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

Last updated over 3 years ago

61 questions

Instructions

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

Required

1

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

Keep your promises.

Ima Rossian thinks that we ought to keep a promise

in most cases but not under some extenuating circumstances.

in all cases.

only when doing so has the best consequences.

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

the notion of duty.

the highly relational character of duty.

the fact that some duties are exceptionless.

the notion of intrinsic goodness.

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

True

False

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

it would promote the most good to break it.

a promise is only a prima facie duty, and thus isn't a genuine duty.

the duty to help the friend here outweighs the duty to keep the promise.

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

Improve your virtue and knowledge.

Ima Rossian rejects utilitarianism because

it makes no sense to speak of a "sum total" of intrinsic good -- since intrinsic good can't be put into numbers.

it doesn't recognize exceptionless principles.

it's internally inconsistent.

it has bizarre implications that violate common sense.

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.

True

False

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

that has nothing to do with whether we ought to do A.

we ought to do act A.

we ought to do act A unless this violates a more weighty duty.

Nonconsequentialism is the view that

there are exceptionless duties.

we ought to do what would be prescribed by the RULES with the best consequences for people in society to try to follow.

some kinds of action (such as killing the innocent) are wrong in themselves, and not just wrong because they have bad consequences.

we ought to do whatever maximizes good consequences.

A "prima facie" duty is

a duty that holds other things being equal.

an exceptionless duty.

a false principle that seems true "at first glance."

a duty to give the "best face" (self-integrity).

a rule of thumb that is justified on utilitarian grounds

Return good to those who have done good to you.

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

ask our ethics teacher what to do.

follow whichever duty is the strongest.

flip a coin.

do what will produce the greatest intrinsic good.

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.

True

False

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

virtue, knowledge, pleasure, life, and freedom (which are good) and their opposites (which are bad).

pleasure (which is good) and pain (which is bad).

virtue, knowledge, and pleasure (which are good) and their opposites (which are bad).

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

our duty to do good to others.

the importance of sometimes just enjoying ourselves instead of always trying to be useful.

the fact that non-maleficence is stronger than beneficence.

our duty not to harm others.

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."

Neither is exceptionless.

The first is exceptionless but not the second.

Both are exceptionless.

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

either of these conditions applies.

the norm is designed to prevent great evils -- like killing an innocent person, destroying a happy marriage, or bringing on a drug addiction.

we're in a situation where we're likely to make foolish decisions if we consider exceptions.

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.

True

False

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?

We could insist that, even if there are highly usual cases where killing the innocent is justifiable, still in real life we don't know enough to recognize these cases. So we'll make better decisions (and avoid tragic mistakes) if we follow the practical rule NEVER to kill the innocent.

Any of these are possible answers.

We could qualify the norm -- either by adding an "except in case of disaster" clause or by insisting that the norm is intended to cover only actual cases (and not fantastic Dr Evil ones).

We could bite the bullet -- and insist that we shouldn't kill the innocent even if Dr Evil would then destroy the world.

A negative right is

a right recognized by the governing body of the society that we live in.

a right that we have (or ought to have) simply because we're human beings -- and not because we're members of such and such a society.

a right to certain goods that society should help to provide (like the right to adequate housing).

a right to not be interfered with in certain ways (like the right to free speech).

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

socialism

trying to combine the best elements of capitalism and socialism.

libertarian capitalism.

The right to freedom of religion

is a negative right.

is a positive right.

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

they are rich and thus don't need help from the government.

they like to see people suffer.

government could provide for these rights only by violating our property rights -- by taking away from some in order to give to others.

the government's doing this wouldn't maximize the balance of pleasure over pain.

they don't think that the government should give handouts to lazy, shiftless people who can't provide for themselves.

The right to property

is a positive right.

is a negative right.

A legal right is

a right to not be interfered with in certain ways (like the right to free speech).

a right to certain goods that society should help to provide (like the right to adequate housing).

a right recognized by the governing body of the society that we live in.

a right that we have (or ought to have) simply because we're human beings -- and not because we're members of such and such a society.

A human right is

a right to not be interfered with in certain ways (like the right to free speech).

a right that we have (or ought to have) simply because we're human beings -- and not because we're members of such and such a society.

a right to certain goods that society should help to provide (like the right to adequate housing).

a right recognized by the governing body of the society that we live in.

