Question 1

A "state of affairs," as defined in Chapter 4, is a way the world could be.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 2

When a premise says that one state of affairs is better than another, "other things being equal," it means that you should assume that the two states of affairs do not differ in any relevant ways except the ways that have been explicitly mentioned.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 3

A deontological constraint is a limit on what you can do in pursuit of good consequences.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 4

What is a "state of affairs," and what role do they often play in arguments about consequences?

Accepted Answer

A "state of affairs" refers to the curre

Question 5

According to David Hume's PROPERTY argument, the reason that stealing is wrong is because the consequences of having a rule that forbids stealing are better than the consequences of having a rule that allows it.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 6

David Hume's argument about PROPERTY is:

Accepted Answer

A)  An argument that looks at the consequences of specific acts of theft to show that theft is sometimes permissible. 
B)  An argument that shows that moral reasoning sometimes requires looking at things other than consequences. 
C)  An argument that looks at the consequences of having a certain set of rules. 
D)  An argument that combines reasoning about consequences with reasoning about obligations. 
A)  An argument that looks at the consequences of specific acts of theft to show that theft is sometimes permissible. 
B)  An argument that shows that moral reasoning sometimes requires looking at things other than consequences. 
C)  An argument that looks at the consequences of having a certain set of rules. 
D)  An argument that combines reasoning about consequences with reasoning about obligations.

Question 7

A good slippery slope argument includes three things: a clearly identified "first step" that ought to be avoided, a clearly specified "bad outcome," and a plausible explanation of how taking that first step would lead to that bad outcome.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 8

What is Henry Shue's main point in his argument about the ticking time bomb in Paris?

Accepted Answer

A)  When someone has done or is about to do something seriously morally wrong, it is permissible to torture that person to prevent or correct the wrong that he or she has committed. 
B)  The case of the ticking time bomb shows that, ultimately, only the consequences of one's actions matter, even if those actions strike many people as wrong or would be wrong in most circumstances. 
C)  There are conceivable but unrealistic circumstances in which the consequences of torturing someone are so much better than the consequences of not torturing that person that it would be permissible to torture the person. 
D)  Although torture is generally wrong because it violates serious deontological constraints, it is nonetheless permissible when the consequences of torturing someone are better than the consequences of not torturing that person. 
A)  When someone has done or is about to do something seriously morally wrong, it is permissible to torture that person to prevent or correct the wrong that he or she has committed. 
B)  The case of the ticking time bomb shows that, ultimately, only the consequences of one's actions matter, even if those actions strike many people as wrong or would be wrong in most circumstances. 
C)  There are conceivable but unrealistic circumstances in which the consequences of torturing someone are so much better than the consequences of not torturing that person that it would be permissible to torture the person. 
D)  Although torture is generally wrong because it violates serious deontological constraints, it is nonetheless permissible when the consequences of torturing someone are better than the consequences of not torturing that person.

Question 9

The concept of expected value is often used to choose between different actions when the exact outcome of those actions is uncertain.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 10

It is never appropriate to insist that a person should "accept the consequences" of his or her actions.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 11

Which premise in Henry Shue's TICKING TIME BOMB argument is the normative premise?

Accepted Answer

A)  The premise that either the police torture the criminal or Paris will be blown up. 
B)  The hidden premise that torture is permissible in extreme cases. 
C)  The premise that it is better for one criminal to suffer than for millions of innocent people to die. 
D)  Since Shue's TICKING TIME BOMB argument is about consequences rather than obligations, there is no normative premise. 
A)  The premise that either the police torture the criminal or Paris will be blown up. 
B)  The hidden premise that torture is permissible in extreme cases. 
C)  The premise that it is better for one criminal to suffer than for millions of innocent people to die. 
D)  Since Shue's TICKING TIME BOMB argument is about consequences rather than obligations, there is no normative premise.

Question 12

One way a slippery slope argument can commit a slippery slope fallacy is if it fails to explain convincingly how the "first step" will lead to a bad outcome.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 13

In your own words, explain the two reasons that looking for the morally best rules can sometimes lead you to different conclusions than just looking for the morally best actions.

Accepted Answer

Looking for the morally best rules can s

Question 14

Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus is the only procedure for measuring and comparing the consequences of different actions.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 15

Moral arguments about consequences often include normative premises about states of affairs.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 16

In your own words, explain Shelly Kagan's EXPECTED CHICKENS argument. What role does the idea of expected value play in his argument?

Accepted Answer

Shelly Kagan's Expected Chickens argumen

Question 17

Which of the following does Chapter 4 identify as a circumstance in which it would be appropriate to require someone to "accept the consequences" of his or her actions?

Accepted Answer

A)  When avoiding the consequences would require the violation of a deontological constraint. 
B)  When the bad consequences are unavoidable. 
C)  When the person should have anticipated the bad consequences. 
D)  When the person is trying to unfairly shift the burden of those consequences onto someone else. 
A)  When avoiding the consequences would require the violation of a deontological constraint. 
B)  When the bad consequences are unavoidable. 
C)  When the person should have anticipated the bad consequences. 
D)  When the person is trying to unfairly shift the burden of those consequences onto someone else.

