Today is the third of our in-class examinations. I will provide any paper you need. You are allowed to bring one hand-written two-sided 4-inch by 6-inch note-card. Note that this examination is worth 300 points, in light of which fact I've chosen to give you the essay questions in advance as per the following outline.
Examination III Outline
A. Kantian Ethical Theory
5 T/F Questions (2pts ea.)
5 MC Questions (2pts ea.)
2 1-Page Essay Questions (35pts ea.) verbatim from:
In the space provided, state and explain the Case of the Inquiring Murderer and explain what it is supposed to show. What kinds of responses are available to the Kantian?
In the space provided, explain Kant's fundamental objection to Utilitarian Ethical Theory (or, really, any consequentialist theoretical framework one might envision.) Is his objection convincing? Why or why not?
Suppose you happen to see the next person in line at the grocery store fumble their wallet and, without noticing it, they drop a $100.00 bill on the ground. Using i) the First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative and ii) the Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative, explain why you should promptly return the bill to its owner instead of taking it for yourself. In terms of persuasiveness, how does your First Formulation argument compare with your Second Formulation argument?
The Shopping Cart Morality Test asks whether you ought morally to return the shopping cart to the cart corral or just leave it haphazardly in the parking lot as many do when no one is watching and there are no direct benefits to you for walking the cart to the corral. Suppose someone argued as follows:
Well, I am a Kantian, so I would always and unfailingly return the cart to the corral because it is my duty to do so. Why is it my duty to do so? Because according to Kant's First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative, if I should abandon the cart in the lot, everyone should abandon their carts in the parking lot. Yet if everyone abandons their carts in the parking lot, there would be chaos. No one would have anywhere to park, cars would get scratched by carts, and people wouldn't be able to shop at the store anymore!
What is the fundamental mistake this supposed Kantian is making in their argument? How would a Kantian go about arguing that you should indeed return the cart to the corral without making such an egregious error? [Hint: Consider the Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative instead of the First.]
Recalling the case Students' Little Helper, use Kantian Ethical Theory to explain in the space provided whether Sara should take Provigil when she sits for the actual LSAT.
B. Social Contract Theory
4 MC Questions (5pts ea.)
5 T/F Questions (2pts ea.)
1 2-Page Essay Question (60pts) verbatim from:
In the space provided, explain Hobbes' Four Facts of the Human Condition and explain how they jointly entail the State of Nature.
In the space provided, explain the Prisoner's Dilemma and explain how it refutes Ethical Egoism.
Consider the following case from the Fall 2015 Texas Regional Ethics Bowl (notes omitted):
In January of 2015 over 100 people in the US contracted measles, mostly from an outbreak of the disease at California’s Disneyland theme park. The outbreak was spread in part by people who had refused to accept vaccinations for themselves or their children. In July of 2015, the Washington State Department of Health confirmed the first death from measles in the United States in 12 years.
Vaccinations for diseases like measles, mumps, and rubella have kept these diseases in check in the Western world for more than 50 years. While these diseases used to run rampant and threaten adults and children alike, they had all but been defeated up until the early 2000s. Guided by a pop-culture movement that cited, among other things, a (now retracted) scientific paper linking autism with the vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), people began delaying vaccinations for their children or refusing them outright. While numerous studies have shown that childhood vaccinations are safe and reliable bulwarks against disease, the number of parents refusing vaccines has continued to climb.
Anti-vaccination groups also cite a worrisomely close partnership between the pharmaceutical companies making the vaccines and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) which oversees the safety of vaccines. They maintain that the FDA does not sufficiently supervise the implementation of precautions after the drugs are on the market for human use. They also cite the existence of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) as evidence that vaccines are legally recognized as possibly causing suffering that requires compensation by the government. (They also suggest that the NVICP incorrectly shields pharmaceutical companies from justified lawsuits.)
As the number of unvaccinated people grew, so did the risk that a carrier of one of these diseases could spread the disease more rapidly. If the human “herd” lost its increased immunity to the disease, even those who were vaccinated could be at risk. And with an increased number of life- threatening illnesses comes increased healthcare costs. For instance, the cost of the measles outbreak is high, potentially costing up to $10,000 per case. In a healthcare system like the one in the United States, these costs are absorbed not only by the families of the sick children, but may also be “shared” by all those paying for health insurance in the form of increased premiums.