The right to a decent standard of living

is a negative right.

is a positive right.

Libertarians tend to believe that

government should be small and should serve only to protect negative rights (like life and property) -- but not to provide services like health care for people.

privately owned and operated business should provide goods and services for profit, with minimal government regulation.

all of the above.

individuals ought to provide for their own needs.

if you break your arm, you have to pay a doctor to fix it (or perhaps pay a private insurance company for a policy to cover medical costs).

it's wrong to take from the successful and give to those who are less successsful -- and so a graduated income tax is wrong.

The right to adequate housing

is a positive right.

is a negative right.

The right to adequate health care

is a negative right.

is a positive right.

A positive right is

a right that we have (or ought to have) simply because we're human beings -- and not because we're members of such and such a society.

a right recognized by the governing body of the society that we live in.

a right to certain goods that society should help to provide (like the right to adequate housing).

a right to not be interfered with in certain ways (like the right to free speech).

The right to education

is a negative right.

is a positive right.

The right to life

is a positive right.

is a negative right.

The right to free speech

is a positive right.

is a negative right.

Socialists tend to believe that

the community should own and control organizations that provide goods and services.

the community should play a big role in promoting positive rights, like health care and a decent standard of living, for everyone.

everyone should share somewhat equally in the goods of society.

cooperation is more important than competition.

if you break your arm, then the community should provide and pay for a doctor to fix it.

all of these

Egalitarians say that doctors

should get paid whatever amount will maximize the total happiness.

should get paid just enough extra so that we have enough qualified doctors. Inequalities beyond this aren't justified.

have a right to keep whatever they legitimately earn, even if this leads to great inequalities. Any scheme (like a graduated income tax) to take away their earnings to help those in need is wrong.

should get paid the same as everyone else.

The equal liberty principle says that

whatever you earn fairly is yours -- and society has no right to take it away from you (through taxation or other means) in order to redistribute wealth or help the poor.

society ought to safeguard the greatest liberty for each person compatible with an equal liberty for all others.

society ought to promote the equal distribution of wealth, except for inequalities that serve as incentives to benefit everyone (including the least advantaged group) and are open to everyone on an equal basis.

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?

Everyone gets roughly the same wealth -- except for equalities (like more pay for doctors) that are justified as incentives that ultimately benefit everyone and are open to everyone on an equal basis.

Keep your promises.

Gratitude

Nonmaleficence

Fidelity

Beneficence

Reparation

Ima Rossian thinks that we ought to keep a promise

in most cases but not under some extenuating circumstances.

in all cases.

only when doing so has the best consequences.

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

the notion of duty.

the highly relational character of duty.

the fact that some duties are exceptionless.

the notion of intrinsic goodness.

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

True

False

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

it would promote the most good to break it.

a promise is only a prima facie duty, and thus isn't a genuine duty.

the duty to help the friend here outweighs the duty to keep the promise.

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

Beneficence

Reparation

Nonmaleficence

Fidelity

Gratitude

Improve your virtue and knowledge.

Gratitude

Fidelity

Self-improvement

Beneficence

Reparation

Ima Rossian rejects utilitarianism because

it makes no sense to speak of a "sum total" of intrinsic good -- since intrinsic good can't be put into numbers.

it doesn't recognize exceptionless principles.

it's internally inconsistent.

it has bizarre implications that violate common sense.

Don't harm others.

Reparation

Beneficence

Gratitude

Fidelity

Nonmaleficence

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

Self-improvement

Beneficence

Fidelity

Gratitude

Justice

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

True

False

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

that has nothing to do with whether we ought to do A.

we ought to do act A.

we ought to do act A unless this violates a more weighty duty.

Nonconsequentialism is the view that

there are exceptionless duties.

we ought to do what would be prescribed by the RULES with the best consequences for people in society to try to follow.

some kinds of action (such as killing the innocent) are wrong in themselves, and not just wrong because they have bad consequences.

we ought to do whatever maximizes good consequences.

A "prima facie" duty is

a duty that holds other things being equal.

an exceptionless duty.

a false principle that seems true "at first glance."

a duty to give the "best face" (self-integrity).

a rule of thumb that is justified on utilitarian grounds

Return good to those who have done good to you.

