Question 5 (2 points) Many writers assert that we cannot be held morally account

Question

Question 5 (2 points) Many writers assert that we cannot be held morally accountable for an act that turns out badly but was done with good intentions. What is the flaw in this argument?

1) Only those in power can determine what was a good intention

2) Everyone knows what a good intention is when they experience it

3) It should be clear that good people have good intentions

4) None of the above

Question 6 Many ethicists distinguish between perfect duties – those obligations we have explicitly agreed to undertake – and imperfect duties – which are:

1) those actions we could take but are under no obligation to take

2) those actions that are not a perfect way to respond

3) those actions that may cause harm and should be avoided

4) None of the above

Question 7 Which of these is not one of the problems with a Kantian approach to life?

1) We can do the right thing, care for others, and still be miserable

2) Our work becomes so segmented that we have no sense of how it fits into the whole

3) We take on more and more responsibility at work, which leads to our lives being out of balance

4) None of the above

Question 8 Since the Rights/Responsibilities Lens favors rationality, those in this lens must be careful not to become:

1) Greedy, freeloading, prideful

2) rigid, self-righteous, martyrs

3) authoritarian, exempt, separate

4) None of the above

Question 9 The goal of someone in the Rights/Responsibilities Lens as they are acting with empathy is to:

1) creatively imagine solutions that lead to higher goods

2) develop the ability to evaluate emotions and respond from care

3) reach the correct evaluation of an event based on group response

4) None of the above

Question 10 Hubris shows itself by:

1) excessive pride and arrogance

2) our actions which take care to regard the ethical requirements of the community

3) a lack of excuses

4) None of the above

Explanation / Answer

Question-5:

1) Only those in power can determine what was a good intention

Justification:

One of the formulations of Kant's Categorical Imperative is the Kingdom of Ends:

A rational being must always regard himself as giving laws either as member or as sovereign in a kingdom of ends which is rendered possible by the freedom of will.

—Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)

This formulation requires that actions be considered as if their maxim is to provide a law for a hypothetical Kingdom of Ends. Accordingly, people have an obligation to act upon principles that a community of rational agents would accept as laws. In such a community, each individual would only accept maxims that can govern every member of the community without treating any member merely as a means to an end. Although the Kingdom of Ends is an ideal—the actions of other people and events of nature ensure that actions with good intentions sometimes result in harm—we are still required to act categorically, as legislators of this ideal kingdom.

Question-6:

1) those actions we could take but are under no obligation to take

Justification:

Kant also distinguished between perfect and imperfect duties. A perfect duty, such as the duty not to lie, always holds true; an imperfect duty, such as the duty to give to charity, can be made flexible and applied in particular time and place.

Question-7:

1) We can do the right thing, care for others, and still be miserable

Justification:

For Kant a good will is a broader conception than a will which acts from duty. A will which acts from duty is distinguishable as a will which overcomes hindrances in order to keep the moral law. A dutiful will is thus a special case of a good will which becomes visible in adverse conditions.

Question-8:

1) Greedy, freeloading, prideful

Justification:

Kant believed that morality is the objective law of reason: just as objective physical laws necessitate physical actions (apples fall down because of gravity, for example), objective rational laws necessitate rational actions. He thus believed that a perfectly rational being must also be perfectly moral because a perfectly rational being subjectively finds it necessary to do what is rationally necessary.

Because humans are not perfectly rational (they partly act by instincts like greed, prejudice and pride ), Kant believed that humans must conform their subjective will with objective rational laws, which he called conformity obligation. Kant argued that the objective law of reason is a priori, existing externally from rational being. Just as physical laws exist prior to physical beings, rational laws (morality) exist prior to rational beings. Therefore, according to Kant, rational morality is universal and cannot change depending on circumstance.

(Note: Post other questions seperately)

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Q
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.