phil of ethics

What is the origin of the term "ethics"?

a) Latin word "mores"
b) Greek word "ethos"
c) Latin word "ethicus"
d) Greek word "mores"

What is the origin of the term "ethics"?
Answer: b) Greek word "ethos"
Explanation: The term "ethics" is derived from the Greek word "ethos," which means character or custom. It relates to principles that govern behavior.

What is the distinction between normative and descriptive ethics?

a) Normative ethics focuses on what is, descriptive ethics focuses on what ought to be
b) Descriptive ethics focuses on what is, normative ethics focuses on what ought to be
c) Descriptive ethics and normative ethics are synonymous
d) Normative ethics deals with factual claims, descriptive ethics deals with moral claims

What is the distinction between normative and descriptive ethics?
Answer: b) Descriptive ethics focuses on what is, normative ethics focuses on what ought to be
Explanation: Descriptive ethics studies how people actually behave and the moral beliefs they hold, whereas normative ethics deals with how people should act and what moral standards should govern behavior.

Which of the following represents a descriptive ethical claim?

a) Lying is morally wrong.
b) Most people think abortion is wrong.
c) Abortion is morally permissible.
d) Lying should never be allowed.

Which of the following represents a descriptive ethical claim?
Answer: b) Most people think abortion is wrong.
Explanation: A descriptive ethical claim reports on how people behave or think without making a moral judgment. In this case, it describes what most people believe without saying whether that belief is correct.

What is a deductively valid argument?

a) An argument with all true premises and a true conclusion
b) An argument where the conclusion must be true if all premises are true
c) An argument that includes at least one normative claim
d) An argument that uses facts to justify moral claims

What is a deductively valid argument?
Answer: b) An argument where the conclusion must be true if all premises are true
Explanation: A deductively valid argument is one where if the premises are true, the conclusion logically must be true. This is about the form of the argument, not necessarily the truth of the premises.

Which of the following statements is true about the relationship between facts and values?

a) Facts can directly lead to values.
b) Values are factual claims about the world.
c) There is a gap between facts (what is) and values (what ought to be).
d) Values are always based on empirical evidence.

Which of the following statements is true about the relationship between facts and values?
Answer: c) There is a gap between facts (what is) and values (what ought to be)
Explanation: The "is-ought gap" refers to the philosophical idea that you cannot derive a moral value (what ought to be) purely from factual statements (what is). Moral reasoning requires an additional normative premise.

What is an example of a sound argument?

a) An argument with valid reasoning and at least one false premise
b) An argument where all premises are true, and the conclusion is true
c) An argument that has true premises but an invalid structure
d) An argument where moral claims are justified by factual evidence

What is an example of a sound argument?
Answer: b) An argument where all premises are true, and the conclusion is true
Explanation: A sound argument is both valid (the conclusion follows from the premises) and has true premises. This makes the conclusion necessarily true.

What does it mean for an argument to be deductively invalid?

a) The premises are all false.
b) The conclusion is true, but the premises are false.
c) The conclusion could be false even if the premises are all true.
d) The argument has no normative claim.

What does it mean for an argument to be deductively invalid?
Answer: c) The conclusion could be false even if the premises are all true
Explanation: A deductively invalid argument is one where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Even if the premises are true, the conclusion might still be false.

In Crito's argument, why does Socrates believe he should remain in prison?

a) Escaping would violate the laws he has accepted by staying in Athens.
b) Escaping would save his life, but he values life more than justice.
c) His friends will be harmed if he escapes.
d) Escaping would prove the charges against him were correct.

In Crito's argument, why does Socrates believe he should remain in prison?
Answer: a) Escaping would violate the laws he has accepted by staying in Athens
Explanation: Socrates argues that by living in Athens and benefiting from its laws, he has implicitly agreed to abide by those laws. Escaping would violate that agreement, and Socrates believes it is wrong to disobey just laws.

What is Socrates' reasoning for claiming that it is wrong to repay evil with evil?

a) Acting unjustly is always wrong.
b) The Athenian court has the ultimate moral authority.
c) Laws are meant to be broken when they are unjust.
d) Revenge is acceptable when the original action was evil.

What is Socrates' reasoning for claiming that it is wrong to repay evil with evil?
Answer: a) Acting unjustly is always wrong
Explanation: Socrates believes that one must never commit an injustice, even in response to another injustice. This principle applies to his refusal to escape prison as an act of retaliation against the unjust verdict.

