I85PREP
⌘ K
WACE Philosophy Ethics ATAR study materials
WACE Philosophy Ethics ATAR study resources

WACE Philosophy Ethics ATAR practice questions

One question at a time. Build your WACE Philosophy Ethics ATAR understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

In a valid deductive argument, which relationship must hold between the premises and the conclusion?

  1. The conclusion is more general than the premises.
  2. The premises are all known to be true independently.
  3. If the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false. Correct answer.
  4. The premises make the conclusion probable to a high degree.

Explanation

Validity concerns the form of an argument, not the actual truth of its parts. An argument is valid when it is impossible for all premises to be true while the conclusion is false, so truth is preserved from premises to conclusion.

Question 2Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A sound argument is best defined as one that is valid and whose premises are all true. Which additional claim follows from soundness?

  1. The premises are self-evident to reason.
  2. The conclusion must be true. Correct answer.
  3. The conclusion is only probably true.
  4. The argument is persuasive to most audiences.

Explanation

Soundness combines validity with true premises, and validity guarantees that true premises yield a true conclusion. Therefore any sound argument has a true conclusion, whatever its rhetorical or psychological effects.

Question 3Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which pattern of reasoning is deductively valid?

  1. If it rained, the ground is wet; it rained; so the ground is wet. Correct answer.
  2. If it rained, the ground is wet; it did not rain; so the ground is not wet.
  3. If it rained, the ground is wet; the ground is wet; so it rained.
  4. If it rained, the ground is wet; the ground is dry; so it did not rain heavily.

Explanation

Affirming the antecedent, also called modus ponens, is a valid form: from a conditional and its antecedent you may infer the consequent. The other patterns either reverse the conditional or deny the antecedent, both of which are invalid.

Question 4Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

An argument commits the fallacy of equivocation when it does which of the following?

  1. Attacks a person rather than the position they defend.
  2. Assumes the very conclusion it is meant to establish.
  3. Uses a single word in two different senses within the reasoning. Correct answer.
  4. Appeals to the popularity of a belief as proof of its truth.

Explanation

Equivocation trades on a shift of meaning, so the argument appears valid only because one term changes sense between premises. Once the term is disambiguated, the inference no longer follows.

Question 5Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which statement best captures the difference between an explanation and an argument?

  1. An explanation always contains a conclusion indicator, while an argument never does.
  2. An explanation is persuasive, while an argument is merely descriptive.
  3. An explanation is inductive, while an argument is always deductive.
  4. An explanation aims to show why something is the case, while an argument aims to establish that it is the case. Correct answer.

Explanation

Both explanations and arguments contain reasons, but they answer different questions: explanation presupposes the fact and accounts for it, whereas argument seeks to justify accepting the claim. Recognising the author's purpose determines which is present.

Question 6Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A counterexample to a general claim does which of the following?

  1. Shows that the claim's supporting premises are false.
  2. Proves that no version of the claim could ever be true.
  3. Describes a case in which the claim is false while its premises remain possible. Correct answer.
  4. Demonstrates that the claim's author is unreliable.

Explanation

A counterexample targets the universal form of a claim by presenting an instance that satisfies the described conditions but lacks the predicted feature. This refutes the generalisation without necessarily showing the author or the premises to be flawed.

Question 7Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which of the following is a normative ethical claim rather than a descriptive one?

  1. Most Australians believe that lying is usually wrong.
  2. The word 'lying' derives from an old English term.
  3. People tend to lie more when they feel anonymous.
  4. Lying is usually wrong regardless of what people believe. Correct answer.

Explanation

A normative claim asserts what ought to be or what is morally required, evaluated independently of actual attitudes. Descriptive claims report facts about beliefs, behaviour, or language rather than prescribing conduct.

Question 8Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which question is a metaethical question rather than a question within normative ethics?

  1. Is it permissible to lie to protect someone's feelings?
  2. Is capital punishment ever justified?
  3. Should wealthy nations give more foreign aid?
  4. What makes any moral judgement true or false? Correct answer.

