Question 1

According to Woollard, the requirement to aid others must be restricted; otherwise, people would have to constantly use their bodies and resources to help others, which doesn't leave them to use their bodies and resources for themselves.

Accepted Answer

Woollard argues that if the requirement to aid others were unrestricted, it would lead to an untenable situation where individuals would be constantly obligated to use their own resources and bodies to help others, leaving no room for personal use or autonomy.

Question 2

Woollard makes an independent argument in her paper for why morality must recognize that a person's body and other resources belong to him or her.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Woollard makes an independent argument in her...

Question 3

According to Woollard, proximity is the only morally relevant criterion for distinguishing between cases where one should make substantial sacrifices to save strangers and cases where one need not.

Accepted Answer

Proximity is the only morally relevant criterion for distinguishing between cases where one should make substantial sacrifices to save strangers and cases where one need not, according to Woollard.

Question 4

Woollard argues that if there is a close connection between an agent and a victim or need, then that generates stringent duties to aid, even if such aid requires substantial sacrifices.

Accepted Answer

Woollard's argument is based on the idea that moral obligations can be significantly stronger when there is a close relationship or direct connection between the agent and the victim or the situation of need. This implies that in cases where such a connection exists, the duty to aid might require making substantial sacrifices.

Question 5

Woollard states that the responsibility to prevent deaths resulting from poverty may be more properly seen as reparations than as aid because affluent countries might be responsible for those deaths as a result of their imperialist actions or contributions to climate change.

Accepted Answer

Woollard's perspective suggests that affluent countries' historical actions, such as imperialism and contributions to climate change, have played a role in creating or exacerbating conditions of poverty that lead to deaths. Therefore, the support provided to alleviate these conditions could be viewed more accurately as reparations for past harms rather than merely aid.

Question 6

In your own words, state Woollard's main conclusion in "Saving Strangers: What does Morality Demand?" and summarize her main argument for that conclusion.

Accepted Answer

The answer of In your own words, state Woollard's main...

Question 7

Explain in your own words the argumentative role played by Woollard's claim that morality must recognize a person's body and resources as genuinely belonging to him or her.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Explain in your own words the argumentative...

Question 8

How might you further defend Woollard's claim that "morality shapes itself around the agent's point of view" against a principle of impartiality of universalizability in which morality shapes itself around no one's point of view in particular?

Accepted Answer

The answer of How might you further defend Woollard's claim...

Question 9

How might Singer respond to Woollard's objection to his principle that proximity is morally relevant when determining our obligations?

Accepted Answer

The answer of How might Singer respond to Woollard's objection...

Question 10

Since Woollard argues that people still have strong reasons to help others in need and that such help might constitute reparation rather than aid, how different are Woollard and Singer's recommendations for how you should act in practice?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Since Woollard argues that people still have...

Question 11

Which of the following best captures van den Haag's main conclusion about the relevance of the distribution of a punishment to the morality of that punishment?
A) If a punishment is moral, then no distribution of the punishment would make it immoral.
B) Equal distribution of a punishment among the guilty is a necessary condition for its being just.
C) Maldistribution of punishment is not unique capital punishment and can occur with any punishment.
D) Minorities and the impoverished are far more likely to suffer capital punishment than any other group.

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag argues that the morality of a punishment is not contingent on its distribution. He believes that if a punishment is moral in essence, then how it is distributed does not affect its inherent morality.

Question 12

Which of the following is a key premise in van dan Haag's argument for the conclusion that miscarriages of justice do not undermine the morality of the death penalty?
A) The system of mandatory appeals that exists for death sentences makes the execution of the innocent highly unlikely in reality.
B) The moral benefits of doing justice via the death penalty outweigh the unintended consequence of executing the innocent.
C) Although unfortunate, the possible execution of the innocent is a necessary cost of deterring future violent criminals.
D) It is far worse to allow an innocent person to spend his or her natural life in prison than to execute him or her in error.

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag argues that the moral benefits of justice served by the death penalty outweigh the unintended consequence of executing the innocent, suggesting that the overall justice system's benefits justify the risk.

Question 13

Which of the following is a key premise in van den Haag's main argument for the conclusion that the distribution of capital punishment is irrelevant to its morality?
A) Inherently, no form of punishment can be distributed with absolute equality among guilty and deserving individuals.
B) Historically, capital punishment has been distributed far more equitably than other forms of punishment.
C) Maldistribution of punishment always occurs when more innocent people than guilty people are punished.
D) Justice requires that as many of the guilty as possible be punished, regardless of whether others have escaped punishment.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which of the following is a key...

Question 14

Which of the following best captures van den Haag's main conclusion about the potential for miscarriages of justice in a system of capital punishment?
A) Given the mandatory system of appeals in death penalty cases, it is unlikely that the innocent are executed.
B) The execution of the innocent is inevitable in a system of capital punishment but is an acceptable cost for doing justice.
C) Data pertaining to the number of innocents that have allegedly been executed in miscarriages of justice are questionable.
D) Miscarriages of justice can be offset by financially compensating the families of the wrongfully executed for their loss.

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag argues that while the execution of innocent people is an inevitable consequence of capital punishment, it is a tolerable cost for maintaining the system of justice that includes the death penalty. He believes that the benefits of capital punishment in terms of deterrence and retribution outweigh the negatives, including the risk of executing innocent individuals.

Question 15

Which of the following best captures van den Haag's main argument for the morality of the death penalty?
A) The death penalty is just because the death penalty deters violent crime.
B) The death penalty is just because it compensates for the victim's suffering.
C) The death penalty is just because it is the only fitting retribution for murder.
D) The death penalty is just because it affirms the offender's humanity and responsibility.