According to Socrates, whose opinions should we respect when it comes to moral matters?

a) The opinions of the majority
b) The opinions of legal authorities
c) The opinions of experts in morality
d) The opinions of personal friends

According to Socrates, whose opinions should we respect when it comes to moral matters?
Answer: c) The opinions of experts in morality
Explanation: Socrates argues that when it comes to moral matters, we should respect the opinions of those who are knowledgeable or wise in such areas, rather than the opinions of the majority or personal acquaintances.

Which of the following is a challenge in justifying normative ethical claims?

a) They are not based on observable data like scientific claims.
b) They are based on majority opinion.
c) They can be justified through descriptive claims.
d) Normative claims are the same as factual claims.

Which of the following is a challenge in justifying normative ethical claims?
Answer: a) They are not based on observable data like scientific claims
Explanation: Normative ethical claims involve judgments about what ought to be the case, which are not verifiable by empirical data. This makes them harder to justify in the same way that factual claims are justified.

What is a key feature of moral relativism?

a) Moral truths are the same across all cultures.
b) Morality is determined by societal or cultural norms.
c) Moral truths are derived from empirical science.
d) Ethical principles are universally valid.

What is a key feature of moral relativism?
Answer: b) Morality is determined by societal or cultural norms
Explanation: Moral relativism holds that moral truths are not absolute but are instead relative to the cultural or societal context in which they occur.

Why does adding more factual claims to an argument not necessarily lead to a valid moral conclusion?

a) Facts cannot be true or false.
b) Factual claims can directly generate normative conclusions.
c) There is no direct conceptual link between factual and normative

Why does adding more factual claims to an argument not necessarily lead to a valid moral conclusion?
Answer: c) There is no direct conceptual link between factual and normative claims
Explanation: This question highlights the "is-ought" problem. Factual claims describe what is, but moral conclusions require normative premises about what ought to be. Simply adding more factual information does not bridge that gap.

What is the primary difference between normative and descriptive ethics?

• a) Normative ethics examines what "is," while descriptive ethics examines what "ought" to be.

• b) Descriptive ethics examines what "is," while normative ethics examines what "ought" to be.

• c) Normative ethics is concerned with laws, while descriptive ethics focuses on cultural practices.

• d) Descriptive ethics deals with philosophical questions, while normative ethics deals with theological questions.

Answer: b) Descriptive ethics examines what "is," while normative ethics examines what "ought to be."
Explanation: Descriptive ethics focuses on empirical observations about how people behave and think morally, while normative ethics focuses on prescribing how people should act.

According to your notes, why can't we justify moral claims using only factual claims?

• a) Facts alone cannot provide answers to universal moral questions.

• b) Factual claims are often incorrect.

• c) Normative claims are the same as descriptive claims.

• d) Moral claims can be justified by counting heads

Answer: a) Facts alone cannot provide answers to universal moral questions.
Explanation: There is an "is-ought" gap, meaning you cannot derive an ethical conclusion (what ought to be) from purely factual premises (what is). Moral reasoning requires normative premises.

In the example of the fetus, which of the following problems arises with the simple normative argument for the wrongness of abortion?

• a) It assumes a factual premise that is false.

• b) It lacks deductive validity.

• c) The premises do not lead to a normative conclusion.

• d) The argument is sound but incomplete.

Answer: c) The premises do not lead to a normative conclusion.
Explanation: The argument fails because it starts with descriptive premises (e.g., the fetus is human) but does not provide a normative reason why abortion should be wrong. Without connecting descriptive facts to moral principles, the argument remains incomplete.

What is a “sound” argument?

• a) An argument with all true premises and a true conclusion.

• b) An argument where the premises are false but the conclusion is true.

• c) An argument where the premises are valid but the conclusion is invalid.

• d) An argument that cannot be proven wrong.

Answer: a) An argument with all true premises and a true conclusion.
Explanation: A sound argument must be both valid (the conclusion logically follows from the premises) and have true premises. This ensures that the conclusion is also true.

Why does Socrates reject escaping from prison in his dialogue with Crito?

• a) It would repay evil with evil.

• b) He believes the laws of Athens are unjust.

• c) He has no family to return to.

• d) He believes life is not worth living.

Answer: a) It would repay evil with evil.
Explanation: Socrates believes that responding to injustice with more injustice (escaping prison) would be morally wrong, and he holds that one must never commit an injustice, even in response to an unjust act

According to Socrates, why must he respect the laws of Athens?

• a) He has tacitly agreed to them by living in Athens for so long.

