General advice that applies to all the questions–if you haven’t, read this.
Note, Questions 2-3 continue the story from Question 1–but otherwise, everything you really need can be found inside the questions themselves. Hint: Did either of them present an argument against the other person’s moral theory? Also, reminder that when you present an argument against something, you do have to present an argument the conclusion of which contradicts that something. If you are not sure what an argument is, check out “A Short Lesson on Arguments and Logic”. Also, no need to worry about the strength of their arguments–as long as they have an argument, against the correct target.
A moral theorist (e.g., a Deontologist or Consequentialist) can believe in all sorts of interesting descriptive theories about the world–but presumably, those theories aren’t strictly speaking, part of her moral theory. To give an example. Hedonic Utilitarians count pleasure and pain as the determinants of the best consequences for the world. But the fact that one such Utilitarian believes that animals can feel pain and another one disagrees doesn’t make either of them not a Hedonic Utilitarian.
Don’t overthink this–it’s easier than it looks.
See my advice for Question 1. And get clear on definitions!
The DDE isn’t part of this story. For Option C, keep in mind that you are basically comparing implementing the prototype vs not doing so, and the option is talking about the scenario where doing so will increase overall happiness compared to the alternative. (I’ll make that clear in an edit.)
It’s ok to read “true moral rules” = “true moral norms”. For IV–Imagine a world in which the only true moral rules are X, Y and Z. And it also happens to the the case that when people comply with X, Y and Z, it generally leads to the best outcomes . Question now is this—in such a world, do consequences of actions matter to the moral evaluation of actions for the Deontologist?
See my advice for Question 1. And get clear on definitions!
