PHIL 4120: Professional Ethics

University of West Georgia

Fall 2010

 

Date/Time: Wednesday December 8, 8-10am

 

·         This test will be worth 20% of your total course grade. This is a timed test; you will have two hours to complete the test.   

·         The test will begin promptly at the official start time of class. It is important that you be in your seat and prepared to begin at the official start time. If you arrive late for the test, you will not be given extra time to finish.

·         See my online test archive for examples of past tests in other courses:

http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/testArchive/testarchive.html

 

You are required to provide your own blue book for the test. Blue books are mini notebooks designed especially for writing tests. They are available from the UWG Bookstore and at the cart in the atrium of the TLC. They come in two sizes: small and large. Because this is a final exam and will consist of more questions than a regular, mid-semester exam, I recommend that you bring a large blue book in which to write your answers.

 

DO NOT WRITE ANYTHING ON OR IN YOUR BLUE BOOK

BEFORE COMING TO CLASS.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Section I: Definitions. [20% of total test grade]

 

I will give you a list of terms and phrases to define; you will be required to define all of the terms and phrases I give. Typically, only a sentence or two is necessary for a satisfactory answer. The terms and phrases will come from the following list:

 

·         philosophy

·         inquiry

·         ethics

·         normative ethics

·         normative

·         descriptive

·         meta-ethics

·         applied ethics

·         obligatory

·         supererogatory

·         morally neutral

·         utilitarianism

·         consequentialism

·         ethical egoism

·         deontology

·         categorical imperatives

·         virtue ethics

·         empirical

·         black-letter law

·         act utilitarianism

·         rule utilitarianism

·         epistemic

·         paternalism

·         autonomy

·         plea bargain

·         perjury

·         begging the question

 

·         passive euthanasia

·         active euthanasia

·         physician-assisted dying

·         physician-assisted suicide

·         reproductive cloning

·         therapeutic cloning

·         embryonic stem cells

·         pluripotent

·         spare embryos

·         research embryos

·         asexual reproduction

 

·         ethos

·         ethical egoism

·         core values of a company

·         market failure

·         externality

·         prima facie moral obligation

·         absolute moral obligation

·         counterfactual

·         labor union

·         employment-at-will

·         due process (in general)

·         “just cause” conditions

·         passive nondiscrimination

·         affirmative action

·         diversifying the applicant pool

·         preferential hiring

·         hiring quota

·         quid pro quo sexual harassment

·         hostile work environment sexual harassment

 

 

Section II: Short Answer [30% of total test grade].

 

You will be given four short answer questions and required to answer three of them. Your answers to these questions should be as detailed, clear and precise as possible. Typically, a paragraph of about five to seven sentences is sufficient for a satisfactory answer. The questions will be drawn from the following list:

 

·         Explain natural law theory and what, according to Milde, it implies about legal ethics.

 

·         Explain legal positivism and what, according to Milde, it implies about legal ethics.

 

·         Explain and give examples to illustrate the two senses of “professional” distinguished by Wasserstrom.

 

·         Explain the distinction between inquiry and advocacy, and then explain why that distinction is relevant to the practice of law.

 

·         Explain the Doctrine of Double Effect and illustrate it by applying it to a specific issue in medical ethics.

 

·         State the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing and illustrate it by applying it to a specific issue in medical ethics.

 

·         Explain Gerald MacCallum’s triadic analysis of the concept of a right and illustrate that analysis with a specific example.

 

·         Explain (a) William Parent’s analysis of the concept of informational privacy and (b) George Brenkert’s triadic account of the violation of informational privacy rights.

 

·         Explain the different understandings of the “reasonable man” standard of hostile work environment sexual harassment, and illustrate the differences among them by explaining how different understandings might result in different judgments about whether a given behavior counts as harassment.

 

 

Section III: Discussion—Legal and Medical Ethics [25% of total test grade].