Question 18

Looking at the consequences of a rule that forbids or allows a specific action can sometimes lead to different conclusions than looking at the consequences of that action all by itself.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

A "state of affairs," as defined in Chapter 4, is a way the world could be.

When a premise says that one state of affairs is better than another, "other things being equal," it means that you should assume that the two states of affairs do not differ in any relevant ways except the ways that have been explicitly mentioned.

A deontological constraint is a limit on what you can do in pursuit of good consequences.

What is a "state of affairs," and what role do they often play in arguments about consequences?

According to David Hume's PROPERTY argument, the reason that stealing is wrong is because the consequences of having a rule that forbids stealing are better than the consequences of having a rule that allows it.

David Hume's argument about PROPERTY is:

A good slippery slope argument includes three things: a clearly identified "first step" that ought to be avoided, a clearly specified "bad outcome," and a plausible explanation of how taking that first step would lead to that bad outcome.

What is Henry Shue's main point in his argument about the ticking time bomb in Paris?

The concept of expected value is often used to choose between different actions when the exact outcome of those actions is uncertain.

It is never appropriate to insist that a person should "accept the consequences" of his or her actions.

Which premise in Henry Shue's TICKING TIME BOMB argument is the normative premise?

One way a slippery slope argument can commit a slippery slope fallacy is if it fails to explain convincingly how the "first step" will lead to a bad outcome.

In your own words, explain the two reasons that looking for the morally best rules can sometimes lead you to different conclusions than just looking for the morally best actions.

Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus is the only procedure for measuring and comparing the consequences of different actions.

Moral arguments about consequences often include normative premises about states of affairs.

In your own words, explain Shelly Kagan's EXPECTED CHICKENS argument. What role does the idea of expected value play in his argument?

Which of the following does Chapter 4 identify as a circumstance in which it would be appropriate to require someone to "accept the consequences" of his or her actions?

Looking at the consequences of a rule that forbids or allows a specific action can sometimes lead to different conclusions than looking at the consequences of that action all by itself.

An Introduction to Arguments

Moral Arguments

Reasoning With Obligations

Reasoning With Virtues and Vices

Reasoning With Principles and Counterexamples

Reasoning With Analogies

Answering Moral Questions

Skepticism, Subjectivism, and Relativism

Religion and Moral Reasoning

Normative Theories, Part 1

Normative Theories, Part 2

Aristotle's Ethics: Exploring Virtue and Justice

Filters

Exam 4: Reasoning About Consequences

A "state of affairs," as defined in Chapter 4, is a way the world could be.

When a premise says that one state of affairs is better than another, "other things being equal," it means that you should assume that the two states of affairs do not differ in any relevant ways except the ways that have been explicitly mentioned.

A deontological constraint is a limit on what you can do in pursuit of good consequences.

What is a "state of affairs," and what role do they often play in arguments about consequences?

According to David Hume's PROPERTY argument, the reason that stealing is wrong is because the consequences of having a rule that forbids stealing are better than the consequences of having a rule that allows it.

David Hume's argument about PROPERTY is:

A good slippery slope argument includes three things: a clearly identified "first step" that ought to be avoided, a clearly specified "bad outcome," and a plausible explanation of how taking that first step would lead to that bad outcome.

What is Henry Shue's main point in his argument about the ticking time bomb in Paris?

The concept of expected value is often used to choose between different actions when the exact outcome of those actions is uncertain.

It is never appropriate to insist that a person should "accept the consequences" of his or her actions.

Which premise in Henry Shue's TICKING TIME BOMB argument is the normative premise?

One way a slippery slope argument can commit a slippery slope fallacy is if it fails to explain convincingly how the "first step" will lead to a bad outcome.

In your own words, explain the two reasons that looking for the morally best rules can sometimes lead you to different conclusions than just looking for the morally best actions.

Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus is the only procedure for measuring and comparing the consequences of different actions.

Moral arguments about consequences often include normative premises about states of affairs.

In your own words, explain Shelly Kagan's EXPECTED CHICKENS argument. What role does the idea of expected value play in his argument?

Which of the following does Chapter 4 identify as a circumstance in which it would be appropriate to require someone to "accept the consequences" of his or her actions?

Looking at the consequences of a rule that forbids or allows a specific action can sometimes lead to different conclusions than looking at the consequences of that action all by itself.

An Introduction to Arguments

Moral Arguments

Reasoning With Obligations

Reasoning With Virtues and Vices

Reasoning With Principles and Counterexamples

Reasoning With Analogies

Answering Moral Questions

Skepticism, Subjectivism, and Relativism

Religion and Moral Reasoning

Normative Theories, Part 1

Normative Theories, Part 2

Aristotle's Ethics: Exploring Virtue and Justice

Filters