• b) The laws are divinely inspired.

• c) The laws are perfect and never wrong.

• d) He fears punishment if he disobeys the laws.

Answer: a) He has tacitly agreed to them by living in Athens for so long.
Explanation: Socrates argues that by choosing to live in Athens and benefiting from its legal system, he has implicitly agreed to follow its laws, including accepting his legal punishment

What does the term "deontological" refer to in ethics?

• a) The study of consequences and their moral implications.

• b) The study of duties and obligations.

• c) The study of personal happiness as the goal of morality.

• d) The study of cultural customs.

Answer: b) The study of duties and obligations.
Explanation: Deontological ethics focuses on following moral duties or obligations, regardless of the consequences. It contrasts with consequentialist theories, which judge actions by their outcomes.

What is the Euthyphro dilemma in ethics?

• a) Are ethical truths based on social customs or laws?

• b) Is an action right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is right?

• c) Can moral judgments be objectively justified?

• d) Is there a difference between ethics and religion?

Answer: b) Is an action right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is right?
Explanation: The Euthyphro dilemma questions whether morality is based on divine command (arbitrary) or whether moral truths exist independently of God (implying a higher standard of morality).

In the Divine Command Theory (DCT), what is a key problem identified in your notes?

• a) It makes ethics irrelevant to human beings.

• b) It implies that ethical truths can change based on God’s will.

• c) It provides no guidance for non-believers.

• d) It contradicts natural law.

Answer: b) It implies that ethical truths can change based on God’s will.
Explanation: One criticism of Divine Command Theory is that if morality is based solely on God’s commands, then what is morally right could change arbitrarily if God changed his commands, making morality seem less stable or universal

What does "contractarianism" argue about moral actions?

• a) Moral actions are right if they produce good consequences.

• b) Moral actions are right if they follow divine commands.

• c) Moral actions are right if they are permitted by a social agreement or contract.

• d) Moral actions are right if they maximize pleasure.

Answer: c) Moral actions are right if they are permitted by a social agreement or contract.
Explanation: Contractarianism suggests that moral rules are based on social agreements, where individuals consent to follow certain rules for the benefit of everyone involved in the society.

Which of the following systems does not justify actions based on consequences?

• a) Utilitarianism

• b) Consequentialism

• c) Contractarianism

• d) Nonconsequentialism

Answer: d) Nonconsequentialism
Explanation: Nonconsequentialist theories (such as deontology) hold that the morality of an action is based on factors other than its consequences, such as adherence to duties or rules

What is metaethics concerned with?

• a) The application of moral theories.

• b) How we should live and what actions are right.

• c) The nature of morality itself and whether moral values are real.

• d) The enforcement of laws and social sanctions.

Answer: c) The nature of morality itself and whether moral values are real.
Explanation: Metaethics explores foundational questions about the nature of moral claims, including whether moral truths are objective or subjective, and how we come to know them.

Which of the following is an example of a consequentialist ethical theory?

• a) Contractarianism

• b) Divine Command Theory

• c) Utilitarianism

• d) Nonconsequentialism

Answer: c) Utilitarianism
Explanation: Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, which holds that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences, specifically whether it maximizes overall happiness or utility.

What does the term “nihilism” mean in the context of ethics?

• a) All moral judgments are false or nonsensical.

• b) Morality depends on cultural beliefs and practices.

• c) Moral values are subjective and depend on individual beliefs.

• d) Moral values can be objectively justified.

Answer: a) All moral judgments are false or nonsensical.
Explanation: Ethical nihilism is the view that moral truths do not exist, and all moral claims are meaningless or false.

How does Socrates argue that escaping prison would cause harm?

• a) It would injure his family emotionally.

• b) It would cause harm to Athens by disrespecting its laws.

• c) It would put his friends in danger of exile or punishment.

• d) It would result in his own death sooner.

How does Socrates argue that escaping prison would cause harm?
Answer: b) It would cause harm to Athens by disrespecting its laws.
Explanation: Socrates argues that escaping would undermine the laws and order of Athens, causing harm to the city and its citizens by disrespecting the legal system he had agreed to follow.

How does nihilism define all moral judgments?

• a) True

• b) Noncognitive

• c) Based on personal preferences

• d) Rational

Answer: b) Noncognitive
Explanation: Nihilism in ethics claims that all moral judgments are noncognitive, meaning they do not express beliefs that can be true or false. According to nihilism, moral judgments are meaningless or nonsensical, as they do not correspond to any objective moral facts.

