PHI 2000 INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS TEST
SCRIPT 2026 QUESTIONS WITH FULL
ANSWERS GRADED A+
◉ What is the Formula of Humanity (FH)? What are the two parts of
the FH? Answer: -one formulation of the Categorical Imperative
-this formulation focuses on those who are affected by our actions
-by humanity, Kant is referring to rational beings
-we have obligations to ourselves & other rational beings
*FH:
-means vs. mere means (treating people as an end vs. treating
people as a means)
-we may treat people as means, but FH prohibits treating them
merely as a means
-kind of maxim doesn't really matter for the FH
-rational beings deserve a special kind of treatment
-the dignity of human life arises from our rationality & autonomy
◉ Explain the distinction between treating someone as a means and
treating someone merely as a means (use examples)... Answer: -
treating a person as an end is to treat them with the respect that that
deserve
,-treating a person as a means is to use them to achieve your own
ends
-if people have consented to be used as a means, then we are not
using them as a mere means
-treating someone as a mere means fails to treat them with the
respect that they deserve
*Examples of treating someone as a means: slavery, rape, murder,
theft, & lying
*Examples of treating someone merely as a means: cases of
deception & coercion
◉ What is paternalism? According to Kant, why is paternalism
morally prohibited? Answer: -paternalism = limiting another's
liberty against their will, but for their own good (treating a mature
person as if they were a child)
-in Kant's eyes treating someone as an end involves providing space
for others to act on their maxims (we must respect one another's
ends) and paternalism doesn't accomplish this
-inconsistent with the FH
-doesn't enable rational beings to exercise their rationality
◉ Present one problem for the categorical imperative... Answer:
*Problems for the FUL:
-how do we figure out/define what our maxims are?
,-lack of guidelines for what maxims are the right ones
*Problems for the FH:
-principle of humanity is vague (challenging to know what the FH
would want us to do in many scenarios)
*Concerning Questions:
-FUL & FH conflict in some cases
-how should we treat non-rational beings?
-it seems that there are some instances in which following the
categorical imperative does not seem to be the right thing to do...
Ex: lying to Nazi officials about hiding a Jewish person in your
basement (it seems silly to suggest that one should NEVER lie)
◉ Explain Kant's distinction between hypothetical imperatives and
categorical imperatives... Answer: *hypothetical imperatives:
-command us to take the required means to our ends
-if you will to achieve some purpose P, then do action A (general
form)
-2 rational responses: either do A or abandon P
-non-moral oughts (conditional ought), given principles/conditions
-because of wants & desires
, *categorical imperatives
-command some action categorically, that is, not as a means to or in
reference to some further end or consequence
-always do A or never do A (general form)
-only one categorical imperative exists: The Moral Law
-unconditional goods
-moral oughts (moral obligations)
-an ought that applies to all rational beings categorically (universally
& independently of any hypotheses about your goals or desires)
-you ought to do something period (you can't escape categorical
imperatives)
◉ Explain Foot's analogy between etiquette & morality... How is this
analogy supposed to lend support to Foot's claim that morality is a
system of hypothetical imperatives? Answer: -Foot & morality as a
system of hypothetical imperatives
-hypothetical imperatives depend on purpose
-Foot argues against the view that morality must consist in
categorical imperatives
-Foot argues that the surface grammar of moral obligation talk
misleads into thinking that morality consists in categorical
imperatives
SCRIPT 2026 QUESTIONS WITH FULL
ANSWERS GRADED A+
◉ What is the Formula of Humanity (FH)? What are the two parts of
the FH? Answer: -one formulation of the Categorical Imperative
-this formulation focuses on those who are affected by our actions
-by humanity, Kant is referring to rational beings
-we have obligations to ourselves & other rational beings
*FH:
-means vs. mere means (treating people as an end vs. treating
people as a means)
-we may treat people as means, but FH prohibits treating them
merely as a means
-kind of maxim doesn't really matter for the FH
-rational beings deserve a special kind of treatment
-the dignity of human life arises from our rationality & autonomy
◉ Explain the distinction between treating someone as a means and
treating someone merely as a means (use examples)... Answer: -
treating a person as an end is to treat them with the respect that that
deserve
,-treating a person as a means is to use them to achieve your own
ends
-if people have consented to be used as a means, then we are not
using them as a mere means
-treating someone as a mere means fails to treat them with the
respect that they deserve
*Examples of treating someone as a means: slavery, rape, murder,
theft, & lying
*Examples of treating someone merely as a means: cases of
deception & coercion
◉ What is paternalism? According to Kant, why is paternalism
morally prohibited? Answer: -paternalism = limiting another's
liberty against their will, but for their own good (treating a mature
person as if they were a child)
-in Kant's eyes treating someone as an end involves providing space
for others to act on their maxims (we must respect one another's
ends) and paternalism doesn't accomplish this
-inconsistent with the FH
-doesn't enable rational beings to exercise their rationality
◉ Present one problem for the categorical imperative... Answer:
*Problems for the FUL:
-how do we figure out/define what our maxims are?
,-lack of guidelines for what maxims are the right ones
*Problems for the FH:
-principle of humanity is vague (challenging to know what the FH
would want us to do in many scenarios)
*Concerning Questions:
-FUL & FH conflict in some cases
-how should we treat non-rational beings?
-it seems that there are some instances in which following the
categorical imperative does not seem to be the right thing to do...
Ex: lying to Nazi officials about hiding a Jewish person in your
basement (it seems silly to suggest that one should NEVER lie)
◉ Explain Kant's distinction between hypothetical imperatives and
categorical imperatives... Answer: *hypothetical imperatives:
-command us to take the required means to our ends
-if you will to achieve some purpose P, then do action A (general
form)
-2 rational responses: either do A or abandon P
-non-moral oughts (conditional ought), given principles/conditions
-because of wants & desires
, *categorical imperatives
-command some action categorically, that is, not as a means to or in
reference to some further end or consequence
-always do A or never do A (general form)
-only one categorical imperative exists: The Moral Law
-unconditional goods
-moral oughts (moral obligations)
-an ought that applies to all rational beings categorically (universally
& independently of any hypotheses about your goals or desires)
-you ought to do something period (you can't escape categorical
imperatives)
◉ Explain Foot's analogy between etiquette & morality... How is this
analogy supposed to lend support to Foot's claim that morality is a
system of hypothetical imperatives? Answer: -Foot & morality as a
system of hypothetical imperatives
-hypothetical imperatives depend on purpose
-Foot argues against the view that morality must consist in
categorical imperatives
-Foot argues that the surface grammar of moral obligation talk
misleads into thinking that morality consists in categorical
imperatives
