Engineering 6101

Andrew Latus

Midterm Quiz Solutions &

Some Selections from the Grading Guide

1. The speaker appears to be a deontologist and probably a Kantian deontologist. When the speaker explains why he has a duty to protect life and oppose abortion, he always appeals to our duties, a central deontological notion. What’s more, he repeatedly mentions the need to respect human life and treat it as having intrinsic value, a very Kantian approach to ethics. Finally, moral relativism is ruled out by the remark that society’s causal attitude doesn’t matter and utilitarianism/consequentialism is ruled out by the remark that suffering is irrelevant.

Full marks for deontology + ruling out relativism + ruling out utilitarianism/consequentialism

-1 if deontology and rules out either consequentailism/utilitarianism or relativism but not both

-2 if just deontology + no ruling out of other theories

-3 for weak explanation of deontology

-4 for moral objectivism (and nothing more specific)

Don’t worry about distinction between Kantian and non-Kantian deontology

In general (on this question and others), don’t give more than five marks if a student gives the right answer but the wrong reason.

2. From the description, the project appears to fall into the category of descriptive ethics. All the person is trying to do is tell us what the codes of ethics say. This is a descriptive project. There is no indication that he is trying to figure out what they should say, which would be a normative project.

Give full marks for either a good positive case or a good negative case. Both is ideal, but not necessary.

If a student demonstrates understanding of the descriptive/normative distinction and tells a plausible story as to why this project should be thought of as normative, then give full marks. For example, if the student argues that there would be no reason to engage in a project like this unless you wanted to figure out which Codes are best, then give full marks if the student claims the project falls in the normative category.

3. This is a little tricky. It is possible. This question tests how well you understand the definition of moral objectivism. What being an objectivist requires is that you not think the moral facts depend on what anyone thinks. The thing to notice here is that just because Herman thinks Bob is a reliable source regarding the moral facts doesn’t mean that what those facts are depends on what Bob thinks. In a similar fashion, just because you think Karl Wells is a reliable source concerning tomorrow’s weather doesn’t mean that tomorrow’s weather depends on what Karl Well says.

Give up to 7 marks for a reasonably solid (but still wrong) story about what Herman cannot be an objectivist.

4a. i.Intention; ii. Freedom of Action; iii. Understanding

If a student doesn’t get all three elements, give 2 points for the first correct element, 2 points for the second element. It’s not important that they use the exact same words that I have.

b. From the notes: A thing "is inseparable from its context, namely its world and from our commerce with the thing and its world ... The experience of a thing is always and also a bodily and social engagement with the thing's world." A device "provides a commodity, one element of the original thing ... and disburdens people of all the elements that compose the world and engaging character of the thing." "The machinery makes no demands on our skill, strength or attention ..."

In other words, a thing is a technology that requires real engagement and effort, e.g., a wood stove. A device provides the same output as a thing, but without the engagement. Using a device requires no real skill, e.g., central heating.

5a. Here, the most plausible answer is that the person sees education as having only instrumental value. That’s certainly all he refers to above. It’s possible he considers it as having intrinsic value, but there’s nothing to make us think so.

If they tell a plausible story as to why we should think the person sees a university education as having intrinsic value, don’t be afraid to give part value.

If no mention of intrinsic value at all, give three marks.

If mention of intrinsic value, but no mention of how definition applies then give four marks.

b. The minimal standard just requires one to do what the terms of employment say and what the prevailing standards of the profession say. The reasonable care standard generally requires this but also requires one to go above and beyond this standard to do what a reasonable, prudent practitioner would do. At times, this may require more than the minimal standard, particularly if the prevailing standards of a profession haven’t kept pace with the times.