Study Handout: Quiz 3 Ethics PHIL 315
There will be 20 questions, all either Multiple Choice, True/False, or matching. You will have 40
minutes to complete one attempt for this quiz; you will be presented with one question per page
at a time, and you can’t go back once you go to the next question. The questions will be on
concepts and theories presented in the readings and videos assigned since the last quiz.
You may click on the Quiz 3 link for date and time information without opening the quiz. (Once
you open the link, there will be another button for you to push to start the quiz.) At the end of the
quiz, you will receive your number grade but no breakdown of the ones you missed. On request,
we can meet by Video Conference or in person to discuss your individual quiz one-on-one, once
everyone has taken it.
These bullet-points refer to concepts and questions you should understand from the reading to do
well on the quiz. Note that the questions on the quiz will be in random order:
1. Why is a false promise wrong, according to the first form of the categorical imperative?
2. According to the first form of the categorical imperative, why would not contributing to
the welfare of others be wrong?
3. According to Sandel in the video “Justice,” the Better Business Bureau suggests a motive
that business owners should have for being honest. What would Kant say about the moral
worth of an act performed in accordance with this motive?
4. According to Sandel in the video “Justice,” in the example of the spelling bee winner
who actually misspelled a word, then told on himself, then said he told the truth because
he didn’t want to feel like a slime, would his act still have moral worth, according to
Kant’s ethics?
5. According to Kant, would performing an act out of prudence have as moral worth?
6. According to Sandel in the video “Justice,” what is the opposite of doing an action out of
a sense of duty?
7. What is the first form of the categorical imperative?
8. According the second form of the categorical imperative, why would not contributing to
the welfare of others be wrong?
9. According to Sandel in the video “Justice,” for Kant, if a shopkeeper does not short change a customer because he fears he will lose business, does his action have moral
worth?
10. According to Sandel in the video “Justice,” why does Kant think that only persons, not
things, have absolute value?
Study Handout: Quiz 3 Ethics PHIL 315
2
11. According to Sandel in the video Justice, what gives an act its moral worth?
12. According to Sandel in the video “Justice,” what Kantian insight is in the old Sprite
slogan “Obey Your Thirst”?
13. According to O’Neill, when do we use others as mere means?
14. According to Sandel in the video “Justice,” why does Kant think individuals are sacred
and the bearers of rights?
15. According to Kant, what is the difference between a “good will” and traits such as talents
of mind, qualities of temperament, and gifts of fortune?
16. According to the second form of the categorical imperative, why would suicide be
wrong?
17. What is the second form of the categorical imperative?
18. According to Sandel in the video “Justice,” for Kant, what is it for me to act
autonomously?
19. According to the second form of the categorical imperative, why would neglecting one’s
natural gifts be wrong?
20. What interpretation of Kant’s notion of contradiction does Korsgaard favor?
Good luck!
Ethical Quiz on Kantian Ethics and Categorical Imperative
Introduction:
Welcome to Quiz 3 on Ethics, focused on concepts and theories presented in the readings and videos assigned since the last quiz. This quiz is designed to assess your understanding of Kantian Ethics and the Categorical Imperative. It comprises 20 questions, with formats ranging from Multiple Choice to True/False and matching. Remember, you have 40 minutes to complete this attempt, and once you move to the next question, you cannot go back. Let’s delve into the questions!
The Wrongness of False Promise According to the First Form of the Categorical Imperative:
According to the first form of the Categorical Imperative, making a false promise is morally wrong because it fails the test of universalizability. In other words, if everyone were to make false promises whenever it suits their interests, the very concept of a promise would lose its meaning and reliability. Such an action would lead to a contradiction in conception, as it becomes impossible to conceive of a world where false promises are universally accepted. Therefore, the act of making a false promise is inherently immoral under Kantian ethics.
Wrongness of Not Contributing to the Welfare of Others According to the First Form of the Categorical Imperative:
The first form of the Categorical Imperative dictates that not contributing to the welfare of others is morally wrong due to the principle of humanity. Kant emphasizes that we should treat each individual as an end in themselves and not merely as a means to an end. By failing to assist others in need, we treat them merely as a means to fulfill our own interests or desires, disregarding their inherent worth and dignity. This violation of the principle of humanity renders the act morally impermissible.
Kant’s View on the Moral Worth of Acts Performed with Honest Business Motives:
Kant would commend acts performed with honest business motives, as they align with the moral principle of good will. Acting out of a sense of duty and being honest in business dealings demonstrates moral worth according to Kantian ethics. If business owners are truthful and honest because it is their moral duty to be so, rather than merely seeking personal gain or fearing negative consequences, their actions possess moral worth.
Moral Worth of an Act in Kant’s View Regarding the Spelling Bee Example:
In Kant’s ethical framework, the moral worth of an act is not determined by its consequences or intentions but by whether it was performed out of a sense of duty. In the example of the spelling bee winner who admitted to misspelling a word, his act would still have moral worth according to Kant’s ethics because he acted in accordance with his duty to be honest and truthful, regardless of the potential negative feelings he might experience.
Moral Worth of an Act Performed Out of Prudence According to Kant:
Performing an act out of prudence, which involves consideration of one’s self-interest and potential consequences, does not carry the same moral worth as acting out of duty. Kant emphasizes that moral actions are those performed solely based on the recognition of one’s moral duty, regardless of personal gain or loss. Acting out of prudence may lead to good outcomes, but it does not necessarily reflect moral worth under Kantian ethics.
The Opposite of Acting Out of Duty According to Sandel:
In Sandel’s view, the opposite of acting out of duty is acting out of inclination or self-interest. When individuals act in accordance with their desires or personal gains rather than their moral obligations, they are not fulfilling their duty, and their actions lack moral worth.
The First Form of the Categorical Imperative:
The first form of the Categorical Imperative can be summarized as follows: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” This principle emphasizes the universalizability of actions and the necessity to act in a way that can be consistently applied to everyone without contradiction.
Wrongness of Not Contributing to Others’ Welfare According to the Second Form of the Categorical Imperative:
The second form of the Categorical Imperative, known as the principle of humanity, dictates that individuals must treat others as ends in themselves and not merely as a means to an end. By not contributing to the welfare of others, we treat them solely as tools for our own purposes, violating their intrinsic value and dignity. Consequently, this action is morally wrong under the second form of the Categorical Imperative.
Moral Worth of the Shopkeeper’s Action According to Sandel:
For Kant, the shopkeeper’s action of not short-changing a customer out of fear of losing business does not have moral worth. This action is based on self-interest and prudence rather than on the moral duty to treat others with respect and honesty. Kant would argue that moral worth comes from acting out of a sense of duty, not from calculating potential personal benefits.
Kant’s View on the Absolute Value of Persons Over Things:
Kant contends that only persons, as rational beings with the capacity for autonomous decision-making, possess absolute value. In contrast, things lack this inherent worth because they lack the rationality and moral agency that characterize human beings. Therefore, individuals are regarded as sacred bearers of rights, while things are mere objects without intrinsic moral significance.
Conclusion:
These are the first ten questions of the quiz, exploring fundamental concepts of Kantian Ethics and the Categorical Imperative. Stay tuned for the next set of questions that will delve deeper into the intricacies of these philosophical principles.
References:
Kant, I. (2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
Sandel, M. J. (2017). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
O’Neill, O. (2016: 2024 – Do my homework – Help write my assignment online). Acting on principle: An essay on Kantian ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Korsgaard, C. M. (2018: 2024 – Write My Essay For Me | Essay Writing Service For Your Papers Online). The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge University Press.
