Question 1

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.

Accepted Answer

The rule changes people's incentives and expectations, which can alter the consequences of the action when it is performed by many people, as opposed to the consequences of the action in isolation.

Question 2

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).

Accepted Answer

Asking which rules have the best consequences can lead to different moral conclusions than asking which actions have the best consequences because rules provide guidance in uncertain situations (helping people avoid mistakes) and can alter people's incentives and expectations, thus influencing their behavior.

Question 3

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

Accepted Answer

Henry Shue's argument actually critiques the use of the "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify torture, arguing against its general permissibility and highlighting the moral and practical problems with using torture as a means of interrogation.

Question 4

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.

Accepted Answer

Henry Shue's ticking time bomb argument is indeed intended to illustrate that torture could be considered permissible only under highly specific and rare circumstances, such as an imminent threat scenario, rather than suggesting it is acceptable in regular interrogation situations.

Question 5

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

Accepted Answer

Moral arguments about consequences typically include a normative premise because they often argue that certain actions are right or wrong based on the outcomes they produce, which inherently involves a judgment or standard of what is considered morally acceptable or desirable.

Question 6

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

Accepted Answer

Moral arguments about consequences typically involve normative premises that make claims about what states of affairs ought to be like, indicating what is good, bad, right, or wrong, thus guiding judgments about the consequences of actions.

Question 7

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

Accepted Answer

A "state of affairs" refers to any possible situation or way that the world, or any part of it, could be arranged or exist.

Question 8

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.

Accepted Answer

The answer of When comparing two states of affairs, arguments...

Question 9

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.

Accepted Answer

The phrase "other things being equal" is used to indicate that the comparison between two states of affairs is made under the assumption that all other relevant conditions or factors are the same or held constant, except for the differences explicitly mentioned.

Question 10

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

Accepted Answer

A deontological constraint refers to a moral principle or rule that limits the actions one can take, regardless of the potential good outcomes those actions might produce. It emphasizes the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, rather than their consequences.

Question 11

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

Accepted Answer

A deontological constraint refers to a rule or principle that restricts actions based on moral duties or obligations, regardless of the consequences, rather than limiting the extent of sacrifice.

Question 12

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.

Accepted Answer

Deontological ethics focuses on rules and duties, and it would prohibit actions like letting a patient die for organ transplants, regardless of the outcomes.

Question 13

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

Accepted Answer

It can be appropriate to insist that a person accept the consequences of their actions as it is a part of taking responsibility and accountability for one's behavior.

Question 14

Some slippery slope arguments are good arguments.

Accepted Answer

Slippery slope arguments can be valid if they demonstrate a plausible chain of events with logical connections and evidence supporting the likelihood of each step leading to the next.

Question 15

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.

Accepted Answer

A good slippery slope argument requires a logical connection between the initial action and the undesirable outcome, making it necessary to clearly define each component to establish a convincing argument.

Question 16

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.

Accepted Answer

A good slippery slope argument typically includes a clearly identified "first step" that ought to be avoided and a chain of causation showing how this first step inevitably leads to a negative outcome, not necessarily an explanation of why the first step is bad or an analogy with another action.

Question 17

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.

Accepted Answer

A slippery slope argument commits a fallacy when it does not provide a logical or plausible connection between the initial step and the negative outcome it predicts, making the argument weak or unfounded.

Question 18

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

Accepted Answer

The felicific calculus, proposed by Jeremy Bentham, is indeed a method designed to calculate the degree of pleasure or pain that would result from different actions, thereby helping to determine their moral rightness based on the principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle.

Question 19

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

Accepted Answer

Bentham's felicific calculus is one of several approaches to ethical decision-making and consequence evaluation, not the only one. Other methods include utilitarianism more broadly, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, and various decision-making frameworks in moral philosophy.

Question 20

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

Accepted Answer

Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus, which aims to calculate the greatest happiness by evaluating the consequences of actions, is conceptually similar to modern-day cost-benefit analysis, where benefits and costs are assessed to determine the best course of action.

Quiz 4: Reasoning About Consequences

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?

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