PHIL 101
INSTRUCTOR: WILBURN
MODEL ANSWERS TO PUBLISHERS’ ESSAY TEST FOR CH. 5
1.
Explain why subjective relativism must be an inadequate theory of right actions.
For one thing, it fails to account for the fact of moral disagreement between people. If subjective
relativism were correct, then there would be no disagreements, since in making moral claims we
would each (infallibly) merely be making assertions about our own individual preferences.
2.
Why does emotivism seem to be a poor moral theory?
One reason that emotivism seems to be a poor moral theory is that it fails to account for the fact
of moral disagreement, not because it has us make infallible claims, but because it has us not
making claims at all, only noises expressing our approval and disapproval of various actions and
states of affairs.
3. If cultural relativism were true, could social reformers disagree with their culture and
still be right? Why or why not.
No, because by definition, moral reformers have a minority opinion about what their cultures’
actions and policies should be.
4. Explain the anthropological argument for cultural relativism and why it fails.
The anthropological argument is as follows:
1. People in difference societies make different moral judgments regarding the same action.
2. If so, they must accept different moral standards.
3. If they accept different moral standards, there are no universal moral standards.
4. Therefore, there are no universal moral standards.
The major problem with this argument is premise (2). The fact that people make different moral
judgments regarding a given action is not always best explained by their having fundamentally
different moral standards. Different moral judgments can also result from various parties having
identical moral standards, but conflicting background factual beliefs or background
circumstances which cause these parties to implement these moral standards in different ways.
1
5. Explain the logical structure of moral judgments.
Moral standards and factual beliefs are both required for moral judgments to be made. This fuels
a response to the anthropological argument by allowing for the possibility that when people
make different moral judgments, this is simply due to their acceptance of different background
factual beliefs.
6. Explain why ethical egoism's adherents could not consistently advocate it.
They could not consistently advocate it because it would not be in their self-interest to advocate
it. If one is the only egoist around, one is likely to make out like gangbusters.
7. What point about act-utilitarianism does McCloskey make with his thought experiment
on the utilitarian informant?
The point he makes is that one can imagine utilitarianism requiring one to bear false witness
against or frame the innocent if doing this would maximize the general utility better than any
alternative action available to one.
8. Explain how act-utilitarianism can commit someone to committing an injustice.
If the best way available to one to maximize the general utility is to give someone something
other than what he or she deserves, be it punish the innocent or reward the guilty, actutilitarianism requires that one do it.
9. Explain the difference between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism.
Act utilitarianism requires that one perform that action which maximizes the general utility better
than any alternative action one could perform. Rule utilitarianism requires one to act in
accordance with that rule which would best maximize the general utility if everyone acted in
accordance with it.
10. Why is rule-utilitarianism an inadequate theory of right action?
Rule-utilitarianism ultimately suffers from the very same problems as act-utilitarianism (e.g.
concerning duties, rights and justice). The reason why is that rule-utilitarianism ultimately just
collapses into act-utilitarianism once the relevant rules are modified to take into account the
various relevant exceptions.
2
11. If a sales clerk in a department store helps you with your purchase, are you treating her
merely as a means? Why or why not?
I may be treating her e as a means to an end (that of completing a purchase), but I am not treating
her merely as a means to an end, since I am not forcing her to do anything against her will. That
is, she is also pursuing her own ends by helping me make the purchase.
12. Is it ever right to treat someone merely as a means? Why or why not?
At times it may be unavoidable when the lives or welfare of many people are at stake. This is the
point of the quarantine and diplomat examples cited in the text.
13. What does Ross's thought experiment of the good Samaritan show about perfect
duties?
This thought experiment shows that there really are no perfect duties if perfect duties are
understood to be exceptionless.
14. Explain Ross's distinction between actual duties and prima facie duties.
Prima facie duties are those which apply to one all things being equal (e.g., unless over-ridden by
other duties in a given circumstance). Actual duties are those that take precedence or priority
over other applicable prima facie duties on a given occasion.
15. What does Nozick's thought experiment about the basketball player suggest about
Rawls’ theory?
What it allegedly shows is that Rawls’ theory, like any theory which seeks to impose a “just”
pattern of distribution on goods, services and opportunities, necessarily leads to tyranny. This is
allegedly because coercion will always be required to keep individuals from freely choosing to
redistribute their income in ways that do not accord with the pattern.
3