Exam Questions PDF

What is the main difference between eudaimonia in the Aristotelian tradition and “happiness” in the Utilitarian tradition? For Aristotle, the pursuit of virtue was essen4al for a successful and ethical life, since living virtuously allowed individuals to fulfill their ul4mate purpose, which was to a...

What is the main difference between eudaimonia in the Aristotelian tradition and “happiness” in the Utilitarian tradition? For Aristotle, the pursuit of virtue was essen4al for a successful and ethical life, since living virtuously allowed individuals to fulfill their ul4mate purpose, which was to achieve eudaimonia, or human flourishing. It is about fulfilling one’s poten4al, emphasizing character and moral excellence. It is more of a qualita4ve concept. The U4litarian’s believed that we should assess ac4ons based on their ability to increase u4lity, which was associated with pleasure or happiness. For them, ac4ons should maximize overall happiness and minimize pain, while priori4zing collec4ve well-being versus individual virtue. Thus, it is more of a quan4ta4ve concept. Aristotle emphasizes the intrinsic value of living virtuously, while u4litarians see it as a consequence of their ac4ons. Briefly explain the differences between Augus@ne’s concep@on of “free-will” and modern ones. Augus4ne’s concep4on of free will is about the capacity to choose and act according to one’s own will and control, intrinsically guiding oneself towards what is good. However, he also related free will to The Fall, claiming that human free will is impaired to the original sin (Adam and Eve), leading to weakened will. Also, he emphasized that although humans retained free will, their ability to choose good is supported by God’s grace. Modern concep4ons focus more being able to be in (at least some kind of) control of our ac4ons, determining our ac4ons independently (at least partly) and being able to choose a course of ac4on and execute according to our will. Modern views, such as Jean Paul Sartre, focus less on divine interven4on and more on autonomy arguing that humans are “condemned to be free”. How did John Stuart Mill revise Jeremy Bentham’s U@litarianism? Jeremy Bentham’s u4litarianism was a quan4ta4ve concept which stated that we should assess ac4ons based on their ability to increase u4lity. For him, ac4ons should maximize overall happiness while minimizing suffering. John Stuart Mill took this concept and “elevated it”. He dis4nguished between higher and lower pleasures, famously sta4ng: “It is beUer to be a human being dissa4sfied than a pig sa4sfied. “. Mill emphasized the importance of fostering intellectual, moral, and emo4onal experiences (higher pleasures) that engage in human facul4es such as cri4cal thinking and reason, dis4nguishing them from lower, physical pleasures. He also added the no4on of human dignity to the principle of u4lity, ensuring that ac4ons and decisions consider empathy and the intrinsic value of individuals, eleva4ng u4litarianism beyond mere hedonism. Compare Hobbes’ state of war and Locke’s state of nature. Between the two, Hobbes was seen as the pessimist, while Locke could be referred to as the op4mist. The former believed that the state of nature was a state of war, where life was “nasty, bru4sh, and short”, and there is no high authority to resolve disputes, leading to constant fear and conflict. People formed governments to escape this condi4on. He believed that the good life was one of self- preserva4on and security, where people need to be protected from the chaos of the state of nature by a strong, centralized authority. On the other hand, John Locke believed that the state of nature was a state of rela4ve peace and equality. This is because he argued that individuals can enjoy their natural rights to life, liberty and property and that humans are ra4onal and capable of recognizing the rights of others. Furthermore, some conflicts can arise over some of these rights, and so a government should be created through a social contract. This government exist to protect, never to impose. Explain the three principles behind Kant’s formula@on of the categorical impera@ve. Firstly, Universal Law of Morality, requires individuals to act accordingly to what they can will to become universal law, ensuring consistency and universality in moral reasoning. Then, Respect for Persons argues that humans must always show sympathy and humanity, trea4ng individuals and the society as an end, never a mean. This emphasizes the intrinsic value and dignity of humans. Finally, the Principle of Autonomy states that the will of every human being must be seen as universal law, since every ra4onal being is a moral legislator. What are the two origins of economics according to Amartya Sen? The two origins of Economics are Logis:cs/Engineering and Ethics. The first perspec4ve focuses on technical efficiency, problem-solving and resource alloca4on, oZen priori4zing material well-being and economic growth. In contrast, the laUer emphasizes values, social jus4ce and improving human capabili4es. Sen argues that economics should integrate both origins by addressing broader societal issues, like inequality, freedom, and well-being rather than solely focusing of u4lity and profit maximiza4on. What is Rawls trying to answer with the difference principle? Rawls tried to give an alterna4ve to