Deck 4: Reasoning About Consequences

Question 1

What is Henry Shue's main point in his argument about the ticking time bomb in Paris?

A) When someone has done or is about to do something seriously morally wrong, it is permissible to torture that person to prevent or correct the wrong that he or she has committed.
B) The case of the ticking time bomb shows that, ultimately, only the consequences of one's actions matter, even if those actions strike many people as wrong or would be wrong in most circumstances.
C) There are conceivable but unrealistic circumstances in which the consequences of torturing someone are so much better than the consequences of not torturing that person that it would be permissible to torture the person.
D) Although torture is generally wrong because it violates serious deontological constraints, it is nonetheless permissible when the consequences of torturing someone are better than the consequences of not torturing that person.

Answer 1

C

Question 2

Why, in constructing his TICKING TIME BOMB argument, does Henry Shue describe a case that even he regards as unrealistic?

A) Shue wants to show that although the consequences of torture could conceivably make torture permissible in some circumstances, those circumstances would have to be unrealistic.
B) Shue believes that such extreme cases bring out strong reactions that help us see our truest moral convictions.
C) Shue is simply trying to be dramatic to make his topic interesting.
D) Shue wants to establish that torture is permissible in principle as a way of arguing that it is permissible in less extreme cases.

Answer 2

A

Question 3

Which premise in Henry Shue's TICKING TIME BOMB argument is the normative premise?

A) The premise that either the police torture the criminal or Paris will be blown up.
B) The hidden premise that torture is permissible in extreme cases.
C) The premise that it is better for one criminal to suffer than for millions of innocent people to die.
D) Since Shue's TICKING TIME BOMB argument is about consequences rather than obligations, there is no normative premise.

Answer 3

C

Question 4

What is a state of affairs, as defined in Chapter 4?

A) The way the world is.
B) A way the world could be.
C) A government policy.
D) An evaluation of some event.

Question 5

When someone says that one state of affairs is better than another, "other things being equal," what does the phrase "other things being equal" mean?

A) That the two states of affairs do not involve different actions, although they might involve different people.
B) That other people might regard the two states of affairs as being equally good.
C) That the two states of affairs are identical in terms of descriptive facts, although one is better than the other.
D) That the two states of affairs are the same in terms of descriptive facts, except in the ways explicitly mentioned in describing them.

Question 6

Which of the following best captures the meaning of the phrase "other things being equal" in the claim that one state of affairs is better than another, other things being equal?

A) That except for the differences identified in describing the two states of affairs, the states of affairs do not differ in any relevant ways.
B) That except for the differences identified in describing the two states of affairs, the states of the affairs do not differ at all.
C) That except for the normative difference between the two states of affairs, there are no descriptive differences between them.
D) That except for the descriptive differences between the two states of affairs, there are no normative differences between them.

Question 7

What is a deontological constraint?

A) A duty to promote the best consequences for everyone, not just yourself.
B) A moral limit on what someone can do to promote good consequences.
C) A rule against using premises about duties when reasoning about the consequences of an action.
D) A limit on the amount of harm one can do to one person to benefit some other person.

Question 8

Which of the following arguments involves a deontological constraint?

A) The kidnapper would suffer more from being tortured than the victim will suffer from waiting longer to be rescued. Therefore, the police shouldn't torture the kidnapper.
B) Torturing the kidnapper could save his victim, but it violates the police officer's obligation not to break the law. Therefore, the police officer shouldn't torture the kidnapper.
C) Stealing this loaf of bread would help feed my starving family, but if I get caught, my family would definitely starve. Therefore, I shouldn't steal this load of bread.
D) Stealing this loaf of bread would help feed my starving family, and the baker probably won't even realize that it's missing. Therefore, I should steal this loaf of bread.

Question 9

Which of the following arguments does NOT involve a deontological constraint?

A) I could get a raise by applying to jobs elsewhere, although I don't intend to leave. Since this would be exploiting the people offering me the other jobs, however, it would be wrong for me to do that.
B) When a government with bad policies comes into power, bureaucrats who oppose those policies could do more good by continuing to work for the government, but a person of integrity would not agree to work for a government with bad policies. Therefore, bureaucrats should resign their jobs when a government with bad policies comes into power.
C) Giving antimalaria bed nets away for free might seem better than forcing very poor families to pay for the nets, but giving them away for free leads people to neglect them or use them for other purposes. Therefore, it is better to require that even very poor families pay for the nets.
D) Since Katy like princess cake more than David does, it would create more happiness overall if Katy took most of the cake. Still, it would be wrong for Katy to do that because it would be unfair.

