PHIL 333 FINAL TEST 2026 QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT
ANSWERS GRADED A+
● Descriptive vs Prescriptive Morality. Answer: In my opinion, the main difference between
descriptive and prescriptive morality is the belief that a certain behavior is the "correct
response" or option. Prescriptive morality "prescribes" what should be done. Prescriptive
morality has a universal ideal of what is right. Whereas descriptive morality simply describes
the concept that people attempt to live according to their own personal values or morals.
Example of descriptive morality: "Jason believes that he should treat women with respect."
Example of prescriptive morality: "All people should be treated with kindness and respect."
● Amorality. Answer: not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither
moral nor immoral. A young child taking candy from a store. Does not know if an action is right
or wrong.
● Examples of Positive and Negative Rights. Answer: Two positive rights: 1) safety on
roads, the government provides policing to make sure drivers obey the rules of the road and
keep others safe. 2) access to education Two negative rights: 1) people have a right to be free
from persecution 2) freedom to practice religion 3) freedom of speech
● Explain a situation where a professional has a prima facie duty that turns out not to
be her actual duty, and explain another situation where a professional has a prima facie
duty that does turn out to be her actual duty.. Answer: A Prima facie duty is binding or
obligatory, all other things being equal. Or rather someone's duty based on first appearances.
A doctor happening upon someone experiencing medical distress who turns out to have had a
heart attack and needs urgent medical care is an example. In this case the prima facie duty
turns out to be the doctor's professional duty as well. A doctor happening upon someone
experiencing distress who turns out to be having a mental health breakdown and needs
psychiatric care. In this case the prima facie duty to help turns out to not be the doctor's
professional duty.
● Explain in your own words why it is important to understand another person's
reasoning before you critique that reasoning and before you offer counter-arguments.
Demonstrate the importance of this practice with a brief example.. Answer: It is important
to understand another person's reasoning before critiquing that reasoning and before offering
counter-arguments. This is important because if you don't correctly understand the other
person's reasoning, you will be arguing and critiquing in ways that are not applicable to the
,conversation. This is not helpful and would be extremely frustrating for the person making the
argument. Example: A person states, "If you have a cough or sore throat, it is possible that
you may have Covid or some other communicable illness. Many people in society today are
high risk for complications from Covid. Therefore, if you have to go out, it is important to wear
a mask if you have symptoms such as a cough or sore throat." A person responds without
accurately understanding the reasoning and offers counter-arguments that are irrelevant. "No
one should have to wear masks because Covid isn't real."
● Provide an example of a morally problematic situation and explain how a proponent
of act utilitarianism would reason about that situation differently than a proponent of
rule utilitarianism.. Answer: Act utilitarianism looks at how much happiness will be caused by
a particular action in the moment. Rule utilitarianism looks more broadly at what would
happen if everyone performed that same action and makes a rule based on what will bring the
most happiness to the most people overall. Example: A proponent of act utilitarianism would
say that I should perform the action that brings the most happiness in the moment. If I am
considering calling in sick to work and going to the beach instead, act utilitarianism would say
that the beach will make me more happy than going to work, so I should skip work and go to
the beach. Rule utilitarianism would look at the repercussions if everyone were to do that,
businesses would not be able to run and people would never actually work, which of course
would lead to unhappiness. So I should go to work.
● Do you agree with Kant's reasoning that the concept of duty captures what is most
important about ethics and about evaluating people's moral behaviour, and why or why
not?. Answer: Kant's theory doesn't capture what is most important about ethics. This theory
doesn't allow any exceptions to the rules which could then infringe on others' rights. The
examples used in the reading gave some insight into how these rules are "set in stone". Kant,
himself, using the example of the gangsters and the innocent person they intend to harm,
demonstrates the holes in this theory best. If you were a true Kant deontologist you would
have to tell the gangsters where the innocent person was hiding - thereby becoming an
accessory to the crime that's committed. A simple lie would save the person's life and prevent
possible imprisonment. Kant's set-in-stone rule that lying is morally wrong, is in turn, morally
wrong. Saving the person's life would be the morally correct thing to do. That is, it is weighted
more heavily than the lie. It isn't until prima facie duties are introduced to Kant's theory, by
Ross, that deontology becomes a more sound theory for practicing ethics.
