Description of this paper

Quiz Note: It is recommended that you save your response as you complete each question.




Quiz;Note: It is recommended that you save your response as you complete each question.;Question 1 (1 point);Disputed Moral Issues;In ethics, the terms ?right? and ?wrong? are used primarily to evaluate the morality of;Question 1 options;persons;actions;consequences;concrete objects;Save;Question 2 (1 point);Dsiputed Moral Issues: Which of the following is an example of a value-based moral theory?;Question 2 options;consequentialism;virtue ethics;both A and B;neither A nor B;Save;Question 3 (1 point);Disputed Moral Issues: Which of the following is an example of a duty-based moral theory?;Question 3 options;consequentialism;natural law theory;Kantian moral theories;none of the above;Save;Question 4 (1 point);In the first chapter of the Justice book, Sandel noted several reasons why price gouging was considered morally acceptable. All were reasons EXCEPT;Question 4 options;It isn?t gouging to charge what the market will bear?it?s how goods and services get allocated in a market;In medieval times, philosophers and theologians believed that the exchange of goods should be governed by a ?just price,? determined by tradition or the intrinsic value of things.;There is nothing unjust about these prices, they simply reflect the value that buys and sellers choose to place on the things they exchange;Demonizing vendors won?t speed Florida?s recovery, but letting go about their business will.;Save;Question 5 (1 point);The standard case for unfettered (no interference) markets rests on two claims?identify the correct two.;Question 5 options;The welfare of a society as whole is not really served by the exorbitant prices charged in hard times, pricing out mainly those of modest means from certain necessities.;Promotes the welfare of society as whole by providing incentives for people to work hard supplying the good that other people want.;Buyers under duress have no freedom and necessities like safe lodging are forced;Promotes individual freedom by allowing people to choose the value they place on goods and services through exchange;Save;Question 6 (1 point);According to Michael Sandel, the debate about price-gouging is about welfare and freedom, and has nothing to do with virtue.;Question 6 options;True;False;Save;Question 7 (1 point);True/False: According to Sandel, the wider debate about the Purple Heart revealed that the real issue is about the meaning of the medal and the virtues it honors, or rival conceptions of moral character and military valor.;Question 7 options;True;False;Save;Question 8 (1 point);The following are responses to the case The Queen v. Dudley. Check all the reasons that explain why it was wrong to kill Richard Parker.;Question 8 options;Had no one been killed and eaten, all four would likely have died. Parker, weakened and ill, was the logical candidate, since he would soon have died anyway.;It is wrong to use a human being in this way? exploiting his vulnerability, taking his life without his consent? even if doing so benefits others?;it can be asked whether the benefits of killing the cabin boy, taken as a whole, really did outweigh the costs.;it was necessary to kill one person in order to save three.;Save;Question 9 (1 point);Match statement with the thinker: He heaped scorn on the idea of natural rights, calling them ?nonsense upon stilts.?;Question 9 options;Jeremy Bentham;Robert Nozick;John Stuart Mill;John Locke;Save;Question 10 (1 point);All three are features of Benthamite consequentialism, EXCEPT;Question 10 options;it permits sacrificing one person?s interests for the sake of the majority;all goods are incommensurable, they cannot be weighed on a common scale;it counts all pleasures and pains, and it treats every type of pleasure and pain as equal;happiness is simply pleasure and the absence of pain;Save;Question 11 (1 point);All are attributes of Mill's utilitarian thinking except;Question 11 options;his principle of utility fails to consider liberty and individual rights.;Pleasure is not opposed to utility, as some have criticized, but utility encompasses pleasure, as well as the more common sense of the word.;Happiness is defined as the presence or seeking of pleasure and the absence or free from pain;By pleasure, Mill means not just what is pleasing sensually, but also intellectually and aesthetically. Any pleasure is acceptable, though not all are on equal ground. Quality and not simple quantity of pleasure and pain are relevant.;Save;Question 12 (1 point);All are examples of how when comparing two kinds of pleasure, Mill says we can determine which is more valuable. Which is not an example?;Question 12 options;If when comparing the value of two pleasures, all or almost all who have experienced both tend to prefer one over the other, the one is the more valuable pleasure.;?Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.? Superior pleasures for Mill are things which require the ?higher faculties?, or in other words, more intellectual pursuits.;it is not amount, or not only amount of pleasure that counts, but also the quality.;Mill does not agree that there are superior pleaasures.;Save;Question 13 (1 point);According to libertarians, the greatest threat to individual rights comes from;Question 13 options;Drug abuse;Maximizing happiness;The government;Terrorism;Save;Question 14 (1 point);The case for permitting assisted suicide does not necessarily depend on the idea that we own ourselves, or that our lives belong to us. Many who favor assisted suicide do not invoke property rights, but argue in the name of dignity and compassion.;Question 14 options;True;False;Save;Question 15 (1 point);Nozick argues the following ideas EXCEPT;Question 15 options;the only state that can be justified is the minimal state;Economic inequalities are permissible only if low man on totem pole benefits too.;Distributive justice violates individual