Question 10

Which of the following is NOT identified in Chapter 4 as a major challenge in reasoning with consequences?

A) Determining who is responsible for which consequences.
B) Comparing the consequences of different actions.
C) Measuring the value of different consequences.
D) Dealing with uncertainty about the consequences of an action.

Question 11

Which of the following does Chapter 4 identify as a circumstance in which it would be appropriate to require someone to "accept the consequences" of his or her actions?

A) When avoiding the consequences would require the violation of a deontological constraint.
B) When the bad consequences are unavoidable.
C) When the person should have anticipated the bad consequences.
D) When the person is trying to unfairly shift the burden of those consequences onto someone else.

Question 12

A slippery slope argument is:

A) An argument against taking risky actions, such as walking on slippery slopes.
B) An argument against doing some seemingly harmless action on the grounds that the action will eventually lead to bad consequences.
C) An argument against doing something because it will cause others to do the same thing, with bad results.
D) An argument against doing something because it will endanger others.

Question 13

A slippery slope fallacy is:

A) A slippery slope argument that fails to specify what action to avoid, what bad outcome will result, and/or how the first step will lead to the bad outcome.
B) Another name for a slippery slope argument.
C) A slippery slope argument that relies on a mistaken evaluation of some state of affairs.
D) A slippery slope argument about a harmless action.

Question 14

Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus is:

A) A way to calculate the expected value of an action's possible consequences.
B) A way to measure and compare the various consequences of an action.
C) A way to calculate how happy someone is.
D) A way to compare one person's happiness to another person's happiness.

Question 15

Which of the following best explains the idea of the expected value of a risky bet?

A) The amount of money you should expect to make from the bet.
B) The amount of money that you are most likely to get from the bet.
C) The amount of money you will probably get from the bet, minus the amount of money you paid to make the bet.
D) The amount of money you should expect to make, on average, if you made bets like this over and over again for a long time.

Question 16

Which of the following best explains the idea of the expected value of the consequences of a risky action?

A) The unweighted average of the value of each possible outcome, counting each outcome as equally likely.
B) The weighted average of the value of each possible outcome, where each value is weighted by the probability of the outcome occurring.
C) The value of the outcome that is most likely to occur, based on objective probabilities.
D) The average of the value of the outcome that you expect to occur.

Question 17

If someone offers you a lottery ticket that has a 25 percent chance of winning $100, a 50 percent chance of winning $200, and a 25 percent chance of winning $1,000, what is the expected value of that lottery ticket?

A) $200.
B) $250.
C) $375.
D) $1,300.

Question 18

The concept of expected value is useful in reasoning about consequences because:

A) It gives you a way to compare the consequences of different actions when you aren't sure what the consequences of the actions will be.
B) It is more mathematically precise than other ways of comparing consequences.
C) It forces you to convert all consequences into a dollar value, which makes them easy to compare and understand.
D) It is the only way to compare consequences of different kinds, as in Dan Brock's HUMAN CLONING argument.

Question 19

David Hume's argument about PROPERTY is:

A) An argument that looks at the consequences of specific acts of theft to show that theft is sometimes permissible.
B) An argument that shows that moral reasoning sometimes requires looking at things other than consequences.
C) An argument that looks at the consequences of having a certain set of rules.
D) An argument that combines reasoning about consequences with reasoning about obligations.

Question 20

According to David Hume's PROPERTY argument, stealing is wrong because:

A) The state of affairs in which people respect one another's property rights is better than the state of affairs in which people do not respect one another's property rights.
B) Stealing violates a universal obligation against harming others because taking another person's property is a way of harming that person.
C) Each act of stealing does more harm than good once you factor in the harm stealing does to the integrity of the person who steals.
D) Most acts of stealing do more harm than good once you factor in the psychological harm that stealing does to the victim.

Question 21

Which of the following does Chapter 4 identify as a reason to think that the consequences of a rule requiring a certain action can be different from the consequences of many people performing that action?

A) More people will perform the action when it's required by a rule.
B) The rule changes people's incentives and expectations.
C) People will experience more guilt when they break the rule.
D) People can be punished for breaking the rule.

Question 22

How can asking which rules have the best consequences lead to different moral conclusions than asking which actions have the best consequences?