● Consider the hypothetical situation where you tell your son falsely that his mother
loved him, which was used in this unit to illustrate Kantian deontological reasoning. Do
you think that one of the utilitarian approaches or the Kantian approach better
indicates the morally right action in this situation? Why?. Answer: This hypothetical
situation is an example of doing what seems best in the moment without considering the
, repercussions. The Kantian approach would say that this fails the universalizability test, and
therefore is morally wrong. Act utilitarianism might look at this and say it is right because this
brings the most happiness to the child in the moment. Rule utilitarianism would likely say that
if everyone performed this same action then lying would be universal and used so often that
language would cease to have meaning.
● Contractarianism Do you agree with the basic contractarian idea that people should
be bound to abide by only those moral principles to which they would rationally and
freely agree? Why or why not?. Answer: This basic idea depends upon the assumption that
if people view a situation from the original position, they will all agree to the same moral
principles. I am not sure this is true. I think some broad moral principles could be established
this way, but there may be situations that require further insight and agreement. If someone
doesn't agree with the principle that all people should be equal, then do they not have to abide
by that principle?
● Rawlsian Justice Do you think Rawls' two principles of justice provide adequate
moral justification for the social inequalities that would exist in a Rawlsian society,
given that some people, and not others, would achieve high levels of income and
status within society, even while they were constrained by the principle of equal
liberty? Explain your reasoning.. Answer: Equal liberty principle and difference principle.
Rawls' difference principle is supposed to address this issue of inequality. He stated that
social and economic inequalities should be arranged so they are attached to positions that are
open to all members, and to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
However, I don't think this principle deals adequately with the problem of inequality. It's one
thing to state how things "should" be but this doesn't address how to ensure that all people
actually do have equal opportunity to achieve higher positions.
● Consider the idea that physicians, as primary health-care providers, are granted the
power by society to control health-care resources. Do you think this exemplifies
contractarian ethics, and why or why not? Further, does the contractarian ethical
model appropriately capture the ethical relationship between society and other
professions? Why or why not?. Answer: Giving physicians control over health care
resources can be seen as a form on Contractarian ethics. It would be viewed in regards to a
contract between physicians and the rest of the public whom they serve. As long as the
minimum moral conditions and the conditions between physicians and the public are met,
physicians keep the monopoly of health care resources to themselves. As long as the health
of the public is improving and the physicians are making money for themselves, it is valid from
a contractarian ethics viewpoint.
ANSWERS GRADED A+
● Descriptive vs Prescriptive Morality. Answer: In my opinion, the main difference between
descriptive and prescriptive morality is the belief that a certain behavior is the "correct
response" or option. Prescriptive morality "prescribes" what should be done. Prescriptive
morality has a universal ideal of what is right. Whereas descriptive morality simply describes
the concept that people attempt to live according to their own personal values or morals.
Example of descriptive morality: "Jason believes that he should treat women with respect."
Example of prescriptive morality: "All people should be treated with kindness and respect."
● Amorality. Answer: not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither
moral nor immoral. A young child taking candy from a store. Does not know if an action is right
or wrong.
● Examples of Positive and Negative Rights. Answer: Two positive rights: 1) safety on
roads, the government provides policing to make sure drivers obey the rules of the road and
keep others safe. 2) access to education Two negative rights: 1) people have a right to be free
from persecution 2) freedom to practice religion 3) freedom of speech
● Explain a situation where a professional has a prima facie duty that turns out not to
be her actual duty, and explain another situation where a professional has a prima facie
duty that does turn out to be her actual duty.. Answer: A Prima facie duty is binding or
obligatory, all other things being equal. Or rather someone's duty based on first appearances.
A doctor happening upon someone experiencing medical distress who turns out to have had a
heart attack and needs urgent medical care is an example. In this case the prima facie duty
turns out to be the doctor's professional duty as well. A doctor happening upon someone
experiencing distress who turns out to be having a mental health breakdown and needs
psychiatric care. In this case the prima facie duty to help turns out to not be the doctor's
professional duty.
● Explain in your own words why it is important to understand another person's
reasoning before you critique that reasoning and before you offer counter-arguments.
Demonstrate the importance of this practice with a brief example.. Answer: It is important
to understand another person's reasoning before critiquing that reasoning and before offering
counter-arguments. This is important because if you don't correctly understand the other
person's reasoning, you will be arguing and critiquing in ways that are not applicable to the
,conversation. This is not helpful and would be extremely frustrating for the person making the
argument. Example: A person states, "If you have a cough or sore throat, it is possible that
you may have Covid or some other communicable illness. Many people in society today are
high risk for complications from Covid. Therefore, if you have to go out, it is important to wear
a mask if you have symptoms such as a cough or sore throat." A person responds without
accurately understanding the reasoning and offers counter-arguments that are irrelevant. "No
one should have to wear masks because Covid isn't real."