rights;A system of entitlement and holdings;Save;Question 16 (1 point);All are argument Nozick offers against redistribution, EXCEPT;Question 16 options;Redistribution is incompatible with an ?historical? view of justice. If something was originally acquired justly, and later transferred justly, then it is now owned justly?and neither the government nor anyone else should be allowed to take it away.;Maintaining a pattern requires taking a richer person?s earnings and giving them to a poorer person. Redistributive taxation is like forced labor.;Redistribution promotes the general welfare of the few at the expense of the many.;Government tends to redistribute wealth according to some pattern, it tends to tax rich people and spend money on poor people, so that there is more equality in the distribution of income, wealth, and other resources. But it is not possible to maintain a pattern like equality without restricting people?s liberty. To maintain the pattern, the government would have to permanently forbid us from doing what we want with the money we have.;Save;Question 17 (1 point);Who argues that we divest ourselves of our natural freedom only by consenting to the bonds of civil authority?;Question 17 options;Hobbes;Locke;Rawls;Nozick;Save;Question 18 (1 point);The objection against an all-volunteer army can be based in fairness and freedom and those who object suggest that we can?t determine the justice or injustice of the volunteer army without knowing more about the background conditions that prevail in the society: Is there a reasonable degree of equal opportunity, or do some people have very few options in life? Does everyone have a chance to get a college education, or is it the case that, for some people, the only way to afford college is to enlist in the military?;Question 18 options;True;False;Save;Question 19 (1 point);Who argued that turning a civic duty into a marketable good does not increase freedom, but rather undermines it;Question 19 options;Jean-Jacques Rousseau;Ron Paul;Thomas Hobbes;John Locke;Save;Question 20 (1 point);According to Locke, God gave the world to mankind in common, so people have no natural right to the preservation of their property until the institution of government is established.;Question 20 options;True;False;Save;Question 21 (1 point);For Locke, a thing becomes a person?s private property when these claims are met. All are true EXCEPT which one?;Question 21 options;S/he consents and takes money as a payment;The property in question will preserve my life and other people?s lives;he ?mixes? his labor with it;The person must not take so much that it will spoil, since God did not make anything to be spoiled.;The person must leave ?enough and as good? for other people, since God made the earth and its fruits for the benefit of everyone.;Save;Question 22 (1 point);All are true statements regarding Locke?s conception of the state of nature, EXCEPT;Question 22 options;Everyone is also bound by the ?law of nature,? which commands (1) self-preservation and (2) preserving other people?s lives when this does not conflict with your own self-preservation;But since they are trying to make their condition better, not worse, they agree to a monarch with absolute authority to protects their natural rights to life, liberty, and property;The state of nature is full of ?inconveniences,? because it lacks a judge to settle disputes about the law of nature and police officers to enforce the law of nature. To remedy the situation, people decide to leave the state of nature by agreeing to enter into ?civil society.?;In the state of nature, everyone is free and equal.?;Save;Question 23 (1 point);Match the phrase to the correct idea: People pursuing their own self-interest inadvertently work for the overall good of society.;Question 23 options;Entitlement theory;Doctrine of the invisible;Redistributive justice;Alienated labor;Save;Question 24 (1 point);Elizabeth Anderson?s conclusion about surrogacy is based on what claim?;Question 24 options;The appropriate way of valuing children, for instance, is to love them, and not to treat them as fungible and exchangeable for money;The court is able to determine a breach of contract.;Surrogacy contracts should be allowed, if they maximize happiness.;People should be free to use their own bodies in whatever way they like, provided they do not violate other people?s rights.;Save;Question 25 (1 point);According to Kant, we should only treat others as means to an end.;Question 25 options;True;False;Save;Question 26 (1 point);According to Kant, a hypothetical imperative functions ___________, while a categorical imperative functions ___________..;Question 26 options;rationally, irrationally (without reason);autonomously, heteronomously (caused);conditionally, unconditionally (universally);Humorously, Emotionally;Save;Question 27 (1 point);All explain the Kant's "kingdom of ends" except;Question 27 options;Everyone in the kingdom is an end unto themselves, as evidenced by the worthiness of the maxims they act on, which are fit to be legislated into universal law.;The best way to obey God's command and make everyone happy.;Every member is a rational being and legislator of universal law;Everyone obeys only those principles which They, according to their reason, see as being universalizable, and which consider not only themselves and the duties attached to themselves, but also every other member of the kingdom of ends;Save;Question 28 (1 point);All are true statements regarding Kant?s duty theory, EXCEPT;Question 28 options;Kant denies that freedom consists in doing whatever you want;Morality, duty, and rights have their basis in human reason, not in a law of nature.;Morality is a matter of inalienable rights, afforded to every human being by the ?law of nature.?;freedom?and not happiness?is the goal of morality;Save;Question 29 (1 point);According to Kant, if I buy expensive shoes because I saw an advertisement that made