HU2702: Study Questions for Second Exam

I. Define/Explain/Describe/Identify:

“always as an end”

appetites

appetitive function of

the soul

Aquinas, Saint Thomas

Aristotle

“as a means only”

Augustine, Saint

caring

categorical imperative

Categorical Imperative

corrective justice

deficiency

distributive justice

Doctrine of Double

Effect

egalitarianism

equalitarianism

excess

faith

feminist moral theory

Formal Principle of

Justice

good will

happiness

hope

human nature

hypothethical imperative

imperative

imperfect procedural

justice

intellectual virtues

justice

love

master morality

maxim

mean

mechanical conception

of distributive justice

moral experience

moral virtue

morally good action

natural law

Nietzsche, Friedrich

nonmoral virtues

perfect procedural

justice

Plato

practical wisdom

pride

Principle of

Universalizability

procedural

(commutative) justice

pure procedural justice

rationality

reason

selective conception of

distributive justice

self-realization

slave morality

soul

“spirited part” of the

soul

Stoics

temperance

theoretical wisdom

transvaluation of values

universal law

universalizable

universally lawgiving

vegetative function of

the soul

virtue

virtue ethics

will to power

wisdom

II. Discussion:

  1. In natural law ethics, what is the meaning of “natural law”? What is the main difference between natural laws that apply to human beings and natural laws that apply to nonhuman beings—e.g., animals? According to Thomas Aquinas, how do we know whether something is a natural law? Is it possible for natural laws to conflict with each other? Explain. In your view, is natural law ethical theory satisfactory? Why or why not?
  1. What exactly is the Doctrine (Principle) of Double Effect? State its four components. What sorts of situations is the Doctrine intended to apply to? Illustrate its application with an example. Does the Doctrine always lead to the correct conclusion, in your view? Why or why not?
  2. What sort of theory of moral obligation is Kant’s theory—axiological, deontological, consequentialist, nonconsequentialist? Explain. According to Kant, what is the relationship between morality and rationality? Why, according to Kant, does morality apply to human beings but not to God?
  3. What is Kant’s Categorical Imperative? What are his three formulations of it? Explain the meaning of each formulation, and illustrate how it is intended to be applied? According to Kant, under what conditions would it be morally right to lie, to break one’s promises, or to steal? Explain. What, in your view, are the major objections to Kant’s theory?
  4. What is the meaning of “distributive justice”? Compare and contrast the mechanical, selective, and procedural conceptions of distributive justice. Compare and contrast perfect, imperfect, and pure procedural justice. Which notion of distributive justice do you find most convincing? Explain.
  5. What are the main similarities and differences between traditional theories of moral obligation and virtue ethics? What are the most important questions in ethics as far as virtue ethics is concerned? Do you agree or disagree that those are the most important ethical questions? Explain.
  6. Compare and contrast the moral philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Nietzsche. How are they alike? How are they different? Consider each philosopher’s views about human nature, the virtues themselves, the nature and significance of happiness, the relationship between virtue and happiness, and the nature of virtuous conduct.
  7. What is feminist moral theory? How is it different from traditional theories like utilitarian and Kantian ethics? What are the deficiencies of the traditional theories, according to feminist moral theory? What do its proponents say about women’s moral experience—both how it is different from men’s moral experience and why it is important in ethical theory? What does feminist moral theory say about universal ethical principles? How do feminists say we should go about making moral decisions? Do you agree with them? Why or why not?