Question 1

The doctrine of double effect is that it is always worse to harm someone than it is to let someone be harmed.

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of double effect actually states that it is sometimes morally permissible to cause harm as a side effect (not as an end or means) of bringing about a good result, even if it would not be permissible to cause such harm as a means to bringing about the same good end. It does not claim that it is always worse to harm someone than to let someone be harmed.

Question 2

The doctrine of double effect says that it is sometimes permissible to bring about a bad outcome as a foreseen but unintended side effect of your actions.

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of double effect is a principle in ethics that allows for an action that has both good and bad effects, where the action is considered morally permissible if the bad effect is not the intended outcome but merely a foreseen side effect of achieving the good outcome.

Question 3

Some medical ethicists use the doctrine of double effect to argue that it is permissible for a doctor to administer painkillers to a terminally ill patient, even if those painkillers will hasten the patient's death, as long as the doctor's intended goal is to ease the patient's suffering.

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of double effect is a principle in medical ethics that justifies the administration of medication to alleviate severe pain, even if it may unintentionally hasten death, provided the primary intention is to relieve suffering, not to cause death.

Question 4

Harry Brighouse and Adam Swift argue for an intermediate moral principle that justifies anything a parent needs to do, short of breaking the law, to give their children the best start in life.

Accepted Answer

Harry Brighouse and Adam Swift argue for a balance between parental rights to pursue the best for their children and the need for fairness in opportunities among all children. They do not justify anything short of breaking the law but rather propose limits to ensure equality of opportunity.

Question 5

One way of evaluating an intermediate moral principle is by seeing whether it entails the right answer about obvious cases, such as whether parents may read bedtime stories to their children.

Accepted Answer

This method of evaluation is known as the method of reflective equilibrium. It involves testing intermediate moral principles against our intuitions about specific cases (such as the permissibility of parents reading bedtime stories to their children) to see if they align, thereby ensuring the principles entail what we consider to be the right answer in clear-cut scenarios.

Question 6

When evaluating intermediate moral principles, it is never worth considering the principles' implications for cases where it's obvious what the right thing to do is.

Accepted Answer

Considering the implications of intermediate moral principles for obvious cases helps ensure consistency and coherence in moral reasoning, and can reveal hidden assumptions or potential conflicts within a moral framework.

Question 7

Any argument against an intermediate moral principle provides a counterexample to that principle.

Accepted Answer

An argument against an intermediate moral principle may raise objections or concerns but does not necessarily provide a counterexample. A counterexample specifically shows a situation where the principle fails to apply or leads to an incorrect conclusion, whereas an argument might critique the principle on other grounds without providing such a specific instance.

Question 8

A counterexample to an intermediate moral principle is a real or hypothetical case in which the principle entails the wrong answer.

Accepted Answer

A counterexample to an intermediate moral principle is indeed a real or hypothetical scenario where applying the principle leads to a conclusion that is intuitively or morally wrong, thereby challenging the validity or universality of the principle.

Question 9

If an intermediate moral principle entails that you ought to perform a particular action in a hypothetical scenario, but it's clear that you ought not to perform that action in that scenario, then the scenario is a counterexample to that intermediate moral principle.

Accepted Answer

This is because the scenario demonstrates a situation where the intermediate moral principle leads to a conclusion that contradicts our moral intuitions or established moral judgments, indicating a flaw or limitation in the principle.

Question 10

A counterexample is a real-life scenario in which an intermediate moral principle entails that someone in that scenario should have done something other than what he or she actually did.

Accepted Answer

A counterexample in the context of moral principles or logical arguments is a hypothetical or real scenario that demonstrates a principle or argument does not hold in all cases, rather than specifically about what someone should have done differently in real life.

Question 11

Stephen Nathanson argues that cases of torture or arson provide counterexamples to the principle of "an eye for an eye."

Accepted Answer

Stephen Nathanson criticizes the principle of "an eye for an eye" by arguing that it fails to provide a morally acceptable guide in cases like torture or arson, where replicating the harm done (such as torturing the torturer or burning the arsonist's property) does not seem just or morally right.

Question 12

A thought experiment is a hypothetical scenario designed to test an intermediate moral principle (or other philosophical principle).

Accepted Answer

A thought experiment is indeed a hypothetical scenario that is used to explore the implications, consequences, or underlying principles of a concept, often including moral or philosophical principles, without the need for physical experimentation.

Question 13

A thought experiment is a mental blueprint for an actual experiment designed to test an intermediate moral principle.

Accepted Answer

A thought experiment is a hypothetical scenario used to explore the potential consequences of a principle or theory, often in philosophy, ethics, physics, and other fields, rather than a blueprint for an actual experiment.

Question 14

Philosophers often use thought experiments to see whether a principle, such as an intermediate moral principle, agrees with their intuitions about what should happen in a hypothetical scenario.

Accepted Answer

Thought experiments are a common tool in philosophy, used to test the coherence, implications, and intuitive appeal of principles, including moral principles, by considering their application in hypothetical scenarios.

Question 15

A moral intuition is, roughly, a moral judgment that you form without going through any conscious reasoning process.

Accepted Answer

Moral intuitions are immediate judgments or feelings about the rightness or wrongness of an action that arise without conscious deliberation.

Question 16

Applied ethicists generally try to avoid relying on moral intuitions when evaluating intermediate moral principles.

Accepted Answer

Applied ethicists often rely on moral intuitions as a starting point or guide when evaluating intermediate moral principles, though they may also critically assess and refine these intuitions.

Question 17

An intermediate moral principle's implications about a particular case are counterintuitive if they conflict with one's intuitions about that case.

Accepted Answer

Counterintuitive implications arise when the conclusions drawn from a principle contradict or challenge one's pre-existing beliefs or intuitions about a specific situation.

Question 18

Philosophers can respond to counterexamples to an intermediate moral principle by insisting that the alleged counterexample is not really a counterexample, by "biting the bullet," or by revising the principle.

Accepted Answer

Philosophers have several strategies to address counterexamples, including denying the validity of the counterexample, accepting it but maintaining the principle ("biting the bullet"), or modifying the principle to accommodate the counterexample.

Question 19

Good philosophers never revise their intermediate moral principles in response to counterexamples.

Accepted Answer

Good philosophers often revise their intermediate moral principles when faced with counterexamples to ensure their theories remain coherent and applicable to real-world situations.

Question 20

In responding to a counterexample to an intermediate moral principle, "biting the bullet" means admitting that your principle is incorrect.

Accepted Answer

"Biting the bullet" means accepting the counterintuitive or difficult implications of your principle rather than admitting it is incorrect.

Quiz 6: Reasoning With Principles and Counterexamples