HS 2610 –Final Exam ALL QUESTIONS
Solved Correctly 2025-2026 Updated.
"Julien Savulescu defined the "yuk factor" as:"
"Julien Savulescu defined the "yuk factor" as:"
a) a reasoned response to moral dilemmas
b) a primarily deontological approach
c) a primarily virtue-driven approach
d) primarily a justification for the wrongness of incest
e) none of the above - Answer E
"Metaethics is best described as:"
a) Focused on the specifics of ethics
b) Focused on the scope of the principle of utility
c) Focused on the nature of ethics
d) Focused on relativism
e) None of the above - Answer C
According to the health care and consent act of Ontario, there are 4 elements of informed
consent; which is not one of them;
A Consent must relate to treatment
B Consent mu be informed
C Be given voluntary
D Not be obtained through misrepresentation
E One must be 18 to give consent - Answer E
Ethics (typically) always means the pursuit of the ------ - Answer CORRECT ANSWER
Meta-Ethics: - Answer : Asking and answering fundamental questions about concepts that
you need to know before you can start using them to analyze situations
Where does moral authority come from? - Answer In theory you could live on an island
alone and be absolutely certain of certain moral beliefs or moral truths → but you could be
totally mistaken because your input is basically just you, only experience yourself
,This would be a lot different than somebody who lives in a highly populous situation → meta
ethical position
For those who are religious, moral ------is less ambiguous. - Answer AUTHORITY
One of the meta ethical questions is like where does the truth come from?
QUESTIONS; - Answer Where does moral truth or ethical truth come from?
Who's giving you the correct answer?
Where are you getting the correct answer from?
And then what role does evidence play in it?
Health requires evidence - Answer From personal observation, to observing/following the
observations of other people, and going up into random clinical trials/controlled trials
There can be an abundance of evidence to say something is not true, but people choose to
believe or have been convinced that the opposite is true and therefore they form their moral
system on the misguided/fabricated evidence
Can't just say something is wrong → need proof - Answer 1. Look at problems - apply meta
ethics - major assumptions/major questions and the answers you have for them.
2. Do ethics when you start to apply these questions or concepts to real problems (vaccines
mandates, abortion, informed consent for children, etc.)
Argumentation - Answer structured logical construction of facts and values that support a
conclusion
Fact - Answer A fact statement is verifiable
Somebody can make a specific statement and you can look at research studies, observe it
yourself → but in some fashion can authenticate that it is in fact true literally
Ex. Every cell in the human body burns glucose for energy
Not an opinion - this is true, it is a fact
A fact statement doesn't mean that it's true, it just means that it is a type of statement that can
be authenticated or rejected based on knowledge and existing knowledge.
Cannot make a fact statements about something for which there is ------ - Answer NO
EVIDENCE
, Value - Answer Cannot be proven by a yes or no - can't research it and be like this in fact is
better
Subjective element to it (ex. MAID)
"You shouldn't want to die" → value statement
Value statements are subjective statements of value
Descriptive: - Answer describing a situation (what is)
Publishing a paper that says here's why people cheat on online exams
Normative: - Answer : (what should be) normal
Taking evidence from the study where it was described and saying here's what we should do
because that behavior is wrong and we should do something about it → evidence based
Value statement - Answer would be we can't have that, we need to do something about it,
what should we do about it?
Answer statement should be respecting the balance of values
Inside you make these kind of value statements/judgments all the time & then we create a
normative statement out it (this is what should be the case)
Never 100% perfect solution in ethics - Answer Physician could decline to perform female
genital mutilation but parent might say they will still be getting it done
Even the pretty solid answers are still complicated
Never looking for 100% certainty
Values come in two varieties;
MORAL VALUES
AESTHETICS - Answer Aesthetic: tastes, preferences in all the sensory inputs (value some
music over another)
Moral values: could be the same kind of way as aesthetic values, but people do argue that no,
no, there's better and worse moral values
Logical Fallacy - Answer More use of logic, takes something that looks really compelling, but
it's irrelevant and it's used to influence people, feelings, or opinions about an issue
Its like noise instead of music
distractions away from dealing with the actual issue
Genetic fallacy: - Answer If an argument comes from a certain place, organization, or group
of people that you dislike. Or you have reasons to mistrust it
Solved Correctly 2025-2026 Updated.
