Politics, economics, and Philosophy: ethics

22-40.025, WiSe 2018–19

Exam, 11 February 2019, 10:00–12:00

Prof. Dr. Matthew Braham

Institute of Philosophy

Instructions
• Answer three Questions (this exam consists of 7 questions).
• Time allowed: 120 Minutes (2 hours).
• Fill out all details on the cover page and exam writing pages.
• Write legibly and in ink. Illegible answers will not be marked.

1. Critically evaluate Harsanyi’s utilitarian theorem.

2. Explain the theoretical difference between “well-being as preference satisfaction” and

“well-being as happiness”. Which relation would you advise policy-makers to follow and
why?

3. What is Pareto Optimality? Why is it important?

4. Is the distinction between positive freedom and negative freedom convincing?

5. What is “equality of welfare”? Why do economists generally reject it as an objective of

public policy?

6. What, if any, are the ethical issues of climate change? Use examples to illustrate your
answer.

7. Consider the following statement: “Markets are the most efficient way of distributing
scarce goods and services.” Is this a factual or evaluative claim?
Politics, economics, and Philosophy: ethics
22-40.025, WiSe 2019–20

Exam, 12 February 2020, 10:00–12:00

Prof. Dr. Matthew Braham

Institute of Philosophy

Instructions
• Answer three Questions (this exam consists of 7 questions).
• Time allowed: 120 Minutes (2 hours).
• Fill out all details on the cover page and exam writing pages.
• Write legibly and in ink. Illegible answers will not be marked.

1. “Morality just a matter of individual feeling and moral disagreements cannot be rationally
resolved.” Discuss.

2. Is Utilitarianism Plausible?

3. Why is the “Sure Thing Principle” such a problem for social welfare judgements?

4. Is welfare preference satisfaction?

5. Justify the Pareto Principle.

6. People are free and unfree in various ways. Explain.

7. People are equal and unequal in various ways. Explain.

Politics, economics, and Philosophy: ethics
22-40.025, WiSe 2017–18

Exam, 16 February 2018, 12:00–14:00

Prof. Dr. Matthew Braham

Institute of Philosophy

Instructions
• Answer three Questions (this exam consists of 7 questions).
• Time allowed: 120 Minutes (2 hours).
• Fill out all details on the cover page and exam writing pages.
• Write legibly and in ink. Illegible answers will not be marked.

1. Is economic equality of moral importance? Justify your opinion.

2. Would you recommend policy-makers to follow a utilitarian calculus? If so, why? If not,
why not?

3. “Policy x is deemed better than policy y for an individual if and only if, given the
opportunity, the individual would choose x over y”. Critically assess this claim.

4. Outline a normative justification for the Pareto Principle.

5. What is freedom and why is it valuable?

6. Is a per capita distribution of emissions permits to mitigate climate change fair?

7. “If you may do it for free, you may do it for money.” Critically evaluate this principle.
Politics, economics, and Philosophy: ethics
22-40.025, WiSe 2019–20

Exam, 12 June 2020, 09:00–11:00

Prof. Dr. Matthew Braham

Institute of Philosophy

Instructions
• Answer three Questions (this exam consists of 7 questions).
• Time allowed: 120 Minutes (2 hours).
• Fill out all details on the cover page and exam writing pages.
• Write legibly and in ink. Illegible answers will not be marked.

1. Can moral disagreements be rationally solved in the same way disagreements about our
understanding of the natural world can be solved?

2. What is so problematic about Utilitarianism?

3. Define and explain the “Sure Thing Principle”. Why is it important for policy judgements?

4. Should we base our public policy judgments on the preference satisfaction of citizens?

5. What is freedom?

6. What is equality?

7. Demonstrate how the Pareto Principle can come into conflict with individual freedom.
Politics, economics, and Philosophy: ethics
22-40.025, WiSe 2018–19

Exam, 21 March 2019, 14:00–16:00

Prof. Dr. Matthew Braham

Institute of Philosophy

Instructions
• Answer three Questions (this exam consists of 7 questions).
• Time allowed: 120 Minutes (2 hours).
• Fill out all details on the cover page and exam writing pages.
• Write legibly and in ink. Illegible answers will not be marked.

1. Is morality just a matter of how you feel?

2. Consider the following decision problem:

State of the World State of the world

Policy
x y
Options
(p = 0.5) (p = 0.5)

A ui = 1, uj = 0 ui = 1, uj = 0

B ui = 1, uj = 0 ui = 0, uj = 1

where ui and uj are the cardinal utilities of individuals i and j respectively.

Explain how we can justify choosing Policy A or Policy B. Explain which normatively
important axiom is being satisfied or violated in each of the policy choices.

3. (a) Define Pareto Optimality, Pareto Superiority, and Pareto Improvement. (b) Discuss two
normative justifications for using the Pareto standard for allocating scarce resources.

4. Is there a fundamental conflict between respecting liberalism and maximizing social

welfare? Use an example or formal framework to explain your answer.
 Page 2/2

5. Describe the Wilt Chamberlin example. Is Nozick’s conclusion sound?

6. Critically assess the following principle: If you can do it for free, you can do it for money.

7. Is a per capita distribution of emissions permits to mitigate climate change fair?

––– End of Exam –––

Politics, economics, and Philosophy: ethics
22-40.025, WiSe 2017–18

Exam, 27 March 2018, 10:00–12:00

Prof. Dr. Matthew Braham

Institute of Philosophy

Instructions
• Answer three Questions (this exam consists of 7 questions).
• Time allowed: 120 Minutes (2 hours).
• Fill out all details on the cover page and exam writing pages.
• Write legibly and in ink. Illegible answers will not be marked.

1. Is economic equality of moral importance? Justify your opinion.

2. Critically discuss Harsanyi’s Utilitarian Theorem.

3. What is the preference satisfaction account of goodness? Is it an appropriate way of

measuring individual and social welfare?

4. “If at least one person is made better off by a policy, then the resultant state of affairs is
preferable to the state of affairs without the policy.” Do you agree with this claim? If so,
why? If not, why not?

5. Are you a libertarian? If so, why? If not, why not?

6. What, if at all, should a policy-maker equalize?

7. Why is climate change policy so difficult to agree and implement?