Explanation

Metaethics examines the nature, status, and meaning of moral claims themselves, including whether they can be true or false. The other options ask directly which actions are right or required, which is first-order normative ethics.

Question 9Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A student argues: 'Every philosopher I have read supports this view, so the view must be correct.' Which criticism is most apt?

  1. The argument begs the question by assuming its conclusion.
  2. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation.
  3. The argument is deductively valid but has a false premise.
  4. The argument treats a limited sample as representative of all relevant opinion. Correct answer.

Explanation

The inference generalises from a small, self-selected sample to a conclusion about correctness, which is a hasty generalisation. Even a broad consensus would not by itself establish the truth of a philosophical position.

Question 10Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which argument form is invalid?

  1. Some A are B; all B are C; so some A are C.
  2. All A are B; all B are C; so all A are C.
  3. All A are B; some C are not B; so some C are not A.
  4. All A are B; some B are C; so some A are C. Correct answer.

Explanation

From 'all A are B' and 'some B are C' nothing follows about A, because the C that is B may fall outside A entirely. The other three forms are classically valid categorical inferences.

Question 11Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A theory is said to be falsifiable when it does which of the following?

  1. It specifies observations that would count against it if they occurred. Correct answer.
  2. It can be expressed in formal logical notation.
  3. It is accepted by the majority of researchers.
  4. It has already been shown to be false by experiment.

Explanation

Falsifiability is a logical property of a hypothesis: it must rule out some possible observations, so that evidence could count against it. A theory already refuted is false rather than merely falsifiable.

Question 12Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

In assessing whether evidence supports a hypothesis, the best-practice question to ask is which of the following?

  1. How strongly does the evidence fit the hypothesis?
  2. How elegantly does the hypothesis explain the evidence?
  3. How many people already accept the hypothesis?
  4. How likely is the evidence given the hypothesis compared with given its rivals? Correct answer.

Explanation

Evidence supports a hypothesis to the extent that it is more probable on that hypothesis than on alternatives, a comparative judgement of likelihoods. Asking only how well evidence fits a favoured hypothesis ignores equally good fits with rival explanations.

Question 13Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A utilitarian argues that an action is right because it maximises total welfare. An opponent replies that this could justify sacrificing one person for the happiness of many. The opponent's reply functions as which of the following?

  1. An equivocation on the word 'happiness'.
  2. An ad hominem attack on the utilitarian.
  3. A proof that welfare is irrelevant to morality.
  4. A counterexample intended to test the theory's implications. Correct answer.

Explanation

The reply draws out an implication of the theory and presents it as a case many find unacceptable, which is a standard way of testing a moral principle. It challenges the theory's plausibility without attacking the person who holds it.

Question 14Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which of the following best describes the naturalistic fallacy as G. E. Moore framed it?

  1. The error of studying ethics empirically rather than conceptually.
  2. The assumption that moral terms have no meaning at all.
  3. The claim that all natural things are good by definition.
  4. The mistake of inferring an ought from purely descriptive facts about nature. Correct answer.

Explanation

Moore argued that goodness cannot be identified with any natural property, so defining good in natural terms and then deriving prescriptions from those facts fails. The open-question argument supports this by showing that any natural definition can sensibly be questioned.

Question 15Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

An argument's conclusion follows only if we assume that testimony from experts is generally reliable. This unstated assumption is best described as which of the following?

  1. A fallacy of ambiguity in the argument.
  2. A counterexample to the argument.
  3. The conclusion restated in different words.
  4. A hidden premise the argument depends on. Correct answer.

Explanation

An enthymeme relies on a premise left unstated, and identifying it reveals what the argument needs in order to work. Evaluating the argument then involves asking whether that implicit premise is acceptable.

Question 16Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which pair correctly matches a fallacy with its description?

  1. False dilemma: drawing a conclusion from too small a sample.
  2. Slippery slope: attacking the person rather than the argument.
  3. Circular reasoning: appealing to an unqualified authority.
  4. Straw man: distorting an opponent's position to attack it more easily. Correct answer.

Explanation

The straw man fallacy replaces a position with a weaker caricature and then refutes the caricature. Correctly matching each label to its structure is essential for diagnosing flawed reasoning.

