Final Exam
I will choose a few of these for the final exam. I may even take parts of one with parts of
another and make up a new question. However, nothing will appear on the exam that is
not present on this sheet. My advice is to write as much as you can on the exam. Strive to
take the whole two hours.
1. Ruth Benedict claims that since there are many different cultures on the planet, each
having a different moral code, there is no universal or objective moral code. Thus
Benedict’s argument has been used to support moral relativism. Be able to talk about the
“cultural differences” argument. What are the consequences of believing this argument?
Be prepared to talk about three different problems that stem from holding to a relativistic
view about morality.
2. Two theories that are relativistic are called simple subjectivism and emotivism. Be
prepared to discuss both theories in detail. What does each theory say about the nature of
moral discourse? What are the consequences of holding either theory? What problems
does the theory of simple subjectivism have, that leads to its refutation? How does the
theory of emotivism claim to fix those problems? What are the problems with emotivism?
3. Be prepared to explain psychological egoism (and how it differs from ethical egoism)
and be able to explain Hobbes’ argument in favor of it and the two other separate
arguments discussed by Rachels. What are the counterarguments to these three
supporting arguments? Are they persuasive or not? Why?
4. Be prepared to explain ethical egoism (and how it differs from psychological egoism).
Be prepared to discuss the three arguments in favor of ethical egoism (“altruism is selfdefeating”, the Ayn Rand argument and the Hobbsean argument about “commonsense
morality/the social contract”). What are the problems with these arguments? Are the
counter-arguments persuasive or not? Why?
1. For virtue ethics, be prepared to explain the role of the understanding, intentions, and
character. What are the virtues and how are they related to notions of the “good life”?
Does “courage” in one tradition mean the same as it does in another tradition? How does
a habit become a virtue? What is the relationship between jen and egoism? Be prepared
to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of virtue ethics.
5. For deontology, be prepared to talk about the categorical imperative in detail. How
does one know if a proposed “maxim of action” is a categorical imperative? What are the
two tests of the categorical imperative? What is the difference between “acting from
duty” and “acting in accord with duty” and why is this distinction so important? What is
the difference between perfect and imperfect duties? Why are Kant’s rules so rigid? Be
prepared to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of deontology.
6. For utilitarianism, be prepared to explain how “what one must do” is related to an
understanding of the principle of utility and/or the greatest happiness principle. What are
the differences between Bentham’s approach and Mill’s? How do rule and act
utilitarianism work? In what ways are they similar, and in what ways are they different?
Must they always disagree or agree on a given case? If they can actually disagree, then
how can they both be claiming to follow the principle of utility? Be prepared to talk about
the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism (in both act and rule versions).
7. Elizabeth Anscombe suggests that utilitarianism is a cold-hearted theory with no
regard for individuals as intrinsically valuable ends-in-themselves. Kai Nielsen responds,
arguing that utilitarianism is actually a very morally sensitive theory, and that utilitarians
do in fact care deeply about other people as ends. What is Nielsen’s argument against
Anscombe? Does Nielsen’s argument work? Why or why not?
8. Bernard Williams suggests that utilitarianism is a bad moral theory because (a) it
requires agents to be negatively responsible for innumerable amounts of actions and (b) it
requires that an agent may be called upon to violate and discard his or her integrity.
Explain Williams argument for (a), showing how, in fact, Williams thinks that we may in
fact be negatively responsible for some actions but not for all. Then explain in detail
Williams’ argument against utilitarianism based on integrity. Who might be swayed by
Williams’ “integrity argument,” and why? Are you?
9. Nietzsche’s attack on the history of Western (mostly) morality (and Christianity) is
based on his discussion of “master and slave morality.” Explain the distinction between
“master morality” and “slave morality” by, in part, talking about the difference between a
system focused on “good and bad” and one that is focused on “good and evil” and also by
introducing the Nietzsche’s concept of resentment. How does Nietzsche use all of these
topics to explain his opposition to the ethical systems we have covered in this course?