MORALITY
REALISM
PACIFISM
JUST WAR THEORY
DISTINCTIONS
100

A person says, “Whether lying is wrong depends entirely on the circumstances.” What kind of moral view does this most clearly resemble, and why?

Scorecard

  • Identifies particularist morality.
  • Explains that circumstances affect the moral status of the action.
  • Contrasts this with applying the same universal rule in every case.

Complete: 3 elements

100

Suppose an Athenian at Melos says: “Stop asking what would be fair and start asking what you actually have the power to prevent.” What realist idea is being expressed?

Scorecard

  • Emphasis on power.
  • Emphasis on political circumstances rather than abstract justice.
  • Connects the claim to the Athenian position at Melos.

Complete: 3 elements

100

A person says, “The state can only wage war because ordinary people agree to carry out its violence.” Which pacifist thinker does this most resemble, and what follows from the claim?

Scorecard

  • Identifies Tolstoy.
  • Explains that state coercion depends on individual participation.
  • Explains that widespread refusal undermines the state's capacity for violence.
  • Connects refusal to his broader nonviolent argument.

Complete: 4 elements

100

A ruler has an excellent reason to fight but launches the war out of hatred and revenge. What problem would Aquinas identify?

Scorecard

  • Identifies right intention.
  • A just cause alone is insufficient.
  • The purpose/motive of the war is morally relevant.

Complete: 3 elements

200

Two people disagree about whether an action is morally acceptable. One says, “At least one of us must be mistaken.” What assumption about morality is this person making?

Scorecard

  • Identifies objective morality.
  • Explains that moral truth is not determined merely by each person's opinion.
  • Recognizes that sincere disagreement does not mean both judgments are equally correct.

Complete: 3 elements

200

A political leader defends a morally troubling action by saying, “Any other choice would have endangered the survival of the state.” What realist argument is this using, and what would you need to know before accepting it?

Scorecard

  • Identifies an argument from necessity.
  • Explains that necessity can constrain political choice.
  • Recognizes that claiming necessity does not prove there were genuinely no alternatives.
  • Recognizes that necessity does not establish that morality is always irrelevant.

Complete: 4 elements

200

Someone argues that nonviolence should be maintained even when violence appears likely to produce a better immediate result. Which account of pacifism does this most resemble, and why?

Scorecard

  • Identifies Hauerwas or his type of nonviolence.
  • Nonviolence is not merely a strategy for producing good results.
  • Moral/Christian commitment governs the means used.
  • Good consequences do not automatically justify violence.

Complete: 4 elements

200

Why would Augustine reject the claim that anyone who truly values peace must always refuse to use force?

Scorecard

  • Peace is the proper end.
  • Wrongdoing can itself destroy peace/order.
  • Force may sometimes restrain or correct wrongdoing.
  • Violence must not be loved or pursued for its own sake.

Complete: 4 elements

200

Russell and Hauerwas may both tell someone not to kill. Why does that agreement conceal a major theoretical disagreement?

Scorecard

  • Russell reasons primarily from consequences.
  • Hauerwas grounds nonviolence in moral/Christian commitment.
  • Russell can permit an exception when consequences change sufficiently.
  • Hauerwas does not make the obligation depend simply upon better outcomes.
  • Clearly states that they reach similar conclusions through different moral theories.

Complete: 5 elements

300

A commander refuses to deliberately kill one innocent person even though doing so might save several others. What type of moral reasoning is being used? How would the competing approach evaluate the case?

Scorecard

  • Identifies the refusal as deontological reasoning.
  • Explains that some acts are prohibited independently of their beneficial results.
  • Identifies consequentialism as the competing approach.
  • Explains that consequentialism would compare the likely outcomes of the alternatives.

Complete: 4 elements

300

Imagine two groups both prefer peace but neither trusts the other to keep its promises. Why would Hobbes think this situation could still produce conflict?

Scorecard

  • Absence of a common enforcing authority.
  • Mutual distrust/insecurity.
  • Even peace-seeking actors have incentives to protect themselves.
  • Agreements are unreliable without enforcement.
  • Connects the problem to the need for sovereign authority.

