PHIL 4120: Professional Ethics

University of West Georgia

Spring 2009

Test 3 (Final Exam)

Date: Monday May 4 (2-4pm)

This test will be worth 30% of your total course grade. This is a timed test; you will have two hours to complete the test.

You are required to provide your own blue book for the test. Blue books are small notebooks designed especially for writing tests. They are available from the UWG Bookstore and at the cart in the atrium of the TLC.

Do not write your name on your bluebook; identify yourself only with your student number.

Do not tear any pages out of your bluebook before or during the test.

See my online test archive for examples of past tests in this course:

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

Section I will consist of definitions [10% of total test grade]. I will give you a short list of terms and phrases to define. 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

· meta-ethics

· normative ethics

· normative

· descriptive

· applied ethics

· obligatory

· supererogatory

· morally neutral

· paternalism

· autonomy

· argument

· validity

· soundness

· hypothetical imperatives

· categorical imperatives

· classical utilitarianism

· modern utilitarianism

· passive euthanasia

· active euthanasia

· consequentialism

· deontology

· virtue ethics

· teleological theories

· the maximization principle

· triage

· distributive justice

· ethos

· values (in general) [DesJardin’s definition]

· ethical values [DesJardin’s definition]

· ethical egoism

· psychological egoism

· altruism

· ethical relativism

· intrinsic value

· extrinsic value

· philanthropy

· market failure

· externality

· prima facie moral obligation

· absolute moral obligation

· counterfactual

· labor union

· employment-at-will

· due process (in general)

· “just cause” conditions

· due process procedures

· empirical

· black letter law

· act utilitarianism

· rule utilitarianism

· natural law theory

· legal positivism

· critical legal studies

· plea bargain

· perjury

· begging the question

Your definitions should as be as detailed, clear and precise as possible. For example, the following is not an adequate definition of the term “a priori”: “independent of experience.” This would get you partial credit, but not full credit. A much better definition is this: “An a priori statement is one that can be known to be true or false independent of sense experience, for example, ‘All bachelors are unmarried’ and ‘Triangles have three sides.’”

Section II will consist of short answer questions [30% of total test grade]. Your answers to these questions should be as specific, 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 and illustrate with examples the two different formulations of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

· Explain the difference between utilitarians Garrett Hardin and Peter Singer on the issue of world poverty.

· Explain the three types of harm distinguished by Gregory Pence and give an example of each.

· Explain what an advance directive is and describe the various types of advance directive.

· Explain the various standards of death and brain-death covered in class.

· Explain the relationships among the concepts of duties, rights and interests.

· Explain Gerald MacCallum’s triadic analysis of the concept of a right.

· Explain William Parent’s analysis of the concept of informational privacy.

· Explain George Brenkert’s triadic account of the violation of informational privacy rights.

· Explain the “model” of the employer/employee relationship adopted by DesJardins and how he applies that model to the question of employee privacy.

· Explain how Susan Haack articulates the distinction between inquiry and advocacy.

Section III will consist of one discussion question [30% of total test grade].

You will be given three questions and allowed to choose one to answer.

· Discuss the different ways in which utilitarians, Kant and Rawls would address the question of the moral obligation to treat HIV and AIDS in the developing world. Which of these three approaches to the issue of HIV/AIDS is best? Defend your answer.

· Discuss the approaches utilitarians, Kant, and Leon Kass would take in morally evaluating recent advances in reproductive technologies. Make sure to discuss specific reproductive technologies in your answer. Which of the approaches is best? Defend your answer.

· Discuss the case of Terri Schiavo and the relevance to that case of the notions of personhood and mercy. Should Schiavo have been kept alive against her husband’s wishes? Defend your answer.

· Discuss (1) the classical model of corporate social responsibility (a.k.a. free market theory), (2) defenses of this model and the ways in which those defenses might be criticized, and (3) alternative models. Which model is best? 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.

Section IV will consist of one discussion question [30% of total test grade].

You will be given two questions and allowed to choose one to answer.

· 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. Do you agree with the Milde’s views? Defend your answer.

· Discuss Monroe Freedman’s argument that lawyers are sometimes obligated to be other than honest to the court. Include in your discussion a detailed explanation of at least two of Freedman’s “three hardest questions.”

· 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 Stephen Pepper’s defense of the amoral role of the lawyer, including his First Class Citizen Argument, his responses to objections to that argument, and the concern he raises regarding legal realism. Is Pepper right that the amoral role of the lawyer is good? Defend your answer.

Regarding sections III and IV:

Your answers should be as detailed, specific, 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.

I expect your essays to integrate material from class discussions, the online lecture notes, and your reading. It is appropriate to include relevant facts and statistics, but the bulk of your essay should concern the ethical aspects of the issues raised. Your answer should also include your own view of the issue at hand and a reasoned defense of that view.

The purpose of these questions 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 grades you get on your essays 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 that you will spend at least 30 minutes on each essay during the two hours you will have to take the test. I realize that, for some essay questions on this study guide, we may have covered more material than you could write in that length of time. 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 unwise to study by simply reading through the lecture notes and textbook again and again and then attempt to compose an essay for the first time “on the fly,” while taking the test. In preparing to take the test, you should, at the very least, construct an outline of each of the essays you may be asked to write. I recommend that you go beyond simply constructing outlines and actually practice writing your essays as much as possible while preparing for the test.