 

This section will consist of one discussion question. You will be given two discussion questions and required to answer one of them. Your answer should be as detailed, clear and precise as time allows. In other words, tell me everything you know about the question asked. If you omit something that is relevant to the question, I will assume that you do not know the material you are omitting.

 

·         Discuss EITHER Milde’s view that neither deontology nor “consequentialism” is sufficient for legal ethics OR Aristotle’s approach to virtue ethics and the way that Milde applies this way of thinking within the context of legal ethics. Is Milde right? Defend your answer.

 

·         Discuss Richard Wasserstrom’s views on role-defined behavior/reasoning and moral behavior/reasoning. Is Wasserstrom right to be worried about the alleged tension between these two types of reasoning? Defend your answer.

 

·         Discuss Rachels’ argument that passive and active euthanasia are morally equivalent and Haslett’s criticism of that argument. Does Haslett’s criticism succeed? Defend your answer.

 

·         Are we obligated to get the consent of a person before acting so as to bring about his or her conception by way of SCNT? Defend your answer.

 

 

 

Section IV: Discussion—Business Ethics. [25% of test grade]

 

This section will consist of one discussion question. You will be given three discussion questions and required to answer one of them. Your answer should be as detailed, clear and precise as time allows. In other words, tell me everything you know about the question asked. If you omit something that is relevant to the question, I will assume that you do not know the material you are omitting.

 

·         Discuss (1) the classical model of corporate social responsibility (a.k.a. free market theory) and (2) EITHER the utilitarian defense of this model and the ways in which that defense might be criticized, OR the deontological defense of this model and the ways in which that defense might be criticized. Do you agree with this model? Why or why not?

 

·         Discuss EITHER (1) the Neo-Classical Theory of corporate social responsibility (the “moral minimum”) OR (2) Stakeholder Theory. Include in your discussion an account of the ways in which the theory might be criticized. Is the theory you have discussed an adequate view of the issue of corporate social responsibility? Defend your answer.

 

·         Discuss the claim that individuals have a moral right to be employed, including the arguments in support of that claim and the criticisms of those arguments. Do you believe there is such a moral right? Why or why not?

 

·         Discuss the issue of due process in the workplace. What are the arguments for and against the doctrine of due process, and how have defenders of the doctrine responded to the arguments against it? Should employees have due process rights in the workplace? Defend your answer.

 

·         Describe and discuss at least one argument against preferential hiring practices and at least one argument in support of such practices. Which is the more defensible view on this issue? Defend your answer.

**

 

The purpose of sections III and IV is to test (1) your understanding and memory of the material covered in class and (2) your ability to engage in original thought about that material. The majority of the grade you get on your essay question will be based on requirement (1); but for full credit, I will require that you state and defend your own position(s) on the issue at hand, thus fulfilling requirement (2).

 

I expect the essays that you write in sections III and IV to integrate material from class discussions, the online lecture notes (where available), and your reading. It may be appropriate to include relevant facts and statistics, but the bulk of your essays should concern the ethical aspects of the issues raised. Yours answer should also include your own view of the issue at hand and a reasoned defense of that view.

 

For some essay questions on this study guide, we may have covered more material than you can address in the time you will have to complete the test. So in preparing for the test, you should select which arguments, moral issues, and relevant facts you plan to discuss while writing your answers.

 

It is very unwise to study simply by reading through the lecture notes and textbook again and again and then to attempt to compose your answers “on the fly” while taking the test. In preparing to take the test, you should actually practice taking the test by writing your definitions, short answers, and essays as much as possible. The efficacy of this study method, which requires that you put away your books and notes and engage in active recall of the course material, has been demonstrated by recent psychological research; see David Glenn, “Close the Book. Recall. Write It Down,” Chronicle of Higher Education 55 (34): May 1, 2009 (available online through GALILEO, accessible via the UWG Library website).

 

 

Please don’t hesitate to talk to me if you have any questions about the test.