says that

Required

1

John Rawls suggests that we decide what is just by asking which rules we'd agree to under certain hypothetical conditions (the original position). We're to imagine that we're free, clearheaded, and know all the relevant facts -- but don't know our own place in society (whether rich or poor, black or white, male or female). What principle about distributing wealth does he think that we'd agree to under these conditions?

Required

1

Money has a "diminishing marginal utility." This means that, as we get richer, each extra dollar makes less difference to how well we live. Imagine a simple island society with two families. Which distribution of wealth would, on the basis of diminishing marginal utility, tend to produce the greatest total good?

Required

1

Utilitarians say that doctors

Required

1

Rawls (in his difference principle) says that doctors

Required

1

Nozick (in his entitlement view) says that doctors

Required

1

The entitlement view of just possessions says that

Required

1

The difference principle says that

Required

1

The ten commandments don't specifically cover duties to

Required

1

"Don't worship false gods"

Required

1

"Do good to others"

Required

1

Which of these is one of the ten commandments?

Required

1

"Take a norm more strictly if doing so would tend to prevent great evils or foolish choices"

Required

1

"Don't commit adultery"

Required

1

The ten commandments cover all the duties in the Bible.

Required

1

Gensler's philosophical approach tries to give a complete list of our basic duties in abstract terms. The ten commandments try to give the most important of our concrete duties (to God, family, anyone, and ourselves), but without aiming at completeness.

Required

1

"Keep your actions in harmony with your moral beliefs"

Required

1

"Treat others as you want to be treated"

Required

1

"Don't kill"

Required

1

7.6 Non-consequentialism, rights, distributive justice, the Ten Commandments

Keep your promises.

Ima Rossian thinks that we ought to keep a promise

According to Ima Rossian, one essential defect of utilitarianism is that it ignores

Ima Rossian says that the right action is always the action that produces the greatest total of intrinsic goodness.

You promise to go to Suzy's party. But you need to break this promise to drive a sick friend to the hospital. So you ought to break the promise. Ross's prima facie view says that you ought to break the promise because

Make up for any harm you've done to another.

Improve your virtue and knowledge.

Ima Rossian rejects utilitarianism because

Don't harm others.

Upset distributions of pleasure or happiness that don't accord with merit.

Ima Rossian gives us principles that we can apply in a mechanical way in any situation to tell us how we ought to act.

If act A would produce the most good, then, according to Ima Rossian,

Nonconsequentialism is the view that

A "prima facie" duty is

Return good to those who have done good to you.

Ima Rossian suggests that we should, when we face conflicting prima facie duties,

Ross's prima facie view holds that the basic moral principles say that we ought, other things being equal, to do or not to do certain kinds of things. So what matters in ethics is, not just consequences, but also what kind of thing we do.

Do good to others.

Ima Rossian thinks that we have duties to do good to others (beneficence) and not harm others (nonmaleficence). She interprets "good" and "harm" in terms of

According to Ima Rossian, one essential defect of utilitarianism is that it ignores

Are both of these norms "exceptionless" (in the sense used in the book)? "Never kill an innocent person." "Never kill someone except in self-defense or mercy killing."

Our text suggests that we should take a norm more strictly if

No consistent moral system can have more than one exceptionless norm. If you have two exceptionless norms, they'll sometimes conflict -- and thus lead to contradictions.

Some say that there can't be exceptionless duties, because any norm (even one against killing the innocent) should be violated if we need to do this to keep Dr Evil from torturing everyone and destroying the world. How could we answer this objection?

A negative right is

The right to freedom of religion

Libertarians don't believe that the government should help provide for positive rights, like the right to universal health care. The reason they give for this is that

The right to property

A legal right is

A human right is

The right to a decent standard of living

Libertarians tend to believe that

The right to adequate housing

The right to adequate health care

A positive right is

The right to education

The right to life

The right to free speech

Socialists tend to believe that

Egalitarians say that doctors

The equal liberty principle says that

Utilitarians say that doctors

Rawls (in his difference principle) says that doctors

Nozick (in his entitlement view) says that doctors

The entitlement view of just possessions says that

The difference principle says that

The ten commandments don't specifically cover duties to

"Don't worship false gods"

"Do good to others"

Which of these is one of the ten commandments?

"Take a norm more strictly if doing so would tend to prevent great evils or foolish choices"

"Don't commit adultery"

The ten commandments cover all the duties in the Bible.

Gensler's philosophical approach tries to give a complete list of our basic duties in abstract terms. The ten commandments try to give the most important of our concrete duties (to God, family, anyone, and ourselves), but without aiming at completeness.

"Keep your actions in harmony with your moral beliefs"

"Treat others as you want to be treated"

"Don't kill"

"Honor your father and your mother"

Keep your promises.

Ima Rossian thinks that we ought to keep a promise

According to Ima Rossian, one essential defect of utilitarianism is that it ignores

Ima Rossian says that the right action is always the action that produces the greatest total of intrinsic goodness.

You promise to go to Suzy's party. But you need to break this promise to drive a sick friend to the hospital. So you ought to break the promise. Ross's prima facie view says that you ought to break the promise because

Make up for any harm you've done to another.

Improve your virtue and knowledge.

Ima Rossian rejects utilitarianism because

Don't harm others.

Upset distributions of pleasure or happiness that don't accord with merit.

Ima Rossian gives us principles that we can apply in a mechanical way in any situation to tell us how we ought to act.

If act A would produce the most good, then, according to Ima Rossian,

Nonconsequentialism is the view that

A "prima facie" duty is

Return good to those who have done good to you.

Ima Rossian suggests that we should, when we face conflicting prima facie duties,

Ross's prima facie view holds that the basic moral principles say that we ought, other things being equal, to do or not to do certain kinds of things. So what matters in ethics is, not just consequences, but also what kind of thing we do.

Do good to others.

Ima Rossian thinks that we have duties to do good to others (beneficence) and not harm others (nonmaleficence). She interprets "good" and "harm" in terms of

According to Ima Rossian, one essential defect of utilitarianism is that it ignores