Nice work on the Unit I Multiple Choice exam.

The mean score was 51 points (85%)
Two students scored 60 points.

(If you scored 42 points or lower, now is a good time to rethink your approach to studying for this course. I am available to meet on the phone to answer any questions.)

On the exam itself, I wrote comments below many of the exam questions. You may go to the exam now to see those comments. In addition, there were three questions that many students had questions about. Here are my additional comments:

Peter Singer - individualist

Question:

"Peter Singer has argued that it might be valuable to save endangered species because doing so can be valuable to individual members of that species (for example, so they don't get lonely, so they can be part of a community, and so they can enjoy parenthood, etc.). As these reasons indicate, Singer's views are most consistent with:"

Instructor Comments:

As we know from the reading and the lectures, Singer is an individualist. As a Utilitarian, Singer believes that what determines whether someone is a moral patient is whether they can feel pain or pleasure. Since species, ecosystems, and other things that holists care about cannot feel pain (are not "sentient"), Singer argues that are not moral patients.

In this passage, we can see that Singer acknowledges that a species, in the abstract, can be indirectly morally considerable (the way chairs and books can be indirectly morally considerable), even if they are not directly morally considerable.

Argument forms - valid, but unsound

Question:

"Premise 1) If Prius batteries are environmentally damaging, then a Prius is not the most environmentally friendly car.
Premise 2) Prius batteries are environmentally damaging
Conclusion. A Prius is not the most environmentally friendly car.

Suppose that Premise 2 is false, and that Prius batteries are not environmental damaging. Then, this argument would be:"

Instructor Comments:

As most of you correctly identified, this argument is in the valid argument form of Modus Ponens. That means the argument itself is valid. Pretend for the sake of argument that the premises are true. Do they support the conclusion, so that it would be impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false? Yes, they do. So the argument is valid.

However, the premises are not all true. Sound arguments are arguments that are both valid and have true premises. So this argument is unsound.

Being able to evaluate arguments will help us understand when someone is presenting good reasons for a claim, and when they are not.

John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

Instructor Comments:

Recall from our Module 2 discussion that Mill is concerned with long-term wellbeing, not short term happiness. As I mentioned in the discussion, Mill says we are morally obligated to maximize the higher pleasures, such as learning, overcoming challenges, and achieving goals. He says we should not focus on the lower pleasures such as eating and other physical pleasures, especially since focusing on these can lead to more long-term suffering.

So, according to Mill's Utilitarianism:

"Your child should study instead of playing video games, because studying would bring more long-term utility and wellbeing."

By understanding the nuances of Utilitarianism, we can use this moral framework to solve environmental problems. Specifically, Utilitarianism tells us to focus on the long-term wellbeing of moral patients, rather than short-term satisfaction.

Hope that helps! Let me know if you still have questions!

Monica