Ethics Exam 2 Study Guide

1. Recall in the predicament of George as detailed by Bernard Williams

George, who has just taken his Ph.D. In chemistry, finds it difficult to get a job. His is not very robust in health,
which cuts down the number of jobs that he might be able to do satisfactorily. His wide has to go out to work
to keep them, which itself causes a great deal of strain, since they have small children and there are severe
problems about looking after them. The results of all this, especially on the children, are damaging. An older
chemist, who knows about the situation, says that he can get George a decently paid job in a certain laboratory,
which pursues research into chemical and biological warfare. George says that he cannot accept this, since he
is opposed to chemical and biological warfare. The older man replies that is not too keen on himself, come to
that, but after all Georges refusal is not going to make the job of the laboratory go away; what is more, he
happens to know that if George refuses the job, it will certainly go to a contemporary of Georges who is not
inhibited by any such scruples and us likely appointed to push along the research with greater zeal than George
would. Indeed, it is not merely concern for George and his family, but (to speak frankly and in confidence) some
alarm about this other mans excess of zeal, which has lead the older man to offer to use his influence to get
George the job Georges wife, to whom he is deeply attached has views (the details of which need not concern
it) from which it follows that at least there is nothing particularly wrong with research into CBW. What should
he do? (Williams 249-250)
think of the decisions George faces in this scenario. Imagine that George ultimately
decides that it is wrong to take the job, and turns it down despite the ways it may
benefit he and his family personally. Upon being asked by the older chemist, George
reveals himself to be a deontologist in the Kantian tradition. What are some of Georges
Kantian arguments for rejecting the job? The older chemist has some concern. What
about his interest in his family and his inclination to prefer them over others? Why
doesnt that constitute as a duty? Couldnt he universalize the decision to take the job
and thereby achieving the result of thwarting the overzealous scientist in his end of
acceleration weapons development? He doesnt seem to be using anyone by taking the
job- couldnt accepting the job be cleared by the principle of humanity? George is not
personally responsible for the action of the whole laboratory. Surely, it would be a
better fit in the Kingdom of Ends if he willed personal actions that would have the
consequences of inhibiting an arms race while simultaneously helping himself and his
family! George disagrees. Explain why from a Kantian point of view.

Answer: A deontologist would not take the job because it is not his duty. Taking the job
would not pass the principles that are given in the categorical moral imperatives. It would
fail the principle of universality because if everyone took a job that they didnt feel
comfortable with the outcomes of their job then the ethical side of business would be gone.
A deontologist sees all people as equals so his familys needs would not be placed above the
needs of the families that would be affected by his work. Taking the job would not pass the
principle of humanity because George would be using himself as means to some end and
not as an end in himself.

2. Explain the three types of imperatives, and provide an example of each. Which type of
imperative is Kants moral philosophy concerned with? Explain the relationship between
this type of imperative and freedom. That is, elaborate how human beings differ from
other natural kinds in their rational capacity of freedom. This will entail explaining what
freedom is for Kant, how it relates to our self-governance, and how freedom relates to
duty.
Answer: The three types of imperatives are hypothetical, categorical and categorical moral.
A hypothetical imperative is one that is more technical and is considered to be a means to
an end. Such as putting on a pot of water in order to make mac n cheese. The second is
categorical and this imperative is one that is necessary to survival. Examples are eating,
finding shelter and drinking. Without these things one would self-destruct and die. These
are choices that have to be made in order to live. A categorical moral imperative is the one
that Kant focuses the most on because these are things that we have a choice to do or not
to do. The relationship between the categorical moral imperative and freedom is that the
categorical moral imperative is the decisions in life that we have the freedom to do or not
to do. Human beings differ from other natural kinds with their capacity of freedom because
we can choose to do or not to do thing. Other animals cant make categorical moral
decisions and we can.

