This document contains questions from a 2014 PHIL 1171 Ethics Final exam at the University of Minnesota. It includes 5 parts with multiple choice essay questions on various topics in ethics. Part 1 asks students to compare and contrast libertarianism and John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness in regards to affirmative action policies for a new Vikings stadium construction project. Part 2 provides additional essay prompts involving theories from authors like Cornel West, Paulo Freire, and Virginia Held applying to issues of race, education, and global conflicts. The document outlines grading criteria for the essays and provides sources for further research.

1. Summer 2014 PHIL 1171 Ethics Final Essay Questions 1
Part One: Essays Question applying
Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?
In Part One, choose one the following questions to answer and
then proceed to Part Two:
Question choice one:
Over the past few years, the Federal Supreme Court has taken
up the question of
“affirmative action” policies in the United States as related to
education and hiring practices.
For any student not familiar with affirmative action, read the
Stanford Encyclopedia entry on affirmative action:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/
In short, affirmative action policies allow public institutions,
businesses and universities to consider race and gender (as two
of many factors) in hiring and admissions practices as a way to
1) correct historical injustices against women and minorities in
hiring and admissions and 2) foster diversity in business and
education that is seen by some as morally good. Thus,
theoretically, if two applicants are
equal
in qualifications, the public institution, business or university
may consider their race or gender in admissions or hiring. A
good example of Affirmative Action is related to our own
building of the new Vikings Stadium. The Minnesota Sports
Facilities Association (MSFA) and the Minnesota Vikings are
building a new Vikings Stadium that will cost almost $1 billion
dollars and open in 2016. The stadium will require millions in
taxes. Mortenson Construction Company won the contract and
will oversee the project. In agreement with MSFA and the
Vikings, Mortenson has made this statement about hiring
women, people with disabilities and minority-owned companies
and workers:
Construction of the new stadium will require nearly 4.3 million

2. work hours and will involve 7,500 tradespeople from 19
different trades and hundreds of local subcontractors and
suppliers. In addition, the MSFA and the Vikings have
established a Targeted Business Program that sets an 11% and
9% goal for construction contracts for the project to be awarded
to women - and minority-owned business enterprises,
respectively. The stadium project has also set construction
workforce goals for utilization of women and minorities during
construction of 32% minority and 6% women participation.
In Minnesota, for a business to qualify as a “targeted group” for
the Targeted Business Program, it must
have 51% or more of its business
owned
and
operated
by women, people with disabilities or by a
“targeted” minority group including African
-American, American-Indian, Asian-American, Alaska-Native or
Hispanic-American. For this question, I want you to compare
and contrast the theories of
libertarianism
and Rawls’
justice as fairness
whether these mandates (9-11% companies; 6 and 32% workers)
are just or not. First, I want you to make an argument
against
these mandates using the theory of
libertarianism
. Second, I want you to make an argument
for
these mandates using John Rawls’
theory of
justice as fairness
. Be sure to include in your reasons the main points of these
theories.
Question choice two:

3. The Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board (MPRB) is
renovating two parks in the Minnehaha falls area: Wabun Picnic
Area and the North Plateau Area. According to the parks
website, these playgrounds are historic, “...with pieces as early
as 1906 (swings) through the 1950s.”
1
Recall from our
What Does Justice Look Like
this area is considered sacred to the Dakota people given its
proximity to the
Bdote
and to Fort Snelling. Wabun Park (which sits adjacent to the
Veterans Administration facility) will become the first universal
playground in the Minneapolis Parks system (all universal
playgrounds are presently only available at specific public
schools). The MPRB wishes to
1
“Minnehaha Playground Renovations.”
Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board
.
http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=1258
. Accessed 23 June 2014.
Summer 2014 PHIL 1171 Ethics Final Essay Questions 2
“...
preserve the historic nature of this playground and sensitively
add new equipment to increase the play activities.
”
2
The MPRB website explains:
With the support of

4. Falls 4 All
, an all-volunteer organization that has joined with the MPRB,
and
People for Parks
, the new playground planned for Wabun Picnic area will be
“universally accessible,” which means that at least 70% of
the play features will be accessible, far more than required by
the American Disabilities Act (ADA). It will be a playground
where children and adults, with or without disabilities, can
challenge themselves to explore, interact and play with
independence and dignity.
While all new playgrounds planned in the Minneapolis park
system meet the requirements of the (ADA), these requirements
are a minimum level of accessibility and do not typically
include access via ramps onto a play structure and have a small
pe
rcentage of required accessible play elements. Playgrounds that
have “universal access” include many more opportunities for
play, and can include multiple ramps,
more accessible surfacing, and multiple paths to play within a
structure, all of which foster interaction and allow all children
to be included in play. These playgrounds are far more
expensive than those meeting the minimum ADA requirements.
All funds raised by
Falls 4 All will be used to increase the playground’s
accessibility above ADA standards
. Fundraising for the accessibility enhancements to the Wabun
playground is underway and will continue as the design is
developed.
3
The MPRB has allocated $600,000 dollars toward this capital
project as approved by voters in 2008 via the Clean Water Land
and Legacy Amendment. In 2010 they authorized the Falls 4 All
foundation to raise additional funding ($450,000) through
private gifts. The full list of donors can be reviewed at the
website

