PHIL 111 exam#3 review S23

.pdf

School

Purdue University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

111

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

1

Uploaded by BailiffTreeAntelope33

Report
PHIL 111- Kain EXAM #3 REVIEW SPRING 2023 The third exam will occur in class on TUESDAY, MARCH 28 TH . You will have the entire 50-minute period to compose your responses. No notes, books, or collaboration with others will be allowed during the exam. The exam will consist of several short answer questions (terms, identification questions, true/false, and/or multiple choice questions) or medium-length questions and one essay question. PART I- Terms: the good will the formula of humanity (FH) Kant’s function argument dignity Adam, Sara, David, & Danielle “dwarf tossing” action performed from direct inclination some attractions of Kantian ethics action performed out of duty Christine Korsgaard “real moral worth” the rigorism objection Friedrich Schiller’s objection 3 “sympathetic” Kantian replies categorical imperative Korsgaard’s double-level theory hypothetical imperative ideal theory the formula of universal law (FUL) non-ideal theory FUL and "false negatives" Adolph, Jr. FUL and "false positives" PART II- Medium-length questions: Briefly… (A) Explain the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative. (B) Explain how Kant tries to show that making a deceitful promise to get a loan violates FUL. (C) Explain one Kantian objection to participating in “dwarf tossing,” or one Kantian argument in favor of participating in “dwarf tossing.” (D) Explain the relationship between FUL and FH in Korsgaard’s double-level theory. (E) Identify 3 significant differences between Kant’s theory and Mill’s theory. (F) Identify 3 attractions of Kant’s theory PART III- Essay: 1. Kant argued that only actions done "out of duty" have real moral worth. Schiller mocked Kant's theory, claiming that it requires that we despise our friends and become cold & indifferent to others. In a well-organized essay, explain why Kant thought that action out of immediate inclination lacks moral worth, state and explain Schiller's criticism, and explain how Kant's theory might be defended against this criticism. Do you consider such a defense successful? 2. Kant claimed that the categorical imperative prohibits lying in all circumstances, a result that many have found quite troubling. In a well-organized essay, explain how Kant would argue for the claim that lying is always wrong and explain why people might find this “rigoristic” conclusion so troubling, and then explain and evaluate the most important “sympathetic” responses to such an objection. Do you find such responses convincing? Why or why not?
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help