1) In his article, James Rachels uses the example of contributing to famine relief as a situation that requires us to evaluate our moral duties to ourselves and other people. Use what you have learned from the readings, lectures, and class discussions to answer BOTH of the following:

A. You decide to contribute to famine relief. Justify your decision.
B. You decide NOT to contribute to famine relief. Justify your decision.

(This question will be best answered by drawing from both Chapter 13 and Chapter 15.)

2) You purchase a low fuel economy SUV for driving around town and to and from class. Briefly consider how this could be an ethical decision. Then, using what you have learned from readings, lectures, and class discussions, please answer BOTH of the following:

A. Consider your decision in light of Kant's Categorical Imperative.
B. Consider your decision in light of Mill's Utilitarianism.

Have you done what you ought to do?

3) You are in charge of academic research being conducted on a recently discovered community of people in the mountains of Tennessee. You are quite taken with the people, and they with you, and you are invited to the 70th birthday party of Grandfather Alloi, the oldest member of the community. The community depends on oral tradition to keep their history alive, and you look forward to spending some time with the old man and hearing the invaluable information he must possess. During the elaborate birthday feast, you notice that Grandfather is not present. You inquire, and everyone seems very surprised. "Surely you are familiar with our customs?" "Yes," you reply, although still confused. Finally, the main course arrives-a hearty stew with bits of meat floating in it. Just then you remember the traditional custom of the Alloi, which you have defended in debates at your university. The Alloi believe that when one's parents reach seventy years of age, it is the duty of the children to kill them-and as a mark of respect, the family eats the deceased! Suddenly, you don't feel so good. You know that if you refuse the dish, you will deeply offend the Alloi. Not partaking of the stew is believed to put a curse upon the soul of the dead and prevent them from going on to the next world. In fact, there is no greater offense that could be committed against the people. You have argued again and again for the rights of people to follow their cultural traditions without interference, except where it interferes with someone else's rights. Your studied belief has been that there are no objective moral standards by which to judge behavior across cultures. Yet you are upset by the circumstances and by the position you are now in-being forced, literally, to eat your words! Using what you have learned from the readings, lectures, and class discussions, tell me… WHAT SHOULD YOU DO???*

*Question 3 was condensed from "A Relative Problem" in Martin Cohen's 101 Philosophy Problems, Rougtledge, 1999.