va - 1 - assignment submitted by sushobhan sanyal

7/31/2019 VA - 1 - Assignment Submitted by Sushobhan Sanyal

1/4

Answer the questions based on the passage given below.

The principle of double effect; also known as the rule of double effect; the doctrine of double effect, abbreviated to

DDE; double-effect reasoning; or simply double effect, is a set of ethical criteria for evaluating the permissibility of

acting when one's otherwise legitimate act (for example, relieving a terminally ill patient's pain) will also cause an

effect one would normally be obliged to avoid (for example, the patient's death.) Double-effect originates in Thomas

Aquinas's treatment of homicidal self-defence. This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful

effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if upon satisfaction of the following:

1. the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;

2. the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;

3. the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the

agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

Although different writers state and employ double effect differently, they share the position that consequentially

similar acts having different intentional structures make for ethically different acts. So, for example, advocates of

double effect typically consider the intentional terror bombing of non-combatants having as its goal victory in a

legitimate war morally out of bounds while holding as ethically in bounds an act of tactical bombing that similarly

harms non-combatants with foresight but without intent as a side effect of destroying a legitimate military target.

Because advocates of double effect propose that consequentially similar acts can be morally different, double effect is

most often criticized by consequentialists who consider the consequences of actions entirely determinative of the

action's morality.

In their use of the distinction between intent and foresight without intent, advocates of double effect make three

arguments. First, that intent differs from foresight, even in cases in which one foresees an effect as inevitable. Second,

that one can apply the distinction to specific sets of cases found in military ethics (terror bombing/tactical bombing),

medical ethics (craniotomy/hysterectomy), and social ethics (euthanasia). Third, that the distinction has moral

relevance, importance, or significance.

I. Which of the following events may not be justified with the principle of double effect?1. A vaccine manufacturer typically knows that while a vaccine will save many lives, a few people may die from

side-effects of vaccination.

2. A doctor who removes the uterus or fallopian tubes of a pregnant woman, knowing the procedure may causethe death of the embryo or foetus, in cases in which the woman is certain to die without the procedure.

3. In a war, it may be morally acceptable to bomb the enemy headquarters to end the war quickly, even ifcivilians on the streets around the headquarters might die.

4. In war, bomb an enemy orphanage in order to terrorize the enemy into surrender.Solution: The correct option is 4. The passage starts with a discussion on the principle of double effect. The

passage further provides an elaborate discussion on how double effect actions can be justified and why

consequentialists criticize double effect. The passage finally ends with a discussion on the three arguments provided

by the advocates of double effect. Now Option 4 is correctbecause the passage clearly states that three conditions

need to be satisfied in order to justify the principle of double effect. The three conditions are clearly mentioned

immediately after the first paragraph. The event mentioned in option 4 satisfies none of the conditions and hence

does not justify with the principle of double effect. Option 1 is incorrectbecause the event mentioned in option 1satisfies all the three conditions and hence does justify with the principle of double effect. Option 2 is incorrect

because the event mentioned in option 2 satisfies all the three conditions and hence does justify with the principle of

double effect. Option 3 is incorrectbecause the event mentioned in option 3 satisfies all the three conditions and

hence does justify with the principle of double effect.

II. Amongst the three arguments listed by advocates of double effect, the argument(s) that would contradict the

consequentialists philosophy is / are?

1. Intent differs from foresight, even in cases in which one foresees an effect as inevitable.2. One can apply the distinction to specific sets of cases.


2/4

3. The distinction has moral relevance, importance, or significance.4. Options 1 and 3Solution:The correct option is 4. The passage clearly states that consequentialists criticize double effect because

advocates of double effect propose that consequentially similar acts can be morally different. Consequentialists are

people who believe that the consequences of actions are entirely determinative of the action's morality. Now Option

4 is correctbecause argument 1 and 3 are based on the grounds of morality and are therefore sure to contradict the

consequentialists philosophy. Option 1 is incorrectbecause there is another morality based argument in option 3

which is sure to contradict the consequentialists philosophy. Thus option 1 alone cannot be correct. Option 2 is

incorrectbecause it only provides specific sets of cases where double effect applies. It does not touch on the issue of

morality. Therefore it will not contradict the consequentialists philosophy. Option 3 is incorrect because there is

another morality based argument in option 1 which is sure to contradict the consequentialists philosophy. Thus

option 3 alone cannot be correct.