Question 17Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A study finds that people who eat more vegetables report greater wellbeing. A commentator concludes that eating vegetables causes wellbeing. Which criticism is most relevant?

  1. Wellbeing cannot be measured, so the study is meaningless.
  2. The sample may have been too small to detect any pattern.
  3. Correlation does not establish causation because other factors may explain both. Correct answer.
  4. The conclusion is deductively invalid, so the study proves nothing.

Explanation

A correlation between diet and wellbeing could be produced by confounders such as income, health status, or exercise, which influence both variables. Causal conclusions require designs or reasoning that rule out such alternative explanations.

Question 18Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which statement about inductive arguments is correct?

  1. An inductive argument cannot be assessed for quality.
  2. An inductive argument with true premises is always sound.
  3. A strong inductive argument makes its conclusion probable given the premises. Correct answer.
  4. A strong inductive argument guarantees the truth of its conclusion.

Explanation

Inductive strength is a matter of degree: true premises make the conclusion more or less likely but never certain. This is why inductive conclusions remain open to revision in light of new evidence.

Question 19Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A student writes: 'Either we ban all cars from the city centre or we accept that air quality will never improve.' Which fallacy does this reasoning most clearly display?

  1. Ad hominem
  2. Equivocation
  3. Begging the question
  4. False dilemma Correct answer.

Explanation

The statement presents two extreme options as exhaustive when intermediate policies, such as restrictions or cleaner fuels, remain available. A false dilemma gains force by concealing those alternatives.

Question 20Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

What does it mean to say that a moral argument is deductively valid but unsound?

  1. The premises are true but the conclusion does not follow.
  2. The conclusion follows from the premises, but at least one premise is false. Correct answer.
  3. The argument is persuasive but uses emotional language.
  4. The argument relies on empirical evidence that is uncertain.

Explanation

Validity is about form, while soundness adds the requirement that every premise be true. An argument can therefore transmit truth perfectly in form yet fail to establish anything because a premise is false.

Question 21Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A philosopher claims that because 'good' cannot be observed with the senses, moral statements are neither true nor false. Which criticism most directly challenges this inference?

  1. Many unobservable claims, such as mathematical ones, are still truth-apt. Correct answer.
  2. Moral statements often express strong feelings.
  3. Moral disagreement is widespread across cultures.
  4. Observation is the only reliable source of knowledge.

Explanation

The argument assumes that truth-aptness requires sensory observability, but mathematical and logical claims are truth-apt without being observed. This undermines the inference from unobservability to non-truth-aptness.

Question 22Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Two theories explain the same moral intuitions equally well, but one posits an additional faculty of moral perception. Applying a principle of parsimony, which theory should be preferred and why?

  1. The theory with moral perception, because it explains intuitions more deeply.
  2. The theory with moral perception, because simplicity is a sign of naivety.
  3. The theory without the extra faculty, because it achieves the same explanation with fewer commitments. Correct answer.
  4. Neither, because parsimony is irrelevant to philosophy.

Explanation

Parsimony favours the hypothesis that explains the same data with fewer independent posits, since each extra commitment is an additional thing that could be wrong. This is a comparative theoretical virtue rather than a proof of truth.

Question 23Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A critic says: 'You only defend animal welfare because you keep pets, so your argument can be dismissed.' Why is this response logically inadequate?

  1. It commits the fallacy of equivocation on 'welfare'.
  2. It attacks the arguer's motivation rather than addressing the reasons given. Correct answer.
  3. It relies on an unrepresentative sample of pet owners.
  4. It shows the argument's premises are false.

Explanation

Dismissing a position because of its source is an ad hominem or genetic fallacy, since the reasons offered stand or fall independently of who offers them. Motives may prompt an argument but do not determine its validity.

Question 24Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A deductive argument has a valid form and all true premises, yet a reader rejects it because the conclusion seems counterintuitive. What is the most accurate assessment?