A) Because rules help people decide what to do when it's unclear what actions will have the best consequences, thereby helping them avoid mistakes.
B) Because rules can change people's incentives and expectations, thereby changing their behavior.
C) Both (a) and (b).
D) Neither (a) nor (b).

Question 23

Henry Shue's TICKING TIME BOMB argument shows that torture is generally permissible.

Question 24

Henry Shue's TICKING TIME BOMB argument is only meant to show that torture might be permissible in an extremely unusual scenario, not that it is permissible in the kinds of cases that interrogators usually encounter.

Question 25

Moral arguments about consequences do not always include a normative premise.

Question 26

Moral arguments about consequences often include normative premises about states of affairs.

Question 27

A "state of affairs," as defined in Chapter 4, is a way the world could be.

Question 28

When comparing two states of affairs, arguments often include an "other things being equal" clause to specify that the two states of affairs do not differ at all.

Question 29

When a premise says that one state of affairs is better than another, "other things being equal," it means that you should assume that the two states of affairs do not differ in any relevant ways except the ways that have been explicitly mentioned.

Question 30

A deontological constraint is a limit on what you can do in pursuit of good consequences.

Question 31

A deontological constraint is a limit on how much you can be required to sacrifice to fulfill your obligations.

Question 32

When bioethicists say that doctors may not let a patient die in the emergency room to transplant their organs into other patients, they are talking about a deontological constraint on doctors' behavior.

Question 33

It is never appropriate to insist that a person should "accept the consequences" of his or her actions.

Question 34

Some slippery slope arguments are good arguments.

Question 35

A good slippery slope argument includes three things: a clearly identified "first step" that ought to be avoided, a clearly specified "bad outcome," and a plausible explanation of how taking that first step would lead to that bad outcome.

Question 36

A good slippery slope argument includes three things: a clearly identified "first step" that ought to be avoided, an explanation of why that "first step" is bad or wrong, and a plausible analogy with another unacceptable or unwise action.

Question 37

One way a slippery slope argument can commit a slippery slope fallacy is if it fails to explain convincingly how the "first step" will lead to a bad outcome.

Question 38

Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus is a procedure for measuring and comparing the consequences of different actions.

Question 39

Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus is the only procedure for measuring and comparing the consequences of different actions.

Question 40

Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus is related to the modern-day practice of cost-benefit analysis.

Question 41

The expected value of a risky bet is the amount of money that you should expect to win or lose if you make that bet once.

Question 42

The expected value of a risky bet is the amount of the money that you should expect to win or lose, on average, if you make that bet many times.

Question 43

The concept of expected value is often used to choose between different actions when the exact outcome of those actions is uncertain.

Question 44

The expected value of an action with uncertain outcomes is the value of the outcome that you most expect to happen.

Question 45

Looking at the consequences of a rule that forbids or allows a specific action can sometimes lead to different conclusions than looking at the consequences of that action all by itself.

Question 46

Having a rule that allows or forbids something can change people's behavior by changing their expectations and incentives.

Question 47

According to David Hume's PROPERTY argument, the reason that stealing is wrong is because the consequences of having a rule that forbids stealing are better than the consequences of having a rule that allows it.

Question 48

Briefly explain Henry Shue's TICKING TIME BOMB argument in your own words. Why does Shue believe that we cannot draw general lessons about torture from this argument?

Question 49

What is a "state of affairs," and what role do they often play in arguments about consequences?

Question 50

Why do many moral arguments involving consequences include an "other things being equal" clause?

Question 51

In your own words, explain the idea of a deontological constraint. Give an example of a deontological constraint.

Question 52

Give an example of a slippery slope argument. Does that argument commit the slippery slope fallacy? Why or why not?

Question 53

In your own words, explain B. J. Strawser's DRONE STRIKES argument. Why is it easy to compare the consequences of the different kinds of actions that Strawser discusses?

Question 54

In your own words, explain the idea of expected value. How is the idea of expected value used in reasoning about consequences?

Question 55

Suppose that your friend offers you the following bet: We flip two coins. If both coins come up heads, you pay your friend $40. Otherwise, your friend pays you $20. What is the expected value of the bet?

Question 56

In your own words, explain Shelly Kagan's EXPECTED CHICKENS argument. What role does the idea of expected value play in his argument?

Question 57

In your own words, explain David Hume's PROPERTY argument.

Question 58

In your own words, explain the two reasons that looking for the morally best rules can sometimes lead you to different conclusions than just looking for the morally best actions.