Question 1

Marquis claims that it is wrong to kill an adult human being because it robs the victim of his or her future life and all the projects and experiences that go with it.

Accepted Answer

Marquis argues that what makes killing wrong, whether it be an adult human or a fetus, is primarily the loss of the victim's future—of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would have constituted one's future personal life.

Question 2

Marquis thinks that it would be wrong to kill nonhuman creatures who were in possession of futures like ours.

Accepted Answer

Don Marquis argues that what makes killing wrong is the deprivation of a future of value, which applies to any being with a future like ours, not just humans.

Question 3

Marquis argues that because a fetus has a future like ours, it is always morally wrong to kill it.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Marquis argues that because a fetus has...

Question 4

Marquis argues that because a fetus has desires and sensory experience, it is often morally wrong to kill it.

Accepted Answer

Marquis argues that what makes killing wrong, in general, is the loss of the victim's future value, not its current desires or sensory experiences.

Question 5

Marquis thinks that contraception is morally wrong because it denies sperm and ova of a future like ours.

Accepted Answer

Marquis argues that what makes killing wrong is the loss of the victim's future, a future like ours. His argument is primarily focused on abortion and does not specifically address contraception by arguing it denies sperm and ova of a future like ours.

Question 6

Why, for Marquis, is it wrong to kill an adult human being? Can we say the same of killing a fetus? How, if at all, are the two cases different?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Why, for Marquis, is it wrong to...

Question 7

What would make a nonhuman creature have a future of value, a future like ours, so that it would be wrong, according to Marquis, to kill that creature?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What would make a nonhuman creature have...

Question 8

Marquis claims that abortion is justified in some instances, but only in the rarest of cases. Under which conditions does he think would it be justified? And how does the future-like-ours account allow for this?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Marquis claims that abortion is justified in...

Question 9

Why does Marquis discuss the desire account and the discontinuation account?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Why does Marquis discuss the desire account...

Question 10

How might someone object to Marquis's claim that being deprived of a future life and its value is what makes killing others wrong?

Accepted Answer

The answer of How might someone object to Marquis's claim...

Question 11

Which of the following best expresses the basic question that Cheryl Abbate is trying to answer in "Assuming Risk: A Critical Analysis of a Soldier's Duty to Prevent Collateral Casualties"?
A) When are soldiers obligated to avoid collateral casualties?
B) Do soldiers or commanders have a greater obligation to decide which risks are appropriate for avoiding collateral casualties?
C) Do soldiers have a moral obligation to assume extra risks to avoid collateral casualties?
D) Is it permissible to injure or kill civilians as a foreseen side effect of achieving a legitimate military objective?

Accepted Answer

Cheryl Abbate's work focuses on the ethical considerations surrounding a soldier's duty to assume additional risks to minimize harm to civilians, thus the core question she addresses is the moral obligation of soldiers in this context.

Question 12

What is Abbate's basic conclusion in "Assuming Risk: A Critical Analysis of a Soldier's Duty to Prevent Collateral Casualties"?
A) Soldiers are forbidden to take on additional risks to protect civilians, except with respect to certain kinds of civilians.
B) Soldiers may take on additional risks to protect civilians only when their military commanders order them to do so.
C) The military needs to restructure its chain of command to minimize civilian casualties.
D) Soldiers are only obligated to assume extra risks to protect civilians when fighting in an unjust war.

Accepted Answer

Abbate concludes that soldiers are not universally required to take on additional risks to protect civilians, but there are exceptions based on the types of civilians involved, suggesting a nuanced approach to the ethics of warfare and the protection of non-combatants.

Question 13

What is the "principle of risk," according to Abbate?
A) The principle that commanders must choose the least risky way to achieve a military objective.
B) The principle that the risks soldiers assume to protect civilians should be inversely proportionate to the importance of the military objective they are trying to achieve.
C) The principle that soldiers have an obligation to assume certain additional risks to avoid killing or injuring civilians.
D) The principle that soldiers have an obligation to assume extra risks to avoid collateral casualties among protected civilians.

Accepted Answer

Abbate's "principle of risk" suggests that soldiers have an obligation to assume certain additional risks to avoid killing or injuring civilians, emphasizing the moral responsibility to protect non-combatants even at the cost of increased danger to themselves.

Question 14

According to Abbate, which of the following is NOT a condition on the traditional application of the doctrine of double effect to collateral casualties?
A) The military objective that would cause collateral casualties must be a good and militarily legitimate objective.
B) Soldiers causing collateral casualties must not regard those civilian casualties as a means to achieving a military objective.
C) Any good achieved by military objective resulting in collateral casualties must be proportionate to the harm done.
D) Soldiers may allow collateral casualties to happen, but must not bring them about as a result of their actions.

Accepted Answer

The traditional application of the doctrine of double effect allows for collateral casualties as long as they are not intended as a means to an end, but it does not stipulate that soldiers must not bring them about as a result of their actions, as long as those casualties are not intentionally targeted and are proportionate to the military advantage gained.

Question 15

Why does Abbate discuss the example of Frank Richards throwing bombs into cellars during World War I?
A) To argue against the use of the doctrine of double effect in war.
B) To illustrate Walzer's principle of risk.
C) To prove that soldiers are obligated to assume additional risks to protect civilians.
D) To provide an example of soldiers rightly taking on additional risks to avoid collateral casualties.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Why does Abbate discuss the example of...

