Kantian ethics Assignment PDF

IMPORTANT: YOU MAY NOT CONSULT OUTSIDE RESOURCES.
I. For each of the following statements, fill in the blank with a ‘T’ or an ‘F’ to
indicate whether the statement is true or false (1 point each). (10 pts)
1. __F__ Normative ethics is concerned with the investigation of particular
moral issues (e.g., abortion).
2. __F__ Metaphysics is a branch of ethics.
3. __T__ Moral realism is the view that there are objective moral values.
4. __F__ Kantian ethics is a form of consquentialism.
5. __F__ Divine command theory is compatible with polytheism.
6. __T__ The Euthyphro dilemma is an objection against Kantian ethics.
7. __T__ Reparations for slavery is an example of topic in applied ethics.
8. __F__ Marquis holds that abortion is generally moral.
9. __F__ Cultural relativism is the theory that moral truths vary from
culture to culture.
10. __T__ Cross-cultural disagreement about moral issues is often cited as
evidence for cultural relativism.
II. For each of the following questions, mark all answers that apply by
highlighting them (two points each). If you mark an incorrect answer,
you lose all points; otherwise, partial credit is available. (14 pts)
1. Which of the following are fields of ethics?
a) Epistemology
b) Meta-Ethics
c) Metaphysics
d) Applied Ethics
e) None of the above
2. Which of the following are normative ethical theories?
a) Kantian Ethics.

b) Rule Utilitarianism.
c) Cultural Relativism
d) Future like ours (FLO) theory
e) None of the above
3) Which of the following are versions of the categorical imperative?
a) Deontology
b) Greatest Happiness Principle
c) Formula of the End in Itself
d) Consequentialism
e) none of the above
4) Deontology is the study of…
a) happiness.
b) moral duty.
c) moral value.
d) God.
e) none of the above
5) Which of the following thought experiments are put forth as establishing
the permissibility of therapeutic abortion?
a) People Seeds
b) Famous Violinist
c) Nazi at the Door
d) Chop Up Chuck
e) none of the above
6) How would the utilitarian respond to the trolley case?
a) Do nothing.
b) Pull the lever.
e) none of the above
7) Divine Command Theory is the view that…
a) God commands it because it is right.

b) something is right because God commands it.
c) there only exists one God.
d) understanding God’s commands is impossible.
e) none of the above
III. Short answer. (26 pts)
1. Describe cultural relativism. Next, describe one standard objection to it.
(2 pts)
Cultural relativism refers to the notion that the beliefs, practices and values
of a person should be understood on the basis of the culture of the
concerned person. The concept of cultural relativism further states that the
concerned person should not be judged on the basis of the culture that is
foreign to the concerned person (Rachels & Rachels, 1993).
The standard objection to the cultural deviation lies in the fact that it does
not follow from the sociological relativism thereby giving rise to the fallacy
of ignorance and the naturalistic fallacy.
2. Describe Huemer’s general political principle. Provide your own example
of something that would illustrate this principle. How does he think that this
helps him to show that the arguments for prohibition of drugs are bad? Do
you find his arguments persuasive? Why or why not? (4 pts)
Huemer’s general political principle states that the state possesses no
legitimate authority over the concerned resident within the country
(Huemer, 2009). The most arguable example would be the use of tobacco as
a form of addiction. The political principle as proposed by Huemer states
that the use of tobacco might be harmful for both the user and the people in
his surroundings but the imposition of a ban from the governmental bodies
might lead to the violation of the rights. The arguments put forth by
Huemer cites a similar logic for arguing in favor of the fact that the
prohibition of the use of drugs might lead to the violation of the rights of the
concerned person (Huemer, 2009). The arguments might not be considered
to be persuasive since the logic does not follow from the premises of the
argument to the conclusion of the same.