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag argues that the death penalty is a form of retribution, asserting that it is the only appropriate punishment for the crime of murder, reflecting a belief in the principle of "an eye for an eye."

Question 16

According to van den Haag, which of the following is the principal purpose of any punishment?
A) To vindicate the law and the social order undermined by the crime.
B) To compensate the victim for the suffering caused by the crime.
C) To deter others from committing the same act that is being punished.
D) To protect the innocent from future crimes by the same offender.

Accepted Answer

The principal purpose of any punishment, according to van den Haag, is to vindicate the law and the social order undermined by the crime. This perspective emphasizes the importance of maintaining societal norms and legal authority.

Question 17

Why, according to van den Haag, can the death penalty never be unjust to a guilty criminal?
A) Death is the common fate of all human beings, not merely those convicted of violent crime.
B) The death penalty is an appropriate retaliation to all forms of violent crime, not simply murder.
C) The criminal would be more degraded by the loss of autonomy inherent to a life sentence.
D) The criminal knowingly assumed the risk of death by execution when committing the crime.

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag argues that the death penalty cannot be unjust to a guilty criminal because, by committing a crime that they know is punishable by death, the criminal has willingly assumed the risk of facing such a penalty. This perspective emphasizes personal responsibility and the consequences of one's actions.

Question 18

Which of the following is not a premise in van den Haag's response to the objection that the death penalty is morally impermissible because death by execution is degrading and dehumanizing?
A) It is not the penalty that is dehumanizing, but the murderer's own crime.
B) To believe the penalty is degrading to the criminal is to mistake an effect for a cause.
C) If a punishment has a deterrent effect, it cannot be considered degrading or inhuman.
D) Death is our common human fate and cannot be degrading or inhuman in itself.

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag argues that the dehumanizing aspect is not inherent in the death penalty itself but in the actions of the murderer (A) and that considering the penalty degrading is a confusion of cause and effect (B). He also states that death, being a common fate, cannot be degrading (D). The statement that a punishment cannot be considered degrading if it has a deterrent effect (C) is not part of his argument against the specific objection that execution is degrading and dehumanizing.

Question 19

Why, according to van den Haag can death not be, in itself, a dehumanizing punishment?
A) Death is our common human fate so it cannot be argued to be "inhuman."
B) We only punish autonomous and responsible human beings with death.
C) It has been a common punishment throughout human history.
D) A punishment is only dehumanizing if inflicted on the innocent.

Accepted Answer

Death is considered a common human fate, and thus cannot be argued to be "inhuman" as it is a natural part of human existence.

Question 20

Which of the following best captures van den Haag's response to the objection to the argument that the death penalty is immoral because it is inherently an excessive retribution to crime?
A) The argument is unsound because the premise has been conclusively refuted by empirical evidence.
B) The argument is unpersuasive since the premise is a dogmatic belief that cannot be refuted by empirical evidence.
C) The argument is invalid because the conclusion that the penalty is immoral does not follow from the premise.
D) The argument is fallacious because what constitutes an excessive punishment varies across societies and over time.

Accepted Answer

Van den Haag argues that objections based on the death penalty being inherently excessive are based on dogmatic beliefs rather than empirical evidence, suggesting that such beliefs cannot be conclusively refuted or supported by empirical data.

Quiz 13: Aristotle's Ethics: Exploring Virtue and Justice

According to Woollard, the requirement to aid others must be restricted; otherwise, people would have to constantly use their bodies and resources to help others, which doesn't leave them to use their bodies and resources for themselves.

Woollard makes an independent argument in her paper for why morality must recognize that a person's body and other resources belong to him or her.

According to Woollard, proximity is the only morally relevant criterion for distinguishing between cases where one should make substantial sacrifices to save strangers and cases where one need not.

Woollard argues that if there is a close connection between an agent and a victim or need, then that generates stringent duties to aid, even if such aid requires substantial sacrifices.

Woollard states that the responsibility to prevent deaths resulting from poverty may be more properly seen as reparations than as aid because affluent countries might be responsible for those deaths as a result of their imperialist actions or contributions to climate change.

In your own words, state Woollard's main conclusion in "Saving Strangers: What does Morality Demand?" and summarize her main argument for that conclusion.

Explain in your own words the argumentative role played by Woollard's claim that morality must recognize a person's body and resources as genuinely belonging to him or her.

How might you further defend Woollard's claim that "morality shapes itself around the agent's point of view" against a principle of impartiality of universalizability in which morality shapes itself around no one's point of view in particular?

How might Singer respond to Woollard's objection to his principle that proximity is morally relevant when determining our obligations?

Since Woollard argues that people still have strong reasons to help others in need and that such help might constitute reparation rather than aid, how different are Woollard and Singer's recommendations for how you should act in practice?

Which of the following best captures van den Haag's main conclusion about the relevance of the distribution of a punishment to the morality of that punishment?

Which of the following is a key premise in van dan Haag's argument for the conclusion that miscarriages of justice do not undermine the morality of the death penalty?

Which of the following is a key premise in van den Haag's main argument for the conclusion that the distribution of capital punishment is irrelevant to its morality?

Which of the following best captures van den Haag's main conclusion about the potential for miscarriages of justice in a system of capital punishment?

Which of the following best captures van den Haag's main argument for the morality of the death penalty?

According to van den Haag, which of the following is the principal purpose of any punishment?

Why, according to van den Haag, can the death penalty never be unjust to a guilty criminal?

Which of the following is not a premise in van den Haag's response to the objection that the death penalty is morally impermissible because death by execution is degrading and dehumanizing?

Why, according to van den Haag can death not be, in itself, a dehumanizing punishment?

Which of the following best captures van den Haag's response to the objection to the argument that the death penalty is immoral because it is inherently an excessive retribution to crime?