u4litarianism, thinking of jus4ce as fairness. He seeks to address how social and economic inequali4es can be jus4fied within a framework of jus4ce. He argues that inequali4es are acceptable only if they benefit the least advantaged members in society. The principle ensures that any disparity in wealth, power, and opportuni4es works to improve the well-being of the most vulnerable, promo4ng fairness in the distribu4on of resources. Rawls uses the Difference Principle to answer the ques4on of how to balance equality of opportunity with the reali4es of societal inequali4es, ensuring a just social structure. Give an example of a moral limit to markets and explain its relevance. Michael Sandel’s example of paying children for good grades. He believed that this was an ethical concern about markets, as it had a nega4ve impact on moral character. He believes that introducing market incen4ves undermines intrinsic mo4va4ons. In this case, market values crowd out altruis4c mo4va4ons and alters societal norms. Children want to have good grades not for their benefit of developing intellectual capabili4es, but to receive a monetary reward for their work, corrup4ng them in a way. What is the difference between Plato’s and Aristotle’s concep@ons of virtue? Plato viewed virtue as intellectual and inseparable from knowledge. For him, being virtuous meant understanding and pursuing the highest good, beyond mere adherence to social norms. He believed that individuals act virtuously when they know what is right, as virtue is knowledge. Through the Ring of Gyges example, Plato ques4oned whether people would act justly without external consequences, concluding that true jus4ce arises from inner moral virtue. In contrast, Aristotle emphasized virtue as the prac4ce of moral excellence essen4al for achieving eudaimonia (human flourishing). He argued that living virtuously involves cul4va4ng habits that align with reason and help individuals fulfill their ul4mate purpose. Briefly describe the two principles that govern morality according to Adam Smith. According to Adam Smith, morality is governed by two principles: sympathy and self-interest. Self- interest drives individuals to pursue personal goals and well-being, but this is balanced by sympathy, the human capacity to understand and share feelings with others. Sympathy fosters mutual respect and social harmony, encouraging individuals to act in ways that consider the welfare of others. These principles work together to create a moral framework where personal desires are aligned with societal good, forming the founda4on of ethical behavior. What are the three defining features of U@litarianism? The three defining features of U4litarianism are: Welfarism, Consequen4alism and Sum-Ranking. Welfarism refers to the focus on promo4ng happiness and welfare, measuring the u4lity of ac4ons by the balance of pleasure over pain. Second, Consequen4alism states that the morality of an ac4on is determined by its outcomes. This means that ac4ons are right if they produce the greatest overall happiness or minimizes suffering. Finally, Sum-Ranking requires that all individuals’ happiness or suffering is equal in weight, with the goal of maximizing total u4lity across all affected par4es without favori4sm. Dis@nguish hypothe@cal impera@ves from categorical ones according to Kant. Kant dis4nguishes between both impera4ves based on their nature and applica4on. Hypothe4cal impera4ves are condi4onal and depend on personal goals or desires. For example, if I want to be fiUer, I should exercise. Categorical impera4ves are uncondi4onal and apply universally, regardless of personal desires. They represent moral du4es, meaning ac4ng only accordingly to what would be a universal law. These ae the basis of Kant’s moral philosophy, emphasizing universal moral principles over subjec4ve preferences. What is the main cri@cism posed by Amartya Sen to Rawls’ theory? Sen argued that the main goal was the maximiza4on of u4lity or well-being of people, while Rawls focused on the fair distribu4on of primary goods (basic liber4es and rights, income, and wealth). He introduced the Jus4ce as Capabili4es Theory, where he argued that the way to assess well-being is through the ability to choose and achieve different types of life, not only focusing on mere material possessions. This emphasized the importance of freedom and ability to choose in evalua4ng well-being, arguing that jus4ce should address differences in capabili4es rather than just ensuring access to resources. Explain two of the four of Satz’s principles to define an ethical limit to a market. Debra Satz defines ethical limits to markets through principles that iden4fy when markets are morally problema4c. Firstly, reinforcing inequality. Some markets that exist widen exis4ng inequali4es, for example private versus public educa4on where access depends on wealth. This perpetuates disadvantaged for underprivileged students and reinforces inequality across genera4ons, limi4ng social mobility. Secondly, harm to individuals, for example sweatshops where vulnerable popula4ons are exploited and harmed in the market, exposing them to unsafe working condi4ons and unsafe wages. Briefly describe the two circles of the doughnut. The inner ring represents the minimum requirements for a good quality of life. This includes essen4al needs like food, healthcare, clean