Sign in

Libre University uses your GitHub account. Signing in is only needed to sit a final test, so the score is kept on your profile.

How to argue about ethics

How to argue about ethics

1.[2p]

What is the first thing to do with a moral argument?

Correct
The answer is: Write it as numbered premises with the conclusion at the bottom, so each line can be attacked separately
The answer is: Write it as numbered premises with the conclusion at the bottom, so each line can be attacked separately
The answer is: Write it as numbered premises with the conclusion at the bottom, so each line can be attacked separately

2.[3p]

What does a single counterexample to "it is always wrong to break a promise" establish?

Correct
The answer is: That this formulation is false, forcing a repair, but not that promises carry no weight
The answer is: That this formulation is false, forcing a repair, but not that promises carry no weight
The answer is: That this formulation is false, forcing a repair, but not that promises carry no weight

3.[3p]

Match each attack to what it targets in a criterion of the form "wrong if and only if it violates consent".

  • A surgeon operating on an unconscious accident victim

  • Polluting an uninhabited river

  • Wording the case as saving rather than killing

  • Asking what would change your mind

  • the sufficiency of the criterion

  • whether a view is being held at all

  • the reliability of the intuition

  • the necessity of the criterion

Show the answer

A surgeon operating on an unconscious accident victim: the sufficiency of the criterion Polluting an uninhabited river: the necessity of the criterion Wording the case as saving rather than killing: the reliability of the intuition Asking what would change your mind: whether a view is being held at all

4.[3p]

Why are trolley cases deliberately artificial?

Correct
The answer is: To hold everything fixed except one feature, so that any change in verdict isolates what is doing the work
The answer is: To hold everything fixed except one feature, so that any change in verdict isolates what is doing the work
The answer is: To hold everything fixed except one feature, so that any change in verdict isolates what is doing the work

5.[2p]

Schwitzgebel and Cushman found in 2012 that philosophers with doctorates were largely free of order effects in moral judgement.

The answer is: False
Correct

6.[3p]

Why does "what if everyone did that" overreach as a test?

Correct
The answer is: If everyone became a doctor nobody would grow food, yet becoming a doctor is permissible
The answer is: If everyone became a doctor nobody would grow food, yet becoming a doctor is permissible
The answer is: If everyone became a doctor nobody would grow food, yet becoming a doctor is permissible

7.[3p]

Put the steps of reflective equilibrium in order.

  1. Repeat until principles and judgements sit together without conflict

  2. Look for principles that systematise them

  3. Collect your considered judgements, held calmly and without a stake in the outcome

  4. Where a principle and a judgement conflict, revise whichever you hold less firmly

Show the answer

a, b, c, d

8.[3p]

What does the wide version of reflective equilibrium add to the narrow one?

Correct
The answer is: Coherence with background theories, including accounts of how the judgements were formed
The answer is: Coherence with background theories, including accounts of how the judgements were formed
The answer is: Coherence with background theories, including accounts of how the judgements were formed

9.[3p]

Which features make an intuition more trustworthy?

Select all that apply

Correct
Correct
Correct
The answer is: It survives when the same case is reframed, It does not happen to favour the person holding it, There is no good explanation of why you would hold it whether or not it were correct