What is one of the major problems with nihilism?

• a) It has been widely accepted by most philosophers.

• b) It is considered monstrous and difficult to justify.

• c) It provides a strong foundation for moral reasoning.

• d) It supports the idea of universal moral truths.

Answer: b) It is considered monstrous and difficult to justify.
Explanation: Nihilism is often criticized for its radical rejection of all moral values, which can lead to a sense of moral despair or chaos. It’s challenging to justify a position that denies any possibility of right or wrong, making it difficult to adopt in practice or moral reasoning.

Why does nihilism violate the burden of proof?

• a) It requires empirical evidence, which is impossible to gather.

• b) There is no compelling reason to believe that all moral judgments are false or nonsensical.

• c) It fails to take into account the subjective experiences of individuals.

• d) Moralists are unable to justify their claims.

Answer: b) There is no compelling reason to believe that all moral judgments are false or nonsensical.
Explanation: Nihilism asserts that moral judgments are false or meaningless, but it does not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to support this extreme claim. Without a compelling argument, nihilism fails to meet the burden of proof required to justify its position.

Which statement best describes emotivism in ethics?

• a) Moral judgments are factual and have truth values.

• b) Moral judgments express emotions and cannot be true or false.

• c) Moral judgments are based on empirical evidence.

• d) Moral judgments reflect objective truths about the world

Answer: b) Moral judgments express emotions and cannot be true or false.
Explanation: Emotivism holds that moral judgments do not state facts but instead express the speaker's emotions or attitudes. For example, saying "stealing is wrong" is not a factual statement but an expression of disapproval of stealing.

According to A.J. Ayer, what is the function of ethical statements?

• a) To express empirical truths about the world.

• b) To report the speaker's emotions and influence others.

• c) To provide logical arguments about right and wrong.

• d) To offer metaphysical explanations of morality.

Answer: b) To report the speaker's emotions and influence others.
Explanation: Ayer, a proponent of emotivism, argued that ethical statements serve to express emotions and are meant to influence the behavior or attitudes of others, rather than stating objective facts about the world.

What is a key problem with emotivism as an ethical theory?

• a) It does not allow for any emotional expression.

• b) It denies the ability to apply reason to moral judgments.

• c) It asserts that ethical statements are always true.

• d) It contradicts the idea that moral judgments can be justified.

Answer: b) It denies the ability to apply reason to moral judgments.
Explanation: One criticism of emotivism is that it reduces moral judgments to mere emotional expressions, which implies that reason and rational argument cannot play a role in moral discourse. This undermines the possibility of resolving moral disagreements through logical reasoning.

Which of the following is NOT a comparative normative system discussed in ethics?

• a) Ethics

• b) Etiquette

• c) Politics

• d) Religion

Answer: a) Ethics
Explanation: Ethics is the overarching discipline that studies moral principles and behaviors. In contrast, etiquette, politics, and religion are comparative normative systems that provide different sets of rules or expectations for human conduct.

What does the Divine Command Theory (DCT) suggest about moral actions?

• a) They are right or wrong based on consequences.

• b) They are right or wrong because God commands them.

• c) They are right or wrong based on individual beliefs.

• d) They are right or wrong based on social customs.

Answer: b) They are right or wrong because God commands them.
Explanation: Divine Command Theory posits that moral rightness or wrongness depends on God’s will. Actions are morally obligatory if God commands them and morally wrong if God forbids them.

What is the classic dilemma associated with the Divine Command Theory (DCT)?

• a) Are moral judgments based on God’s will or on another independent standard?

• b) Are moral judgments based on individual emotions or rational thought?

• c) Are moral judgments influenced by social customs or empirical evidence?

• d) Are moral judgments based on the consequences of actions?

Answer: a) Are moral judgments based on God’s will or on another independent standard?
Explanation: This is the Euthyphro dilemma, which questions whether something is morally good because God commands it (making morality seem arbitrary), or if God commands it because it is inherently good (implying that morality exists independently of God).

How does normative ethics differ from metaethics?

• a) Normative ethics focuses on how we should live and what is right or wrong, while metaethics explores the nature and meaning of morality itself.

• b) Normative ethics addresses the consequences of actions, while metaethics focuses on personal beliefs.

• c) Metaethics determines what actions are morally right, while normative ethics addresses cultural norms.

• d) Metaethics provides practical guidance for ethical decisions, while normative ethics deals with abstract moral theory.