water, and educa4on. Falling below this level represents human depriva4on. The outer ring represents the ecological limits of the planet. This includes environmental constraints such as climate change and deforesta4on. Surpassing this outer ring means overuse and degrada4on of Earth’s resources. Can corpora@ons be held morally accountable? Explain using Friedman’s perspec@ve. Friedman had a very extensive view on this topic, clearly disagreeing with CSR. Firstly, he believed that CSR distracted business from their core goal of maximizing profits for the shareholders within laws and ethical norms, which also allowed efficient resource alloca4on. He also claimed that by spending resources on social and environmental causes, it imposes costs of shareholders, employees, and costumers, who did not explicitly give consent to such expenditures. Finally, he dis4nguished between individual and corporate responsibility. While individuals may choose t donate to social causes, businesses as en44es did not assume such responsibili4es. Machiavelli’s concep@on of virtue and of what it means to be a virtuous agent are radically different from Aristotelian view. Explain this difference. Machiavelli was a subjec4vist meaning that the good life involved acquiring external goods, such as power and fame. He believed that virtue came from the strength of being able of do anything and that one’s quali4es came from being able to achieve and maintain power. These quali4es could be adaptability, courage or even the ability to ins4ll fear when necessary. Aristotle believed in an objec4ve good which was to pursue a virtuous life to achieve eudaimonia, true happiness. This pursuit was essen4al to live a successful and ethical life, by living according to reason and achieving one’s full poten4al and moral excellence. For Aristotle virtue was a qualita4ve and intrinsic concept while Machiavelli though of virtue as something instrumental and to be “acquired”. What are the three natural rights according to John Locke? John Locke argued that there were three natural rights: right to property, right to life, and right to liberty. Firstly, right to property addresses individuals right to own and enjoy the fruits of their labor, which includes both physical possessions and land. Secondly, right to life men4ons one’s right to their own life, to preserve it and to be free from harm by others. Finally, the right to liberty which encompasses personal freedom, allowing individuals to act according to their own will, if it does not affect the rights of others. He emphasized that these rights are inherent to human nature and exist independent of a government, who is only created to protect them, losing legi4macy if failing to do so. Explain the difference between psychological and ethical hedonism. Psychological and ethical hedonism differ in their focus on human behavior and morality. The first is a descrip4ve theory, claiming that humans are naturally mo4vated to seek pleasure and avoid pain in their ac4ons. It does not make moral judgements, only explains behavior as being driven by this pursuit. In contrast, ethical hedonism is a norma4ve theory, asser4ng that people ought to act in ways that maximize pleasure and minimize pain. It evaluates ac4ons on their ability to increase u4lity and overall happiness. What is the veil of ignorance, and what is the main purpose in Rawls theory of jus@ce? Rawls theory of jus4ce tries to offer an alterna4ve to u4litarianism by perceiving jus4ce as fairness. This means that the ul4mate purpose is for there to be an equal distribu4on of resources and to ensure equal access to opportuni4es. The veil of ignorance is a thought experiment designed to “blind” people to others’ status and posi4on, to prevent any bias in decisions and principles of jus4ce. He aims to create an impar4al system of jus4ce, ensuring that rela4onships are approached without personal interest, addressing inequali4es by benefi4ng the most vulnerable. (difference principle) Is price-fixing, market concentra@ons and supply manipula@on moral limits to markets? Why? Briefly jus@fy your answer. No, these are not moral limits to markets, but market failures. Under these circumstances, markets may not func4on effec4vely, however they do raise ethical concerns. Price-fixing is a type of collusion to set prices above compe44ve levels, harming consumers by reducing fairness. Market concentra4ons, such as monopolies and oligopolies limit compe44on, allowing for cartels and facilita4ng price-fixing as well as other unethical prac4ces. Finally, supply manipula4on, as they name states refers to ar4ficially manipula4ng supply as to raise prices, disadvantaging consumers, and distor4ng the market. These failures undermine the principles of free markets and efficiency but are dis4nct from moral limits, which address ethical concerns beyond market mechanics. Briefly define the ins@tu@onal and individual ethical paradigm in business ethics. The ins4tu4onal ethical paradigm focuses on corpora4ons as en44es, exploring whether they can be considered moral agents. It examines the systems, structures and norms guiding corporate behavior and addresses macro-level issues like corporate social responsibility and industry standards. The individual ethical paradigm focuses on micro-level considera4ons, as the ethical behavior and responsibili4es of individuals