(Answered) Introduction to Ethics – Exam 3

Questions

Question 1 

Many people claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. In her article, Judith Jarvis Thomson

• Agrees with this claim.
• Disagrees with this claim.
• Grants this for the sake of argument.
• Ignores this claim.

Question 2

According to Thomson, the right to life is

• The right not to be killed.
• The right not to be killed unjustly.
• The right to the bare minimum one needs for continued life.
• The right to individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Question 3 

In the case of the violinist, Thomson thinks

• You are obligated to unplug yourself.
• You are not obligated to unplug yourself.
• It would be nice of you to remain attached, but you are not obligated to do so.
• It would be nice of you to unplug yourself but you are not obligated to do so.

Question 4 

According to Thomson, what is the relationship between the right to life and the right to decide what happens to one’s body?

• The right to life is always more important.
• The right to decide what happens to one’s own body is, in many cases, more important than the rights of the fetus.
• The two rights never conflict.
• None of the above.

Question 5 

What is the case of the burglar supposed to show in Thomson’s article?

• That fetuses aren’t always innocent.
• That abortion is morally permissible only in the case of failed contraception.
• That the fact that one could have prevented some outcome does not mean that one is obligated to accept that outcome.
• All of the above.

Question 6

In Don Marquis’ article “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he claims that killing is wrong primarily because

• It brutalizes the one who kills.
• It causes great loss to the loved ones of the victim.
• It deprives the victim of a future value.
• It ends the life of the victim.

Question 7 

Marquis thinks abortion is

• Always morally permissible.
• Almost always morally permissible.
• Always impermissible.
• Almost always impermissible.

Question 8

An objection to Marquis’ position that abortion is immoral because it deprives the victim of a future might be

• Fetuses do not themselves value their future
• Fetuses can’t determine their future
• Fetuses can’t project into the future
• The future does not exist

Question 9 

Which of the following does Marquis think is a consequence of his theory?

• It is wrong to kill nonhuman animals.
• Killing the elderly is permissible because they do not have a future of value.
• Contraception is immoral because it prevents a future of value.
• Abortion is never permissible under any circumstance.

 Question 10

Why doesn’t Marquis think that his theory entails the above objection (in #9)?

• Unlike abortion, contraception does not involve killing.
• In cases of contraception, there is no identifiable subject of harm.
• Sperm and eggs are less sentient than fetuses.
• Marquis agrees that contraception is wrong.

Question 11 

Retributivism is the view that the harshness of a punishment should be based on

• What the criminal deserves
• The consequences of carrying out the punishment
• The costs of carrying out the punishment
• All of the above

Question 12 

Igor Primoratz is in favor of the death penalty because he claims that the death penalty is the only penalty that is

• An effective deterrent to murder
• Proportional to murder
• Cost-effective when it comes to punishing murderers
• Adequate revenge for murder

Question 13 

In response to the objection that there is a chance that innocent people will be executed, Primoratz

• Denies that this ever happens
• Admits that this is a good reason to prohibit capital punishment in our society
• Admits this but claims that it would still be unjust to abolish capital punishment because murderers would not be receiving proportional punishment to their crimes
• Points out that innocent people are killed by all sorts of permissible activities, including driving

Question 14 

According to Primoratz, why can’t a murderer claim a right to life for him/herself?

• Because he/she has denied another person that very right
• Because he/she has done something immoral and hence has no rights
• Because only another person can claim such a right for him/her
• Because there’s no such thing as rights

Question 15

How does Primoratz respond to the objection that the death penalty is applied in a discriminatory way?

• He denies that this is the case.
• He admits that and says that we should place a moratorium on the death penalty for this reason.
• He claims that we should reform our justice system, but not give up the death penalty.
• He claims that discrimination is less important than making sure that murderers are adequately punished.

Question 16 

Which maxim best summarizes the principle of lex talionis?

• Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
• Live and let live.
• An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
• The ends justify the means.

Question 17 

According to Stephen Nathanson, the principle of lex talionis would require us to:

• Execute an innocent person if it would prevent a riot.
• Torture suspects to gain information.
• Rape rapists.
• Consider mercy in our punishments.

Question 18

Nathanson claims that the principle of lex talionis would give us no guidance in devising a punishment for

• Murder
• Assault
• Robbery
• Drunk driving

Question 19 

According to Nathanson, why does the proportionality principle fail to support the death penalty?

• Because murder is not the worst crime
• Because the principle is silent about what the most severe punishment should be
• Because the death penalty is inhumane
• Because an innocent person will be executed

Question 20 

According to Nathanson, by not executing violent criminals the state is setting an example by promoting the priniciple that

• Violence is never OK.
• We should turn the other cheek when we are wronged.
• The golden rule is our maxim for society.
• The only justified violence is self-defense.

Question 21

In Douglas Husak’s article “In Favor of Drug Decriminalization”, what does Husak think is rarely focused on in the debate over the criminalization of drug use?

• The harmfulness of drugs
• The positive effects of drugs
• The morality/immorality of drug use
• The money that can be made from the legal taxation of drugs

Question 22

According to Husak, which of the following is not a strategy that can be effectively used in arguments for the decriminalization of drug use?

• A utilitarian strategy
• A rights-based strategy
• A Virtue Ethics strategy based on character
• A burden-shifting strategy

Question 23 

Which argument strategy does Husak mostly favor?

• A Utilitarian Strategy
• A rights-based strategy
• A Kantian Strategy
• A burden shifting strategy

Question 24 

According to Husak, what is the most relevant question concerning the decriminalization of drug use?

