PHIL 103: Ethics

Midterm Exam

Below are three groups of questions. Please choose one from each group, and answer them
in around 300-400 words per answer. Please type your answers, double-spaced, using a 12-
point font, with no more than 1.25” margins. You may type your answers into this Word
file, or else create a new file – it’s up to you. Either way, please remember to submit your
completed midterm as a Word file or else PDF, so that I will be able to view and score it on
Moodle.

Please note: I will not be grading on length, but on quality (on clarity, and on your grasp of,
and engagement with, the material), so do not obsess over the word count. Nevertheless,
you should aim for each answer to be roughly 350 words, give or take. This means your total
midterm, properly formatted, should have around 5 or so pages’ worth of your own writing.
(You are free to use quotations in your answers, but please limit direct quotation to no more
than about 10% of your answer. Any form of citation is fine.) A grading rubric for the
midterm is available on Moodle.

Group 1

1. Mill defines utilitarianism by means of the “greatest happiness principle”: “…actions

are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence
of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation [i.e. lack] of pleasure” (See the
Handout on Bentham/Mill). Apply this principle to an example of a concrete
situation in which one might face a dilemma about what to do (the example does not
need to be original). What would the utilitarian say to do here, and why? Do you
agree with this – i.e. with what utilitarianism says to do here? Why or why not?
Explain.

The concrete situation which I will be analyzing is the classic Trolly Problem. A trolly is

rolling down its tracks with you in the conductor’s station. You approach a fork in the tracks

with a couple on one track and six workers on the other. You have to choose which track to go
down and consequently who to kill. What would the Utilitarian do? In this scenario, the

Utilitarian would kill the least amount of people possible because the pain of six people’s

families grieving would most likely be greater than the grieving of two. The situation would

change though if we say one scientist who knows the cure to all diseases is on one track, and on

the other are one hundred people. If this scenario was isolated from the rest of the world, then

the scientist would surely be sacrificed because one death would cause less pain than one

hundred. But if there is a larger population, like that on the entirety of Earth, outside of those in

the trolly problem then the solution changes. The one hundred people would be sacrificed

because even though the immediate result would cause the most pleasure, the scientist’s work

could go onto saving thousands on thousands of people whose deaths from diseases would

surely cause more pain than the pain of the sacrificed one hundred and their families. This

ability of utilitarianism to look into the future for an action’s results is due to the philosophy’s

basis in consequentialism, which takes into account the consequences of an action to try to find

the most pleasure-inducing route.

2. According to Bernard Williams, utilitarianism tends to make integrity either

impossible or unimportant as an ethical value. Briefly explain the trouble that he
thinks utilitarianism causes for the concept of integrity, with respect to an example
(either “George,” “Jim,” any other example we discussed in class, or else your own
original example). What do you think? Is utility or integrity a more important
ethical consideration with respect to your example, and why?
3. Anthony Weston points out that for utilitarianism, social utility (i.e. the greatest
happiness of the greatest number) can sometimes outweigh justice. He quotes Mill as
saying “…to save a life, it may not only be allowable, but a duty, to steal or take by
force the necessary food or medicine, or kidnap and compel…the only qualified
medical practitioner [to provide care].” In other words, it may sometimes be a duty to
violate people’s rights and do unjust things like steal, take by force, kidnap and force
 people to do things. (See the PowerPoint on Consequentialism and Utilitarianism for
this quote.) Do you agree? If so, what rights can be trumped by social utility, and in
what circumstances? If not, why not?
4. Briefly summarize Philippa Foot’s argument quoted in frames 30-3 of the PowerPoint
on Natural Law Theory and Double Effect (on Moodle), as well as Anscombe’s
response, quoted in frames 36-39. Then answer the question at the end of frame 40.

Group 2

5. Briefly summarize the basic argument of Ramona Ilea’s essay “The Mutant Cure or
Social Change: Debating Disability.” Which of the two approaches to the ethics of
disability – the “medical model” or the “social model” – better illustrates the “ethics of
the person” approach to ethical theory, as you see it? Explain.

The basic argument of this essay is that people should be given both choice to change and

accessibility to accommodate when it comes to disability. They point out that some people may

not want to be in their own skin, maybe it is a quality they possess like being paralyzed or having

a debilitating illness, or in the case of X-men’s Beast and Rogue, they feel like they are

ostracized, it’s an inconvenience, and would much rather just not be in there situation. This idea

of wanting to “cure” those who are in less fortunate circumstances plays to the medical model of

viewing disability. The social model would play more to those like Storm, Magneto, and Xavier

who see their mutations as gifts, the problem for them lies in the society that they live in. The

social model preaches the need for societal change in order to help accommodate for those who

are disadvantaged by the current system. These two approaches are the difference between

seeing a wheelchair-bound person and thinking of ways to change them to allow for them to

walk, and thinking of ways that more wheelchair ramps and elevators can be installed in

buildings. Where does the solution lie? I believe the solution rests in the basis of thought in the

social model. People would be seen as full beings who should have the choice to do with their
bodies as they wish but should be supported by society if they choose to stay a certain way.

Mutual respect for people’s differences without them needing to “cure” one’s differences.