Answer: a) Normative ethics focuses on how we should live and what is right or wrong, while metaethics explores the nature and meaning of morality itself.
Explanation: Normative ethics concerns itself with determining what actions are morally right or wrong, while metaethics examines the deeper nature of moral statements, asking questions about the meaning, truth, or objectivity of moral values.

According to the fundamental taxonomy in ethics, what does moral theory suggest?

• a) There are no objective moral truths.

• b) All moral judgments depend on subjective beliefs.

• c) There are objective moral values or truths that can be justified.

• d) All moral judgments are false or nonsensical.

Answer: c) There are objective moral values or truths that can be justified.
Explanation: Moral theories often assume that there are objective moral truths—principles that can be rationally defended as universally valid, such as the idea that "murder is wrong."

Which ethical theory holds that an act is right if and only if it promotes good consequences for everyone?

• a) Nonconsequentialism

• b) Nihilism

• c) Consequentialism

• d) Contractarianism

Answer: c) Consequentialism
Explanation: Consequentialism is the ethical theory that determines the rightness or wrongness of actions based solely on their outcomes. If an action leads to good consequences for everyone, it is considered morally right.

How does nonconsequentialism determine the morality of an action?

• a) An action is right if it maximizes pleasure.

• b) An action is right if it promotes good consequences.

• c) An action is right if it is intrinsically right, regardless of consequences.

• d) An action is right if it aligns with cultural practices.

Answer: c) An action is right if it is intrinsically right, regardless of consequences.
Explanation: Nonconsequentialist theories, such as deontology, argue that certain actions are morally right or wrong in themselves, independent of the consequences they produce. The morality of an action is judged by principles or rules, not outcomes.

Which ethical view asserts that moral judgments depend on cultural beliefs, traditions, or practices?

• a) Nihilism

• b) Subjectivism

• c) Contractarianism

• d) Conventionalism (relativism)

Answer: d) Conventionalism (relativism)
Explanation: Conventionalism, also known as cultural relativism, holds that moral judgments are relative to specific cultures, traditions, or societies. What is considered morally right or wrong varies depending on cultural norms.

What does contractarianism argue about the morality of actions?

• a) Actions are right if they align with divine commands.

• b) Actions are right if they produce the best consequences.

• c) Actions are right if they are permitted by a social agreement or contract.

• d) Actions are right if they are intrinsically valuable.

Answer: c) Actions are right if they are permitted by a social agreement or contract.
Explanation: Contractarianism suggests that morality arises from a social contract or agreement between individuals. Actions are morally right if they conform to the terms of this agreement, which is meant to ensure mutual benefit and cooperation in society.

According to Ayer, what type of statements can have truth values?

• A) Only ethical statements

• B) Only non-ethical statements

• C) Only empirical statements

• D) Both ethical and empirical statements

Answer: C) Only empirical statements
Explanation: A.J. Ayer, a logical positivist, argued that only empirical statements—those that can be verified through sensory experience—can have truth values. Ethical statements, for Ayer, are non-cognitive and cannot be true or false because they do not express propositions that can be empirically verified.

What is Ayer's view on moral disapproval?

• A) It is a factual statement

• B) It is an emotive utterance

• C) It is a logical contradiction

• D) It provides an empirical truth

Answer: B) It is an emotive utterance
Explanation: Ayer believed that moral disapproval is not a factual statement but an expression of emotion. In this view, saying "Stealing is wrong" is equivalent to expressing disapproval of stealing, like saying "Boo to stealing!"

According to Ayer, ethical statements function as:

• A) Empirical truths

• B) Factual statements

• C) Commands

• D) Emotive utterances

Answer: D) Emotive utterances
Explanation: According to Ayer, ethical statements function as expressions of the speaker's emotions. For instance, when someone makes an ethical claim, they are not stating a fact but rather expressing an emotional attitude towards a particular action.

What conclusion does Ayer draw about ethics?

• A) Ethics is a form of knowledge

• B) Ethics is a branch of psychology and sociology

• C) Ethics can be empirically tested

• D) Ethics provides objective truths

Answer: B) Ethics is a branch of psychology and sociology
Explanation: Ayer argues that ethics is more closely related to psychology and sociology because it deals with human attitudes and behaviors, not empirical facts. Ethics, in his view, does not offer objective truths but rather studies human emotional responses and social practices.

Which of the following is NOT a problem for emotivism?

• A) It makes sense to ask whether one should have certain feelings

• B) It allows for moral reasoning

• C) Emotivists cannot ask "Why should I do as you command?"