Fidelity

Reparation

Self-improvement

Beneficence

Gratitude

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

ask our ethics teacher what to do.

follow whichever duty is the strongest.

flip a coin.

do what will produce the greatest intrinsic good.

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.

True

False

Do good to others.

Reparation

Gratitude

Beneficence

Fidelity

Nonmaleficence

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

virtue, knowledge, pleasure, life, and freedom (which are good) and their opposites (which are bad).

pleasure (which is good) and pain (which is bad).

virtue, knowledge, and pleasure (which are good) and their opposites (which are bad).

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

our duty to do good to others.

the importance of sometimes just enjoying ourselves instead of always trying to be useful.

the fact that non-maleficence is stronger than beneficence.

our duty not to harm others.

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."

Neither is exceptionless.

The first is exceptionless but not the second.

Both are exceptionless.

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

either of these conditions applies.

the norm is designed to prevent great evils -- like killing an innocent person, destroying a happy marriage, or bringing on a drug addiction.

we're in a situation where we're likely to make foolish decisions if we consider exceptions.

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.

True

False

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?

We could insist that, even if there are highly usual cases where killing the innocent is justifiable, still in real life we don't know enough to recognize these cases. So we'll make better decisions (and avoid tragic mistakes) if we follow the practical rule NEVER to kill the innocent.

Any of these are possible answers.

We could qualify the norm -- either by adding an "except in case of disaster" clause or by insisting that the norm is intended to cover only actual cases (and not fantastic Dr Evil ones).

We could bite the bullet -- and insist that we shouldn't kill the innocent even if Dr Evil would then destroy the world.

A negative right is

a right recognized by the governing body of the society that we live in.

a right that we have (or ought to have) simply because we're human beings -- and not because we're members of such and such a society.

a right to certain goods that society should help to provide (like the right to adequate housing).

a right to not be interfered with in certain ways (like the right to free speech).

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

socialism

trying to combine the best elements of capitalism and socialism.

libertarian capitalism.

The right to freedom of religion

is a negative right.

is a positive right.

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

they are rich and thus don't need help from the government.

they like to see people suffer.

government could provide for these rights only by violating our property rights -- by taking away from some in order to give to others.

the government's doing this wouldn't maximize the balance of pleasure over pain.

they don't think that the government should give handouts to lazy, shiftless people who can't provide for themselves.

The right to property

is a positive right.

is a negative right.

A legal right is

a right to not be interfered with in certain ways (like the right to free speech).

a right to certain goods that society should help to provide (like the right to adequate housing).

a right recognized by the governing body of the society that we live in.

a right that we have (or ought to have) simply because we're human beings -- and not because we're members of such and such a society.

A human right is

a right to not be interfered with in certain ways (like the right to free speech).

a right that we have (or ought to have) simply because we're human beings -- and not because we're members of such and such a society.

a right to certain goods that society should help to provide (like the right to adequate housing).

a right recognized by the governing body of the society that we live in.

The right to a decent standard of living

is a negative right.

is a positive right.

Libertarians tend to believe that

government should be small and should serve only to protect negative rights (like life and property) -- but not to provide services like health care for people.

privately owned and operated business should provide goods and services for profit, with minimal government regulation.

all of the above.

individuals ought to provide for their own needs.

if you break your arm, you have to pay a doctor to fix it (or perhaps pay a private insurance company for a policy to cover medical costs).

it's wrong to take from the successful and give to those who are less successsful -- and so a graduated income tax is wrong.

The right to adequate housing

is a positive right.

is a negative right.

The right to adequate health care

is a negative right.

is a positive right.

A positive right is

a right that we have (or ought to have) simply because we're human beings -- and not because we're members of such and such a society.

a right recognized by the governing body of the society that we live in.

a right to certain goods that society should help to provide (like the right to adequate housing).

a right to not be interfered with in certain ways (like the right to free speech).

The right to education

is a negative right.

is a positive right.

The right to life

is a positive right.

is a negative right.

The right to free speech

is a positive right.

is a negative right.