I believe that the social model better illustrates the ethics of the person approach to

ethical theory because both ethics’ respect of the individual for who they are at the moment. The

medical model would most likely view those with a disability as slightly less than others and as

something to be “cured”. In contrast, the ethics of the person and the social model of disability

both respect people for being people as they are. 

6. Summarize as best you can the basic moral outlook embodied in the rule, which Kant
believes applies to all rational agents: “always act so as to treat humanity, whether in
yourself of in another, as an end and never merely as a means” (139). First, explain as
best you can in your own words what it means to say this is a “categorical
imperative”? Further, provide an example of an action that could be recommended
on utilitarian grounds (i.e. because of its good outcome), but which this moral
principle would rule out. Which do you agree with more about this example –
utilitarianism or Kantianism? Briefly explain.
7. Explain what Hallie means in drawing a distinction between “liberation” and
“hospitality” on p. 133-4 of “Le Chambon” (in the Weston textbook). What does he
think hospitality achieves, especially for those who have suffered unspeakable horrors
caused by other people, that liberation does not (or cannot) do by itself? And what
does this have to do more generally with the “ethics of the person” theme in this
chapter? Why do people, in other words, need more than just liberation from
horrible mistreatment – even if might suffice for sentient non-human animals? [Here
it may help to consider the villagers’ insistence that “one does not think of
alternatives to sheltering people [even if they are] endangering not only the lives of
their hosts but…the whole village” (136).]
8. Briefly summarize social contract theory (aka “contractarianism”), as it is laid out in
the first section of the reading from Rachels, and the way it applies to ethics/moral
rules in particular. Be sure to clarify the concepts “state of nature” and “social
contract.” Towards the end of the chapter, Rachels argues that a) social contract
theory is in a good position to account for the right of oppressed populations to resist
 oppression even illegally (see section 6.4); but also b) is not in a very good position to
account for any kind of contractual obligations towards oppressed populations in
situations where the latter pose no real threat to the safety or well-being of their
oppressors (see also the last question on ICA 8). Pick at least one of these two things,
(a) or (b), briefly explain the issue, and then assess it in your own words. (That is,
explain why, as you see it, (a) and/or (b) is correct, or incorrect, and why.)

Group 3

9. Explain the idea behind Wiresu’s discussion of the Ghanaian/Akan saying “Onipa hia
moa” (or “A human being needs help”), and in particular the sense of the term “hia”
(“needs”) (p. 255 in the Weston text). What exactly is the ethical significance of the
concept “hia” (“needs”) in this kind of context? Do you agree with the notion that
this saying has both a “descriptive” and a “normative” element? Why or why not?
Lastly, provide a different example of a sentence or phrase where these two elements
seem to come together in an ethically significant way, as you see it. Briefly explain
how your example is both normative and descriptive.
10. Briefly summarize Leopold’s “land ethic” (pp. 260-4 in the Weston text). In what way
might this view be seen as conflicting with an “ethics of the person” outlook? In what
way might it be seen as in conflict with a utilitarian outlook? For each, explain your
own view on the matter: is the “land-ethic” a better way to go in either case, or both,
or neither? Are the two conflicting sides maybe both right, to some degree (i.e. do we
actually have to choose sides), or what? You may find it helpful to discuss particular
concrete examples. Either way, defend your answer(s) with supporting reasons.
11. Take a look at the Aristotelian table of the virtues spreadsheet file, linked on Moodle
for the week of Oct 4. Do either one of the following: a) pick one example on this
list, and argue either that it is, or is not, a genuine human virtue, in Aristotle’s sense,
or b) pick an example that is NOT on this list, and argue that it should be, given that
it is a good example of a human virtue in Aristotle’s sense. When I say “in Aristotle’s
sense,” I mean his concept of the virtues as characteristic excellences for human
beings that are developed by habituation, and which are a mean between two
extremes. (Your answer should touch on the first of those italicized concepts, and
preferably also the second and/or the third.)

Friendliness is not a virtue because friendliness is the product of other virtues and because
the scaling used for this virtue is flawed. Friendliness is something that can be worked on not

through developing itself but through developing other virtues. I believe that it would be a

combination of generosity, truthfulness, and maybe even courage, modesty, and proper

indignation. The point is that friendliness is too broad to put into the box of a single virtue, and

because this is Aristotle’s work, this would make sense. Aristotle had many thoughts on how

friendship is a truly amazing thing. He states that friendships that are based around the

fostering of virtues will be infinitely stronger and will last longer than friendships that are based

around other ideas such as utility or even pleasure. This is why I believe that someone’s

friendliness is not a virtue in itself, but is based on many virtues. My second point is that

friendliness being on a scale from cantankerousness to obsequiousness is inaccurate, which

would redefine friendliness as something it is not, and therefore the virtue would not be

friendliness. Friendliness is just as it sounds, the ability to be friendly.  No disputes there, but a

little vague. Cantankerousness on the other hand is defined as disagreeable, ill-tempered, and

quarrelsome. This makes a little sense to be on the lacking end of the spectrum but I would

argue that sometimes it is those who you cannot agree with that sometimes you can create the

strongest bonds with. Anyways, obsequiousness is defined as putting others before yourself

which is definitely not the opposition to cantankerousness. If it was the opposition, then

obsequiousness would be defined as being agreeable and well-tempered which does not mean

being selfless with one’s intentions. If the scale itself is broken then I do not believe that it can

be used to define another term in its scale.