1.

According to Hobbes's perspective, morality consists of a set of rules such that, if nearly
everyone follows them, then nearly everyone will flourish. List those rules and justify with
their specific examples (5%).

According to Hobbes, morality is a social construct that is based on the idea of self-
preservation. He believed that people are inherently selfish and motivated by a desire to avoid
pain and death. In order to avoid a state of nature, where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short," people agree to give up some of their freedom in exchange for security. This social
contract is the foundation of morality. Hobbes argued that the rules of morality are those that
promote the common good. These rules are not based on any inherent moral principles, but
rather on the practical consequences of following them. If people follow the rules, they will be
able to live in peace and security, and society will be able to flourish.

Here are some examples of rules that Hobbes might have considered to be moral;

i. Do not kill: This rule is essential for maintaining social order. If people were free to kill each
other at will, there would be no society.

ii. Do not steal: This rule protects people's property and prevents chaos. If people were free to
steal from each other, there would be no incentive to work or produce anything.

iii. Keep your promises: This rule is essential for trust and cooperation. If people could not trust
each other to keep their promises, there would be no basis for any kind of social interaction.

These are just a few examples of the rules that Hobbes might have considered to be moral. The
specific rules of morality will vary depending on the time and place, but the underlying principle
is always the same: to promote the common good.

2. List and discuss the attribute that make an action moral with specific examples (5%)

There are many different attributes that can make an action moral. Some of the most common
include:

a. Intention: The intention behind an action can be a major factor in determining its morality.
For example, if someone gives money to charity out of a genuine desire to help others, that
action is likely to be considered moral. However, if someone gives money to charity only to
impress others, that action is likely to be considered less moral.

b. Consequences: The consequences of an action can also play a role in determining its
morality. For example, if someone lies to a friend to protect their feelings, that action might be
considered moral, even though lying is generally considered wrong. However, if someone lies to
a friend to get something they want, that action is likely to be considered less moral.
c. Virtue: Some actions are considered moral because they are consistent with certain virtues,
such as honesty, kindness, and compassion. For example, if someone helps a stranger in need,
that action is likely to be considered moral because it is consistent with the virtue of
compassion.

Here are some specific examples of actions that might be considered moral because of their
attributes:

1. A doctor who treats a patient with care and compassion, even though the patient is
terminally ill. This action is moral because of the doctor's intention to help the patient and their
virtue of compassion.

2. A person who gives up their seat on a crowded bus to an elderly person. This action is moral
because of the person's intention to be kind and their virtue of respect for the elderly.

3. A company that donates a portion of its profits to charity. This action is moral because of the
company's intention to help others and its virtue of social responsibility.

3. List and discuss ways to test a moral argument (5%)

There are many different ways to test a moral argument. Some of the most common include:

1. The Principle of Universalizability: This principle states that a moral rule should be applicable
to everyone in all situations. For example, if you believe that it is wrong to lie, then you should
believe that it is wrong for everyone to lie, regardless of the circumstances.

2. The Golden Rule: This principle states that you should treat others as you would like to be
treated. For example, if you would not want someone to lie to you, then you should not lie to
others.

3. The Veil of Ignorance: This principle asks you to imagine yourself behind a veil of ignorance,
where you do not know your own social position, race, gender, or other personal
characteristics. This thought experiment can help you to see the world from a more objective
perspective and to identify moral principles that are fair and impartial.

Here are some examples of how these principles can be used to test a moral argument:

1. Suppose someone argues that it is morally permissible to lie to a friend to protect their
feelings. This argument could be tested by applying the principle of universalizability. If it is
morally permissible to lie to a friend to protect their feelings, then it should be morally
permissible for everyone to lie to their friends to protect their feelings. However, this seems
like a bad idea. If everyone were free to lie to their friends, then trust would be destroyed, and
relationships would be impossible.
2. Suppose someone argues that it is morally permissible to discriminate against people
based on their race. This argument could be tested by applying the Golden Rule. If you would
not want to be discriminated against based on your race, then you should not discriminate
against others based on their race.

3. Suppose someone argues that it is morally permissible to exploit workers in developing

countries. This argument could be tested by applying the Veil of Ignorance. If you were to
imagine yourself behind a veil of ignorance, where you did not know whether you would be
born in a developed country or a developing country, would you still think that it is morally
permissible to exploit workers in developing countries?

4. Discuss the difference between teleological and Deontological ethics with their specific
examples (5%).

Teleological ethics is a type of ethics that focuses on the consequences of actions. According to
teleological ethics, an action is considered moral if it produces good consequences, and an
action is considered immoral if it produces bad consequences. Deontological ethics, on the
other hand, is a type of ethics that focuses on the rules or principles that govern actions.
According to deontological ethics, an action is considered moral if it is consistent with a moral
rule, and an action is considered immoral if it violates a moral rule.

Here are some examples of teleological and deontological ethics:

1. Teleological ethics: A doctor might decide to give a patient a life-saving drug, even though it
is illegal, if they believe that the drug will save the patient's life. This decision is based on the
consequences of the action, not on any moral rule.

