Question 1

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

Accepted Answer

Shue's main point is that while there may be highly specific and largely unrealistic scenarios where the benefits of torturing someone significantly outweigh the harms (such as the ticking time bomb scenario), these are exceptional cases and do not generally justify torture.

Question 2

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

Accepted Answer

Shue uses an unrealistic scenario to demonstrate that while it's theoretically possible for the consequences of torture to justify its use, such circumstances are highly improbable and thus not a solid basis for ethical arguments in favor of torture in real-world situations.

Question 3

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

Accepted Answer

C

Question 4

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

Accepted Answer

The answer of What is a state of affairs, as...

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?

Accepted Answer

The phrase "other things being equal" means that all other relevant factors or conditions are assumed to be the same except for the specific differences being discussed. This allows for a comparison that isolates the effect of those specific differences.

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?

Accepted Answer

The phrase "other things being equal" implies that, aside from the specific differences being discussed, all other relevant aspects between the two states of affairs are assumed to be the same or have no significant differences. This means that any variations are not considered to affect the comparison, focusing only on the aspects being compared.

Question 7

What is a deontological constraint?

Accepted Answer

A deontological constraint is a moral limit on actions, regardless of the consequences, often emphasizing duties and rules over outcomes.

Question 8

Which of the following arguments involves a deontological constraint?

Accepted Answer

Deontological ethics focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions, regardless of their consequences. Choice B is correct because it argues against torturing the kidnapper based on the obligation not to break the law, which is a deontological constraint.

Question 9

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

Accepted Answer

Argument C focuses on the consequences of an action (giving away bed nets for free versus selling them) rather than on moral duties or obligations, which is characteristic of utilitarian reasoning rather than deontological ethics.

Question 10

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

Accepted Answer

Determining who is responsible for which consequences is not typically identified as a major challenge in reasoning with consequences. The main challenges usually involve comparing different actions, measuring their outcomes, and dealing with uncertainty about what those outcomes might be. Responsibility attribution is more related to ethical considerations and accountability rather than the cognitive process of evaluating consequences.

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?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which of the following does Chapter 4...

Question 12

A slippery slope argument is:

Accepted Answer

A slippery slope argument suggests that a seemingly harmless action will lead to a series of negative consequences, eventually resulting in a significant negative outcome. It does not necessarily involve physical risk or the direct endangerment of others, but rather focuses on the chain reaction of events that a single action might trigger.

Question 13

A slippery slope fallacy is:

Accepted Answer

A slippery slope fallacy occurs when an argument lacks clarity or specificity about the initial action, the negative outcome, and the connection between the two, making the progression from the first step to the bad outcome logically unsound or unexplained.

Question 14

Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus is:

Accepted Answer

Bentham's felicific calculus is a method for measuring and comparing the various consequences of an action to determine its overall utility or happiness produced.

Question 15

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

Accepted Answer

The expected value of a risky bet is a statistical concept that represents the average amount one would win or lose per bet if the bet were repeated many times. It takes into account all possible outcomes and their probabilities, not just the most likely outcome or the outcome of a single bet.

Question 16

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

Accepted Answer

The expected value of the consequences of a risky action is calculated as the weighted average of the value of each possible outcome, where the weights are the probabilities of each outcome occurring. This accounts for the likelihood of each outcome, making it a more accurate measure than simply averaging the outcomes or selecting the most likely outcome.

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?

Accepted Answer

The expected value is calculated by multiplying each outcome by its probability and summing the results: (0.25 * $100) + (0.50 * $200) + (0.25 * $1,000) = $25 + $100 + $250 = $375.

Question 18

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

Accepted Answer

Expected value allows for the comparison of different actions by considering the probabilities and outcomes, even when there is uncertainty about the consequences.

Question 19

David Hume's argument about PROPERTY is:

Accepted Answer

David Hume's argument about property primarily focuses on the consequences of having a certain set of rules governing property. He emphasizes the social benefits and stability that arise from establishing and adhering to these rules.

Question 20

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

Accepted Answer

Hume's argument is based on the idea that respecting property rights leads to a better state of affairs for society as a whole, promoting stability and cooperation.

Quiz 4: Reasoning About Consequences