Fill in the blanks with the most appropriate option

III. For mathematical purposes, it has sometimes been convenient to treat a problem as if one body could act upon

another without any physical medium between them; but such a conception has no __________ , and I know of no

one who believes in it as a fact.

(1) sensible conclusion (2) degree of rationality (3) scientific fact (4) sixth sense

(5) focus on solutions

Solution:The correct option is 2.Option 2 is correctbecause the sentence states that for mathematical purposes,

a certain method was considered as convenient but that particular method has no (blank) and also no one believes in

that particular method as a fact. Now when will a particular method be not believed as a fact? A fact is based on

logical assumptions, experimentations and proofs. So when no one is ready to believe this particular method as a fact

then it is crystal clear that the logic on which this method works is flawed to such an extent that the logic is virtually

non-existent. Option 2 talks about degree of rationality which in another sense is degree of logic/reasoning. So when

we fit option 2 in the blank we see that the sentence states such a conception has no degree of rationality or

that the particular method has no degree of logic. Therefore option 2 fits with our reasoning. Option 1 is incorrect

because sensible conclusions are based on facts and since no one believes the particular conception to be a fact,

hence it is automatically understood that the particular conception will have no sensible conclusions. Thereforeoption 1 becomes implied and there is no need to state the implied. Option 3 is incorrect because it is already

mentioned that no one believes the conception as a fact and scientific fact comes under the broad category of facts.

Therefore option 3 becomes redundant. Option 4 is incorrect because it is absurd. Option 4 talks about sixthsense which means that the conception has no sixth sense. A conception is an idea (a non-living thing) and cannot

have sixth sense. Option 5 is incorrect because the conception has been convenient sometimes with respect to

mathematical purposes, which means that the conception must have been used in order to arrive at some kind of

solution. Therefore the focus was on solutions and hence option 5 wont fit.

IV. It would be safe to say that 8 or 10 of the 1000 were ______ cases of pathological lying according to our definition

that 5 more engaged in pathological false accusations without a _________ career in other kinds of lying.

(1) new rigorous (2) genuine novel (3) real libeled (4) genuine notorious

(5) registered delirious

Solution: The correct option is 4. Option 4 is correct because genuine means authentic and notoriousmeans famous for some bad quality or deed. So when we fit option 4 in the blank we see that the sentence makescomplete sense and is grammatically correct also. Option 1 is incorrectbecause new means introduced for thefirst time and rigorous means extremely thorough, exhaustive, accurate or demanding Though new canfill the first blank butrigorous in the second blank does not fit since we need a negative word in the second blankto make the sentence meaningful. Option 2 is incorrectbecause genuine means authentic and novel means

pleasantly new or different; original and of a kind not seen before Since genuine and novel are close


3/4

synonyms therefore option 2 wont fit as the two blanks dont require close synonyms. Also we need a negative word

in the second blank to make the sentence meaningful and novel is a positive word. Thus option 2 wont fit. Option

3 is incorrect because real means actually existing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed; notartificial or made in imitation of something; genuine and libeled means publication of a false statementthat is damaging to a person's reputation; to print slanderous statements against. Though real can fill the

first blank butlibeled in the second blank is absurd. Therefore option 3 does not fit. Option 5 is incorrectbecause

registered means listed or recorded officially and delirious means in a state of wild excitement or

ecstasy. Though registered can fill the first blank butdelirious in the second blank is absurd.

Complete the paragraph with the most appropriate option

V. The concept of war crimes is a recent one. Before World War II, it was generally accepted that the horrors of war

were part of the nature of war, and recorded examples of war crimes go back to Greek and Roman times. Before the

twentieth century, armies frequently behaved brutally to enemy soldiers and non-combatants alike - and whether

there was any punishment for this depended on who eventually won the war. Commanders and politicians usually

escaped any punishment. Attitudes changed during World War II when the murder of several million people -

mainly Jews - by Nazi Germany, and the mistreatment of both civilians and prisoners of war by the Japanese,

prompted the Allied powers to prosecute the people they believed to be the perpetrators of these crimes.