5. but does include the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community.
Martha Nussbaum
identifies several flaws of the social contract approach (Mill,
Nozick, Locke, Kant) and instead suggests that Aristotle had the
better ingredients of a theory of justice, namely, it is the job of
just society to make good political arrangements to provide for
each and every person with what they need to become capable
of living rich and flourishing lives. He (Aristotle)
didn’t support that every
person (women and slaves) was a citizen, but did offer this
foundation of capabilities, rather than consent, freedom,
rationality, preservation or private property, or autonomy as the
basis of justice.
Should taxpayers fund an expensive universally accessible park
(almost $1 million dollars of combined federal and private
funding), and if so, on what grounds (you can also consider
reduced funding by Minneapolis Public Schools toward early
childhood education for children with physical or mental
impairments based on cost-benefit analysis)? Explain how a
virtue capabilities approach argues that such a park (or public
education funding for children with impairments) cannot be
justified via an individual rights approach based on a neutral
government. Are Nussbaum and Aristotle correct
—
does the social contract as a basis for ethics fail to consider
people with different capabilities? And if it does, does this
mean such a society is unjust? How are Nussbaum and Aristotle
similar and different in their advancement of virtue ethics
versus capabilities
—can Nussbaum rescue Aristotle’s rejection of certain
individuals as citizens, or is the theory inherently flawed?
Explain how a theory of virtue ethics of ethics
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.

6. Summer 2014 PHIL 1171 Ethics Final Essay Questions 3
of care would theorize this project and object to or support the
use of taxpayer money toward this park or public education
funding for children with impairments.
Give three reasons why you support or object to the public
funding of this project
integrating or analyzing virtue ethics, Nussbaum’s
capabilities approach, or ethics of care (just one theory
required).
Part Two: Essays Question applying global ethics (SEQ essays)
Choose one the following questions to answer:
1.
Question choice one: Many people think of affirmative action as
meant fundamentally for African Americans. Describe in detail
how bell hooks
’
s experience in her essay
“
Rethinking the Nature of Work,
”
complicates these assumptions. Tell me if you still think
affirmative action is necessary today given hooks
’
concerns in the 1990s. Consider Justice Sandra Day O
’
Connor
’
s comments in
Grutter v. Bolinger
(2003), that affirmative action would be a necessary procedure
for hopefully 25 more years, once the nation had time to
experience greater inclusion and hopefully equity. Is it true,

7. since the time of hooks and Day O
’
Connor
’
s statements, now 21 years later, we are growing past the need
for legal regulations like affirmative action? Has labor inclusion
for minority groups been achieved sufficiently? Why or why
not? Is there an ethical principle you can identify in your
reasoning (e.g., utility, Kantian universal moral law, Rawls
’
principles of fairness, libertarian negative rights or duties,
Aristotle
’
s teleological reasoning of justice as the common good,
Nussbaum
’
s principle of justice as flourishing based on human capacity
Held
’
s principle of interdependence and care).
Question choice two: Is Cornel West suggesting that racial
reasoning is amoral or immoral? What racial considerations
must prophetic moral reasoning itself make? Do these racial
considerations include other races? What role do other minority
groups play? In your view, what is the greatest ethical dilemma
concerning race matters in America today and does West
’
s democratic coalition help overcome that dilemma? Is there an
ethical principle you can identify in your reasoning (e.g.,
utility, Kantian universal moral law, Rawls
’
principles of fairness, libertarian negative rights or duties,
Aristotle
’
s teleological reasoning of justice as the common good,
Nussbaum