2. Deontological ethics: A person might refuse to steal, even if they are starving, because they
believe that stealing is wrong. This decision is based on a moral rule, not on the consequences
of the action.

1. Focuses

Teleological Ethics Focuses on the consequences of actions. The morality of an action is judged
based on its outcome.

Example: A doctor might prescribe a life-saving drug to a patient, even if it's illegal, because the
potential benefit (saving a life) outweighs the potential harm (breaking the law).

Deontological Ethics Focuses on the rules or principles that govern actions. The morality of an
action is judged based on whether it aligns with those rules, regardless of the consequences.
Example: A person might refuse to steal, even if they are starving, because stealing is inherently
wrong, regardless of whether it would help them survive.

2. Moral Reasoning

Teleological Ethics Employs consequentialist reasoning. It asks, "What will be the outcome of
this action?" and judges the action based on the good or bad consequences it produces.

Example: A company might decide to pollute a river to increase profits, arguing that the
economic benefits outweigh the environmental damage.

Deontological Ethics: Employs non-consequentialist reasoning. It asks, "Is this action consistent
with my moral principles?" and judges the action based on whether it aligns with those
principles, regardless of the outcome.

Example: A whistleblower might expose illegal activities within a company, even if it means
losing their job, because they believe it's their duty to uphold ethical standards.

3. Moral Obligations

Teleological Ethics Moral obligations are relative to the situation and the potential
consequences. What is right in one situation might be wrong in another.

Example: Lying to protect someone from harm might be considered morally acceptable in some
situations, while lying to gain an advantage might not be.

Deontological Ethics: Moral obligations are absolute and apply universally. Certain actions are
always right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

Example: Killing an innocent person is always wrong, even if it could prevent a greater harm.

4. Moral Motivation

Teleological Ethics Moral motivation is often driven by self-interest or the desire to maximize
good outcomes.

Example: A person might donate to charity because they want to feel good about themselves or
improve their public image.

Deontological Ethics Moral motivation is often driven by a sense of **duty** or **obligation**

to uphold moral principles.

Example: A person might donate to charity because they believe it's their moral obligation to
help those in need.
These differences highlight the fundamental distinctions between teleological and
deontological ethics. While both approaches aim to guide moral behavior, they do so through
different lenses and with different priorities.

5. Ross argues that our duties are- part of the fundamental nature of the universe. Hence, list
those duties with their specific examples (5%).

W.D. Ross was a British philosopher who argued that there are seven fundamental moral
duties. These duties are not based on any particular moral theory, but rather on our intuitions
about what is right and wrong.

Ross's seven fundamental moral duties are:

1. Fidelity: The duty to keep our promises and commitments.

2. Reparation: The duty to make amends for wrongs we have done.

3. Gratitude: The duty to show appreciation for kindnesses received.

4. Justice: The duty to treat people fairly and impartially.

5. Beneficence: The duty to help others.

6. Non-maleficence: The duty to avoid harming others.

7. Self-improvement: The duty to develop our own talents and abilities.

Here are some examples of how these duties might apply in real life:

1. Fidelity: A person who promises to meet a friend for lunch has a duty to keep that promise.

2. Reparation: A person who accidentally damages someone's car has a duty to repair the
damage.

3. Gratitude: A person who receives a gift from a friend has a duty to express their gratitude.

4. Justice: A judge has a duty to treat all defendants fairly, regardless of their race, gender, or
social class.

5. Beneficence: A person who sees someone in need of help has a duty to offer assistance.

6. Non-maleficence: A doctor has a duty to avoid harming their patients.

7. Self-improvement: A student has a duty to study hard and develop their intellectual abilities.

6. Discuss the difference between Act-Utilitarianism and Rule-Utilitarianism (5%)

Act-utilitarianism is a type of utilitarianism that says that the morally right action is the one that
produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Rule-utilitarianism, on the other
hand, says that the morally right action is the one that is in accordance with a rule that would
produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Here is an example to illustrate the difference between act-utilitarianism and rule-

utilitarianism:

Act-utilitarianism: Suppose you are walking down the street and you see a person who is about
to be hit by a car. You could save the person's life by pushing them out of the way, but you
would also risk getting hit by the car yourself. An act-utilitarian would argue that you should
push the person out of the way, because saving the person's life would produce the greatest
good for the greatest number of people.

Rule-utilitarianism: A rule-utilitarian would argue that you should not push the person out of
the way, because doing so would violate the rule "Do not harm others." Even though pushing
the person out of the way would save their life, it would also violate a rule that would generally
produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

The main difference between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism is that act-utilitarianism

focuses on the consequences of individual actions, while rule-utilitarianism focuses on the
consequences of following rules. Act-utilitarianism is more flexible, but it can also lead to
inconsistent and even unjust outcomes. Rule-utilitarianism is more consistent, but it can also be
inflexible and lead to outcomes that are not always in the best interests of individuals.