Ethical Theories (Pre-Midterm)
Between acting in accordance with duty and acting from duty, which one better exemplifies a good will? Why?
Acting from duty because it’s motivated by respect for the moral law, not by inclination or self-interest. An act performed out of good will must be valuable and good in itself, and not because of what it produces.
Which other ethical theory does care ethics seem related to?
Virtue ethics
The assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.
Korsgaard's argument borrows from which other philosopher? What ideas does she borrow?
Korsgaard's argument borrows from Kant's deontological ideas of "treating as a mere means" and "treating as a ends in themselves."
What is the AMA Doctrine’s stance on active vs. passive euthanasia?
The AMA Doctrine permits letting patients die (passive) but forbids killing (active).
How would Aristotle rank these from best to worst: continence, incontinence, and virtue?
1. Virtue
2. Continence
3. Incontinent
According to Held, what is care?
Care is both a practice (of responding to needs) and a value (of how we evaluate relationships).
What work/concept is Young's conception of exploitation based off of (hint: another philosopher)?
Marx's idea of exploitation under capitalism.
What is Korsgaard referring to when she use the concept of "center of self" and how does she connect this idea to the treatment of animals?
"Center of self" refers to a being's existence and value as an independent being. She argues that because animals also have their own centers of self (even if different from ours), their experiences matter to them, and therefore we have direct moral obligations to treat them ends in themselves and not as mere means.
What example does Taylor use to show how life can seem meaningless from the outside?
The Myth of Sisyphus -> Siysphus' fate of rolling a rock up a hill.
What does Aristotle mean by the "virtue of the mean" and how would the concept be applied to a trait such as being confident?
Virtue is a mean—a balanced middle point—between two vices:
one of excess
one of deficiency
For confidence, the excess might look like arrogance and the deficiency might timidity (just two examples of many).
What are some core features of care ethics?
Which of these two is the moderate version of Singer's argument and which is the stronger version? Why?
1. "We should give and prevent suffering unless doing so requires sacrificing something of comparable moral significance."
2. "We should give and prevent suffering unless doing so requires sacrificing something of moral significance."
Moderate: "We should give and prevent suffering unless doing so requires sacrificing something of moral significance."
- requires sacrifice until you sacrificing something with moral weight/significance (e.g., health, well-being, education)
Strong: "We should give and prevent suffering unless doing so requires sacrificing something of comparable moral significance."
- requires sacrifice until sacrificing something almost as morally important as the suffering we prevent (i.e., something equally serious such as risking your own life or someone else's)
What does Jamieson mean when he says climate change requires us to nurture and give new content to existing virtues? What are these virtues?
Jamieson means that we need to focus more on rethinking our moral character in the context of climate change. We need to nurture virtues such as humility, courage, and moderation to respond to climate change (e.g., being moderate in personal behaviour transforms into being moderate in consumption).
Why does Taylor think the meaning we are after is "strange?"
The meaning we are after is “strange” because it’s subjective and not based on rational or objective criteria (e.g., divine plans)—it comes from our personal, felt sense of what matters rather than anything measurable or universally shared.
A doctor can break a generally beneficial medical rule (“Always obtain informed consent”) to perform a procedure that will save a patient’s life.
How would act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism differ in evaluating this case?
Act utilitarianism would break the rule because saving a life maximizes utility in this case.
Rule utilitarianism would preserve the rule because maintaining informed consent practices produces greater long-term happiness and trust.
How might a care ethicist critique our dominant moral theories (deontology and utilitarianism)?
They fail to account for emotions and are excessively impartial and abstract to the point where they also become impractical.
How does Singer challenge the traditional views of duty and charity?
Singer argues that donating is not merely charity (supererogatory/optional) but a moral duty (obligatory/non-negotiable).
Jamieson argues that individual “green initiatives” (e.g., recycling or switching to paper straws) are insufficient responses to climate change. Why does he think these actions fail to address the deeper moral problem?
Climate change is a structural, collective problem produced by global systems and long-term processes. Green initiatives target individual actions, but they do not address the institutional, economic, and political structures that contribute to climate change. Thus, green habits can help but cannot substitute for a deeper transformation of values, institutions, and the moral agent’s self-understanding.
Explain why Rachels believes that the distinction between “causing death” and “allowing death to occur” is not morally meaningful in euthanasia cases.
Rachels argues that what matters morally is the agent’s intentions, not the causal pathway. If both killing and letting die stem from the same motive (relieve suffering) and produce the same outcome (end of suffering), the causal difference does not change moral evaluation.
Apply all three ethical theories (Deontology, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics) to the Trolley Problem. How would an ethicist of each respond?
Utilitarianism: Pull lever to save the most people—maximizes overall happiness.
Deontology: May forbid pulling lever because it uses the one person as a means.
Virtue Ethics: Depends on what a virtuous agent would do; likely identifies what virtue the agent would act out of and choose the action that best expresses that virtue.
How might a care ethicist respond to the Trolley Problem?
A care ethicist would respond by prioritizing relationships and responsibilities. They would ask how the decision affects those they have caring obligations toward, and focus on contextual and emotional factors.
For example, if the person pulling the lever had a dependent (e.g., their child) on one side of the track, their decision would revolve around saving the dependent.
Using Young's framework of the Five Faces of Oppression, explain how intersecting identities can impact the type(s) of oppression people experience? Give an example.
People with intersecting identities are exposed to different faces of oppression, which can be combined and overlapped.
Example: a PoC woman working a low-wage, menial job may experience exploitation (underpaid labour), marginalization (side-lined from better job opps), powerlessness (workplace disrespect), cultural imperialism (culturally/socially erased), and violence (harassment/assault).
Korsgaard argues that animals are “ends in themselves.”
Apply this idea to the case of a farmer who keeps animals in cramped conditions to increase profit margins. According to Korsgaard, why is this practice morally impermissible?
Because keeping animals in cramped conditions treats them solely as tools for profit, ignoring their point of view and welfare interests. Since they are ends in themselves, their suffering must be considered morally. Using them merely to maximize profit violates the duty to respect their status as sentient beings with experiences.
Using Rachels’ argument that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die, explain how he might analyze a doctor’s choice between active euthanasia (directly causing death) and passive euthanasia (allowing death).
Would Rachels see a morally relevant difference between pulling the lever in the Trolley Problem and administering a lethal injection in euthanasia? Defend your answer using his reasoning about intentions, outcomes, and moral equivalence.
Rachels would argue that the killing/letting-die distinction is morally irrelevant. In both the Trolley Problem and euthanasia, the morally significant factors are the intentions (to prevent suffering/harm) and the outcomes (the same number of deaths or less suffering).
Just as pulling the lever actively causes one death to prevent greater harm, active euthanasia may be more humane if it reduces suffering.
Rachels would therefore see no moral difference between pulling the lever and administering a lethal injection: both are justified when they best fulfill the morally relevant intention (reducing harm or suffering).
The method—killing vs. letting die—does not change the moral evaluation.