Introduction to Ethics Midterm

The exam is composed of four short essays:
1. Ethical Egoism: Rehearsal + Application to a Case (500-1,000 words total)
2. Utilitarianism: Rehearsal + Application to a Case (500-1,000 words total)
3. Deontology: Rehearsal + Application to a Case (500-1,000 words total)
4. Evaluation of a View of Your Choice (750-1,000 words total)

Overview
The purpose of the assignment is to test your knowledge of each moral theory and its
principles, features, and values. While these elements could simply be listed or recounted in paragraph form
for each respective theory, a demonstration of deeper understanding will involve a well-organized and
informative explanation,application,and evaluation of these theories. The assignment thus aims to gauge both
your comprehension of the theories and your ability to engage critically with them. To that end, it has two
main parts:
Ø Rehearsal of Each Moral Theory and Application (3 Essays): Provide an overview of each moral
theory (egoism, utilitarianism, and deontology) and explain what it would say about a given case.
Ø Evaluation (1 Essay): Assess one of the moral theories using the tools that we have encountered in
the course.
In the rehearsal/application essays, you should aim to be as detailed, nuanced, and accurate as possible
within the allotted space (500-1,000 words for each theory).

Essay Instructions: Rehearsal + Application Essays
For each moral theory—egoism, utilitarianism, and deontology—write a short essay in which you explain
the theory and what it would say about the case. You should structure the response so that it offers a
coherently written explanation. (Ideally, you’re not just addressing the answers to the itemized list below in
a disparate or choppy way)
If it helps with the flow of writing, you may pretend that you are explaining each theory to a friend. Your
aim is to be as clear as possible in your explanation of each theory’s style of moral reasoning, as you can
assume that your friend has no prior background in moral philosophy. If you like, you can adopt a
conversational tone in your explanation (as long as you don’t sacrific eacademic integrity). You will want to
address the following considerations (in no particular order):
Ø Principles: What is the principle of each theory? Be sure to keep the different variations of
these principles straight in your explanation (e.g., act vs. rule utilitarianism; Kant’s different
formulations of the Categorical Imperative).
Ø Features: Is the theory consequence-based or not? How does the theory understand the
relationship between the good and the right? If the theory requires an account of the good,
what possibilities exist for filling that in?
Ø Values: Which values guide the theory? (e.g. happiness or welfare, autonomy, or respect)
Ø Drawbacks: What are some drawbacks or benefits of each respective theory in light of its
values, principles, features, or commitments?
In addition to covering these components for each theory, you’ll want to address its application to a case
(for a description of the case, see Page 5). Note that it will not be sufficient to simply say, in one or two
sentences, what a proponent of each view would think about the case. The more nuanced the application
is, the better. We’ve looked at multiple versions of utilitarianism and at least two different articulations of
Kant’s deontological principle. These variations will furnish different glosses on what the official ought to
do; an A-level essay will demonstrate knowledge of the subtleties of these theories.

Essay Instructions: Evaluation Essay
After you have explained each theory, you are in a position to do a bit of critical evaluation. In a short
analytic essay, assess one of these theories. You may (but are not required to) draw on features of the
provided case to make your point (you may even want to create a case of your own). You should, at the
beginning of the written response, have a mini-thesis of sorts that will indicate what you plan to argue in
the short essay. (E.g., “As a theory, hedonist utilitarianism suffers from lack of completeness”; “The
bomber case reveals that deontologists face the problem of X.”)
Strategies for Analysis:
In your analysis, you can make use of any of the following strategies (but you certainly aren’t limited to
them):
Ø Do the moral theories perform adequately re: the criteria that we discussed in class (e.g., practicability,
completeness, moral confirmation, explanatory power)? By using these criteria as tools, you can get
into a position where you may be able to identify specific flaws in a theory’s performance. Limit
yourself to one or two criteria; it is better to be thorough and devastating in your critique, rather than
to offer many surface-level claims. Be sure to adequately explain the criteria you choose.
Ø Imagine a full-compliance scenario—how does the theory perform? Can it work in the real world
without doing damage to any values that we may care about? (If not, explain how it does damage and
why the reader should care.)
Ø Can the bomber case (see Page #5) be used to highlight flaws or egregious aspects of one of the moral
theories? The case is useful because it can concretize the theory to make it easier to explain to your
reader how these theories fail; if it says striking or problematic things, that could alert us to possible
flaws with the theory.
Ø Consider doing a comparative analysis of how different theories (or different variations of a single
theory) would handle the case (deontology and utilitarianism are frequent competitors); perhaps one
performs better in a certain respect than another. Craft an argument that could make that case.
In the critical evaluation, do not limit yourself to points or examples that we have talked about in class; the
goal of the assignment is to show that you are thinking beyond the material that we’ve covered. To get full
points, an original analysis is required.

Grade Breakdown
The point breakdown for the assignment is as follows:
Rehearsal/Application of Each View for Each of the Three Theories
Correctly identifies the principles and key features of the moral theory in
sufficient detail
10
Applies the moral theory to the case, yielding a correct, clear, complete, and
concise explanation of what the egoist, utilitarian, deontologist would
prescribe for the surgeon
10
60
Critical Evaluation
Crafts an identifiable argument with a clear strategy; adequately engages with
the theories themselves (i.e., no tangents)
5
Offers original analysis—introduces a novel way to think about the
issues/problems faced by the moral theory, going beyond class discussion
10
Argues well; claims are well-supported with evidence where appropriate; the
reasoning is sound
10
25
Formal Features
Grammar/style—writing is clear and grammatically correct 5
Rhetorical flow—writing and logic is easy to follow, from sentence to sentence 5
Organization of ideas—the ideas are well-organized 5
15
Total: / 100

Case
A man who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended.
Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short
time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge
the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a
lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some
high-level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it
is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Unfortunately, the torture
doesn’t work—the bomber will not give up the location of the bomb. However, he does love
his wife. Would it be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the
only way to make him talk? Why?

Last Completed Projects