FIL252 TUTORIAL 3

CHANTELLE LOMBARD
Assignment reminders:
 You must write in paragraphs and not bullet points or in steps. If you do, you lose 50%

 You must not copy and paste definitions but put it in your own words.
 Plagiarism will not be tolerated.
 You must copy and paste the integrity statement document to every assessment. The integrity
statement can be found under the heading “Policies and Procedures”. DO NOT PUT A
SCREENSHOT IT WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
 Use askfilteam2024@gmail.com to ask me any questions. Remember to put my name in the
subject line!
 The assignment due date is the 26 May at 23:59.
 If you give the definition of the terms learned, and you use the ones I give in my slides, then you
MUST reference my slides.
 Use Harvard Referencing! (Lombard, 2024)
 Please spell my name correctly lol. Lombard with ONE “a”.
Tips/Notes:

• Moral reasoning and a moral theory are NOT the same. Moral reasoning refers to the type of logic or
thinking you appeal to, to make an argument. So, you can used consequentialist reasoning to make an
argument, but the moral theory you use would be utilitarianism.

• A moral argument would be appealing to the elements of a specific theory to justify/explain your
position.

• A moral dilemma is a situation where all outcomes have a morally questionable result. In such situations,
any decision you might make will violate some type of moral obligation. A moral dilemma does not have
favourable/ideal results, and thus, we have to appeal to moral theories to evaluate any action chosen.
Tips/Notes:

• When marking, we evaluate arguments. There isn’t a specific “right” and “wrong” answer, you are
marked according to the justification you give for your position in an ethical dilemma.

• When evaluating an ethical dilemma, DO NOT try to add any extra information to it or think of alternative
situations. If you do this, you will no longer be answering the question you are presented with, but an
entirely different one. Work strictly with the information you are given.

• Theological and Teleological are NOT the same thing. Theology is the study of religion, teleology is the
study of “ends or purposes”. In teleology, “telos” means “end/purpose” and “logos” means
“reason/science”.

• Both teleology and utilitarianism are outcome or consequence-based theories, but teleology is NOT a
consequentialist theory. Teleology is concerned with achieving a goal or a purpose. That means that a
Virtue ethicist believes an action is moral if it aligns with a specific goal or purpose (eudaimonia). Virtue
ethics is not particularly concerned about the affects the action might have.

• Moreover, eudaimonia is NOT about being happy or living a happy life. Eudaimonia is about having a
flourishing life, a meaningful life, where the outcome of it is being a morally excellent or a virtuous
person. A meaningful life does not mean being happy, it only necessitates being virtuous.
 Tutorial 3 Plan:
Introduction to Evaluation and Critique
Objectives:
- Understand the difference between evaluation and critique.
- Identify the moral argument in a paragraph.
- Critique the moral arguments by using opposing moral theories.
- Display understanding of the moral theories themselves (must know the theoretical background).
The tutorial is not to go over the content from the lectures.
You should be able to do the following:
- Identify the moral argument in a paragraph
- Critique moral arguments by appealing to a specific moral theory /Critique the moral arguments
by using opposing moral theories
- Display understanding of the moral theories themselves (must know the theoretical background).
- Ethical dilemmas – you must not tell us what they think is right or wrong. You must reason in line
with the theories you learn (and recall aspects of certain theories dependent on the question.)
- Must be able to choose between the two choices given and not develop a 3rd point.
Evaluation of an Argument:
Example 1:

You've been on a cruise for two days when there's an accident that forces everyone on board to
abandon ship. During the evacuation, one of the boats is damaged, leaving it with a hole that fills it
with water. You figure that with 10 people in the boat, you can keep the boat afloat by having nine
people scoop the filling water out by hand for 10 minutes while the 10th person rests. After that
person's 10-minute rest, he or she will get back to work while another person rests, and so on. This
should keep the boat from sinking long enough for a rescue team to find you as long as it happens
within five hours. You're taking your first break when you notice your best friend in a 2nd lifeboat
with only nine people in it and he beckons you to swim over and join them, so you won't have to
keep bailing out water. If you leave the people in the sinking boat, they will only be able to stay
afloat for two hours instead of five, decreasing their chance of being rescued, but securing yours.
Question 1:
In the above moral dilemma explain what a Virtue Ethicist would argue would be the right thing to
do. In support of your answer make sure to explain the fundamental principle of Virtue Ethics and
link the theory to the example.

Step 1: State what a Virtue ethicist would say is the right thing to do.

Step 2: Explain the core aspects of Virtue ethics.

Step 3: Link the core aspects of the theory to evidence from the example.
Step 1: State what a Virtue ethicist would say is the right thing to do.
Option 1: A Virtue Ethicist argues that the right thing to do is to stay in the boat.
Option 2: A Virtue Ethicist argues that the right thing to do is to get out of the boat.

Step 2: Explain the core aspects of Virtue ethics.

For a Virtue Ethicist, all persons should strive to fulfil their telos, namely Eudaimonia. To do this,
we need to be virtuous people. Being a virtuous person implies that we have to habitually
cultivate our virtues as we go through life
Step 3: Link the core aspects of the theory to evidence from the example.

Option 1: You need to show how staying in the boat would be carrying out a virtuous activity. For
example, you could show how staying in the boat is exercising the virtue of courage, since you are
trying to be confident and help your fellow members in the boat. You could also say that getting out
of the boat would be exercising the vice of deficiency, which is cowardice.