3. Describe act utilitarianism. Next describe some of the core tenets of
Kantian ethics. Highlight one important area of difference. Which theory do
you find more persuasive and why? Be sure to define any and all theoretical
terms. (4 pts)
Act utilitarianism refers to the utilitarian ethical theory that states that the
act of a person might be deemed to be ethically correct only under the
conditions wherein the best results are achieved under a given situation
(Mill, 1863).
The core tenets of Kantian ethics might relate to the formula of the end in
itself that states that all the acts should be considered to be the end and not
simply a means to the end (O'Neill & White, 1986).
The major area of difference lies in that fact that utilitarianism considers an
act to be ethical when the outcomes of the act are as expected under the
similar circumstances while the Kantian theory considers the ed result as a
measure for rendering a certain task to be ethically correct (Mill, 1863).
The Kantian theory might be considered to be more persuasive since it
considers the end result of an act and not just the immediate effect.
4. What is a future like ours (FLO)? How does the concept of a FLO fit into
his theory about the wrongness of killing? Do you agree that it’s the loss of
a FLO that makes killing wrong? (4 pts)
The “future like ours” argument as proposed by Don Marquis states that
each and every human being has the right to have a certain future and this
future is considered to be a natural property of the concerned person right
from the fetal stages of life (Marquis, 2007).
Marquis argues that killing robs a person of his right to the “future like
ours” and thus might be deemed to be a wrongful deed (Marquis, 2007).
I do agree to the fact that is put forth by Marquis that killing should be
considered to be a wrongdoing due to the fact that it robs the concerned
person of his right to have a “future like ours”
5. Describe Thomson’s famous violinist case. What does Thomson think that
the famous violinist case shows? Next, discuss Thomson’s people seeds
thought experiment. What does Thomson think that the people seeds
thought experiment shows? Do you agree with her conclusions? (Remember
to define and any all theoretical terms.) (6 pts)
Thomson’s famous violinist case states a situation whereby a famous
violinist who has been suffering from a kidney ailment has been plugged to

a person with the similar blood group and the persons have to be plugged
for nine months so that the violinist might recover completely from the
concerned ailment (Thomson, 1976).
This case reflects the nob-consensual use of the bodily elements of the
healthy person for the recovery of an ailing person.
Thomson’s people seeds thought experiment puts forth an imaginary
situation wherein the seeds of people drifted about in the air like the pollen
grains thereby might lead to the uninterested people to install meshes in
their windows so as to prevent the risk of having children (Marquis, 2007).
I do agree with her conclusion that abortion should not be associated with
the killing of any human figure.
6. Explain the Euthyphro dilemma as it applies to Divine Command Theory.
Include in your response a description of Divine Command Theory. Do you
think that the argument is successful in its aim of showing that morality
does not depend on God? Why or why not? (6 pts)
The Euthyphro dilemma discusses the nature of good and piety with respect
to the command of the Divine Being.
The Divine Command Theory states that the status of an action is deemed to
be morally good is equivalent to the condition wherein the same is
commanded by the Divine Being (Rachels & Rachels, 1993).
The dilemma is, according to me, successful in the depiction of the fact that
the morality of an action does not depend on the opinion of the Almighty
since it cannot be accepted that the Almighty would be in support of any
activity that is related to evil.
********** Bonus Section **************
Each of the following questions count for extra credit only. Starting this
exam, any extra credit received that would put you over the 50 point
maximum for this exam can be applied to other exams. For example, if you
receive 55 points here, 5 points will be applied to an exam that you did not
perform as well on. No partial credit will be given for extra credit
responses. Both questions concern Norcross’ “Puppies, Pigs and
People”.

Bonus Question 1: Describe the case of Fred in Norcoss’ “Puppies, Pigs,
and People.” What is this case supposed to show? Do you think that this
case establishes its aims? (5 pts)
The case of Fred in Norcoss’ “Puppies, Pigs, and People” states that the
concerned culprit, Fred had been torturing puppies who were up to twenty-
six weeks in order to derive cocoamone, a hormone that would help him to
regain his gustatory experience of having chocolate (Norcross, 2004).
This case is supposed to put forth an equalization of animal abuse for
seeking the gustatory pleasures of having chocolate to that off having the
factory processed meat.
The case fails to establish the aims that it had settled for since the two
scenarios cannot be equalized on a similar platform.
Bonus Question 2: Describe the Rationality Gambit. What is Norcross’
response to the Rationality Gambit? Do you agree or disagree with
Norcross? Explain. (5 pts)
The Rationality Gambit states that the human beings possess a higher
ethical status due to the fact that they are rational beings while the animals
are not so (Norcross, 2004).
As a response to the Rationality Gambit, Norcross states that the Rationality
Gambit is not capable of satisfying the social residents who opine that the
marginal human beings do deserve an equality in the field of the moral
consideration.
I do not find the argument made by Norcross to be agreeable due to the fact
that the torture of any organism in order to satisfy he smaller pleasures of
another is neither a moral act nor an ethical act.

References
Huemer, M. (2009). America’s unjust drug war. The Right Thing to Do, 223-
36.
Marquis, D. (2007). An argument that abortion is wrong. Ethical theory: An
anthology, 439-450.
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son and Bourn.
Norcross, A. (2004). Puppies, pigs, and people: Eating meat and marginal
cases. Philosophical perspectives, 18(1), 229-245.
O'Neill, O., & White, J. E. (1986). A simplified account of Kant's
ethics. Applied ethics: A multicultural approach, 55-61.
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (1993). The elements of moral philosophy.
Thomson, J. J. (1976). A defense of abortion. In Biomedical ethics and the
law (pp. 39-54). Springer, Boston, MA.