Deck 5: Consequentialism

Question 1

Consequentialism is

A) a family of ethical theories that includes utilitarianism.
B) one version of act utilitarianism.
C) inconsistent with utilitarianism.
D) none of the above

Answer 1

A

Question 2

Consequentialism states that an action is right if and only if it

A) produces the best results.
B) gives people what they deserve.
C) does not harm anyone.
D) is good for more people than any alternative action.

Answer 2

A

Question 3

The principle of utility can be summarized as

A) "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
B) "Do whatever is most useful in the circumstances."
C) "Maximize overall well-being."
D) "Always pursue your own self-interest."

Answer 3

C

Question 4

Utilitarians believe that the morality of an action depends on

A) its expected results.
B) its actual results.
C) the goodness of one's intentions.
D) all of the above

Question 5

Utilitarians believe in

A) a handful of absolute moral rules.
B) only one absolute moral rule: the principle of utility.
C) breaking conventional moral rules whenever it's in one's self-interest.
D) no moral rules whatsoever.

Question 6

When an action is optimific, it

A) treats everyone fairly.
B) makes everyone better off.
C) produces the best overall results.
D) is immoral.

Question 7

Which is not an attraction of utilitarianism?

A) It is impartial
B) It makes it easy to acquire moral knowledge
C) It justifies many of our basic moral beliefs.
D) It helps us solve moral conflicts.

Question 8

Which of the following best describes the relationship between utilitarianism and consequentialism?

A) Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism.
B) Consequentialism is a form of utilitarianism.
C) Utilitarianism and consequentialism are completely independent theories.
D) Utilitarianism and consequentialism are inconsistent

Question 9

What attitudes do most utilitarians take toward moral rules?

A) Many moral rules are absolute and must never be broken.
B) Moral rules can be helpful but can be broken if doing so is optimific.
C) Following moral rules is harmful and ought to be shunned.
D) Utilitarians believe that the idea of a "moral rule" is incoherent.

Question 10

According to utilitarian Jeremy Bentham, what is the relevant question for determining membership in the moral community?

A) Can they suffer?
B) Can they reason?
C) Can they talk?
D) Can they care?

Question 11

What attitude do most utilitarians take toward non-human animals?

A) Their suffering does not matter morally.
B) Their suffering matters morally but not nearly as much as that of humans.
C) If an animal suffers to the same extent as a human, the animal's suffering is equally important.
D) Animal suffering is morally more important than human suffering because animals are not moral agents.

Question 12

Being a member of the moral community means that you are

A) part of a society that has certain moral beliefs.
B) part of a group that acts morally.
C) morally virtuous.
D) are morally important in your own right.

Question 13

Most utilitarians regard utilitarianism as a

A) standard of rightness.
B) decision procedure.
C) both a and b
D) neither a nor b

Question 14

Utilitarians claim that

A) all moral action is supererogatory.
B) all self-interested action is supererogatory.
C) very few things are supererogatory.
D) no acts are supererogatory.

Question 15

If utilitarianism is true, it is

A) always acceptable to give preference to the interests of our family members.
B) never acceptable to give preference to the interests of our family members.
C) sometimes permissible to give preference to our family members, but only when doing so is most beneficial.
D) None of the above.

Question 16

Utilitarianism states that it is always intrinsically wrong to

A) violate people's rights.
B) kill innocent people.
C) lie to people.
D) none of the above

Question 17

According to the Argument from Injustice,

A) injustice can sometimes be justified in certain circumstances.
B) utilitarianism sometimes requires us to commit serious injustices.
C) justice is not intrinsically valuable.
D) all of the above

Question 18

Rule consequentialism is the view that

A) an action is morally right just because it is required by an optimific social rule.
B) acts are morally right if and only if they create the greatest amount of well-being.
C) we ought to usually follow consequentialism but may occasionally do otherwise for the sake of self-interest.
D) the best way to maximize happiness is to follow existing social rules.

Question 19

Most consequentialists believe that rule consequentialism

A) is an improvement over act consequentialism.
B) is neither better nor worse than act consequentialism.
C) amounts to irrational rule worship.
D) none of the above

Question 20

Which of the following responses to the problem of injustice is not consistent with utilitarianism?

A) Justice must sometimes be sacrificed for the sake of well-being.
B) Justice is intrinsically valuable.
C) Injustice is never optimific.
D) In almost every case, the just action will also be the one that maximizes well-being.

Question 21

Define consequentialism and explain why act utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. How does consequentialism differ from rival approaches to ethics? Do you find consequentialism to be a plausible way of thinking about right and wrong? Defend your answer.

Question 22

Explain what you take to be the strongest version of consequentialism. What does it count as intrinsically good and bad and how does it understand the balance of good over bad? Explain some advantages of your theory over other versions of consequentialism.

Question 23

What implications does utilitarianism have for our treatment of non-human animals? Do you find utilitarians' conclusions about animals plausible? If so, why? If not, how would you respond to their arguments?

Question 24

Describe a case in which utilitarianism seems to require that someone behave unjustly. Do you think utilitarianism nonetheless gives the correct moral verdict in this case? Why or why not? How might a utilitarian reply to the objection that the theory wrongly licenses injustice?

Question 25

Write an essay comparing and contrasting act utilitarianism with rule consequentialism. Define each theory and then explain why rule consequentialism is often thought to provide a solution to the problem of injustice that faces act utilitarianism. What objection do act utilitarians often level against rule consequentialism? Which theory do you think is preferable, and why?

Question 26

Case Study
Imagine a small town in which there has recently been a rash of murders that all bear the marks of the same culprit. The police investigation has gone nowhere and the town's sense of order is starting to break down. Residents are demanding that the sheriff find a culprit and threatening to exact vigilante justice on perceived criminals until a culprit is found. Given that the real murderer is unknown, the sheriff sees that she can only prevent chaos and bloodshed by framing someone who likely is not the murderer.
The sheriff has someone in mind who could be easily framed - a local man, Jim, who has been in and out of jail for other violent crimes like assault and robbery. He has no family and no one in town would protest if he were to be locked up. Moreover, he is a believable culprit and so would be easy to frame. The sheriff is fairly sure that he is not actually the murderer, and so she would likely be framing someone who, while not innocent overall, is innocent of these particular crimes. But she is not sure what else she can do to keep the peace.
-Should the sheriff frame Jim? Why or why not? What does this tell us about utilitarianism, and consequentialism more generally?

Question 27

Case Study
Imagine a small town in which there has recently been a rash of murders that all bear the marks of the same culprit. The police investigation has gone nowhere and the town's sense of order is starting to break down. Residents are demanding that the sheriff find a culprit and threatening to exact vigilante justice on perceived criminals until a culprit is found. Given that the real murderer is unknown, the sheriff sees that she can only prevent chaos and bloodshed by framing someone who likely is not the murderer.
The sheriff has someone in mind who could be easily framed - a local man, Jim, who has been in and out of jail for other violent crimes like assault and robbery. He has no family and no one in town would protest if he were to be locked up. Moreover, he is a believable culprit and so would be easy to frame. The sheriff is fairly sure that he is not actually the murderer, and so she would likely be framing someone who, while not innocent overall, is innocent of these particular crimes. But she is not sure what else she can do to keep the peace.
-Does utilitarianism tell us that the sheriff is morally required to frame Jim? If so, is this a problem for utilitarianism? If not, how would the utilitarian explain this verdict?