PHI 2000 INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS FINAL
PAPER 2026 QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE
SOLUTIONS GRADED A+
◉ Present both of the following cases from Williams: George & the
Job and Jim & the Natives... What conclusion is Williams attempting
to draw from these cases? Answer: *George & the Job
-chemical & biological weapons development company
-George is unemployed and needs a job
-George sees the use of these weapons as immoral
-could George deliberately slow/weaken the development of such
weapons if he decides to accept the job?
*Jim & the Natives
-Jim = a botanist that encounters a group of native people within a
country that he is exploring & studying in
-a group of the natives are about to be executed despite their status
as innocent people
-Jim is given the choice as an honored guest of killing one person
and as a result saving the group of 19 that are currently on the verge
of execution
,-if, as utilitarians argue, the identity of an agent is not important &
all that is left is causal intervention:
*George should accept the job
*Jim should kill the native
*What is Williams trying to illustrate through these cases?
-utilitarianism focuses on situations while disregarding agents
which seems to undermine peoples' agency
-utilitarians seem to view the identity of an agent as morally
irrelevant
-the only morally relevant feature of an agent is their role within a
causal sequence
-all moral action seems to be reduced to mere causal intervention
when it comes to utilitarianism
*WILLIAMS SEES THESE THINGS AS PROBLEMATIC COMPONENTS
OF THE VIEW OF UTILITARIANISM
-utilitarianism violates our moral integrity because it requires us to
reject conscience and personal ideals for the lesser of 2 evils
-also important to take into consideration the idea of "ground
projects" that Williams points to (losing ourselves seems to be
worse than losing some utility)
◉ Distinguish what Ashford calls objective integrity and subjective
integrity... Which does she argue is more important & why? Answer:
,-Ashford understands integrity as an agent's current self-conception
(which can change or be mistaken)
-objective integrity = requires an agent's self-conception to be
grounded in reality (must not be deceived about empirical facts or
moral obligations)
-subjective integrity = requires only a coherent self-conception
-objective integrity is more valuable to agents
*Conditions for Objective Integrity:
-agents must live morally decent lives
-agents must adhere to personal commitments (prudential projects
& commitments to particular individuals)
-the concept of the good life allows us to see how these
commitments can be integrated
-person with objective integrity pursues their goals with a particular
zeal/zest
*good life = balance between personal commitments & moral
obligations
◉ Present two different interpretations of Williams's Integrity
Objection to Utilitarianism... How does Ashford respond to each?
Answer: *Interpretation #1:
-integrity is understood as an agent's current self-conception
, -if this is what integrity is, then integrity cannot outweigh utilitarian
considerations
-Ashford's response = objective vs. subjective integrity
*Interpretation #2:
-utilitarianism undermines objective integrity in the current state of
the world (utilitarianism requires us to forego living the "good life")
-fundamental & irresolvable clash between 2 essential elements of a
good life (personal commitments & other moral obligations)
-thus, utilitarianism poses a threat to objective integrity
-Ashford's response = that it is appropriate for utilitarians to
recognize the threat to objective integrity, but points out that the
fundamental clash seems to arise in emergency situations/cases of
moral bad luck
*Ashford's General Strategy:
-bite the bullet (accept Williams's objection and its consequences)
-Ashford then goes on to prove that the objection does not show any
internal inconsistency within the view
◉ Provide examples of conditional and instrumental goods as well
as conditional and intrinsic goods... Answer: -conditionally good =
good only when certain other conditions (not necessarily causal
results) obtain
PAPER 2026 QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE
SOLUTIONS GRADED A+
◉ Present both of the following cases from Williams: George & the
Job and Jim & the Natives... What conclusion is Williams attempting
to draw from these cases? Answer: *George & the Job
-chemical & biological weapons development company
-George is unemployed and needs a job
-George sees the use of these weapons as immoral
-could George deliberately slow/weaken the development of such
weapons if he decides to accept the job?
*Jim & the Natives
-Jim = a botanist that encounters a group of native people within a
country that he is exploring & studying in
-a group of the natives are about to be executed despite their status
as innocent people
-Jim is given the choice as an honored guest of killing one person
and as a result saving the group of 19 that are currently on the verge
of execution
,-if, as utilitarians argue, the identity of an agent is not important &
all that is left is causal intervention:
*George should accept the job
*Jim should kill the native
*What is Williams trying to illustrate through these cases?
-utilitarianism focuses on situations while disregarding agents
which seems to undermine peoples' agency
-utilitarians seem to view the identity of an agent as morally
irrelevant
-the only morally relevant feature of an agent is their role within a
causal sequence
-all moral action seems to be reduced to mere causal intervention
when it comes to utilitarianism
*WILLIAMS SEES THESE THINGS AS PROBLEMATIC COMPONENTS
OF THE VIEW OF UTILITARIANISM
-utilitarianism violates our moral integrity because it requires us to
reject conscience and personal ideals for the lesser of 2 evils
-also important to take into consideration the idea of "ground
projects" that Williams points to (losing ourselves seems to be
worse than losing some utility)
◉ Distinguish what Ashford calls objective integrity and subjective
integrity... Which does she argue is more important & why? Answer:
,-Ashford understands integrity as an agent's current self-conception
(which can change or be mistaken)
-objective integrity = requires an agent's self-conception to be
grounded in reality (must not be deceived about empirical facts or
moral obligations)
-subjective integrity = requires only a coherent self-conception
-objective integrity is more valuable to agents
*Conditions for Objective Integrity:
-agents must live morally decent lives
-agents must adhere to personal commitments (prudential projects
& commitments to particular individuals)
-the concept of the good life allows us to see how these
commitments can be integrated
-person with objective integrity pursues their goals with a particular
zeal/zest
*good life = balance between personal commitments & moral
obligations
◉ Present two different interpretations of Williams's Integrity
Objection to Utilitarianism... How does Ashford respond to each?
Answer: *Interpretation #1:
-integrity is understood as an agent's current self-conception
, -if this is what integrity is, then integrity cannot outweigh utilitarian
considerations
-Ashford's response = objective vs. subjective integrity
*Interpretation #2:
-utilitarianism undermines objective integrity in the current state of
the world (utilitarianism requires us to forego living the "good life")
-fundamental & irresolvable clash between 2 essential elements of a
good life (personal commitments & other moral obligations)
-thus, utilitarianism poses a threat to objective integrity
-Ashford's response = that it is appropriate for utilitarians to
recognize the threat to objective integrity, but points out that the
fundamental clash seems to arise in emergency situations/cases of
moral bad luck
*Ashford's General Strategy:
-bite the bullet (accept Williams's objection and its consequences)
-Ashford then goes on to prove that the objection does not show any
internal inconsistency within the view
◉ Provide examples of conditional and instrumental goods as well
as conditional and intrinsic goods... Answer: -conditionally good =
good only when certain other conditions (not necessarily causal
results) obtain