within corpora4ons. It emphasizes personal decision-making, accountability, and the role of leadership or whistleblowing in maintaining ethical prac4ces. Name one difference between Glaucon’s argument for being just and Socrates. The main difference lies in their perspec4ve on mo4va4on. Glaucon argues that jus4ce is a social construct, adopted out of necessity to avoid the consequences of injus4ce. According to him, individuals act justly not because they value jus4ce intrinsically, but because they fear punishment or seek to maintain a good reputa4on. In contrast, Socrates argues that jus4ce is inherently valuable and essen4al for the well-being of the soul. He sees jus4ce as a form of harmony within the individual and society, contribu4ng to a fulfilling, virtuous life. For Socrates, being just is intrinsically rewarding, regardless of external consequences. Name a similarity between Aristotle’s and Plato’s concep@on of virtue. A similarity between Aristotle’s and Plato’s concep4on of virtue lies in their shared belief that virtue is essen:al for achieving the ul:mate good in life. Aristotle sees the pursue of virtue as essen4al to live a successful and ethical life, as well as to achieve eudaimonia, oZen translated as happiness. It is a quan4ta4ve and intrinsic value, that involves cul4va4ng habits related to reason and achieving moral excellence and one’s full poten4al. Similarly, Plato viewed virtue as intellectual and inseparable from knowledge. For him, living virtuously went beyond living according to social norms but ac4ng in accordance with knowledge, while pursuing the highest good. How is Augus@ne’s and Aquinas’ concep@on of free will different from modern ones? Augus4ne’s concep4on of free will is about the capacity to choose and act according to one’s own will and control, intrinsically guiding oneself towards what is good. However, he also related free will to The Fall, claiming that human free will is impaired to the original sin (Adam and Eve), leading to weakened will. Also, he emphasized that although humans retained free will, their ability to choose good is supported by God’s grace (Divine Grace). Similarly, Aquinas sees free will as a ra4onal appe4te toward something perceived as good, emphasizing the importance of reason in determining choices. By choosing something that is not good, our freedom diminishes. Modern concep4ons focus more being able to be in (at least some kind of) control of our ac4ons, determining our ac4ons independently (at least partly) and being able to choose a course of ac4on and execute according to our will. Modern views, such as Jean Paul Sartre, focus less on divine interven4on and more on autonomy arguing that humans are “condemned to be free”. What is a moral ac@on according to Kant? For Kant, a moral ac4on is one performed out of a sense of duty and guided by the categorical impera4ve, not influenced by personal desires. A moral ac4on must adhere to three formula4ons of the categorical impera4ve. Firstly, Universal Morality of Law, which mean that we should only act according to maxims that could be consistently universalized. Secondly, Respect for Persons refers to how we should never treat others as a mean to an end but treat them with humanity and sympathy, recognizing intrinsic human dignity. Lastly, Principle of Autonomy, which states that the will of everyone should be aligned with universal law, as we all are moral legislators. What is John Rawls’ two principles of jus@ce? Briefly explain them. John Rawls tried to offer an alterna4ve to u4litarianism, perceiving jus4ce as fairness. The first is the Principle of Equal Basic Liber:es, which, as the name refers, each person has the right to the most extensive scheme of equal, basic liber4es and rights, compa4ble with a similar set for others. Secondly, the Difference Principle which states that inequali4es are permissible if to benefit the most vulnerable in society and are aUached to posi4ons and offices open to all under fair equal opportunity. “Corpora@ons don’t commit crimes. People do!” What theory does this sentence u[er? What is the argument of that theory? The individualist theory argues that corpora4ons, as ar4ficial en44es, lack moral agency and cannot commit crimes or act ethically on their own. Instead, moral and legal responsibility rests on the individuals within the corpora4on—execu4ves, employees, or decision-makers—who make and implement decisions. The argument is that ethical and legal accountability should focus on these individuals because they possess the inten4ons, agency, and capacity to make moral judgments. Proponents of this theory contend that aUribu4ng crimes to corpora4ons as a whole risks’ collec4ve punishment, affec4ng innocent stakeholders like shareholders and employees who may not be involved in wrongdoing. This approach emphasizes personal accountability over collec4ve responsibility. How do stakeholder theories oppose shareholder theories? Stakeholder and shareholder theories differ fundamentally in their views on corporate purpose. Shareholder theory, championed by Milton Friedman, argues that a corpora4on’s primary responsibility is to maximize profits for its shareholders, provided it adheres to legal and ethical norms. It sees profit genera4on as the ul4mate goal, dismissing broader social responsibili4es. In contrast, stakeholder theory emphasizes the