• What causes the least harm in society?
• Why are drugs criminalized in the first place?
• What would a virtuous person do?
• What rights should users and non-users have in society?

Question 25

For Husak, decriminalization of drug use means:

• Persons who use drugs should be forced into rehabilitation instead of prison
• Persons who use drugs should not be subjected to punishment by the state
• Persons who use drugs should only have to pay a fine and not go to prison
• Persons who use drugs should only be given a warning for first offenses

Question 26 

Jeff McMahan’s article, “Why Gun Control is Not Enough”, argues for:

• An increase in guns in order to protect ourselves
• An almost complete ban on guns in the hands of private citizens
• More gun control laws such as increased background checks
• A ban on guns, even in the hands of police officers

Question 27 

Which of the following is not what McMahan calls a “perverse incentive of increased gun ownership”?

• Incentivizes gun manufacturers to lower the cost of firearms
• Incentivizes criminals to increase arms
• Incentivizes the police to either increase arms or cede power to an armed citizenry
• Incentivizes those ho don’t own guns to buy guns fro protection

Question 28

According to McMahan, what is “the central pillar in the case for private gun ownership”?

• The 2nd amendment right to own a gun
• We are all safer when more individuals have guns
• “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”
• Hunters should be able to have guns

Question 29 

Which of the following best describes McMahan’s position on self-defense?

• Self-defense is derived from the right of security from attack and banning guns would reduce the risk of attack
• Self-defense is a fundamental right that justifies owning a gun
• Self-defense is a fundamental right but guns should be banned anyway on utilitarian grounds of saving lives
• Self-defense is not a right at all

Question 30

What is McMahan’s answer to the argument that hunters and target shooters have rights should be able to have guns?

• There is no need for hunters now that people can buy food in stores
• Hunters and target shooters should give up their rights in the interest of public safety
• Hunters and target shooters could have guns if they check the box on the application that the guns will only be used for that purpose
• Hunters could have single-chamber shotguns and target shooters could rent guns at a shooting range.

Question 31 

How does McMahan deal with the argument that a law banning guns is the same as a law banning alcohol, which was ineffective?

• He says that alcohol only indirectly kills people, while guns directly kill people
• He says that prohibition was a long time ago and we have progressed since then
• He says that many people have a craving for alcohol and will consume it regardless of the law, whereas the main reason for owning a gun is self-defense. 
• He says that prohibition could have worked if enacted properly

 Question 32 

According to Michael Huemer’s article, “Is There a Right to Own a Gun?”, what kind of right does he think justifies the right to own a gun?

• A natural right
• An absolute right
• A derivative right
• A prima facie right

Question 33 

Why doesn’t Huemer think that the right to own a gun is absolute?

• He thinks that no right is absolute
• He thinks that if a certain number of lives were saved then we would have to say that owning a gun should not be a right
• He thinks that it is an absolute right but we can’t say that after the many gun tragedies
• He thinks that people should only be allowed guns for hunting

Question 34 

Which of the following does Huemer think overrides the right to own a gun?

• The harms that guns cause
• That people would be safer with less guns
• The international statistics of less gun crimes
• None of the Above

Question 35

According to Huemer, why would a gun ban be wrong even if it prevented many deaths?

• It is against the 2nd amendment
• It would provide less benefits to hunters and target shooters
• It would be a violation of (at least some) people’s right to self-defense
• It would actually cause more deaths

Question 36 

Huemer believes that gun prohibition is wrong even if it prevented several times more killings than it contributed to.

• True
• False

Question 37 

Huemer admits that there is no recreational value to owning a gun.

• True
• False

Question 38

Daniel Hausman claims that every argument for affirmative action has some merit.

• True
• False

Question 39 

Hausman believes that affirmative action is just reverse discrimination.

• True
• False

Question 40 

Hausman says that the rectification argument is generally a bad argument for preferential treatment in hiring;

• True
• False

Question 41

 Hausman says that diversity might be a legitimate goal for a business or a university and thus may justify affirmative action policies.

• True
• False

Question 42

Hausman’s example of the elementary school involves what he calls “lifetime opportunities”.

• True
• False

Question 43

Judith Jarvis Thomson says that abortion under any circumstance at any time during pregnancy should be permitted.

• True
• False

Question 44 

Don Marquis says that abortion should never be permitted under any circumstance after conception.

• True
• False

Question 45 

Husak uses only the utilitarian strategy to argue in favor of decriminalizing drug use.

• True
• False

Question 46 

Primoratz’s arguments in favor of the death penalty most closely resemble Divine Command Theory since he says that a murderer has broken the commandment of “thou shall not kill” and should be put to death as is written in the Old Testament.

• True
• False

Question 47

Nathanson’s argument that we should set an example by not allowing the death penalty might be most closely aligned with Virtue Ethics because it is asking “what kind of a society do we want to be?” and concerned with setting a good example.

• True
• False

Question 48 

McMahan’s argument that more guns create less safe environment for all could be a utilitarian argument since he is arguing from overall benefit to society.

• True
• False

Question 49 

A Utilitarian would say that guns should be prohibited because we have a duty not to interfere with God’s plan of who lives and who dies.

• True
• False

Question 50 

Rights-based arguments are more in line with Kant or Ross since they look at individuals and duties, rather than Utiliarianism, which looks at the overall effect on society.

• True
• False

ANSWERS

Question 1 

Many people claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. In her article, Judith Jarvis Thomson

• Agrees with this claim.
• Disagrees with this claim.
• Grants this for the sake of argument.
• Ignores this claim.

To access all the answers, use purchase button below.

$22.00 – Purchase Checkout Added to cart