  1. The argument is inductive because its conclusion is surprising.
  2. The argument is sound, and the reader must either accept the conclusion or identify a false premise. Correct answer.
  3. The argument is invalid because intuitions are part of logical form.
  4. The reader is right, since counterintuitive conclusions show a premise must be false.

Explanation

Soundness guarantees a true conclusion, so rejecting it while accepting the premises is inconsistent. A reasonable critic must show which premise is false or which inferential step fails, rather than appealing to surprise.

Question 25Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A researcher argues that because every observed swan has been white, no swan is any other colour. Which methodological point does this illustrate?

  1. A single observation is sufficient to establish a universal law.
  2. Universal claims can be proven true by accumulating enough observations.
  3. Observation is irrelevant to the justification of general claims.
  4. Inductive generalisations can be rationally strong yet still revisable in light of new evidence. Correct answer.

Explanation

Enumerative induction can make a generalisation highly probable without making it certain, so a single counterexample can overturn it. This shows why inductive conclusions are held provisionally rather than as proofs.

Question 26Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which of the following best describes the relationship between validity and truth in a deductive argument?

  1. Validity and truth are identical, since every valid argument has a true conclusion
  2. Validity concerns the logical connection between premises and conclusion, while truth concerns the premises and conclusion themselves Correct answer.
  3. Validity guarantees that the premises are true, while truth concerns only the conclusion
  4. Validity concerns whether the premises are true, while truth concerns whether the argument persuades

Explanation

Validity is a structural property: an argument is valid when it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Truth applies to individual statements, not to the inferential link. A valid argument can still have false premises, so validity does not guarantee truth.

Question 27Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A student claims: 'If euthanasia is legal, then vulnerable patients will be pressured. Euthanasia is not legal here, so no vulnerable patients are pressured.' Which of the following correctly identifies the flaw?

  1. The argument denies the antecedent, which is an invalid inference form Correct answer.
  2. The argument is valid but has a false conclusion
  3. The argument affirms the consequent, which is an invalid inference form
  4. The argument is circular, since it assumes what it sets out to prove

Explanation

The form is: if P then Q; not P; therefore not Q. This is the fallacy of denying the antecedent, because Q might still occur for other reasons. The conditional only tells us what follows from P, not from the absence of P.

Question 28Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which of the following is the best example of an argument that commits a straw man fallacy?

  1. Rejecting a proposal because its author has a conflict of interest
  2. Rejecting a proposal to reduce meat consumption by attacking the claim that everyone must become vegan Correct answer.
  3. Rejecting a proposal because it contradicts a widely accepted theory
  4. Rejecting a proposal because it relies on a single unreliable survey

Explanation

A straw man misrepresents an opponent's position as a stronger or sillier claim and then refutes that distorted version. Attacking 'everyone must become vegan' instead of the actual proposal to reduce meat consumption is exactly this distortion. The other options critique the real proposal or its evidence.

Question 29Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

In philosophy, a premise is best described as which of the following?

  1. The final claim an argument is trying to establish
  2. A definition that fixes the meaning of a key term
  3. Any statement that a speaker believes to be true
  4. A statement offered as a reason in support of a conclusion Correct answer.

Explanation

A premise is a proposition put forward as support for the conclusion of an argument. The conclusion is the claim being supported, which is a different role. Belief or definitional status does not by itself make a statement a premise.

Question 30Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A student argues: 'Abortion is wrong because it involves ending a potential human life, and ending a potential human life is wrong.' Which of the following best describes the argument's structure?

  1. A reductio ad absurdum showing the opposing view leads to contradiction
  2. An inductive generalisation from several particular cases to a universal rule
  3. An argument from authority relying on the testimony of experts
  4. A deductive argument with a general moral premise and a factual premise supporting the conclusion Correct answer.

Explanation

The argument combines a factual premise (abortion ends a potential human life) with a general moral premise (ending a potential human life is wrong) to entail the conclusion. This is a deductive structure, since the conclusion is meant to follow necessarily. It does not generalise from cases, cite authorities, or derive a contradiction.

Question 31Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which of the following best explains why an ad hominem attack fails to refute an argument?

