230A, Introduction to Moral Theory Professor Bedke Term 1, 2013-14 Final exam practice questions Note: You will

have 2 hours to complete the final exam on Dec. 13th, 8.30am in the Klinck building, room 200 (http://www.maps.ubc.ca/PROD/index_detail.php?showMapCampus=y&bldg1ID=308). You will have some choice, and the questions will be inspired by these practice questions (not necessarily verbatim reproductions). Advice: Define key terms used in giving your answers. For example, if you mention the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, say what the second formulation is. You want smart but uninformed people to be able to learn from your essay. Questions: 1. What is the function argument in Aristotle? In the resulting view, explain how eudaimonia, virtue, and phronesis (practical wisdom) are meant to relate to one another (for phronesis, there are two interpretations of the role it might play). 2. What is the virtue ethical criterion of right action offered by Hursthouse? Why does Johnson think that such a theory is inconsistent with the idea that we ought to become better people (use examples)? Harder: What do you think of the objection do you think the criterion of right action can be modified to avoid it? 3. What is the first formulation of Kants Categorical Imperative and how does it apply to the following cases: the false promise case and the beneficence case? What are some cases that generate problematic results? Harder: Do you think the first formulation can be saved, and if so, how (if not, discuss some attempts to save it and say why they fail)? 4. What are the two interpretations of Kants argument for the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative (discussed in class)? What do you think of the arguments? Also, why might someone think the second formulation is not sufficiently precise (here, you might consider its application to some of Kants 4 cases, or some problematic cases raised by critics like Feldman)? 5. Contrast the Switch and Footbridge versions of the trolley cases (as discussed in class). What is the better explanation for their differing moral statuses: the doctrine of double effect, or Foots negative vs. positive duties? (Here, you should consider different cases to settle the matter). Are there cases that are not well explained by either view? Harder: If so, do you have an even better view that explains all the cases?

6. What are some of Rosss prima facie duties? What does prima facie mean here? How does Ross think we know of them, and how do they relate to ones overall duty? 7. How might Peter Singer argue against the moral epistemology Ross uses? Harder: What do you think of Singers arguments are you convinced that we should not rely on intuitions that support deontology? 8. What is the difference between a monist, a pluralist and a particularist view of right action? How would one argue for particularism, and what are the replies to those arguments? Harder: Who has the better view the monist, the pluralist, or the particularist? 9. Explain these terms: hypothetical imperative categorical imperative narrow duty wide duty cognitivism non-cognitivism 10. If someone says that morality is objective, what might she have in mind? Discuss at least one way a theory can be objective on first-order grounds (i.e., merely looking at the fundamental moral standard), and discuss at least one way a theory can be objective on second-order grounds (i.e., looking more deeply at the meaning of the first-order sentences). 11. Present the following objections to an objective moral theory (with some attention to what sort of objectivity is at stake in the objection). Harder: critically evaluate these objections. All truth is subjective Objectivity makes dogmatism acceptable There are no categorical reasons Science cannot verify the existence of objective moral truths