PHI 208 week 3 Quiz (all correct)
Question 1. 1. In the article â€œWar and Massacre,â€ Thomas Nagel argues that moral absolutism (Points : 1)
is consistent with the principles of utilitarianism
can be used to justify genocide
is primarily concerned with what a person is doing
is primarily concerned with the outcome of a personâ€™s actions
Question 2. 2. According to Thomas Nagelâ€™s article, â€œWar and Massacre,â€ the absolutist position that creates no problems of interpretation is (Points : 1)
Question 3. 3. In Kant Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, the maxim of an act is: (Points : 1)
the policy or principle that you would be following if you did it.
the expected overall utility resulting from the action.
the moral rule that an act either respects or violates .
all of the above.
Question 4. 4. Thomas Nagel argues that all rules of engagement should be governed by the utilitarian principle that (Points : 1)
any means can be justified if it leads to a worthy end
the greatest good can justify targeting noncombatants
we are always justified in attacking the tyranny of the majority
none of the above
Question 5. 5. According to the video, â€œReligion, War, and Violence,â€ for a war to be considered just, it must (Points : 1)
be aimed at repelling aggression
have a strong probability of success
must be only used as a last resort
all of the above
Question 6. 6. According to Nagel, which of the following may be permitted by absolutism, at least in some circumstances? (Points : 1)
Intentionally killing an innocent person
Doing something that brings about an innocent personâ€™s death
Dropping a nuclear bomb on an enemy city
Torturing an innocent person
Question 7. 7. According to Nagel, to which of the following groups of people is hostility most appropriately aimed? (Points : 1)
Question 8. 8. Jeremy Waldron argues that the current use of drone warfare is unethical because (Points : 1)
it is conducted by unlawful combatants such as CIA personnel who are not subject to military ethics
it is conducted by individuals who are thousands of miles removed from targets
it may result in unintended civilian casualties
all of the above
Question 9. 9. Nagelâ€™s argument that hostility or aggression should be directed at its true object means that which of the following would probably not be permissible? (Points : 1)
Torturing a prisoner to get the names of his confederates.
Attacking an enemy countryâ€™s agricultural system.
Bombing major cultural centers.
All of the above.
Question 10. 10. According to Kant, the moral worth of an action: (Points : 1)
lies in its conformity to the moral law.
lies in the value of the expected result.
lies in its conformity to Godâ€™s commands.
lies in its usefulness to society.
Question 11. 11. According to the video â€œReligion, War, and Violence,â€ Just War Theory asserts that military intervention (Points : 1)
can be seen as an act of altruism
must always have an altruistic component
must be primarily an act of altruism
must never have an altruistic component
Question 12. 12. In the article â€œWar and Massacre,â€ Thomas Nagel argues that utilitarianism (Points : 1)
is primarily concerned with what should happen
is primary concerned with what will happen
is primarily concerned with theory over practice
is primarily concerned with universal justice
Question 13. 13. Reason is a faculty that we have that: (Points : 1)
is only good if it succeeds in satisfying our desires.
is the driving principle of a good will.
is the fundamental ground of human dignity.
both B and C
Question 14. 14. Kant explains that respect for a person is: (Points : 1)
the recognition of the worth of the personâ€™s potential contribution to society.
dependent upon whether the person respects others.
both A and B
none of the above.
Question 15. 15. According to the video â€œReligion, War, and Violence,â€ proponents of Just War Theory agree that without the restraints of Just War Theory (Points : 1)
the violence and aggression of war would be worse
humanitarian intervention would be more successful
prisoners and noncombatants would have greater equality
none of the above
Question 16. 16. Kant claims that a good will is: (Points : 1)
something that can only be called good with qualification.
the only thing that can be called good without qualification.
that which makes qualified goods like character traits morally good.
both B and C.
Question 17. 17. Kant argues that when I find someone in need: (Points : 1)
I should give whatever spare resources I have unless it makes me worse off than the person Iâ€™m trying to help.
I should consider a world in which no one helped me when I was in need, recognize that I could never will such a world, and help them in the best way that I can.
