Deck 6: Kantian Ethics

Question 1

In Kant's theory, a maxim is

A) a piece of wisdom handed down over many generations.
B) an objectively correct moral rule.
C) a principle of action that one gives to oneself.
D) a false moral principle.

Answer 1

C

Question 2

According to Kant, an action is morally acceptable if and only if

A) it maximizes happiness.
B) its maxim is universalizable.
C) its maxim is accepted in one's society.
D) it is in accordance with the golden rule.

Answer 2

B

Question 3

Kant claims that the morality of one's actions depends on

A) one's intentions.
B) the results of one's action.
C) both a and b
D) neither a nor b

Answer 3

A

Question 4

Kant claimed that

A) morality and rationality have nothing to do with each other.
B) acting morally is always irrational.
C) acting immorally is always irrational.
D) acting rationally is usually immoral.

Question 5

According to Kant, all moral duties are

A) categorical imperatives.
B) hypothetical imperatives.
C) created by God.
D) the products of social convention.

Question 6

The principle of universalizability does not account for the immorality of

A) lying.
B) slavery.
C) cheating on one's taxes.
D) principled fanatics.

Question 7

According to Kant, the main problem with the Golden Rule is that it

A) makes morality depend on a person's desires.
B) makes morality depend solely on the consequences of one's actions.
C) fails to give us any guidance whatsoever.
D) allows lying, which is never permissible.

Question 8

Which of the following best characterizes Kant's moral theory?

A) It is a version of utilitarianism.
B) It is a version of consequentialism, but it is not utilitarian.
C) It is neutral on the issue of whether consequentialism is true.
D) It is inconsistent with consequentialism.

Question 9

What is a categorical imperative, according to Kant?

A) a command of reason that depends on what we care about
B) a command of reason that does not depend on what we care about
C) a principle of action that one gives to oneself
D) a principle of action that one gives to others

Question 10

What is a hypothetical imperative, according to Kant?

A) a command of reason that depends on what we care about
B) a command of reason that does not depend on what we care about
C) a principle of action that one gives to oneself
D) a principle of action that one gives to others

Question 11

According to the text, what is wrong with the principle of universalizability?

A) It fails to explain what's wrong with lying.
B) It permits the actions of principled fanatics.
C) It falsely claims that the central moral virtue is benevolence.
D) It makes the morality of actions solely a matter of their consequences.

Question 12

The principle of humanity states:

A) it is never permissible to kill an innocent human being.
B) always treat a human being as an end, and never as a mere means.
C) act only on maxims that can be applied to all of humanity.
D) all human beings, even those who lack rationality and autonomy, are equally valuable.

Question 13

Kant believed that humans have dignity by virtue of their

A) membership in the species Homo sapiens.
B) being created in the image of God.
C) capacity for kindness.
D) rationality and autonomy.

Question 14

To treat someone as an end is to treat her

A) as a goal.
B) as if you'll never see her again.
C) with the respect she deserves.
D) in a way that makes her better off.

Question 15

To treat someone as a means is to treat her

A) as a way to help you achieve your goals.
B) as a way to help you achieve her goals.
C) as a way to maximize happiness.
D) in a way that respects her autonomy.

Question 16

Unlike the principle of universalizability, the principle of humanity can account for the immorality of

A) harming animals.
B) a lying promise.
C) slavery.
D) the fanatic.

Question 17

Autonomy is the

A) capacity to communicate using language.
B) ability to decide which principles will govern your life.
C) tendency to do the right thing because you understand it is the right thing to do.
D) tendency to do the right thing because of your desires.

Question 18

Paternalism is limiting

A) the liberty of others for their own good.
B) the liberty of others for your own good.
C) everyone's liberty for the good of society.
D) the liberty of children.

Question 19

When Kant talks about humanity, to whom is he referring?

A) all and only those who are members of the species Homo sapiens
B) all sentient animals
C) all and only those beings that possess autonomy and rationality
D) all primates, including Homo sapiens

Question 20

Which of the following is a criticism of the principle of humanity discussed in the text?

A) It does not account for the immorality of principled fanatics.
B) It does not account for the immorality of paternalism.
C) It is not universalizable.
D) It does not give us a straightforward test for how to apply it.

Question 21

Write an essay contrasting Kant's approach to ethics with the consequentialist approach. Which approach do you think yields the better theory of morality, and why?

Question 22

What does it mean for a moral duty to be absolute? Give an example of a moral duty (besides the principle of universalizability) that Kant believed to be absolute. Does the principle of universalizability require us to regard this moral duty as absolute? Why or why not?

Question 23

Write an essay explaining Kant's principle of humanity. State the principle clearly and define any key terms. Give examples to make clear how we are supposed to apply the principle. Does this principle provide a better test of the morality of actions than the principle of universalizability? Why or why not?

Question 24

Write an essay presenting in detail what you take to be the strongest objection to Kant's principle of humanity. Explain the objection and then formulate the strongest reply you can on Kant's behalf. Do you think the objection succeeds? Why or why not?

Question 25

Compare and contrast Kant's principle of humanity with his principle of universalizability. Are there any cases where the two principles render conflicting verdicts about the moral status of an action? If so, do you think one of the principles could be revised to make them consistent? If not, why do you think that the principles will always agree?

Question 26

Case Study:
Imagine that Jesse has promised a friend that he will pick her up from the airport when she arrives in town. Her flight is arriving soon, and Jesse is getting ready to leave to pick her up, when he suddenly gets a phone call about an exciting job opportunity. Jesse has been looking for a new job for some time, and this one would be particularly good for him in a variety of ways. However, there's a catch-the job needs to be filled right away, and so if he cannot come in right now and interview for it, it will go to someone else. Jesse knows it is strongly in his interest for him to go to the interview but also that doing so would mean breaking a promise. He also knows that whether or not he keeps his promise makes a relatively minor difference in his friend's life compared to the difference in his life is he gets the job.
-What would Kant say Jesse should do in such a case, and why? Do you agree with this answer? Why or why not?

Question 27

Case Study:
Imagine that Jesse has promised a friend that he will pick her up from the airport when she arrives in town. Her flight is arriving soon, and Jesse is getting ready to leave to pick her up, when he suddenly gets a phone call about an exciting job opportunity. Jesse has been looking for a new job for some time, and this one would be particularly good for him in a variety of ways. However, there's a catch-the job needs to be filled right away, and so if he cannot come in right now and interview for it, it will go to someone else. Jesse knows it is strongly in his interest for him to go to the interview but also that doing so would mean breaking a promise. He also knows that whether or not he keeps his promise makes a relatively minor difference in his friend's life compared to the difference in his life is he gets the job.
-Is this a case of conflict between moral duty and self-interest? Do you think Kant was right that moral duty always overrides other demands? Why or why not?