  1. It assumes the conclusion it is trying to prove
  2. It relies on a sample that is too small to support any general conclusion
  3. It targets the person's characteristics rather than the truth or strength of the reasons given Correct answer.
  4. It uses ambiguous language that shifts meaning between premises

Explanation

An ad hominem response attacks the speaker rather than evaluating the argument's premises and inference. Since the merit of an argument depends on its reasons, personal characteristics are irrelevant unless they bear directly on credibility. The other options describe hasty generalisation, begging the question, and equivocation.

Question 32Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A community debates whether to fund a new sports stadium. One speaker says: 'Either we build the stadium or our young people will have nowhere to go.' Which of the following best identifies the problem with this reasoning?

  1. It assumes that whatever is popular must be right
  2. It attacks the character of those who oppose the stadium
  3. It presents only two options when other alternatives may exist Correct answer.
  4. It draws a general conclusion from too few examples

Explanation

The speaker frames the choice as between two options, ignoring other possibilities such as funding youth programs directly. This is a false dilemma, which gains force by hiding alternatives. The remaining options describe hasty generalisation, ad hominem, and appeal to popularity.

Question 33Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which of the following distinguishes a sound deductive argument from a merely valid one?

  1. A sound argument contains no premises at all
  2. A sound argument is valid and also has all true premises Correct answer.
  3. A sound argument has a conclusion that is widely accepted
  4. A sound argument uses inductive reasoning to support its conclusion

Explanation

Soundness adds truth of premises to validity: an argument is sound when it is valid and every premise is true. Because validity already ensures that true premises yield a true conclusion, soundness guarantees a true conclusion. Popularity of the conclusion is irrelevant.

Question 34Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A writer argues: 'Most philosophers reject the claim that morality is purely a matter of taste. Therefore, morality is not purely a matter of taste.' Which of the following is the strongest criticism of this argument?

  1. The argument begs the question by assuming moral realism
  2. Consensus among philosophers does not by itself establish that the claim is false Correct answer.
  3. The argument is invalid because it moves from general to particular
  4. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation on 'taste'

Explanation

The argument appeals to the agreement of experts as evidence for a philosophical conclusion. Even if the premise is true, agreement does not settle the truth of a metaethical claim, so the inference is weak. This is an appeal to authority or consensus rather than a demonstration.

Question 35Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which of the following best captures the principle of charity in interpreting an argument?

  1. Interpret an argument in its strongest reasonable form before criticising it Correct answer.
  2. Reject any argument whose author is not an expert
  3. Attribute the most popular interpretation to an argument
  4. Accept an argument's conclusion whenever its premises are unclear

Explanation

The principle of charity directs us to reconstruct an argument as strongly and plausibly as the text allows before evaluating it. This avoids refuting a weaker version that the author did not intend. It does not require accepting conclusions or deferring to expertise.

Question 36Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A scientist observes one hundred cases in which a treatment worked and concludes that it will work in every future case. Which of the following best characterises this inference?

  1. A deductive inference whose conclusion follows necessarily
  2. A valid argument with a false premise
  3. An argument that commits the fallacy of equivocation
  4. An inductive generalisation that goes beyond the evidence observed Correct answer.

Explanation

The inference moves from observed cases to an unrestricted claim about all future cases, which is inductive and exceeds what the evidence guarantees. Inductive strength comes in degrees and does not ensure the conclusion. It is neither deductively valid nor a case of ambiguous terms.

Question 37Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Which of the following best describes the role of a counterexample in philosophical argument?

  1. It establishes a conclusion by appealing to expert testimony
  2. It demonstrates that a term in the argument is ambiguous
  3. It proves a general claim by adding further supporting instances
  4. It shows that a general claim or principle fails in at least one case Correct answer.

Explanation

A counterexample is a single case that falls under a general claim but contradicts it, thereby refuting or restricting that claim. One clear counterexample is enough to show a universal statement is false. Supporting instances and testimony serve different roles.

Question 38Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

Two rival ethical theories each explain the same set of moral judgements equally well, but one posits an extra faculty of moral intuition. According to the principle of parsimony, which theory should be preferred and why?