8. ’
s principle of justice as flourishing based on human capacity,
Held
’
s principle of interdependence and care).
Question choice three: In what sense is Freire
’
s pedagogy of the oppressed a theory of moral education? What
moral claims are involved in his ideas of humanization,
dehumanization, and oppression? In his critique of systemic
education? What is the role of conscientizacao? What is the
significance of what Freire calls praxis? Imagine if professors
and students practiced this in contemporary American higher
education? What if anything would change? Is there an ethical
principle you can identify in your reasoning (e.g., utility,
Kantian universal moral law, Rawls
’
principles of fairness, libertarian negative rights or duties,
Aristotle
’
s teleological reasoning of justice as the
2.
3.
Summer 2014 PHIL 1171 Ethics Final Essay Questions 4
common good, Nussbaum
’
s principle of justice as flourishing based on human capacity,
Held
’
s principle of interdependence and care).
Question choice four: How is an ethics of care different than
traditional gender
stereotypes of women
’
s roles and identities? Describe what care ethics offers (or even
challenges) that the other ethical theories we have studied thus

9. far miss or overlook? If we look at the present war between
Israel and Palestine currently occurring (see
link
) what might Held diagnose as the global politics that presently
dominate and what an ethics of care offer to this international
crisis. Is there an ethical principle you can identify in your
reasoning (e.g., utility, Kantian universal moral law, Rawls
’
principles of fairness, libertarian negative rights or duties,
Aristotle
’
s teleological reasoning of justice as the common good,
Nussbaum
’
s principle of justice as flourishing based on human capacity,
Held
’
s principle of interdependence and care). Is there an ethical
principle you can identify in your reasoning (e.g., utility,
Kantian universal moral law, Rawls
’
principles of fairness, libertarian negative rights or duties,
Aristotle
’
s teleological reasoning of justice as the common good,
Nussbaum
’
s principle of justice as flourishing based on human capacity,
Held
’
s principle of interdependence and care).
Question choice five: Minnesota Public Radio recently reported
(see
link
) data exposing the health disparity affecting people of color,
particularly asthma in children

10. —
a disportionate number of whom are African American and
Native American. Explain how environmental justice issues are
implicated in this report and should Minnesota address this
issue and how? What
“
should
”
Minnesotans do, if anything? Speculate what Shiva, Merzer, or
Schrader-Frechette offer as helpful ways to analyze this issue.
What does their essay contribute to our understanding of
environmental justice in our own region? Explain particularly in
relationship to your career goals
—
for example, if you are a nursing student, what can the medical
field suggest? If you are going into business, what can the
business industry do to help create a solution? If you are going
into public service or human services, what can public
organizations do? What do you consider to be the sources of
racial disparity occurring in this story? If you are going into
education, what can educators do to help? Is there an ethical
principle you can identify in your reasoning (e.g., utility,
Kantian universal moral law, Rawls
’
principles of fairness, libertarian negative rights or duties,
Aristotle
’
s teleological reasoning of justice as the common good,
Nussbaum
’
s principle of justice as flourishing based on human capacity,
Held
’
s principle of interdependence and care).

11. Preview Rubric Final essays
Indicates
Ability to Apply Ethical Theory
Student Communicat e His or Her Own Ideas
No/very few errors
Level 4 14 or more
Summer 2014 PHIL 1171 Ethics Final Essay Questions 5
Criteria
Exceeding 5 points
Effective 4 points
Adequate 3 points
Emerging 2 points
No postin g
0 points
Follows instructions and completes all the mandatory
requirements. Studen t indicates clearly s/he can apply an
ethical theory. The student demonstrates the ability to identify
an important or relevant feature of a theory and analyze how it
frames the argument for his/her own position.
Communicates in a balanced manner, readers can identify a
major premise and supporting claims, and student writes
compellingly and reflectively. Student gives evidence of three
compelling reasons.
Adheres to
Guidelines for Standard Written English
Overall Score
Follows instructions and completes all the mandatory
requirements. Studen t indicates s/he has can apply an ethical
theory. The student demonstrates the ability to identify a feature
of a theory and analyze how it frames the argument for his/her
own position.
Communicates in a way that others can understand the student's
ideas. Major or minor claims are present. Student gives
evidence of three reasons

12. Minimal Errors
Level 3 13 or more
Follows instructions and completes all the mandatory
requirements. Studen t indicates s/he can identify an ethical
theory. The student may struggle to demonstrate the ability to
identify a key feature of the theory and analyze how it frames
the argument for his/her own position.
Communicates in a way that others can understand but major
ideas still need definition. Student gives evidence of two
reasons.
Errors present
Level 2 12 or more
Follows instructions and completes all the mandatory
requirements. Studen t indicates s/he unable to identify an
ethical theory. The student may struggle to demonstrate the
ability to identify any feature of the theory and analyze how it
frames the argument for his/her own position.
Minimal writing effort of
ideas. Writing may be biased and unreflective. Content is
unclear or unorganized. Student has fewer than two reasons.
Distracting Errors
Level 1 0 or more