3. Recall two examples Nagel provides in his article Moral Luck

1. If someone has had too much to drink and swerves onto the sidewalk, he can count himself morally lucky if there are
no pedestrians in his path. If there were he, would be to blame for their deaths, and would probably be persecuted for
manslaughter. But if he hurts no one, although his recklessness is exactly the same, he is guilty of a far less serious legal
offense and will certainly reproach himself and be the reproached by others much less severely (Nagel 365).
2. If one negligently leaves with bath running with the baby in it, one will realize, as one bounds up the stairs towards the
bathroom, that if the baby has drowned ne has done something awful, whereas if it has not one has merely been
careless (Nagel 365)
What is the role of moral luck in these scenarios, and why does Nagel think this is a
strong response to Kant? Be clear about what aspect of Kants philosophy, its right
making property, is under attack by Nagels argument

Answer: Moral luck affects the outcomes or consequences of these situations. The
consequences are something that dont matter to Kant. He believes that is only the
intentions that matter. Nagel is attacking this point of Kantian philosophy. Nagel is saying
that there is no control over moral luck and moral luck affects the outcomes of situations.
One can have good intentions and still perform a bad deed. Nagel says that this moral luck
matters and by saying this he is saying that the consequences or outcomes of an action
matter.

4. Explain Adorno and Horkheimers attack on Kantian ethics as being abstract to the point
of self-negation. For instance, they write that enlightenment ethical thought, of which
Kant is exemplary,
does not render to power the reliable services which has always been performed for it by the old ideologies. Its anti-
authorization tendency, which communicates, if only subterraneously, with the utopia contained in the concept of
reason, finally made it as inimical to the established bourgeoisie as to the aristocracy, with which, indeed, it lost no time
in forming alliances. Ultimately, the anti-authorization principles necessarily becomes its own antithesis, the agency
opposed to reason; its abolition of all absolute ties allows power to decree and manipulate any ties which suit its purpose
(73).
How did Kants philosophy attempt to render power the same reliable service as the old
ideologies? That is, what rules or principles limit our use of power according to Kant?
What, however, is Kant unable to provide for the most basic principles of his view? Thus,
according to Adorno and Horkheimer in the quote above, what does Kants rational
agent begin to do from its perch in the intellectual heights that oversee the sensible
flow of events within which we must attempt to implement the utopian Kingdom of
 Ends? Rather than follow a rational moral law, what does reason begin to dictate
without any absolute ties?

Answer: Kants philosophy attempted to render power in the same was as religious
authority did. The categorical moral imperatives limit the use of our power according to
Kant. Kant is unable to provide justification for reason because reason cant justify itself. It
is a circle in a sense because one must use reason to justify anything and using reason to
justify reason is a circular definition. It allows reason to become a way of gaining power
and asserting power onto others rationally.

4. What does Bernard Williams mean by the complex view of personal identity over the
simple view? How does the complex view disrupt the separateness of persons that
appears starkly in both utilitarianism and Kantian deontology? That is, how does
Williams view both utilitarianism and deontology to be abstract? Specifically, in relation
to Kant, how does the complex view challenge the moral abstraction required by Kants
view, which has an emphasis on moral impartiality That exaggerates in one
direction the degree to which a mans relation to some of how own projects resembles
his relation to the projects of others by providing ultimately too slim of a sense in
which any projects are mine at all(Williams 208). How then, does character help
Williams to introduce the relevance of the relation of difference over that of
identity.

Answer: The complex view considers people to dynamic in a sense that they change as they
move throughout life. The choices they make and their experiences alter them as
individuals. The change is constant and connected back to the original version of oneself but
there is still a change. The simple view is when you are the exact same person now as you
were when you were born and as you will be in 20 years. The complex view disrupts the
separateness of persons that appears in both deontology and utilitarianism because it
considers ones character and their experiences. Not all people are weighted equally or
considered to be the same. It would matter more to a professor that the students turned in
their papers on time then it would matter to another student if their classmates turned in
their papers on time. This example of the complex view shows how not all people are the
same, weighted the same, or have the same meaning to an individual. The personal
character matters and considering differences between individuals matters.