Socialists tend to believe that

the community should own and control organizations that provide goods and services.

the community should play a big role in promoting positive rights, like health care and a decent standard of living, for everyone.

everyone should share somewhat equally in the goods of society.

cooperation is more important than competition.

if you break your arm, then the community should provide and pay for a doctor to fix it.

all of these

Egalitarians say that doctors

should get paid whatever amount will maximize the total happiness.

should get paid just enough extra so that we have enough qualified doctors. Inequalities beyond this aren't justified.

have a right to keep whatever they legitimately earn, even if this leads to great inequalities. Any scheme (like a graduated income tax) to take away their earnings to help those in need is wrong.

should get paid the same as everyone else.

The equal liberty principle says that

whatever you earn fairly is yours -- and society has no right to take it away from you (through taxation or other means) in order to redistribute wealth or help the poor.

society ought to safeguard the greatest liberty for each person compatible with an equal liberty for all others.

society ought to promote the equal distribution of wealth, except for inequalities that serve as incentives to benefit everyone (including the least advantaged group) and are open to everyone on an equal basis.

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?

Everyone gets roughly the same wealth -- except for equalities (like more pay for doctors) that are justified as incentives that ultimately benefit everyone and are open to everyone on an equal basis.

White people get almost all the wealth, while others get just a little.

The rules of free market should reign in an unregulated way.

Everyone gets the same wealth.

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?

Family A has $999,000 -- while family B has only $1000.

Family A has $500,000 -- and family B also has $500,000.

Family A has $998,000 -- while family B has only $2000.

Utilitarians say that doctors

should get paid the same as everyone else.

should get paid just enough extra so that we have enough qualified doctors. Inequalities beyond this aren't justified.

have a right to keep whatever they legitimately earn, even if this leads to great inequalities. Any scheme (like a graduated income tax) to take away their earnings to help those in need is wrong.

should get paid whatever amount will maximize the total happiness.

Rawls (in his difference principle) says that doctors

should get paid the same as everyone else.

have a right to keep whatever they legitimately earn, even if this leads to great inequalities. Any scheme (like a graduated income tax) to take away their earnings to help those in need is wrong.

should get paid just enough extra so that we have enough qualified doctors. Inequalities beyond this aren't justified.

should get paid whatever amount will maximize the total happiness.

Nozick (in his entitlement view) says that doctors

should get paid the same as everyone else.

should get paid whatever amount will maximize the total happiness.

should get paid just enough extra so that we have enough qualified doctors. Inequalities beyond this aren't justified.

have a right to keep whatever they legitimately earn, even if this leads to great inequalities. Any scheme (like a graduated income tax) to take away their earnings to help those in need is wrong.

The entitlement view of just possessions says that

whatever you earn fairly is yours -- and society has no right to take it away from you (through taxation or other means) in order to redistribute wealth or help the poor.

society ought to promote the equal distribution of wealth, except for inequalities that serve as incentives to benefit everyone (including the least advantaged group) and are open to everyone on an equal basis.

society ought to safeguard the greatest liberty for each person compatible with an equal liberty for all others.

The difference principle says that

society ought to safeguard the greatest liberty for each person compatible with an equal liberty for all others.

society ought to promote the equal distribution of wealth, except for inequalities that serve as incentives to benefit everyone (including the least advantaged group) and are open to everyone on an equal basis.

whatever you earn fairly is yours -- and society has no right to take it away from you (through taxation or other means) in order to redistribute wealth or help the poor.

The ten commandments don't specifically cover duties to

your family.

God

the environment.

your neighbor.

"Don't worship false gods"

is one of the ten commandments.

isn't one of the ten commandments.

"Do good to others"

is one of the ten commandments.

isn't one of the ten commandments.

Which of these is one of the ten commandments?

Be consistent.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Make up for harm you've done to another.

Don't steal.

Don't harm others.

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

isn't one of the ten commandments.

is one of the ten commandments.

"Don't commit adultery"

isn't one of the ten commandments.

is one of the ten commandments.

The ten commandments cover all the duties in the Bible.

True

False

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.

True

False

"Keep your actions in harmony with your moral beliefs"

isn't one of the ten commandments.

is one of the ten commandments.

"Treat others as you want to be treated"

isn't one of the ten commandments.

is one of the ten commandments.

"Don't kill"

is one of the ten commandments.

isn't one of the ten commandments.

"Honor your father and your mother"

isn't one of the ten commandments.

is one of the ten commandments.