____________

1. At the heart of the concept of war crimes is the idea that individuals can be held criminally responsible for theactions of a country or its soldiers.2. War crimes and crimes against humanity are among the gravest crimes in international law.3. War crimes trials can look like revenge trials, and be seen as acts of injustice themselves.4. These trials provide the main precedents for cases being heard by tribunals in this century.

Solution:The correct option is 4. The paragraph talks about the concept of war crimes and the prevalent notions

about war crimes before World War II. The passage elaborates the concept with the example of how armies (Before

the twentieth century) behaved brutally with enemy soldiers and non-combatants and how the punishment for such

behavior depended on who eventually won the war. The passage also discusses why the attitudes towards warcrimes changed during World War II. Now option 4 is correct because it talks about These trials provide themain precedents for cases being heard by tribunals in this century . These trials refer to the prosecutions

carried out on the perpetrators of war crimes by the Allied powers. It perfectly gels with the entire paragraph and

also justifies the opening sentence The concept of war crimes is a recent one since these trials were the main

precedents for cases that are being heard by tribunals in this century. In this century corresponds to the conceptof war crimes being a recent one. Option 1 is incorrect because it explains the idea of war crimes. Thereforeeither it should come before the opening sentence The concept of war crimes is a recent one or it should comeimmediately after the opening sentence. Option1 cannot be the closing sentence since that would break the logical

structure and flow of the paragraph. Option 2 is incorrectbecause it gives a general idea about the gravest crimes in

international law. Therefore it should come before the opening sentence The concept of war crimes is a recentone. Option 2 cannot be the closing sentence since that would break the logical structure and flow of the paragraph.

Option 3 is incorrectbecause it portrays war crime trials as negative and full of injustice. Option 3 cannot be the

closing sentence because nothing about the negativity of war crimes has been discussed in the passage. The closingsentence of a paragraph should not introduce something new because the closing sentence kind of winds off the

entire paragraph and introducing something new entails a new discussion and therefore cannot function as a closing

sentence.

Select an options that has the most appropriate sequence of unjumbled sentences

VI. A. In the hopeful philosophy of Evolution the child exists for its possibilities.

B. With this thought is sure to come, in some degree, the certainty that the heart of the Universe is sound, that

though there be so many of us in the world, each must have his place, and each at last "be somehow needful to

infinity."


4/4

C. We can see that each least creature has its need for being.

D. To the philosophy of Pessimism, the child is a mere human larva, weak, perverse, disagreeable, the heir of

mortality, with all manner of "defects of doubt and taints of blood," gathered in the long experience of its

wretched parentage.

E. The huge forces within have thrown it to the surface of time and they will push it onward to development,

which may not be much in the individual case, but beyond it all lie the possibilities of its race.

1. CDAEB

2. DABEC

3. ADBEC

4. DAEBC

Solution: Let us solve this question using the elimination method. Since D is the opening statement in options 2

and 4, we will analyse these options. The rationale behind doing this is that if D is not the opening statement

then we can eliminate option 2 and 4 without any hesitation. Now statement D can be the opening statement as

it is independent of any previous statement. Now, let us check whether statement B or E can follow statement A.

(We do not check whether statement A follows statement D or not because both option 2 and 4 contain the

sequence DA and thus checking for A will not help us in the solving process) The part this thought instatement B does not relate with what is mentioned in statement A. Hence, option 2 is incorrect and is

eliminated. In option 4, we find that statement E, which contains the pronoun it points to the noun child in

statement A. Therefore DAE is a possible sequence. Now, let us check options 1 and 3. In option 1, we notice that

statement C can form the opening statement but there is no link between statement C and D. Therefore CD is not

a valid sequence. Hence option 1 is incorrect and is eliminated. In option 3, Statement A can form the opening

statement but the sequence AD is wrong and does not make much of a sense. The correct sequence should be DA.

Hence, option 3 is incorrect and is eliminated. Therefore we have eliminated option 1, 2 and 3. Hence the

correct option is 4.

va - 1 - assignment submitted by sushobhan sanyal

Documents