ethics test 1

.docx

School

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2103

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ashtenlow1776

1. What does Psychological Egoism claim? What does Ethical Egoism claim? How are the two views similar? How are they different? Be specific. [40 points] Psychological Egoism claims that all behaviors are motivated by self-interest. Ethical Egoism claims that all behaviors ought to be motivated by self-interest. They are similar because they both state that we act to protect ourselves. They are different because Psychological Egoism states that it is just our human nature that makes us act in our own interest, while Ethical Egoism says that we SHOULD act in our own best interest. 2. What does it mean to say that a person has achieved “Reflective Equilibrium”? [30 points ] If a person has achieved “Reflective Equilibrium” than their specific moral judgments do not conflict with general moral principles. Often, people do not achieve reflective equilibrium because our situational moral reasoning doesn’t not align with our general moral principles, such as in cases of the trolly problem. In “The Bystander at the Switch” the general moral principle that “it is wrong to kill an innocent person” conflicts with the moral judgment it is okay to pull the switch. For the person in that example to achieve reflective equilibrium, they would need to have their specific moral judgment align with the idea that killing innocent people is wrong. 3. Explain what a “Prisoner’s Dilemma” is. Give one example of a real-world prisoner’s dilemma. (Your example cannot be the original example of two criminals put in separate rooms, nor can it be a trivial modification of that example. I’m asking for a different example. You’re free to use an example from class, or you can come up with your own.) Explain in detail why your example is an example of a prisoner’s dilemma. What should the people in your example do? Why? Discuss. [40 points] In the Prisoners Dilemma, you and your partner committed a crime together. You both get arrested, locked in separate rooms, and then asked if you committed the crime. You both have the option to either confess or stay silent. If you both stay silent than you each will be sentenced to 2 years in jail. If you confess and your partner stays silent, then you will get no jail and your partner will get 10 years. If you stay silent and your partner confesses, then you will get 10 years and your partner will get no jail. Lastly, if you both confess than you both will get 5 years. One real world example of this is athletes taking performance enhancing drugs. The drugs are bad for their bodies but give them an advantage in the race. If no one takes the drugs, then no one gets an advantage, and everyone’s bodies stay healthy. If only you take the drug, then ruining your body is worth it because you have an advantage over everyone else in the race. If everyone else takes the drug and you don’t, then you are at a disadvantage in the race. If everyone takes the drug than no one gets an advantage, and they all ruin their bodies. This is an example of the prisoners dilemma because if everyone does what is in their best interest as individuals, than it ends up worse for everyone (no one gets an advantage, and they all ruin their bodies). Therefore, the people in my example should not take the drug because in order to thrive as a community they must act outside of their own best interest. 4. State the “Formula of Universal Law” version of Kant’s “Categorical Imperative”. Using this formulation, explain why Kant would say it is morally wrong to lie or cheat. How does Kant’s view on this differ from that of Hobbes? [40 points] Act only on the maxim which you can at the same time will as universal law.

Kant would say it is morally wrong to lie and cheat because if everyone did it than no one would benefit. He also says that we cannot use people as a means to an end. This differs from Hobbs because Hobbs states they we shouldn’t lie or cheat simply because we might get caught and there is high stakes. Hobbs doesn’t ever mention the other person in the scenario like Kant does.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help