them appear ?cool,? I have acted;Question 29 options;Maximized my freedom;Heteronomously;Did my duty;Autonomously;Save;Question 30 (1 point);All are ways Kant explains our duty, EXCEPT;Question 30 options;To test a categorical imperative, you imagine if everyone could obey this law and you cannot make yourself an exception.;Morality says that you should never treat rational human beings merely as means to your end;Morality says that you should can treat a rational human as a means, not an ends, and when it pertain to you, thus permitting suicide;The idea of a law that binds everyone, unconditionally. Everyone has to obey it.;Save;Question 31 (1 point);All are attributes of Rawls? theory of justice, EXCEPT;Question 31 options;Principles of justice are the outcome of a special kind of agreement. They are the principles that we would all agree to if we were choosing rules for our society and no one had any unfair bargaining power.;In order to ensure no one has special bargaining power Rawls? rejects the idea of a ?veil of ignorance,? and argues that contracts are only fair when we know each other?s personal qualities, strengths, and weaknesses.;According to Rawls, justice is the outcome of a fair contract. However, for Rawls a contract is guaranteed to be fair only if the contracting parties are not able to take advantage of each other.;Rawls thinks that we can understand what justice is by considering the idea of a fair agreement. According to Rawls, an agreement is not necessarily fair even if it is voluntary. In order to be fair, an agreement must also be made against a background of equality.;Save;Question 32 (1 point);Rawls' veil of ignorance can parallel what other notion?;Question 32 options;Hobbes' original position;Locke's moral consensus;Kant's categorical imperative;the commonwealth;Save;Question 33 (1 point);Rawls argues that the industrious ought to be entitled to retain their wealth with no regard to redistribution.;Question 33 options;True;False;Save;Question 34 (1 point);Which are Rawl's principles of justice? There may be more than one correct answer.;Question 34 options;the only state that can be justified is the minimal state;the only things you are entitled to are those things you have earned or those things that have be given to you by someone who earned them;Each person should have access to basic liberties;The government should rectify social and economic inequalities;Save;Question 35 (1 point);All are statements that explain why Cheryl Hopwood was not admitted into the University of Texas, EXCEPT which?;Question 35 options;to correct for possible bias in standardized tests. The ability of the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) and other such tests to predict academic and career success has long been disputed. In 1951, an applicant to the doctoral program in the School of Religion at Boston University presented mediocre scores on the GRE (Graduate Record Exam). The young Martin Luther King, Jr., who would become one of the greatest orators in American history, scored below average in verbal aptitude. 6 Fortunately, he was admitted anyway.;?Law in a civil society depends overwhelmingly on the willingness of society to accept its judgment, it becomes harder to achieve that if we don?t see members of all groups playing roles in the administration of justice.?;When Hopwood applied, the University of Texas law school used an affirmative action admissions policy that aimed at enrolling about 15 percent of the class from among minority applicants.;the use of racial preferences will not bring about a more pluralistic society or reduce prejudice and inequalities but will damage the self-esteem of minority students, increase racial consciousness on all sides, heighten racial tensions, and provoke resentment among white ethnic groups who feel they, too, should get a break.;Save;Question 36 (1 point);Dworkin argues that no applicant has a right that the university define its mission and design its admissions policy in a way that prizes above all any particular set of qualities? whether academic skills, athletic abilities, or anything else.;Question 36 options;True;False;Save;Question 37 (1 point);Hill is critical of what sort(s) of attempts to justify affirmative action policies?;Question 37 options;Forward-looking attempts only;Backward-looking attempts only;Both A and B;Neither A nor B;Save;Question 38 (1 point);The main aim of Hill?s article is to;Question 38 options;show that affirmative action is not morally permissible;argue that affirmative action policies are, in general, insufficient forms of reparations;compare the ?messages? expressed when affirmative action is defended from different moral perspectives;all of the above;Save;Question 39 (1 point);Which of the following best characterizes what Hill thinks the message of affirmative action would be if we accepted a forward-looking justification?;Question 39 options;?We concede that you have a valid claim to this benefit and we yield to your demand, though this is not to suggest that we have confidence in your abilities or any desire to have you here.?;A principle of reparation requires that we provide you this benefit.?;?Our policy in no way implies the view that your opportunities are less important than others.?;?Our sole concern is to bring about certain good results in the future, and giving you a break happens to be a useful means for doing this.?;Save;Question 40 (1 point);Hill argues that some of the values that give affirmative action its point are best seen as cross-time values.;Question 40 options;True;False;Save;Question 41 (1 point);The point of these readings is to show there is one correct answer to ethics, that one perspective holds the monopoly on truth, fact, and value.;Question 41 options;True;False;Save;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------;Save All ResponsesGo to Submit Quiz


Paper#16002 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $55