PHIL 150 1st EditionExam # 4 Study Guide Lectures: 11 - 171. Why, according to James and Stuart Rachels, the Social Contract Theory provides a moral justification of civil disobedience, at least in some cases?- Because those who do not get net benefits from social living are released from the obligation to follow social rules. The only moral justification of those rules is the fact that those subjected to them would have entered a social contract that gives rise to those rules, and rational persons would not have consented to rules that do not give them net benefits.2. Explain the similarities and differences between Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism.- While Ethical Egoism says that an agent is morally required to maximize their own net happiness, Utilitarianism says that an agent is morally required to maximize net aggregate happiness. It follows that Utilitarianism, unlike Ethical Egoism, might require self-sacrifice.3. . Does Utilitarianism entail that killing an innocent person is wrong? Explain.- Since Utilitarianism says that actions are to be judged by whether they maximize net aggregate happiness, killing an innocent might be morally justified under certain circumstances. Thus, if euthanasia produced a positive balance of happiness over unhappiness, a utilitarian agent would perform it.4. James and Stuart Rachels imagine that “you think someone is your friend, but he ridicules you behind your back.” What point are they making?- They are explaining an objection that has been raised against Hedonistic Utilitarianism. Hedonistic Utilitarianism holds that happiness is the same thing as pleasure, and pleasure is the only ultimate good. It seems intuitively correct to say that you are made worse off by a friend that ridicules you behind your back, even though he thereby does not make you less happy. This case suggests that pleasure is not the only thing that matters. If so, Hedonistic Utilitarianism seems unacceptable.5. Why, according to James and Stuart Rachels, do rights pose a problem for Utilitarianism?- Because most of us think that rights ought to be respected even if doing so does not maximize aggregate happiness. For example, James and Stuart Rachels report an actual case of police abuse in which the fact that the abuse produced a positive balance of happiness overunhappiness does not turn the abuse morally justifiable. This is so because the abuse involveda violation of rights.6. Explain how Kant’s Categorical Imperative tells right from wrong. - Kant argued that principles of action (“maxims”) that violate the Categorical Imperative lead to contradictions. The Categorical Imperative requires agents to guide their actions by principles (“maxims”) which, if followed by everyone, would bring about a situation that those agents will. Kant uses the example of making a false promise to get a loan. This is wrong, he says, because if everyone followed the maxim used, implicitly or explicitly, by someone who makes a false promise to get a loan—namely, “Whenever you need a loan, promise to repay it, even if you know you can’t”—no one would lend money, and so loans, whose existence is presupposed by the maxim, would cease to exist. Kant also uses the example of an agent who refuses to help others in need. He says that such behavior is wrong because if the agent were the one who needs help, he would not will that everyone follow his maxim, i.e. “Whenever others need help from me, let them fend for themselves.”7. Why, according to James and Stuart Rachels, do moral dilemmas pose a problem for the belief in absolute moral rules?- Because moral dilemmas, by definition, force us to violate one of two conflicting rules.8. Explain how Kant, as expounded by James and Stuart Rachels, connects the ideas of using as a means and rationality.- Kant held that we ought not to treat persons as mere means, since persons are rational, and so capable of valuing things on the bases of reasons. Rationality endows persons with an intrinsic value that distinguishes them from animals and inanimate things, which can only serve as instruments to human goals9. What is the main difference between the utilitarian and the Kantian justifications of punishment, as presented by James and Stuart Rachels?- The utilitarian justification of punishment is forward-looking. For example, a utilitarian views deterrence as an important reason for punishing criminals. Backward-looking considerations, and in particular desert, provide no reasons for punishment. In contrast, the Kantian justification of punishment is backward-looking: punishment is the appropriate retribution for evildoing. Desert plays here a central justificatory role.10. Explain in two or three sentences the central ideas of the ethics of care.- The ethics of care focuses on the kinds of attitudes displayed in close personal relationships, such as friendship and family. Love and care are here central. In contrast, the ideas of principle, obligation, and impartiality are central to traditional moral theorizing.11. . How, according to James and Stuart Rachels, is feminism related to the ethics of care?- They say that many feminist writers argue that women are psychologically predisposed towards an ethics of care, whereas men are psychologically predisposed towards an ethics of principle, obligation, and impartiality.12. James and Stuart Rachels imagine the following case:You are in the hospital recovering from a long illness. You are bored and restless, and so you are delighted when Smith comes to visit. You have a good time talking to him; his visit really cheers you up. After a while, you tell Smith how much you enjoy seeing him—he really is a good friend to take the trouble to come see you. But, Smith says, he is merely doing his duty.Explain how, in James and Stuart Rachels’s view, this case supports, or undermines, Virtue Ethics.- They argue that though Smith did the right thing, he didn’t do it for the right motive. Insteadof displaying the kind of affection that friends have for each other, Smith acted out of a sense of duty. Unlike an ethics of abstract principles and duties, Virtue Ethics takes motives and personal relationships as central. The Rachels suggest that these features make Virtue Ethics better equipped to explain what is wrong with Smith’s behavior.13. The Rachels give three reasons why Radical Virtue Ethics is incomplete. State briefly those reasons- First, Radical Virtue Ethics does not explain