Mock Exam Flashcards
What hypothetical world do we imagine when we apply the Formula of Universal Law?
1. A world where people make an exception of themselves
2. A world where everyone acts like you
3. A world where everyone has the same desires.
4. A world where moral rules hold universally
- A world where everyone acts like you
Kant’s Formula of Universal Law states => “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
What lesson could not be drawn from this game?
-> We started the course with this game: you all get 10$
-> I’ll pass around an envelope and do an offer: “Any money that you’ll put in the envelope will be collected. Then, I’ll double the given amount. Finally, I’ll split the total among all of you”
1. I should try to close a deal with everyone to cooperate
2. I may donate the money if certain conditions are met
3. I may keep the money if others do so too
4. I may keep the money regardless of what others do
- I may keep the game regardless of what others do => If everyone acts like this then I will end up worse off. If all defect, we won’t be able to solve many important problems.
What is NOT a distinction between Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics?
- Kantian Ethics cares about universality (about not making exceptions of oneself) WHILE Utilitarianism denies that this is relevant
- Kantian Ethics evaluates the intentions on which one acts WHILE Utilitarianism evaluates the consequences of one’s actions
- Kantian Ethic produces permissions and prohibitions WHILE utilitarianism produces obligations and prohibitions
- Kantian Ethics is interested in people’s consent WHILE Utilitarianism is interested in promoting their well-being (even without their consent)
- Kantian Ethics cares about universality (about not making exceptions of oneself) WHILE Utilitarianism denies that this is relevant => Utilitarianism takes into account happiness of other people, not only individuals. Thus, it cares about not making an exception of oneself.
Person A and Person B have a discussion about privacy.
A argues that “privacy is good for her because she wants it”. B argues that “the position of A is unreasonable, and that A has to give better arguments”. B then argues that “privacy is good for everyone”.
What statement describes the discussion best?
1. A takes the position of a Desire Satisfactionism, B takes the position of Utilitarianism.
2. A takes the position of Hedonism, B takes the position of Utilitarianism.
3. A takes the position of Desire Satisfactionism, B takes the position of Objective List Theory.
4. A takes the position of Ethical Subjectivism; B takes the position of Objective List Theory.
- A takes the position of Desire Satisfactionism, B takes the position of Objective List Theory.
A wants it and B tries to put generical elements on the list that hold for everyone.
X not utilitarianism as an utilitarian is concerned with the outcome and not if something is good for everyone
Person A helps person B to figure out whether B should share her personal data and accept cookies. A argues that the given application only works if everyone shares their personal information.
Others share info 90% – Others don’t share info 10%
B shares info -> + 10 – -20
B doesn’t share info -> 0 – 0
What would Utilitarianism say if we go along with A’s number?
1. Everyone should share their information.
2. B should not share her information.
3. B cannot know whether or not to share information: it depends on what others will do.
4. No one should share their information.
- Everyone should share their information. => this will result in the best outcome if we use the calculus:
B shares info: 10 * 0.9 + (-20) * 0.1= 7
B doesn’t share info: 0
7 > 0
Game:
-> We started the course with this game: you all get 10$
-> I’ll pass around an envelope and do an offer: “Any money that you’ll put in the envelope will be collected. Then, I’ll double the given amount. Finally, I’ll split the total among all of you.”
Why should I donate the money, according to the Formula of Universal Law?
1. “to maximise the money I receive, I will keep the money” passes
2. “to maximise the money I receive, I will donate the money” passes
3. “to maximise the money I receive, I will keep the money” doesn’t pass
4. “to maximise the money I receive, I will donate the money” doesn’t pass
“to maximise the money I receive, I will keep the money” doesn’t pass => only act on intentions which can be universalised
Thus, if everyone keeps their money then the result is everyone has 10 euro -> not maximising the money.
Therefore: donating the money does pass
Consider the following discussion:
- Persons A tells person B she found an advertisement trick that deceives people and makes them buy some useless but harmless product of hers. A argues that she will use all the money she makes for good, and fund projects that will improve everyone’s well-being. B responds that A should not do this because, even when the consequences are great, it may still be problematic to deceive people.
What statement describes the discussion best?
- A’s reasoning is in line with Utilitarianism rather than Objective List theory.
- A’s reasoning is in line with Utilitarianism rather than Kantian Ethics.
- B’s reasoning is in line with Utilitarianism rather than Objective List Theory.
- B’s reasoning is in line with Utilitarianism rather than Kantian Ethics.
- A’s reasoning is in line with Utilitarianism rather than Kantian Ethics. => A wants to use unfair tactic which is justified by more positive use of money. Utilitarianism permits that if the consequences are overall more positive. Kantian Ethics does not allow any deceiving and use of other people even if it is overall for the best (unless it is clear-cut between people involved + consent)
What statement describes A’s position best?
Imagine the discussion in Q7. proceeds as follows:
A thinks for a moment and responds that she will inform everyone about how she will use the profit.