Complete: 5 elements

300

Why can a thinker consistently oppose killing in nearly every case while still allowing that killing might sometimes be justified?

Scorecard

  • Identifies the logic as compatible with consequentialism.
  • General opposition is based on the usual consequences of killing.
  • An exceptional case could have importantly different consequences.
  • The exception therefore does not require abandoning the basic reasoning.
  • Connects the structure to Russell.

Complete: 5 elements

300

A state has been attacked. Does that fact alone settle whether its response is morally justified according to just war theory?

Scorecard

  • Says no.
  • A just cause is important but not sufficient by itself.
  • Legitimate authority matters.
  • Right intention matters.
  • More generally, war remains subject to moral conditions even in response to aggression.

Complete: 5 elements

300

Both Tolstoy and Hauerwas connect nonviolence to Christianity. What is one important difference in what each is trying to show?

Scorecard

  • Accurately identifies Tolstoy's concern with state violence/coercion.
  • Explains the importance of individual refusal for Tolstoy.
  • Accurately identifies Hauerwas's concern with faithful nonviolent character/community.
  • Identifies a genuine distinction between their arguments.
  • Recognizes their shared rejection of violence does not make the arguments identical.

Complete: 5 elements

400

Why is the distinction between universal/particularist morality different from the distinction between deontology/consequentialism?

Scorecard

  • Universal/particularist concerns how broadly moral rules apply across cases.
  • Deontology/consequentialism concerns what makes an action right or wrong.
  • Correctly explains deontology.
  • Correctly explains consequentialism.
  • Recognizes that a person could combine positions across the two distinctions.

Complete: 5 elements

400

Does realism require the claim that human beings are simply evil? Use Hobbes or Morgenthau to explain why or why not.

Scorecard

  • Says no, or otherwise rejects the oversimplification.
  • Identifies motivations such as fear, self-preservation, competition, distrust, or interest.
  • Explains how conflict can arise even from understandable motivations.
  • Connects those motivations to the importance of power.
  • Explains why this supports a realist account of politics.

Complete: 5 elements

400

Why might someone agree that a perfectly justified war is imaginable but still argue that actual wars should almost always be regarded as immoral?

Scorecard

  • Distinguishes theoretical possibility from actual political practice.
  • Recognizes uncertainty/error in predicting consequences.
  • Recognizes the harms produced by real warfare.
  • Connects this reasoning to Caplan.
  • Preserves the difference between practical opposition and an absolute prohibition.

Complete: 5 elements

400

How can someone consistently say both “There is a moral presumption against war” and “This particular war is morally permissible”?

Scorecard

  • Explains a prima facie moral wrong/presumption.
  • The presumption gives a genuine reason against war.
  • A prima facie reason is not an absolute prohibition.
  • Competing moral considerations can be sufficiently weighty to override it.
  • Just-war standards determine whether the override is justified.
  • War remains morally serious even when justified.

Complete: 6 elements

400

If Augustine already argues that force can sometimes serve peace, what does Aquinas add to the just-war tradition?

Scorecard

  • Augustine emphasizes peace as the proper end.
  • Augustine emphasizes intention/disposition.
  • Aquinas articulates legitimate authority.
  • Aquinas articulates just cause.
  • Aquinas retains right intention.
  • Explains that Aquinas turns related moral concerns into a more explicit framework for evaluating wars.

Complete: 6 elements

500

Both Tolstoy and Hauerwas connect nonviolence to Christianity. What is one important difference in what each is trying to show?

Scorecard

  • Accurately identifies Tolstoy's concern with state violence/coercion.
  • Explains the importance of individual refusal for Tolstoy.
  • Accurately identifies Hauerwas's concern with faithful nonviolent character/community.
  • Identifies a genuine distinction between their arguments.
  • Recognizes their shared rejection of violence does not make the arguments identical.

Complete: 5 elements

M
e
n
u