Citing the unfairness of saddling those who vaccinate their children with the increased health insurance costs from those who do not, a team of doctors and lawyers are now proposing a tax on those who refuse vaccinations. Since vaccinations have been established to be safe for most children and vaccination costs are covered by all health insurance plans, they argue that the choice not to vaccinate one’s children should be discouraged by creating a tangible disincentive to opt out of vaccination, regardless of whether any members of the family actually contract a vaccine-preventable disease. Furthermore, such a tax would allow the healthcare system to recoup the costs directly from those whose choices potentially increase the costs. In this way, the proposed tax would work much like a tax on cigarettes that would fund lung cancer treatment. Anti-vaccination advocates and other libertarian thinkers, however, argue that such a tax interferes with important principles of liberty.
Indeed, people generally have the right to refuse medical treatment for themselves as well as their children — some advocates believe that they should have the right to refuse vaccines as well. They argue that the state should not take a position on treatments where some people have serious doubts about the scientific data, and that the tax amounts to economic coercion. There is no such tax, for instance, on foods that may increase the risk of diabetes or heart disease (which are far more costly diseases). And there are no societal sanctions on those who refuse to cover their mouths when they cough or come to work when they are sick with the flu, even though the flu is a communicable disease with a much higher risk of transmission than measles, mumps, or rubella.
In the space provided, use Social Contract Theory to explain whether a special tax should be levied on parents and guardians who elect not to vaccinate their children.
C. Virtue Ethics
1 2-Page Essay Question (60pts) verbatim from:
Using the virtue of temperance as an example, explain how Aristotle defines moral virtue in the space provided. Whether real or fictional, use detailed and clear examples of the virtue of temperance and its associated vices to illuminate your explanation of Aristotle's account. How might the examples of the associated vices you gave be adjusted to shift the virtue of temperance closer to them?
In the space provided, explain what Aristotle is arguing in the following passage:
To the mean in some cases the deficiency, in some the excess is more opposed; e.g. it is not rashness, which is an excess, but cowardice, which is a deficiency, that is more opposed to courage, and not insensibility, which is a deficiency, but self-indulgence, which is an excess, that is more opposed to temperance. This happens from two reasons, one being drawn from the thing itself; for because one extreme is nearer and liker to the intermediate, we oppose not this but rather its contrary to the intermediate. E.g. since rashness is thought liker and nearer to courage, and cowardice more unlike, we oppose rather the latter to courage; for things that are further from the intermediate are thought more contrary to it. This, then, is one cause, drawn from the thing itself; another is drawn from ourselves; for the things to which we ourselves more naturally tend seem more contrary to the intermediate. For instance, we ourselves tend more naturally to pleasures, and hence are more easily carried away towards self-indulgence than towards propriety. We describe as contrary to the mean, then, rather the directions in which we more often go to great lengths; and therefore self-indulgence, which is an excess, is the more contrary to temperance.
In a famous passage, Aristotle cautions us that "goodness is both rare and laudable and noble":
That moral virtue is a mean, then, and in what sense it is so, and that it is a mean between two vices, the one involving excess, the other deficiency, and that it is such because its character is to aim at what is intermediate in passions and in actions, has been sufficiently stated. Hence also it is no easy task to be good. For in everything it is no easy task to find the middle, e.g. to find the middle of a circle is not for every one but for him who knows; so, too, any one can get angry- that is easy- or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for every one, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble.
In the space provided on this and the following page and using your own example of, say, getting angry or giving money, explain the reasons Aristotle gives for concluding that genuinely good persons are the exception, and not the rule.
D. Moral Principles
10 T/F Questions (2pts ea.)
1 1-Page Essay Question (40pts) from:
Thoroughly explain the Harm Principle, Weak Paternalism, Strong Paternalism, and Welfare Principle exceptions to the Principle of Autonomy in the space provided, using carefully crafted examples to clearly and forcefully illustrate each exception.
The Principle of Nonmaleficence enjoins us to avoid causing needless harm to others by our actions. In the space provided, explain precisely how i) Kantian Ethical Theory and ii) Social Contract Theory each entail (obviously for very different reasons) the Principle of Nonmaleficence.
In the space provided, state and briefly explain the Principle of Autonomy. Next, explain precisely how i) Kantian Ethical Theory and ii) Social Contract Theory each entail (obviously for very different reasons) the Principle of Autonomy.
Again, you will note that this examination is worth 300 points (30% of the course total or thrice as much as our first exam). Note that there is also an extra credit essay question worth 30 points. Please plan to arrive on time. Also note that this exam puts greater weight on essays and there are more of them than the last exam. I am, however, deeply concerned about students who just leave essays blank, as happened all too frequently on the last exam. That is not a strategy for success.