• D) Ethical judgments can have truth values

Answer: D) Ethical judgments can have truth values
Explanation: Emotivism faces several challenges, such as whether it allows for moral reasoning or whether it can explain why people should have certain feelings. However, a clear issue for emotivism is that it denies that ethical judgments can have truth values, unlike other theories that treat ethical statements as propositions with truth conditions.

What is the central claim of ethical subjectivism?

• A) Moral judgments are objective truths

• B) All moral values depend on individual acceptance

• C) All cultures have the same moral standards

• D) Moral judgments are based on empirical facts

Answer: B) All moral values depend on individual acceptance
Explanation: Ethical subjectivism holds that moral judgments are based on individual feelings and attitudes. What is morally right or wrong depends on a person’s subjective viewpoint, rather than on objective standards.

Which of the following is a problem for subjectivism?

• A) It promotes individual freedom

• B) It promotes moral tolerance

• C) It makes all moral judgments infallible

• D) It relies on universal moral principles

Answer: C) It makes all moral judgments infallible
Explanation: A key issue with subjectivism is that it implies moral judgments are infallible because, if morality is based on individual feelings, then a person’s judgment cannot be wrong. This makes moral disagreement difficult to explain and undermines the possibility of moral error.

According to subjectivism, moral disagreement is:

• A) A factual disagreement

• B) An illusion, as people express personal attitudes

• C) A result of conflicting moral truths

• D) Easily resolvable through reasoning

Answer: B) An illusion, as people express personal attitudes
Explanation: Subjectivism suggests that when people appear to disagree about moral issues, they are really just expressing different personal attitudes. There is no real disagreement because each person is simply expressing their own subjective feelings.

Which of the following is a key problem with subjectivism’s connection to tolerance?

• A) Subjectivism is consistent with moral objectivity

• B) Subjectivism leads to absolute moral judgments

• C) Subjectivism can be self-defeating if it promotes tolerance as an objective truth

• D) Subjectivism always supports moral relativism

Answer: C) Subjectivism can be self-defeating if it promotes tolerance as an objective truth
Explanation: Subjectivism claims that all moral judgments are subjective, which raises a problem when it promotes tolerance as a universal value. If tolerance is treated as an objective moral principle, this contradicts the basic premise of subjectivism, which denies any objective moral truths.

What does cultural relativism claim?

• A) There are no objective moral principles across cultures

• B) All moral judgments are based on individual preferences

• C) Cultures share the same moral values

• D) Moral principles are universally applicable

Answer: A) There are no objective moral principles across cultures
Explanation: Cultural relativism asserts that moral principles vary between cultures and that there are no universally valid moral truths. Each culture's moral code is seen as valid only within that culture.

11. What distinguishes cultural relativism from ethical relativism?

• A) Cultural relativism claims that moral values are the same across all cultures

• B) Ethical relativism is a descriptive claim, while cultural relativism is prescriptive

• C) Cultural relativism is descriptive, while ethical relativism can be personal or cultural

• D) Ethical relativism focuses only on cultural beliefs

Answer: C) Cultural relativism is descriptive, while ethical relativism can be personal or cultural
Explanation: Cultural relativism is a descriptive theory that observes differences in moral practices between cultures. Ethical relativism, however, is a broader concept that includes both personal and cultural perspectives on morality. Ethical relativism may refer to moral values being relative to individuals (subjectivism) or to cultural groups.

12. A key issue with subjectivism is that:

• A) It promotes a unified moral code

• B) It implies all moral judgments are universally true

• C) It fails to account for genuine moral disagreement

• D) It denies the role of emotions in moral judgments

Answer: C) It fails to account for genuine moral disagreement
Explanation: Subjectivism cannot explain genuine moral disagreement because, under subjectivism, people are merely expressing their personal attitudes rather than making statements that can conflict in truth. Thus, if each person’s moral judgment is purely subjective, there is no real disagreement—only differences in feeling.

13. Why does subjectivism struggle to account for moral disagreement?

• A) Subjectivism allows for objective truths about morality

• B) Subjectivism denies that moral judgments are merely personal

• C) If moral truths are subjective, there is no real conflict between people’s beliefs

• D) Subjectivism promotes a common set of moral standards

Answer: C) If moral truths are subjective, there is no real conflict between people’s beliefs
Explanation: Since subjectivism claims that moral truths are based on individual perspectives, there is no true moral conflict. Each person’s moral judgment is valid from their own perspective, which means that what appears to be disagreement is really just a difference in personal attitudes.

