Jeff Ma
INFO 450
Quiz 1 Re-grade
Question 5
One way not to think rationally about moral or policy questions is by appealing to preferences or feelings. This is not a good way to decide moral or policy questions because: (pick one)
Originally answered: c. feeling or preferring that something is moral or immoral does not make it so – feeling or preferring that some policy is correct does not make it so corect answer: d. both (b) and (c) b. not everyone has the same feelings or preferences and this would lead to conflicts, but solving conflicts is part of what morality and policy debate is about c. feeling or preferring that something is moral or immoral does not make it so
– feeling or preferring that some policy is correct does not make it so
Updated answer:
Whoops! I thought I chose the correct answer but then I rushed to submit the assignment right before the deadline. I agree with the correct answer. Knowing from personal experience that although we may be grouped as a society we can differ greatly. People may come from different cultures, ethnicities, and socio-economic backgrounds. And even though individuals have different or conflicting preferences we are able to co-exist because of our ability to not deny what others prefer.
Preferences may be individual based. But with moral or policy issues, just because an individual feels or thinks it is right or wrong does not make it right or wrong. It is the action that is right or wrong independent of what one thinks or feels.
Question 11
Short Answer: In the space provided answer the following question(s). You aren't expected to use any fancy formatting for the short answer questions. Canvas just automatically puts the formatting toolbars in. You do need to answer the questions in writing, so avoid the media buttons.
What is ethical relativism? What does this theory say about moral obligations? Next, briefly present and explain two objections to ethical relativism.
Your Answer: ethical relativism is that morality is relative to the norms of a society/culture/region that an individual is part of and their interpretation of whether the act is right or wrong.
The theory of ethical relativism would say that the morality is useless. Individuals are following a correct moral principle in relation to their groups norms.
Updated answer:

I wasn’t able to answer all 3 parts of the question. Only the first part. To address the second part of the question I think ethical relativism would say that moral obligations are absolute and does not recognize that societies have different moral codes and p rinciples. No society’s morals are more right or wrong than the other. With an absolute moral view one society can be more wrong or right than another society. This would go against ethical relativism.
For the third part, one objection to ethical relativism is that two groups could have different beliefs and views about the same subject. Ethical relativism would consider that both groups could be correct but what about if one group believes that it’s socially acceptable to hurt and kill people? We know this is wrong independent of culture, religion, or background because it can be argued. Which brings up another objection. If a group can justify through arguments about their morals then they will be denying ethical relativism. The use of independent arguments to make a case for ethical relativism would go against the whole concept.
Question 13
Short Answer: In the space provided answer the following question(s).
Briefly explain ethical egoism. Where do moral oughts come from according to the ethical egoist? Next, explain at least one objection to this moral theory.
Your Answer:
Ethical egoism is that one ought to do what maximizes their own self-interest.
According to ethical egoist moral oughts come from ability. You only have an obligation to do something if you are able and capable of doing it.
One objection would be that just because an individual can and has the ability to do something doesn't mean they should do it. Like stealing from others.
Updated answer:
I wasn’t more specific on developing my objection to ethical egoism. As I stated in my original answer that just because an individual has the ability to do something doesn’t mean they ought to do it. If one were to steal because they can and not face any negative consequences then one would probably steal. Perhaps people do not steal because they are not wanting to go to jail. But what if a citizen is walking through a dark alley and using there iphone and there was a mugger waiting to rob that person of the iphone. The mugger might be thinking steal the iphone and get cash for selling it but the citizen is thinking that it was hard work earning money to buy the phone. Why should it be given up to the mugger? According to the adequacy argument a moral theory has to have a way to resolve conflicts of interest between individuals. With ethical egoism each individual only looks after their own interest. In this situation how would there be a solution if each individual is only wanting to fulfill their self-interest?
Question 14
Short Answer: In the space provided answer the following question(s).

Stallman thinks that software should be free. First what does he mean by "free"? Second, explain what a tragedy of the commons is (the incentives problem) and why Stallman has to answer this worry. Finally, is Stallman’s argument successful in your view? Why or why not?
Your Answer:
Stallman said that free software means that users can use it any way at any time and any place they want. They can view the source code and make modifications. They can redistribute and republish the software and even redistribute and republish software with modifications.
The creation of software isn't free. There is definitely a cost somewhere along in creation of software.
But also if a developer is not going to be paid what would motivate or incentivize creation of good software? Why would anyone care? I agree with Stallmans argument because I do believe that software should be free. I think it would be a greater benefit to society then to proprietary software which may be restrictive and inhibit growth of society.
Updated answer:
In my original answer I didn’t explain what the tragedy of the commons was. I would say it is best described as an economic issue in which individuals try to extract the most benefits from a resource.
When the demand for the resource outgrows supply additional users for the resource end up harming others by depleting available supply to the point where others cannot enjoy the benefits of the resource. Applying this to the context of software it is not zero sum and non rivalrous so Stallman would argue no harm would be done by allowing all to have a software program.