Option 2: You need to show how staying in the boat would be carrying out a vice of excess or
deficiency. For example, you could show how staying in the boat, you would be exercising the vice
of rashness/recklessness, since you are disregarding your own safety and survival.
Evaluation: which form of moral reasoning (consequential, teleological) is demonstrated in the
example below? Explain why.

Example 1:
“Cheating is a victimless crime. If one person cheats on a test, no one is negatively impacted – in
fact, one person is very positively impacted, and so that is a good thing. In other words, cheating is
good.”

Answer:
Consequentialist reasoning

Why:
You look to the consequences to determine the right or wrong action

Link to the example:

You must be able to pick out the aspects in the argument that demonstrate it is a consequentialist
argument i.e. positively impacted
Evaluation: which form of moral reasoning (consequential, teleological) is demonstrated in the
example below? Explain why.

Example 2:
The purpose of being a cheerleader is to be able to inspire the crowd. Cheerleaders generally
inspire the crowd by performing jumps and dances and throwing each other in the air. Hence being
a cheerleader requires a physical ability to perform gymnastic routines. Therefore, Callie who is in a
wheelchair is unable to be a cheerleader as she cannot perform these gymnastic routines.

Answer:
Teleological reasoning

Why:
You look to the goal/purpose to determine the right or wrong action

Link to the example:

You must be able to pick out the aspects in the argument that demonstrate it is a teleological
argument i.e. the purpose of being a cheerleader is performing physical activity
Critique the following Virtue Ethics argument using Act Utilitarianism.

Example 1:

100 CEOs of the top 20 000 of the most successful companies in South Africa argue that the telos
of all businesses is to make a responsible profit. They argue that CEOs need to think about whether
their actions that increase the company’s profit margin will encourage certain virtues to flourish in
society. For instance, if corrupt dealings will increase the company’s profit margin but will deter the
stakeholders from being honest then that is unacceptable. Hence, these CEOs argue that the

How to approach the question of critique:

1. What is the argument trying to convince us of? So, Identify the conclusion.

2. How is the argument trying to convince us? So, Explain the basic principles of the moral theory
being used in the argument and explain how and why the argument is being presented as theory
X’s argument.

3. How would an alternative theory argue? Refer to the basic principles of that moral theory (the one
you have been asked to use) critique the argument. By critique show why the theory you are using
would require an alternative justification and action.
Critique the following Virtue Ethics argument using Act Utilitarianism.

Example 1:

100 CEOs of the top 20 000 of the most successful companies in South Africa argue that the telos
of all businesses is to make a responsible profit. They argue that CEOs need to think about whether
their actions that increase the company’s profit margin will encourage certain virtues to flourish in
society. For instance, if corrupt dealings will increase the company’s profit margin but will deter the
stakeholders from being honest then that is unacceptable. Hence, these CEOs argue that the

How to approach the question of critique:

1. What is the argument trying to convince us of? So, Identify the conclusion.

2. How is the argument trying to convince us? So, Explain the basic principles of the moral theory
being used in the argument and explain how and why the argument is being presented as theory
X’s argument.

3. How would an alternative theory argue? Refer to the basic principles of that moral theory (the one
you have been asked to use) critique the argument. By critique show why the theory you are using
would require an alternative justification and action.
Step 1: What is the argument trying to convince us of? Identify the conclusion
The telos of all businesses is to make a responsible profit.

Step 2: Identify the moral theory being used in this argument and explain the basic principle of this
moral theory
- Virtue Ethics

- Virtue ethicists argue that the right action that which consists in habituating virtue and avoiding
vice so to achieve the necessary purpose/telos/goal, namely flourishing of a person. Virtue
contributes to flourishing, where vice impedes it. Virtuous action is achieved via habitual
cultivation. The telos of persons is eudaemonia. Eudaemonia is the striving for excellence.

- We can see this is an argument that relies on virtue ethical reasoning since… (You must give
justification of this by bridging the theory and the example). E.g., In the example, justification for
profit margin increase is being link to its impact on the flourishing of virtues.
Step 2 (continued): Explain the basic principles of the moral theory you will use to critique the moral
argument in the example.

Utilitarianism is the moral theory used in this argument. Utilitarian thinkers argue that the right action
is that which causes the greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible amount of people.

Hence the consequences of an action must cause more happiness and less pain.
Act Utilitarianism (focus is on the act itself and its consequences and how said act leads to
maximizing happiness etc.).
Step 3: By referring to the basic principles of that moral theory critique the argument
Utilitarianism is not concerned with the kind of society that is developed or whether the society encourages
certain virtues or vices. Utilitarianism is concerned with whether the consequences of actions (or the
implementation of a set of rules) will lead to the greatest utility.

Utilitarian reasoning does not focus on the virtuous standards that a company/ person within a company
should uphold.

The focus is on the outcome or the consequences of the action, and not the action itself.
For example, here, corrupt action or irresponsible profit-making could be justified from a utilitarian point of
view only if it would lead to ‘better’ consequences (i.e., increased happiness) for majority of stakeholders.
You can appeal to Bentham’s cost-benefit analysis. So, you argue that if irresponsible profit making leads to
greater social ills then it is not justifiable.

Hence, we need to weigh up the consequences of corrupt action or irresponsible profit-making against the
general welfare of society.

Remember, you must be able to show that its utility that important and not character/ vices and virtues.