Question 16

How, according to Abbate, does a soldier's obligation to obey lawful orders show that soldiers ought not to assume extra risks to protect civilian casualties?
A) Soldiers have a role-based obligation to abide by lawful orders, even if those orders prohibit the soldier from assuming extra risks to avoid collateral casualties. Therefore, if soldiers are ordered not to assume those risks, they are forbidden to do so.
B) Any order that does not require soldiers to assume extra risks to protect civilians is unlawful. Therefore, soldiers are not obligated to assume those risks.
C) The US Field Manual prohibits soldiers from assuming extra risks to protect civilians. Therefore, soldiers are obligated not to assume extra risks to protect civilians.
D) According to the principles of jus in bello, soldiers operate under a standing order to protect civilians. Therefore, they are obligated to assume any necessary risks to avoid collateral casualties.

Accepted Answer

A soldier's role-based obligation to follow lawful orders means that if they are ordered not to take extra risks to avoid civilian casualties, they must follow those orders, thus not assuming extra risks.

Question 17

How, according to Abbate, does a soldier's obligation to demonstrate loyalty to his or her fellow soldiers entail an obligation to avoid assuming extra risks to prevent collateral casualties?
A) A soldier who assumes extra risks endangers his or her fellow soldiers. This is being disloyal. Therefore, soldiers are obligated not to assume extra risks to avoid collateral casualties.
B) The military obligation of loyalty requires soldiers to obey lawful orders. That includes lawful orders restricting the risks they can take. Therefore, they ought not to assume extra risks to protect civilians.
C) A soldier's obligation of loyalty does not extend to civilians of enemy countries. Therefore, the obligation of loyalty does not entail an obligation to avoid assuming extra risks to prevent collateral casualties.
D) A soldier who assumes extra risks beyond those required by his or her commander is being disloyal to his or her commanders. This violates the soldier's role-based obligations. Therefore, the soldier may not assume extra risks, even to protect civilians.

Accepted Answer

A soldier who assumes extra risks endangers his or her fellow soldiers, which is considered disloyal. Hence, soldiers have an obligation not to assume extra risks to avoid collateral casualties.

Question 18

Why, according to Abbate, is a soldier obligated to assume extra risks to protect civilians from his or her own country?
A) Because the principle of risk requires a soldier to assume extra risks to protect all civilians, including those from his or her own country.
B) Because soldiers have a special obligation to their co-nationals to avoid directly harming them.
C) Because soldiers have a role-based obligation to protect the people from their country.
D) Because the principles of jus in bello require soldiers to discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.

Accepted Answer

Soldiers have a role-based obligation to protect the people from their country.

Question 19

Why, according to Abbate, don't military commanders have an obligation to order soldiers to take extra risks to avoid collateral casualties?
A) Because commanders have an obligation to do whatever is necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives.
B) Because commanders are obligated not to order soldiers to do anything that would endanger their lives.
C) Because commanders are morally forbidden from attacking civilians as a means to achieving a military objective.
D) Because commanders' responsibilities toward their own soldiers takes priority over their responsibilities toward civilians of enemy countries.

Accepted Answer

According to Abbate, military commanders prioritize the safety and well-being of their own soldiers over the protection of enemy civilians, which means their primary obligation is to their own troops rather than minimizing collateral damage.

Question 20

Which of the following best expresses Abbate's view about concern for civilian lives in military conflicts?
A) The concern is misplaced because a military's only concern should be defending the people of its country.
B) The concern is justified, but given the U.S. military's current policies and values, neither soldiers nor commanders should abide by Walzer's principle of risk.
C) The concern is misplaced because it fails to distinguish between protected and unprotected civilians.
D) The concern is justified, and so the U.S. military should adopt Walzer's principle of risk.

Accepted Answer

Abbate believes that while concern for civilian lives is justified, the current policies and values of the U.S. military do not align with Walzer's principle of risk, and thus soldiers and commanders should not be expected to adhere to it.

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

Marquis claims that it is wrong to kill an adult human being because it robs the victim of his or her future life and all the projects and experiences that go with it.

Marquis thinks that it would be wrong to kill nonhuman creatures who were in possession of futures like ours.

Marquis argues that because a fetus has a future like ours, it is always morally wrong to kill it.

Marquis argues that because a fetus has desires and sensory experience, it is often morally wrong to kill it.

Marquis thinks that contraception is morally wrong because it denies sperm and ova of a future like ours.

Why, for Marquis, is it wrong to kill an adult human being? Can we say the same of killing a fetus? How, if at all, are the two cases different?

What would make a nonhuman creature have a future of value, a future like ours, so that it would be wrong, according to Marquis, to kill that creature?

Marquis claims that abortion is justified in some instances, but only in the rarest of cases. Under which conditions does he think would it be justified? And how does the future-like-ours account allow for this?

Why does Marquis discuss the desire account and the discontinuation account?

How might someone object to Marquis's claim that being deprived of a future life and its value is what makes killing others wrong?

Which of the following best expresses the basic question that Cheryl Abbate is trying to answer in "Assuming Risk: A Critical Analysis of a Soldier's Duty to Prevent Collateral Casualties"?

What is Abbate's basic conclusion in "Assuming Risk: A Critical Analysis of a Soldier's Duty to Prevent Collateral Casualties"?

What is the "principle of risk," according to Abbate?

According to Abbate, which of the following is NOT a condition on the traditional application of the doctrine of double effect to collateral casualties?

Why does Abbate discuss the example of Frank Richards throwing bombs into cellars during World War I?

How, according to Abbate, does a soldier's obligation to obey lawful orders show that soldiers ought not to assume extra risks to protect civilian casualties?

How, according to Abbate, does a soldier's obligation to demonstrate loyalty to his or her fellow soldiers entail an obligation to avoid assuming extra risks to prevent collateral casualties?

Why, according to Abbate, is a soldier obligated to assume extra risks to protect civilians from his or her own country?

Why, according to Abbate, don't military commanders have an obligation to order soldiers to take extra risks to avoid collateral casualties?

Which of the following best expresses Abbate's view about concern for civilian lives in military conflicts?