  1. The theory with fewer additional posits, because it explains the same data with less theoretical machinery Correct answer.
  2. The theory with the extra faculty, because additional posits make a theory more complete
  3. The theory that is more widely believed, because consensus is the measure of simplicity
  4. Neither theory, because parsimony applies only to the natural sciences

Explanation

Parsimony favours the explanation that accounts for the same evidence with fewer independent assumptions. Since both theories explain the judgements equally well, the one adding an extra faculty carries an unnecessary burden. Simplicity is a theoretical virtue and does not depend on popularity or on a narrow domain.

Question 39Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A philosopher asserts that a moral claim is meaningful only if it can be empirically verified. Which of the following is the strongest self-referential objection to this assertion?

  1. The verification principle itself cannot be empirically verified, so by its own standard it would be meaningless Correct answer.
  2. The principle relies on the testimony of scientists, which is unreliable
  3. The principle is compatible with moral realism, so it proves nothing
  4. The principle is too demanding because some empirical claims are difficult to test

Explanation

The verification principle states a criterion that moral claims fail, but the principle itself is not an empirical statement that can be tested. Applied to itself, it would be neither true nor false, which undermines its authority. This self-referential problem is stronger than worries about testability or testimony.

Question 40Philosophical inquiry and method (argument analysis, logic, reasoning, evidence and justification)

A debater says: 'You cannot trust her argument about tax policy because she has never run a business.' Which of the following best describes the flaw?

  1. It misrepresents the argument as a stronger claim than was made
  2. It assumes the truth of the very conclusion under dispute
  3. It concludes that a general rule holds from a few examples
  4. It dismisses the argument by appealing to an irrelevant feature of the arguer Correct answer.

Explanation

The response rejects a tax-policy argument based on the arguer's background rather than engaging with the reasons offered. This is an ad hominem move, since personal experience is not automatically required to assess policy arguments. The other options describe straw man, hasty generalisation, and begging the question.

Question 41Ethical theory (normative ethics: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics; meta-ethics and moral reasoning)

Which feature most clearly distinguishes act utilitarianism from rule utilitarianism?

  1. Act utilitarianism applies only to public policy, while rule utilitarianism applies only to private life.
  2. Act utilitarianism holds that consequences never matter, while rule utilitarianism holds that only consequences matter.
  3. Act utilitarianism is a form of deontology, while rule utilitarianism is a form of virtue ethics.
  4. Act utilitarianism evaluates each individual action by its expected consequences, while rule utilitarianism evaluates actions by their conformity to rules justified by consequences. Correct answer.

Explanation

Both theories are consequentialist, but they differ in the object of evaluation. Act utilitarianism asks whether a particular act maximises overall welfare, whereas rule utilitarianism asks whether the act follows a rule whose general acceptance would maximise welfare.

Question 42Ethical theory (normative ethics: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics; meta-ethics and moral reasoning)

A deontologist claims that lying is wrong even when a lie would produce better overall outcomes. Which principle best explains this position?

  1. The principle of sufficient reason
  2. The doctrine of double effect
  3. The greatest happiness principle
  4. The categorical imperative Correct answer.

Explanation

Kant's categorical imperative requires that we act only on maxims we could will as universal laws, so deception is condemned regardless of its consequences. The doctrine of double effect is a separate principle about foreseen but unintended harm, not a general ban on lying.

Question 43Ethical theory (normative ethics: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics; meta-ethics and moral reasoning)

According to Aristotle, how is a virtue such as courage best understood?

  1. As a divine command that reason cannot independently justify
  2. As a rule that specifies exactly which actions are forbidden
  3. As a feeling that arises without any rational assessment
  4. As a stable disposition to choose the mean between excess and deficiency, guided by practical wisdom Correct answer.

Explanation

Aristotle treats virtues as stable character dispositions, or hexeis, that involve choice and are guided by practical wisdom. Each virtue occupies a mean relative to the individual and situation, lying between vices of excess and deficiency.

Question 44Ethical theory (normative ethics: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics; meta-ethics and moral reasoning)

Which question belongs to meta-ethics rather than to normative ethics?