● Provide an example of a morally problematic situation and explain how a proponent
of act utilitarianism would reason about that situation differently than a proponent of
rule utilitarianism.. Answer: Act utilitarianism looks at how much happiness will be caused by
a particular action in the moment. Rule utilitarianism looks more broadly at what would
happen if everyone performed that same action and makes a rule based on what will bring the
most happiness to the most people overall. Example: A proponent of act utilitarianism would
say that I should perform the action that brings the most happiness in the moment. If I am
considering calling in sick to work and going to the beach instead, act utilitarianism would say
that the beach will make me more happy than going to work, so I should skip work and go to
the beach. Rule utilitarianism would look at the repercussions if everyone were to do that,
businesses would not be able to run and people would never actually work, which of course
would lead to unhappiness. So I should go to work.
● Do you agree with Kant's reasoning that the concept of duty captures what is most
important about ethics and about evaluating people's moral behaviour, and why or why
not?. Answer: Kant's theory doesn't capture what is most important about ethics. This theory
doesn't allow any exceptions to the rules which could then infringe on others' rights. The
examples used in the reading gave some insight into how these rules are "set in stone". Kant,
himself, using the example of the gangsters and the innocent person they intend to harm,
demonstrates the holes in this theory best. If you were a true Kant deontologist you would
have to tell the gangsters where the innocent person was hiding - thereby becoming an
accessory to the crime that's committed. A simple lie would save the person's life and prevent
possible imprisonment. Kant's set-in-stone rule that lying is morally wrong, is in turn, morally
wrong. Saving the person's life would be the morally correct thing to do. That is, it is weighted
more heavily than the lie. It isn't until prima facie duties are introduced to Kant's theory, by
Ross, that deontology becomes a more sound theory for practicing ethics.
● Consider the hypothetical situation where you tell your son falsely that his mother
loved him, which was used in this unit to illustrate Kantian deontological reasoning. Do
you think that one of the utilitarian approaches or the Kantian approach better
indicates the morally right action in this situation? Why?. Answer: This hypothetical
situation is an example of doing what seems best in the moment without considering the
, repercussions. The Kantian approach would say that this fails the universalizability test, and
therefore is morally wrong. Act utilitarianism might look at this and say it is right because this
brings the most happiness to the child in the moment. Rule utilitarianism would likely say that
if everyone performed this same action then lying would be universal and used so often that
language would cease to have meaning.
● Contractarianism Do you agree with the basic contractarian idea that people should
be bound to abide by only those moral principles to which they would rationally and
freely agree? Why or why not?. Answer: This basic idea depends upon the assumption that
if people view a situation from the original position, they will all agree to the same moral
principles. I am not sure this is true. I think some broad moral principles could be established
this way, but there may be situations that require further insight and agreement. If someone
doesn't agree with the principle that all people should be equal, then do they not have to abide
by that principle?
● Rawlsian Justice Do you think Rawls' two principles of justice provide adequate
moral justification for the social inequalities that would exist in a Rawlsian society,
given that some people, and not others, would achieve high levels of income and
status within society, even while they were constrained by the principle of equal
liberty? Explain your reasoning.. Answer: Equal liberty principle and difference principle.
Rawls' difference principle is supposed to address this issue of inequality. He stated that
social and economic inequalities should be arranged so they are attached to positions that are
open to all members, and to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
However, I don't think this principle deals adequately with the problem of inequality. It's one
thing to state how things "should" be but this doesn't address how to ensure that all people
actually do have equal opportunity to achieve higher positions.
● Consider the idea that physicians, as primary health-care providers, are granted the
power by society to control health-care resources. Do you think this exemplifies
contractarian ethics, and why or why not? Further, does the contractarian ethical
model appropriately capture the ethical relationship between society and other
professions? Why or why not?. Answer: Giving physicians control over health care
resources can be seen as a form on Contractarian ethics. It would be viewed in regards to a
contract between physicians and the rest of the public whom they serve. As long as the
minimum moral conditions and the conditions between physicians and the public are met,
physicians keep the monopoly of health care resources to themselves. As long as the health
of the public is improving and the physicians are making money for themselves, it is valid from
a contractarian ethics viewpoint.