14. Which of the following is true regarding simple subjectivism?

• A) It claims moral judgments are based on reason

• B) It allows for infallibility in moral beliefs

• C) It rejects all personal moral judgments

• D) It promotes the idea of universally objective moral truths

Answer: B) It allows for infallibility in moral beliefs
Explanation: Simple subjectivism suggests that because moral judgments are based on personal feelings, individuals cannot be wrong in their moral judgments. This leads to the problematic conclusion that moral beliefs are infallible, as they are always correct from the individual’s point of view.

15. One significant issue with relativism is that it:

• A) Supports universally accepted moral principles

• B) Allows for the possibility of absolute moral truths

• C) Implies that cultural practices are immune to moral criticism

• D) Encourages ethical subjectivism

Answer: C) Implies that cultural practices are immune to moral criticism
Explanation: One major problem with relativism is that it implies that we cannot criticize the moral practices of other cultures. If all moral judgments are relative to culture, then practices like slavery or female genital mutilation, for example, could be considered morally acceptable within certain cultural contexts, making it difficult to critique such practices on universal moral grounds.

What is the strong version of the conceptual dependency (CD) thesis?
a) The content of all moral principles depends on one’s cultural situation.
b) The application of all moral principles depends on one’s cultural situation.
c) Moral values are universally valid truths.
d) All moral values are cross-culturally shared beliefs.

Answer: a) The content of all moral principles depends on one’s cultural situation.
Explanation: The strong version of the conceptual dependency thesis (CD(1)) argues that the very content or substance of moral principles is dependent on the cultural context in which they are formed. In other words, different cultures develop different moral rules based on their unique situations.

Which of the following is necessary to achieve Ethical Relativism (ER)?
a) Cultural Relativism (CR) + CD(2) Weak version
b) Cultural Relativism (CR) + CD(1) Strong version
c) Objectivism + Intersubjectivism
d) Subjectivism + Universalism

Answer: b) Cultural Relativism (CR) + CD(1) Strong version
Explanation: Ethical Relativism relies on Cultural Relativism and the strong version of the dependency thesis (CD(1)), which claims that moral principles are culture-specific. Together, they suggest that morality cannot be universal, as it varies from culture to culture.

What does the dependency thesis (CD(1)) claim?
a) All moral values are subjective preferences.
b) Moral values are only true in the context of social institutions.
c) Moral values are universally valid.
d) Moral values are primarily individual choices.

Answer: b) Moral values are only true in the context of social institutions.
Explanation: CD(1) asserts that moral values are not universally true but are instead contingent upon the specific social or cultural institutions in which they are created and followed.

Which is NOT a type of Ethical Relativism (ER)?
a) Subjectivism
b) Conventionalism
c) Objectivism
d) Intersubjectivism

Answer: c) Objectivism
Explanation: Objectivism is the opposite of Ethical Relativism. Objectivists argue that there are universal moral truths that apply across all cultures, while Ethical Relativism claims that morality is determined by cultural norms or individual preferences.

According to Ethical Relativism, why can there be no universally valid moral values?
a) Because all cultures share the same moral values.
b) Because moral values are derived from individual preferences.
c) Because moral values are contingent on cultural norms.
d) Because universal truths exist in all moral frameworks.

Answer: c) Because moral values are contingent on cultural norms.
Explanation: Ethical Relativism holds that moral values are a product of cultural norms and are therefore valid only within specific cultural contexts. This means there can be no universally valid moral principles that apply to all cultures.

Which problem for Ethical Relativism (ER) suggests that culture is too complex to provide moral truth?
a) Relativism cannot justify itself.
b) Culture is not singular.
c) Relativism precludes moral improvement.
d) Relativism does not promote tolerance.

Answer: b) Culture is not singular.
Explanation: One critique of Ethical Relativism is that cultures are not monolithic entities. They often contain diverse and sometimes contradictory moral views, which challenges the idea that a single set of cultural norms can provide definitive moral guidance.

What does the problem of "Mere Majoritarianism" in Ethical Relativism imply?
a) The dominant cultural belief is always right.
b) There is always an objective moral truth.
c) Ethical Relativism promotes tolerance.
d) Ethical Relativism leads to moral improvement.

Answer: a) The dominant cultural belief is always right.
Explanation: "Mere Majoritarianism" refers to the issue in Ethical Relativism where the majority opinion in a culture is taken to be morally correct, simply because it is the dominant belief, which could justify harmful practices.

