just answer the questions i will upload based on the material i will share, write them as a student answering them in a in person exam, write them in your own words and it doesnt have to complicated

On the midterm you will be asked to answer 5 questions, all of which will be selected from the list of questions given below. There will be some choice but not much, perhaps 5 out of 6 or 7. The suggested length for each of your answers is approximately 400 words, although some of your answers may be longer, others a little shorter, depending on the question you are answering. (It is important to respect this word limit.) Note that the midterm will be conducted through Brightspace, under “Assignment” (not under Content where the Ppts are posted).

The midterm is open-book, and you may discuss the questions with others if you like. However, you must write your own answers. If two or more students present the same answer, word for word, for any question, both will receive a grade of zero for that question. Also, in your answers, you must not simply copy material from the Ppt slides or readings; your answers must be written in your own words (except where you are quoting some source). (Answers will be checked for AI-generated content.)

List of Questions

1. What is the utilitarian moral theory and how do utilitarians (like John Stuart Mill, for example) try to justify or support their theory as the correct account of the difference between right and wrong acts? Does Mill have a convincing reason for claiming that we all have a moral obligation to act in ways that produce as much overall happiness as possible? Discuss.

1. Explain in detail the most important objections that arise for the utilitarian moral theory. (You should describe at least four objections here, and state them as clearly as you can.)

1. Explain clearly what is referred to as the “Too Demanding” objection against the utilitarian moral theory. Is there any convincing reply to this objection that utilitarians could give? If so, what is it? (Explain it clearly.) If there isn’t any convincing reply, explain why not.

1. Describe the respect for persons version of Kant’s categorical imperative. How adequate is it as an account of the difference between right and wrong acts? (Consider what might be the main weakness of this version of the CI.) Support your view by argument.

1. Describe the “universalizability” version of Kant’s categorical imperative and illustrate in detail how it is supposed to work by applying it to examples. What is the relationship between this version of the categorical imperative and the respect for persons version? Explain the relationship clearly.

1. Describe clearly, but briefly, the ethical theory of William Ross. Some moral philosophers in recent times have argued that Ross’s ethics is basically the best we can do by way of developing a general account of the difference between right and wrong acts. Do you agree? Support your view as best you can.

1. Describe clearly but concisely what is referred to in ethics as the “five principles approach” to ethics. How does this approach fare as an account of the difference between right and wrong acts? Defend your view.

1. Explain as clearly as you can the reasoning by which Albert Carr (in Reading 7) tries to show that the moral standards that apply in business are significantly different from those that apply in conventional, or common sense, morality outside of business. How tenable is Carr’s view? Support your assessment by argument.

1. Given that the activity of negotiating, or business bluffing (as Carr refers to it), often involves deception and even lying, how, if at all, can it be reconciled with common moral injunctions against lying and deception? (If you think it cannot be reconciled with common sense morality, then defend your view by argument.)

1. Describe David Holly’s account (discussed in the lecture slides, as well as by Carson in Reading 9) of the obligations of salespersons, and the rationale or justification he provides for it? Do you think Holly’s account is convincing? Why or why not?

1. Describe clearly Thomas Carson’s account of the ethics of sales in Reading 9. Identify its main strengths, as well as its main weaknesses. All things considered, how plausible is Carson’s account of the obligations of salespersons?

1. Many in the advertising industry would claim that most of the advertising we encounter on a daily basis is not manipulative and deceptive, and that it would be more accurate to describe it as informative. Do you agree or disagree with them? Support your view as best you can.

1. Explain as clearly as you can what cognitive biases are. How are cognitive biases relevant to whether manipulative advertising is morally wrong and should therefore be legally banned? Defend your answer.

1. Summarize as accurately as you can the “utilitarian” arguments put forward by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith to show that manipulative advertising is morally unacceptable and therefore should be banned. How convincing are Galbraith’s arguments? Defend your assessment by argument.

1. Describe briefly, but clearly, Theodore Levitt’s rather original approach to defending advertising and then discuss how convincing it is.

1. Even if we agree that much advertising is manipulative, do you think it would be feasible in our society to legally ban such ads? For one thing, can we provide a sufficiently clear and precise definition of what counts as manipulative advertising? Might banning such ads do more harm than good? Is manipulative advertising actually beneficial in some respects? Support your view by argument.

Good luck!