importance of considering the interests of all stakeholders, including employees, customers, communi4es, and shareholders. It argues that corpora4ons have ethical obliga4ons to balance diverse needs and contribute posi4vely to society. While shareholder theory focuses narrowly on profit, stakeholder theory aligns with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), advoca4ng for sustainable and ethical prac4ces that benefit a wider range of societal groups. Compare Aristotle’s and Kant’s concep@ons of virtue and explain their implica@ons for moral behavior. Aristotle and Kant offer dis4nct views on virtue and moral behavior. For Aristotle, virtue is key to achieving eudaimonia (human flourishing) and is developed through habitua4on, striking a balance between extremes. Moral behavior requires prac:cal wisdom to align ac4ons with reason and context. In contrast, Kant sees virtue as adhering to the moral law derived from reason. His categorical impera:ve emphasizes ac4ng on universalizable maxims and trea4ng others as ends, not means. While Aristotle focuses on character development and flourishing through situa4onal judgment, Kant priori4zes duty and the universality of moral principles. What is the Aristotelian view of jus@ce? Aristotle views jus4ce balancing fairness in rela4onships and distribu4ng resources propor4onally. He dis4nguishes between distribu:ve jus:ce (fair alloca4on of goods) and correc:ve jus:ce (restora4on of balance). Jus4ce for Aristotle is situa4onal and rooted in cul4va4ng eudaimonia, integra4ng ethical behavior into the broader goal of human flourishing. Aristotle’s is context-dependent and focused on societal harmony. Compare Rawls’ principles of jus@ce with Nozick’s theory of en@tlement. Rawls’ principles of jus:ce emphasize fairness and equality. The first principle guarantees equal basic liber4es for all, while the second principle (the difference principle) allows social and economic inequali4es only if they benefit the least advantaged and are 4ed to posi4ons open to all. Rawls seeks to design a system of jus4ce as fairness, ensuring impar4ality through the veil of ignorance, where individuals make decisions without knowing their posi4on in society. In contrast, Nozick’s theory of en4tlement focuses on individual rights and minimal state interven4on. He argues that jus4ce lies in the fair acquisi4on, transfer, and rec4fica4on of holdings. Redistribu4on, such as Rawls’ difference principle, is rejected as a viola4on of personal liberty, emphasizing self-ownership and freedom over enforced equality. How do whistleblowers like those in the Theranos’ case embody individual ethical responsibility within corpora@ons? Whistleblowers like those in the Theranos’ case demonstrate individual ethical responsibility by priori4zing integrity and accountability over loyalty to the organiza4on. They act as moral agents within corpora4ons, exposing unethical or illegal prac4ces to protect stakeholders and the public from harm. In the Theranos’ case, whistleblowers revealed fraudulent prac4ces that endangered pa4ents and misled investors, despite facing personal and professional risks. This embodies the individual ethical paradigm, which emphasizes that employees are responsible for upholding moral standards, even when their ac4ons may conflict with corporate interests. Whistleblowing highlights the importance of personal integrity, courage, and the duty to act for the greater good, underscoring the role individuals play in maintaining ethical standards within organiza4ons. Compare intrinsic and extrinsic mo@va@ons for ethical behavior in businesses, using examples from CSR. In businesses, intrinsic mo:va:on arises from internal values, where ethical behavior is pursued for its own sake. For example, a company implemen4ng environmentally sustainable prac4ces because it values environmental protec4on reflects intrinsic mo4va4on. Such ac4ons stem from a genuine commitment to doing what is right, aligning with the business’s ethical iden4ty and fostering long-term trust with stakeholders. Extrinsic mo:va:on, on the other hand, is driven by external rewards or pressures. For instance, a company may adopt Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ini4a4ves to enhance its reputa4on, comply with regula4ons, or aUract socially conscious customers. While effec4ve, these ac4ons can some4mes lack authen4city if they priori4ze external benefits over genuine ethical commitment. Explain the dis@nc@on between posi@ve and nega@ve freedom. How do Aquinas and modern thinkers approach this concept differently? Nega:ve freedom refers to the absence of external constraints, allowing individuals to act without interference. It emphasizes individual autonomy and the ability to make choices without external obstacles, aligning with more secular, modern views. For instance, John Locke emphasizes freedom as the right to pursue life, liberty, and property without government overreach. Posi:ve freedom, in contrast, focuses on the capacity to act in accordance with one’s moral or ra4onal will. It involves the ability to achieve self-mastery and fulfill one’s poten4al. Aquinas adopts this view, connec4ng true freedom with the pursuit of the good, guided by reason and virtue. For him, freedom is not simply the absence of constraints but the ability to choose and act toward God and the common good.