  1. Which duties do parents owe their children?
  2. Is abortion permissible in the first trimester?
  3. Are moral judgements capable of being true or false? Correct answer.
  4. Should we donate to effective charities or to local ones?

Explanation

Meta-ethics examines the nature and status of moral language, truth, and knowledge, including whether moral claims can be truth-apt. The other options are first-order normative questions about what we ought to do.

Question 45Ethical theory (normative ethics: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics; meta-ethics and moral reasoning)

A student says, 'Torturing a child for fun is wrong, but I cannot give any reason that would convince someone who disagrees.' Which meta-ethical position does this statement most closely resemble?

  1. Moral error theory
  2. Moral realism
  3. Moral subjectivism Correct answer.
  4. Moral intuitionism

Explanation

Moral subjectivism holds that moral judgements express or depend on the attitudes of the speaker rather than objective facts. Saying the wrongness cannot be supported by reasons that bind others fits a subjectivist picture of moral commitment.

Question 46Ethical theory (normative ethics: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics; meta-ethics and moral reasoning)

Which statement best captures the naturalistic fallacy as G.E. Moore described it?

  1. It is the mistake of relying on intuition rather than argument.
  2. It is the mistake of treating moral claims as expressions of emotion.
  3. It is the mistake of deriving an ought from an is.
  4. It is the mistake of defining good in terms of any natural property, such as pleasure. Correct answer.

Explanation

Moore argued that 'good' is a simple, indefinable property, so any attempt to identify it with a natural property such as pleasure commits the naturalistic fallacy. His open-question argument is meant to show that such definitions always leave a meaningful question open.

Question 47Ethical theory (normative ethics: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics; meta-ethics and moral reasoning)

Which of the following is a classic objection to act utilitarianism?

  1. It holds that moral rules can never be justified.
  2. It ignores consequences entirely when deciding what to do.
  3. It demands too little of moral agents.
  4. It cannot accommodate the special obligations we owe to family and friends. Correct answer.

Explanation

Critics argue that act utilitarianism is too impartial, since it requires agents to weigh everyone's welfare equally and may override special duties to intimates. This is sometimes called the problem of negative responsibility or of demandingness.

Question 48Ethical theory (normative ethics: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics; meta-ethics and moral reasoning)

In virtue ethics, what role does practical wisdom (phronesis) play?

  1. It guarantees that the agent will always maximise total happiness.
  2. It allows the agent to perceive what the situation calls for and to choose the appropriate action. Correct answer.
  3. It provides a decision procedure that ranks duties from most to least stringent.
  4. It supplies a rule that tells the agent which maxims can be universalised.

Explanation

Phronesis is the intellectual virtue that enables agents to discern the salient features of a situation and to act appropriately. Without it, the moral virtues would be blind habits rather than genuinely chosen dispositions.

Question 49Ethical theory (normative ethics: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics; meta-ethics and moral reasoning)

A doctor has a duty to keep promises to patients but a competing duty to prevent serious harm. Which feature of deontological ethics does this situation illustrate?

  1. The veil of ignorance
  2. The naturalistic fallacy
  3. The problem of conflicting duties Correct answer.
  4. The greatest happiness principle

Explanation

Deontology generates multiple non-instrumental duties, and these can conflict in particular cases, leaving the theory without an obvious ranking. This is a standard objection to strict deontological systems.

Question 50Ethical theory (normative ethics: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics; meta-ethics and moral reasoning)

A government considers a policy that would slightly reduce everyone's welfare but greatly increase the welfare of a small, worse-off group. A rule utilitarian would most likely ask which question?

  1. Is the concept of welfare meaningful at all?
  2. What would a virtuous person feel about the policy?
  3. Does the policy treat each person as an end in themselves?
  4. Would adopting this policy as a general rule maximise welfare over the long term? Correct answer.

Explanation

Rule utilitarianism evaluates rules or policies by their expected consequences when generally adopted, rather than by isolated acts. So the relevant question concerns the long-run welfare effects of the rule.