Ethics – PHIL 2306 Name: JOSELYNE CASTILLO

Spring 2018; Prof. Hill

FINAL EXAM, 31 May 2018 Spring 2018 Online

I. Objective

Match the name on the left with the philosophical concept from the list on the
right. Write the letter in the blank.

1. Ethics _B_ A. Considering all persons equal, and

treating them accordingly

2. Morality _D_ B. The philosophical study of morality

C. Everything we hold dear, i.e. the

3. Objectivism _J_ most important things in our
lives

D. Beliefs concerning right and

4. Relativism _H_
wrong, good and bad

E. The idea that moral reasoning

5. Principle of Impartiality _A_ involves, even requires, critical
reasoning – above other aspects
of ourselves (e.g. emotions)
6. Principle of Universality _F_
F. The idea that moral statements must
apply in all other situations that are
7. Preeminence of Reason _E_ relevantly similar

G. The scientific study of moral beliefs

8. Applied Ethics _I_ and practices

H. Some moral principles not valid for

9. Descriptive Ethics _G_ everyone, but dependent upon the
time, location and circumstances

10. Values _C_ I. The application of moral norms

to specific moral issues or cases
in a profession, particularly in
medicine or law

J. The view that some moral principles

are valid for everyone (universal)
II. Objective Part 1 (continued)

Match the name on the left with the philosophical concept from the list on the
right. Write the letter in the blank.

1. Objectivism _F_ A. Beliefs about right & wrong; good &

bad

2. Subjective Relativism _C_ B. The study of the meaning and logical

structure of moral beliefs (WHY?)
The process of reviewing our beliefs.
3. Meta-ethics _B_
C. The view that an action is morally
right if one approves of it (individual)
4. Normative Ethics _H_
D. A theory asserting that the rightness
of an action does not depend on its
consequences, but applying principles
5. Cultural Relativism _G_
E. The philosophical study of morality
6. Emotivism _I_ F. The view that some moral principles
are valid for everyone (universal)

7. Morality _A_ G. The view that an action is morally

right if one’s culture approves of it
8. Ethics _E_ (culture)

H. The study of the principles, rules, or

9. Consequentialism _J_ theories that guide our actions
(WHAT?) Our beliefs, or the
majority opinion of values & beliefs.
10. Non-consequentialism_D_
I. The view that moral utterances are
neither true nor false but
expressions of emotions (nothing)

J. A theory asserting that what

makes an action right is its
consequences
 3

III. Essay

Write ONE (1) essay. Choose between the following THREE (3) topics:

Essay Question #1 The Case of Jenni Lake

Jenni Lake, a 17 year old girl, asks for your advice.

She was recently diagnosed with stage three
astrocytoma, a type of brain tumor. With three tumors
on her brain and three on her spine, Jenni was told her
case was rare because the cancer had spread from her
brain to another part of her body with no symptoms.
However, she has begun chemotherapy and radiation
treatment, she is young and in good physical shape, so
her prognosis is good – chances are she will make a
full recovery.

The ethical dilemma: she has also just discovered that

she is a few weeks pregnant.
She and her long-term boyfriend had thought that her
treatment would prevent her from becoming pregnant.
"We were told that she couldn't get pregnant, so we
didn't worry about it," said her boyfriend Nathan, 19.

Now she faces a stark choice. She can stop the

treatment, and hope that she lives long enough to have
a healthy baby, or continue the treatment, which would
terminate the pregnancy.

INSTRUCTIONS:

Q. What should you advise her? What is the right thing to do in this situation?

As we discussed in class, I want you to write an essay about Jenni Lake that follows the
same basic outline listed below. The ESSAY STRUCTURE will reflect:

1) Start with an introduction, which in part summarizes the core issue;

2) Then, in the first part of the essay, you will answer the question: “WHAT?”
would YOUR advice be in this situation? What is the right thing to do?

3) Next, answer the question: “WHY is right or wrong?” did you reach this
decision (i.e. state the REASONS behind your decision).

4) Finally, wrap up your essay with a conclusion paragraph.

 4

THE JENNI LAKE CASE

Ethics is a very complex field. There is no single ethical theory that

significantly holds true and satisfies all the issues. In the case of Jenni Lake, we
cannot fully admit that what she did was morally wrong. We really have to take into
consideration different aspects like her moral judgments, values and beliefs while
measuring its moral worthiness based on existing rules, standards, and principles.
Jenny was right when she stood firm on her pregnancy and did not have second
thoughts of keeping the baby. She could have decided to abort the baby but she
chose to continue despite her on-going cancer treatments. At a tender age, she
already possessed a very keen ethical decision making skills. While I do not
condone teenage pregnancy, I admire how she took the consequences of her action
doing the right thing and outweighing her past mistakes. Indeed, if one does the
morally right thing not because of one's self-interest, then one's actions have moral
worth.

Though seemingly her case has several issues of concern, we have to look
into it one by one. The first issue here was her being a teenager engaging in pre-
marital sex. From a conservative standpoint, it is immoral. But regardless of age
and circumstances, sexual practices are very subjective. Maybe I could just leave it
at that. But ethically speaking, according to our textbook Doing Ethics, “you can
insist that an action is right for you but wrong for someone else” (Vaughn, p.23).
We can say, we should consider her decision basing from subjective relativism.

Second issue here was continuing with the pregnancy despite her condition.
There have been so many stories of mothers who unselfishly choose to forgo
chemotherapy and I say they are undeniably virtuous and heroic in their own ways.
This is a battle between ‘harm as a side-effect’ versus ‘a means to an end’. This is
apparently an act of utilitarianism which sacrifices just to save another one. From
its perspective, you can break an ethical decision problem down into two parts:
deciding which outcomes are how good, and deciding how good you're going to be.
In Jenni Lake’s case, discontinuing her treatment in order to save her unborn child
is the perfect example.
 5

Interestingly, Jenni Lake’s Story can be stated that her case is a clear
example of the application of Doctrine of Double effect. In the study conducted
entitled The Doctrine of Double Effect: Intention and Permissibility, it was
concluded that “the Doctrine of Double Effect is an influential non‐consequentialist
principle positing a role for intention in affecting the moral permissibility of some
actions” (FitzPatrick, n.p.).The same is true in Chapter 6 of Doing Ethics that “the
good effect must be at least as important as the bad effect (Vaughn, p111). Jenni,
for the goodness of saving her unborn baby made some self-sacrifice. It must be
intrinsically imbibed in her values that her decision may have been bad for her own
sake but nevertheless can save her own child.

I would definitely conclude that this is nonconsequential in nature because

of the act’s moral status and reasons for or against performing it, which holds quite
independently of whether morality directs us to promote the good. Jenni Lake
focused on the intentions that drive specific ethical choices on her particular
situation. She made the right decision as I may say, resulting to sacrificing her
personal interests while resulting to the greatest good for her own child. For Jenni,
basing from what happened to her life, did not consider the consequences of her
actions. Rather, she simply acted out the understanding that what she did was right.

WORKS CITED:

FitzPatrick, William J. “The Doctrine of Double Effect: Intention and

Permissibility.” Freshwater Biology, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), 13 Mar. 2012,
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00474.x.

Nye, Howard, David Plunkett, and John Ku. "Non-Consequentialism

Demystified." Philosopher’s Imprint , January 2015. Retrieved at
<www.philosophersimprint.org/015004/>

Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues.

New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2008.
6