ethics exam - essay questions

can you think of an example of a current social policy that people in the original position would not agree to adopt? how about one they would? in supporting your answer, be sure to make reference to and explain Rawls’ two principles of justice.

One current social policy that individuals in the original position would likely reject is felon disenfranchisement, which denies voting rights to individuals convicted of certain crimes, sometimes permanently. This policy violates Rawls’s Equal Basic Liberties Principle because it restricts a fundamental right—political participation—without justification tied to democratic fairness. Additionally, it disproportionately affects marginalized groups, worsening social inequalities without benefiting the least advantaged, thus contradicting the Difference Principle. Since those in the original position do not know whether they will be among the disenfranchised, they would not accept a rule that undermines equal political representation.

A policy that individuals in the original position would likely accept is universal healthcare, as it ensures equal access to medical care regardless of economic status. This aligns with the Equal Basic Liberties Principle because access to healthcare is essential for individuals to fully exercise their rights and freedoms. It also satisfies the Difference Principle by providing the greatest benefit to the least advantaged—those who cannot afford private healthcare—while still allowing for some economic inequalities, such as private insurance options. Since individuals behind the veil of ignorance do not know whether they will be wealthy or poor, healthy or sick, they would rationally choose a system that guarantees healthcare as a basic right, ensuring fairness in access to essential services.

Explain how utilitarianism and Kantian moral theory differ in what they require during times of famine. In light of this difference, which theory do you find to be more compelling? Support your view and explain why you chose the theory you chose.

Utilitarianism and Kantian moral theory offer different ethical requirements during times of famine. Utilitarianism, which focuses on maximizing overall happiness and minimizing suffering, would require individuals and governments to take actions that produce the greatest good for the greatest number. This could mean redistributing resources, prioritizing aid to the most people possible, or even sacrificing individual property rights if doing so would alleviate widespread hunger. In contrast, Kantian moral theory, which emphasizes duty and respect for persons as ends in themselves, would require individuals to act according to universal moral principles, such as the duty to help others in need, but only in ways that respect individual autonomy and moral laws. A Kantian might argue that while helping those in famine is a moral duty, it should not involve coercion or actions that violate individual rights, even if such actions would lead to better overall outcomes.

I find utilitarianism to be the more compelling approach during times of famine because it prioritizes concrete outcomes and actively seeks to reduce suffering. In extreme situations where lives are at stake, focusing on consequences rather than rigid moral duties ensures that aid reaches the maximum number of people efficiently. While Kantian ethics provides an important foundation for respecting human dignity, its emphasis on duty and universal moral laws may not be flexible enough to address urgent crises where strict adherence to principles could prevent necessary action. In life-and-death situations, I believe ethical reasoning should be guided by the tangible impact on human well-being, making utilitarianism the more practical and morally persuasive approach.

in what ways does Hill suggest that those who fail to respect natural environments are falling short of ideals of human excellence? raise what you take to be the most serious objection to his view. is your objection successful? why or why not?

Thomas Hill argues that those who fail to respect natural environments fall short of ideals of human excellence because their attitudes reflect a deficiency in certain virtuous traits, such as humility, gratitude, and appreciation for things beyond human use. He suggests that a disregard for nature often signals an arrogant or self-centered character, lacking awareness of one’s place within a larger, complex world. According to Hill, virtues like humility help individuals recognize their dependence on nature, while appreciation for the environment reflects a broader sensitivity to value that is essential for moral maturity. Thus, environmental disregard is not just ethically problematic in terms of harm done but also reveals a deficiency in one’s character and moral development.

A serious objection to Hill’s view is that respect for nature does not necessarily indicate moral virtue, nor does environmental disregard always signify a character flaw. Someone might care deeply for others, be humble, and possess moral sensitivity while still failing to appreciate nature—perhaps due to cultural upbringing, lack of exposure, or differing values. Conversely, a person might admire nature aesthetically but act unethically in other aspects of life. This suggests that environmental concern may not be a reliable indicator of human excellence. However, Hill’s argument remains largely intact because he does not claim that all moral people must value nature in the same way, only that a dismissive attitude toward the environment can reflect deeper shortcomings in virtues relevant to moral excellence. While the objection highlights some limits to his view, it does not fully undermine the connection he draws between environmental attitudes and moral character.

Husak claims that a sensible position in the debate about drug decriminalization should not evade the question of whether and under what circumstances the use of a given drug is morally permissible. do you think that the recreational use of drugs is ever morally permissible. why or why not?

Yes, I believe that the recreational use of drugs can be morally permissible under certain conditions. If drug use does not cause harm to oneself or others in a significant way, and if it is done with informed consent and responsible decision-making, then there is no inherent moral wrongdoing in the act itself. For example, occasional, moderate use of substances like alcohol or marijuana in a safe environment does not necessarily violate any moral principles. In cases where drug use enhances well-being, creativity, or social bonding without leading to addiction or harm, it can be seen as a legitimate form of personal enjoyment, much like other recreational activities.

However, moral concerns arise when drug use leads to serious self-harm, addiction, or negative consequences for others, such as impaired decision-making that endangers lives. If a person’s drug use fuels systemic injustice—such as supporting violent black markets—or significantly reduces their ability to fulfill moral responsibilities, then it would be difficult to justify as morally permissible. Ultimately, I align with Husak’s view that decriminalization should not prevent us from evaluating the ethical dimensions of drug use, but I maintain that in many cases, responsible recreational use can be morally acceptable, particularly when it aligns with principles of autonomy and harm reduction.

In your own words, explain Hursthouse’s argument for why focusing on the moral status of other animals is the wrong way to address moral questions about how we treat them. Do you agree with this argument? why or why not?

Rosalind Hursthouse argues that focusing on the moral status of animals—debating whether they have rights or are moral patients—misframes the ethical question of how we should treat them. Instead, she suggests that we should evaluate our treatment of animals through the lens of virtue ethics, asking what kind of character traits are expressed in our actions toward them. For Hursthouse, cruelty to animals reveals vices like callousness and a lack of compassion, while kindness toward them reflects virtues such as empathy and respect for life. She believes that ethical concerns about animals should be grounded in what kind of people we should strive to be, rather than in abstract debates about their intrinsic moral status.

I find Hursthouse’s argument compelling because it shifts the discussion from theoretical rights-based arguments, which can be divisive and inconclusive, to a practical and intuitive evaluation of character. Even if one rejects the idea that animals have rights, it still seems morally problematic to be indifferent to their suffering. However, one potential weakness in her approach is that it does not provide clear guidelines for resolving ethical dilemmas where human and animal interests conflict. Without a framework of rights or moral status, it can be difficult to determine when animal suffering should override human interests. Despite this, I agree that focusing on virtue and moral character offers a meaningful and accessible way to approach our ethical obligations to animals.