I should sympathize with them, but recognize that the world is better off overall if we each only look after our own interests.
I should remember that as autonomous beings they are responsible for their own situation, and thus that I have no responsibility to help them out.
Question 18. 18. In the video â€œDrones Are Not Ethical and Effective,â€ Jeremy Waldron argues that drones are not ethical because their use involves (Points : 1)
total transparency and accountability
the assurance that only combatants will be targeted
the maintenance of a secret death list by government authorities
all of the above
Question 19. 19. Nagel argues that the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just like what other kind of action, just on a larger scale? (Points : 1)
Killing the wife and child of someone attacking you in order to distract him from his attack.
Bombing a munitions factory and killing some of the civilian workers inside.
Firing at an enemy soldier and hitting an innocent bystander with a stray bullet.
Bombing a convoy of enemy soldiers.
Question 20. 20. According to Kant, persons: (Points : 1)
are rational beings.
must always be regarded as an end.
have absolute value.
all of the above.
PHI 208 week 3 Discussion
DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT â€“ THE ETHICS OF MILITARY DRONES
After reading about deontology and watching the videos posted in my guidance,
1. Discuss a core principle of deontology and use at least one quote from the required readings to explain this principle.
2. Using at least one quote from one of the videos, provide an argument to show that the use of military drones can be justified by utilitarian or deontological reasoning, and one argument to show that the use of drones cannot be justified by such reasoning.
3. Complete your post by identifying which of these arguments you think is the most compelling, and support your choice with specific reasons.
4. When responding to your fellow students, discuss the arguments they chose as well as the utilitarian or deontological reasons they provided for choosing those arguments.
PHI 208 week 3 Assignment
Applying an Ethical Theory
Please read these assignment instructions before writing your paper, and re-read them often during and after the writing process to make sure that you are fulfilling all of the instructions.
The following short essay assignment is designed to help prepare you for an important part of the Final Paper. In this essay, you will do the following: Choose either utilitarian or deontological ethical theory to apply it to an ethical question. Explain the core principles of that theory. Demonstrate how the principles of the theory support a certain position on that question. Articulate a relevant objection to the theory on the basis of that argument.
Write a five paragraph essay that conforms to the requirements below. The paper must be 600 to 900 words in length (excluding title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. The paragraphs of your essay should conform to the following guidelines: Introduction
The introduction should be one paragraph, no more than 120 words. This should clearly delimit the ethical problem or question under consideration, and define the essential issues. The last sentence of the introduction should briefly summarize the conclusion or position on this issue that you think is best supported by this theory, and succinctly state what the objection will be. Remember that your essay will not be concerned with your own position on this issue, but what someone defending the chosen theory would conclude.
Each paragraph in the body should start with a topic sentence that clearly identifies the main idea of the paragraph. Each paragraph should have at least four sentences. Theory explanation:
This should be approximately 150 to 200 words explaining the core principles or features of the deontological or utilitarian theory and the general account of moral behavior it provides. You must quote from at least one required resource that defends or represents that theory. Please view this list of acceptable resources . Application:
This should be approximately 150 to 200 words addressing how these principles or features of the deontological or utilitarian theory apply to the problem or question under consideration and identify the specific moral conclusion that results when these theories are applied to that problem or question. Your application should clearly show how the conclusion follows from the main tenets of the theory as addressed in the previous paragraph. Please see the associated guidance for help in fulfilling this requirement. Objection:
This should be approximately 150 to 200 words raising a relevant objection to the argument expressed in part â€œbâ€. A relevant objection is one that exposes a weakness in the theory as it applies to your problem, and so you should explain how it brings out this weakness. Note that this does not necessarily mean that the objection succeeds, or that the conclusion the theory supports is wrong. It may be an obstacle that any adequate defense of the conclusion would have to overcome, and it may be the case that the theory has the resources to overcome that obstacle. Your task here is simply to raise the objection or present the â€œobstacleâ€.
The conclusion should be one paragraph, no more than 150 words. The conclusion should very briefly summarize the main points of your essay and must contain a paraphrased restatement of your thesis.