Question #1

Grader: Wallis

1.) What sorts of information do people use according to Rawls when they engage in reflective equilibrium behind the veil of ignorance? How do they use that information–that is, what is the process of reflective equilibrium?

Contractarians hold that all legitimate political principles as well as moral norms (regulative rules) come about through the consent of the governed in the form of an explicit (unusual) or an implicit contract or mutual agreement between those subject to the authority. Thus, contractarians hold that a given moral rule or governmental principle is correct only if rational individuals would accept it as a binding rule or principle in the initial condition. The initial condition is the metaphorical circumstance in which people could best rationally formulate and agree to binding moral and political principles. For Rawls the initial condition is the veil of ignorance. In the veil of ignorance, people know nothing about the details of their individual circumstance such as their social role, class, the economic or political situation of their society, their generation, the level of cultural or technical achievement in their society, their individual tolerance for risk, their personal attributes, or their specific conception of what is the goal or the good in life. They do know general facts that would help them craft principles such as political affairs, economic theory, and the laws of human psychology.

contractarians also must specify the nature of the agents who would agree to the principles. The principle of reflective equilibrium is the reasoning method that Rawls supposes agents should employ in the initial condition. The method of reflective equilibrium consists of alternately considering general principles and intuitions (thoughtful evaluations) regarding individual cases to which the principles ought to apply. According to the method of reflective equilibrium agents deduce predicted judgments regarding particular cases from their general principles, they then compare the predicted outcomes to their intuitions about the cases. If they discover a difference between the predicted judgment and the intuitive judgment, then they modify one or both. Agents continue to engage in this process of revising intuitions or principles, deducing consequences of those principles for specific cases, and comparing their deductions to their intuitions about those cases until they have a stable and coherent set of principles and judgments. At that point they reach reflective equilibrium and have generated a set of principles.

Question #2

Grader: Debraun

2) What is the utilitarian principle help by Mill? How would you modify the principle if you were a rule utilitarian? How would one evaluate the moral standing of an action under each principle?

Mill is a classic utilitarian and argued that pleasure is the highest value or goal a human being can have. For Mill the moral theory is that human beings should act in ways to maximize that goal. Therefore, actions are right as long as they promote happiness (pleasure) and wrong if they decrease happiness (pain). This theory is similar to the hedonist, however, he argues that pleasure is not sensual, rather it is intellectual. This makes Mill and act utilitarian. The other form of utilitarianism is rule utilitarianism. A rule utilitarian would modify the principle by claiming that morality requires one to act in accordance with rules that promote the greatest good for the greatest number. One would evaluate the moral standing of an action under each utilitarian principle by the amount of good it created and for how many people. For an act utilitarian you would judge individual act based upon whether that act had the direct consequence of creating or not undermining the greatest good for the greatest number. For a rule utilitarian you would judge individual act based upon whether that act conformed to the set of rules that, if everyone followed them, would tend to create the greatest good for the greatest number.

Question #3

Grader: Ross

          The four things that Rachels says one need to know in order to understand virtue ethics are: (1) the nature or essence of virtues, (2) the kinds of virtues, (3) the traits of virtues, and (4) the accounts of virtues. The nature or essence of virtues is that virtues are character traits that are manifested through habitual action that is good for a person to have. The kinds of virtues are the various types of virtues that one can or ought to have. The traits of virtues are the behaviors that are associated with a virtue. The accounts of virtues are the reasons or justifications as to why the kinds of virtues are good.

Question #4

Grader: Debraun

4) Outline the three assertions about character traits made by globalism giving an example of each.

Doris argues against Virtue ethics by noting experimental data which seems to undermine a view about the nature of character traits called “Globalism.” Doris suggests that Globalism’s depiction of character traits corresponds to the view regarding character traits to which the Virtue Ethicist must adhere. There are three assertions about character traits made by Globalism:
                                                                                                                      
1. Consistency – when a person has a specific trait, such as courage then they will possess certain trait-relevant behaviors, such as, bravery no matter what the trait-relevant condition is (even if it is in that persons best interest to act cowardly). Ex: To be consistent a person who has the virtue courage will be courageous in a situation with a fire and with a drowning baby. Consistency is regarding the nature of traits.

2. Stability - when a person has a specific trait, that trait will tend to remain part of their character, and will prove relatively resistant to change. So, if you develop a habit of being a cleanly person, you will likely remain a cleanly person throughout your life.

3. Evaluative integration - Evaluative integration is a claim about a person’s overall character. Evaluative integration asserts that people will tend to have character traits about which people have the same sorts of positive or negative feelings. That is, one will have a character composed of mostly virtues or mostly vices. So, if someone has a virtue, such as courage, it is highly likely that the person is also loyal, honest, etc.. The same is true if the person is a coward (a vice) he is most likely to be a liar, disloyal, etc.

Points Added to Raw Score: 4

Adjusted Mean Score For Test #3: 75.5%

Distribution of Adjusted Scores