Professional Documents
Culture Documents
https://testbankfan.com/download/ethics-theory-and-contemporary-issues-8th-edition-
mackinnon-solutions-manual/
Readings:
Key Terms
Getting Started
1. F a. Ethics studies not how people do act and why, but how they ought to act and
why.
T b.
F c. This is a descriptive statement, not a normative one.
2. a. N and R
b. D
c. N, and A
d. D
e. N and L
f. N and E
3. Philosophers differ about whether our moral judgments refer to something objective, or are
reports of our subjective opinions.
Those who say that ethics is objective believe that values are objects available for knowledge.
The objectivists maintain that the things we desire are not good; instead, we ought to desire
things that are good. They emphasize the goodness of the thing-in-itself.
Those who believe ethics is subjective claim that value judgments express a subjective opinion.
Moral judgments rest upon subjective experience; the things that we desire are good.
4. Philosophers differ on how we know what is good. Emotivism maintains that when we say
something is good, we are showing our approval of it. Instead of describing the item or
experience, we are recommending it to others.
Intuitionism claims that good or goodness is known through our intuition. We have some
intuitive knowledge about ethical truths.
5. Natural law ethics focus on human nature and determine ethical precepts on the basis of what
is natural for humans. Natural law ethicists argue that the way in which nature is ordered allows
us to derive ethical precepts.
The advantage of using naturalistic explanations is that it is insightful, and leads us to understand
the basic functions of our species. The disadvantage is that they can easily commit the
naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy is that that the way in which we behave cannot tell us
how we ought to behave. The fact that we desire something does not tell us that the desire is
good. Therefore, the use of naturalistic explanations can lead to unethical behavior.
6. a. C b. A c. M
1. Do you think that Ethics can be taught? Why is this a difficult question to answer? What does
it depend on?
2. Which of the following have played a role in the development of your moral beliefs: your
family, your religion, your experiences, other people? Any other sources?
3. What role, if any, do you believe that emotions should play in moral reasoning? Why?
4. Do you think that an action ought to be judged morally in terms of its motive, its
consequences, something about the nature of the action, or some combination of these?
Explain.
1. No, morality is not a fact that can be discovered through understanding. It is not an object of
reason.
2. If morality were a fact, then animals would be subject to the same standards of morality as
humans.
3. There is no actual vice in murder. To understand the vice, you must turn toward your feelings
about it.
4. Hume believes that morality is an issue of feeling, not fact. Moral topics do not have meaning
unless people consider their feelings about them.
5. Ought expresses a new relationship between the sentiment and the behavior. It gives the
impression that a reason should be given.
.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
again vetoed, and the President sent a special message urging the
necessity of an appropriation to pay United States marshals. Bills
were accordingly introduced, but were defeated. This failure to
appropriate moneys called for continued until the end of the session.
The President was compelled, therefore, to call an extra session,
which he did March 19th, 1879, in words which briefly explain the
cause:—
BALLOTS.
Ballots. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Grant, 304 305 305 305 305 305
Blaine, 284 282 282 281 281 281
Sherman, 93 94 93 95 95 95
Edmunds, 34 32 32 32 32 31
Washburne, 30 32 31 31 31 31
Windom, 10 10 10 10 10 10
Garfield, 1 1 1 2 2
Harrison, 1
Ballots. 7 8 9 10 11 12
Grant, 305 306 308 305 305 304
Blaine, 281 284 282 282 281 283
Sherman, 94 91 90 91 62 93
Edmunds, 32 31 31 30 31 31
Washburne, 31 32 32 22 32 33
Windom, 10 10 10 10 10 10
Garfield, 1 1 1 2 2 1
Hayes, 1 2
Ballots, 13 14 15 16 17 18
Grant, 305 305 309 306 303 305
Blaine, 285 285 281 283 284 283
Sherman, 89 89 88 88 90 92
Edmunds, 31 31 31 31 31 31
Washburne, 33 35 36 36 34 35
Windom, 10 10 10 10 10 10
Garfield, 1
Hayes, 1 1
Davis, 1
McCrary, 1
Ballots, 19 20 21 22 23 24
Grant, 305 308 305 305 304 305
Blaine, 279 276 276 275 274 279
Sherman, 95 93 96 95 98 93
Edmunds, 31 31 31 31 31 31
Washburne, 31 35 35 35 36 35
Windom, 10 10 10 10 10 10
Garfield, 1 1 1 1 2 2
Hartranft, 1 1 1 1
Ballots, 25 26 27
Grant, 302 303 306
Blaine, 281 280 277
Sherman, 94 93 93
Edmunds, 31 31 31
Washburne, 36 35 36
Windom, 10 10 10
Garfield, 2 2 2
There was little change from the 27th ballot until the 36th and
final one, which resulted as follows:
Hancock 171
Bayard 153½
Payne 81
Thurman 63½
Field 66
Morrison 62
Hendricks 46½
Tilden 38
Ewing 10
Seymour 8
Randall 6
Loveland 5
McDonald 3
McClellan 3
English 1
Jewett 1
Black 1
Lothrop 1
Parker 1
SECOND BALLOT.
Hancock 705
Tilden 1
Bayard 2
Hendricks 30
The 3 per cent. Funding Bill passed the House March 2, and was
on the following day vetoed by President Hayes on the ground that it
dealt unjustly with the National Banks in compelling them to accept
and employ this security for their circulation in lieu of the old bonds.
This feature of the bill caused several of the Banks to surrender their
circulation, conduct which for a time excited strong political
prejudices. The Republicans in Congress as a rule contended that the
debt could not be surely funded at 3 per cent.; that 3½ was a safer
figure, and to go below this might render the bill of no effect. The
same views were entertained by President Hayes and Secretary
Sherman. The Democrats insisted on 3 per cent., until the veto, when
the general desire to fund at more favorable rates broke party lines,
and a 3½ per cent. funding bill was passed, with the feature
objectionable to the National Banks omitted.
The Republicans were mistaken in their view, as the result proved.
The loan was floated so easily, that in the session of 1882 Secretary
Sherman, now a Senator, himself introduced a 3 per cent. bill, which
passed the Senate Feb. 2d, 1882, in this shape:—
Be it enacted, &c. That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby
authorized to receive at the Treasury and at the office of any
Assistant Treasurer of the United States and at any postal money
order office, lawful money of the United States to the amount of fifty
dollars or any multiple of that sum or any bonds of the United States,
bearing three and a half per cent, interest, which are hereby declared
valid, and to issue in exchange therefore an equal amount of
registered or coupon bonds of the United States, of the denomination
of fifty, one hundred, five hundred, one thousand and ten thousand
dollars, of such form as he may prescribe, bearing interest at the rate
three per centum per annum, payable either quarterly or semi-
annually, at the Treasury of the United States. Such bonds shall be
exempt from all taxation by or under state authority, and be payable
at the pleasure of the United States. “Provided, That the bonds
herein authorized shall not be called in and paid so long as any bonds
of the United States heretofore issued bearing a higher rate of
interest than three per centum, and which shall be redeemable at the
pleasure of the United States, shall be outstanding and uncalled. The
last of the said bonds originally issued and their substitutes under
this act shall be first called in and this order of payment shall be
followed until all shall have been paid.”
Total $52,788,722.03