"Julien Savulescu defined the "yuk factor" as:"
"Julien Savulescu defined the "yuk factor" as:"
a) a reasoned response to moral dilemmas
b) a primarily deontological approach
c) a primarily virtue-driven approach
d) primarily a justification for the wrongness of incest
e) none of the above - Answer E
"Metaethics is best described as:"
a) Focused on the specifics of ethics
b) Focused on the scope of the principle of utility
c) Focused on the nature of ethics
d) Focused on relativism
e) None of the above - Answer C
According to the health care and consent act of Ontario, there are 4 elements of informed
consent; which is not one of them;
A Consent must relate to treatment
B Consent mu be informed
C Be given voluntary
D Not be obtained through misrepresentation
E One must be 18 to give consent - Answer E
Ethics (typically) always means the pursuit of the ------ - Answer CORRECT ANSWER
Meta-Ethics: - Answer : Asking and answering fundamental questions about concepts that
you need to know before you can start using them to analyze situations
Where does moral authority come from? - Answer In theory you could live on an island
alone and be absolutely certain of certain moral beliefs or moral truths → but you could be
totally mistaken because your input is basically just you, only experience yourself
,This would be a lot different than somebody who lives in a highly populous situation → meta
ethical position
For those who are religious, moral ------is less ambiguous. - Answer AUTHORITY
One of the meta ethical questions is like where does the truth come from?
QUESTIONS; - Answer Where does moral truth or ethical truth come from?
Who's giving you the correct answer?
Where are you getting the correct answer from?
And then what role does evidence play in it?
Health requires evidence - Answer From personal observation, to observing/following the
observations of other people, and going up into random clinical trials/controlled trials
There can be an abundance of evidence to say something is not true, but people choose to
believe or have been convinced that the opposite is true and therefore they form their moral
system on the misguided/fabricated evidence
Can't just say something is wrong → need proof - Answer 1. Look at problems - apply meta
ethics - major assumptions/major questions and the answers you have for them.
2. Do ethics when you start to apply these questions or concepts to real problems (vaccines
mandates, abortion, informed consent for children, etc.)
Argumentation - Answer structured logical construction of facts and values that support a
conclusion
Fact - Answer A fact statement is verifiable
Somebody can make a specific statement and you can look at research studies, observe it
yourself → but in some fashion can authenticate that it is in fact true literally
Ex. Every cell in the human body burns glucose for energy
Not an opinion - this is true, it is a fact
A fact statement doesn't mean that it's true, it just means that it is a type of statement that can
be authenticated or rejected based on knowledge and existing knowledge.
Cannot make a fact statements about something for which there is ------ - Answer NO
EVIDENCE
, Value - Answer Cannot be proven by a yes or no - can't research it and be like this in fact is
better
Subjective element to it (ex. MAID)
"You shouldn't want to die" → value statement
Value statements are subjective statements of value
Descriptive: - Answer describing a situation (what is)
Publishing a paper that says here's why people cheat on online exams
Normative: - Answer : (what should be) normal
Taking evidence from the study where it was described and saying here's what we should do
because that behavior is wrong and we should do something about it → evidence based
Value statement - Answer would be we can't have that, we need to do something about it,
what should we do about it?
Answer statement should be respecting the balance of values
Inside you make these kind of value statements/judgments all the time & then we create a
normative statement out it (this is what should be the case)
Never 100% perfect solution in ethics - Answer Physician could decline to perform female
genital mutilation but parent might say they will still be getting it done
Even the pretty solid answers are still complicated
Never looking for 100% certainty
Values come in two varieties;
MORAL VALUES
AESTHETICS - Answer Aesthetic: tastes, preferences in all the sensory inputs (value some
music over another)
Moral values: could be the same kind of way as aesthetic values, but people do argue that no,
no, there's better and worse moral values
Logical Fallacy - Answer More use of logic, takes something that looks really compelling, but
it's irrelevant and it's used to influence people, feelings, or opinions about an issue
Its like noise instead of music
distractions away from dealing with the actual issue
Genetic fallacy: - Answer If an argument comes from a certain place, organization, or group
of people that you dislike. Or you have reasons to mistrust it