What is the critique of Ethical Relativism in terms of moral improvement?
a) Ethical Relativism suggests all cultures can improve morally.
b) Ethical Relativism precludes the idea of moral progress, only change.
c) Ethical Relativism demands universal moral improvement.
d) Ethical Relativism rejects the need for moral evolution.

Answer: b) Ethical Relativism precludes the idea of moral progress, only change.
Explanation: Ethical Relativism denies the concept of moral progress, as it assumes all cultural values are equally valid. Instead of improving morally, cultures simply change over time without any objective moral standard to judge whether one change is an improvement over another.

What is the main distinction between Subjectivism and Ethical Egoism?
a) Subjectivism is a moral theory, and Ethical Egoism is a theory about the nature of morality.
b) Ethical Egoism is a normative theory, while Subjectivism is about moral nature.
c) Subjectivism focuses on cultural practices, while Ethical Egoism focuses on individual choices.
d) Ethical Egoism rejects all moral values, while Subjectivism accepts them.

Answer: b) Ethical Egoism is a normative theory, while Subjectivism is about moral nature.
Explanation: Subjectivism is a theory that claims moral judgments are based on personal preferences, while Ethical Egoism is a normative theory that prescribes actions based on self-interest. Ethical Egoism tells people how they should act (normative), while Subjectivism describes how people view morality (descriptive).

Which of the following is an argument against Psychological Egoism?
a) All human actions stem from self-interest.
b) Some actions are done out of genuine concern for others.
c) No action can be altruistic.
d) All actions are driven by the desire for pleasure.

Answer: b) Some actions are done out of genuine concern for others.
Explanation: Psychological Egoism claims that all human actions are motivated by self-interest. However, one of the main arguments against this view is that some actions seem to be genuinely altruistic, where individuals act out of concern for others without any self-interest involved.

What is a common problem with Psychological Egoism?
a) It accurately predicts all human behavior.
b) It reduces all human action to a single motivation.
c) It allows for diverse motivations behind actions.
d) It encourages altruism over self-interest.

Answer: b) It reduces all human action to a single motivation.
Explanation: Psychological Egoism simplifies human behavior by attributing all actions to self-interest, which many argue is an overly reductive view of human motivation. People often act for a variety of reasons, including empathy, duty, or compassion, not just self-interest.

How does Universal Ethical Egoism differ from Individual Ethical Egoism?
a) Universal Ethical Egoism promotes altruism.
b) Universal Ethical Egoism applies to everyone’s interests, not just one individual’s.
c) Individual Ethical Egoism demands everyone act in their own best interests.
d) Both are forms of descriptive egoism.

Answer: b) Universal Ethical Egoism applies to everyone’s interests, not just one individual’s.
Explanation: Universal Ethical Egoism states that everyone should act in their own self-interest, whereas Individual Ethical Egoism focuses on the idea that individuals should prioritize their own self-interest without considering the interests of others.

What is a significant critique of Individual Ethical Egoism?
a) It assumes all individuals act in the best interest of society.
b) It does not provide a valid moral framework.
c) It encourages universal altruism.
d) It is a logically sound ethical theory.

Answer: b) It does not provide a valid moral framework.
Explanation: One critique of Individual Ethical Egoism is that it fails to provide a valid or coherent moral framework, as it encourages selfishness and does not account for the moral obligations individuals might have towards others.

Which problem arises when ethical egoists justify actions like those of Jeffrey Dahmer?
a) Ethical egoism promotes tolerance of others’ values.
b) Ethical egoism fails to distinguish between real and perceived interests.
c) Ethical egoism encourages altruistic actions.
d) Ethical egoism prevents the justification of immoral actions.

Answer: b) Ethical egoism fails to distinguish between real and perceived interests.
Explanation: A significant issue with Ethical Egoism is that it can be used to justify immoral actions by claiming they are in the actor’s self-interest. The problem lies in the theory's inability to distinguish between legitimate self-interest and harmful, irrational actions that an individual might perceive as beneficial.

How does Ethical Egoism justify seemingly immoral actions?
a) By claiming that all individuals should act for the greater good.
b) By stating that people act out of concern for societal norms.
c) By arguing that acting in self-interest can still be morally right.
d) By promoting self-deception as a moral principle.

Answer: c) By arguing that acting in self-interest can still be morally right.
Explanation: Ethical Egoism justifies immoral actions by claiming that if an action serves the individual’s self-interest, it can be morally right, even if it harms others or violates social norms. This is a key critique of the theory, as it allows for potentially harmful behavior to be morally justified.