Built from your actual ETHC303 past exams (Major 1, Quiz bank) on these chapters — reverse-engineered to show WHAT the professor is really testing, not a slide summary.
Definition: Morality = a system of rules of conduct (directives + social policies) and principles of evaluation, meant to prevent harm and promote human flourishing. Ethics = the philosophical/rational STUDY of morality.
Why it matters
Every ethics essay opens with this distinction — morality is the "what," ethics is the "why/how we examine it."
Common exam wording
"Ethics is the study of morality" / "rational examination into people's moral belief and behaviour."
Example
"Don't steal" is a moral rule; asking WHY stealing is wrong is doing ethics.
Definition: Public, Informal, Rational, Impartial.
Why it matters
A classic listing question — students often forget "Informal" (no formal judges) and confuse it with law.
Common exam wording
"everyone must know the rules" (Public) / "no formal authoritative judges" (Informal) / "accessible to ordinary persons" (Rational) / "applies equitably to all" (Impartial).
Example
"Don't lie" is known by everyone (public), enforced by conscience not courts (informal), makes logical sense to anyone (rational), and applies to rich and poor alike (impartial).
Definition: Rules of Conduct = action-guiding directives (micro, individual) or social policies (macro, societal). Principles of Evaluation = standards (justice, fairness, respect) used to JUDGE those rules.
Why it matters
Tests whether you can tell a RULE ("Do not steal") from a JUSTIFICATION for that rule (fairness/justice).
Common exam wording
"directives" vs "social policies" / "evaluative standards used to justify rules."
Example
Rule: "Software should be protected" (macro/social policy). Principle justifying it: respect for others' work (fairness).
Definition: Beneficence = do good/right. Least Harm = when no option is purely good, choose the option causing least harm to fewest people. Autonomy = let people control decisions about their own lives. Justice = act fairly toward all involved.
Why it matters
Scenario questions often ask "which ethical principle is at risk/violated" — you must match the scenario detail to ONE of these four.
Common exam wording
"decision makers should focus on actions that are fair" (Justice, fill-in-blank exact wording from Major 1).
Example
A doctor rationing scarce vaccine doses to save the most lives = Least Harm reasoning.
Definition: Subjective Relativism = an action is right if the INDIVIDUAL approves of it. Cultural Relativism = an action is right if one's CULTURE approves of it.
Why it matters
Both are explicitly labeled "not a workable ethical theory" in your course — a favorite true/false trap.
Common exam wording
"gives tradition more weight than reasons or facts" / "no universal moral guidelines."
Example
"It's fine because everyone in my country does it" = Cultural Relativism reasoning.
Definition: An action is moral if it's in accordance with God's commands, and immoral if contrary to them.
Why it matters
Advantages list (objective, universal, eternal, authoritative) is commonly tested for recognition.
Common exam wording
"God's commands don't depend on what others think" / "completely objective."
Example
A believer avoids lying because their religious text commands honesty, regardless of consequences.
Definition: Focuses on CHARACTER rather than rules/consequences — a virtue is a "golden mean" between two vices (excess and deficiency); a vice is a character trait that prevents human flourishing.
Why it matters
⭐ Exact past exam item: Courage = the mean between cowardice (excess of fear) and rashness (deficiency of fear).
Common exam wording
"middle ground between X (excess) and Y (deficiency)" / "character trait that prevents flourishing = vice."
Example
Generosity = the mean between stinginess (deficiency) and wastefulness (excess).
Definition: Morality is grounded in DUTY (Greek: deon), never in the consequences of an action. Actions are guided by universal moral laws derived from logic.
Why it matters
⭐ Exact fill-in-blank: "Kant argued morality must be grounded in the concept of ___ (duty), never in the ___ (consequences) of human actions."
Common exam wording
"universal principle" / "never in the consequences."
Example
Telling the truth is your duty, even if a lie would produce a "better" outcome.
Definition: An action is right only if it can be universalized — if everyone could follow that same rule without contradiction.
Why it matters
This is the "test" Kant uses to judge any rule of conduct.
Common exam wording
"if an action can be universalized, then the action is right."
Example
Lying can't be universalized (if everyone lied, promises would mean nothing) → lying is wrong.
Definition: "Act so that you treat both yourself and others as ends, and never only as a means to an end."
Why it matters
This formulation is used constantly in scenario evaluations (e.g., informed consent cases).
Common exam wording
"treated as a means to an end and not as ends in themselves" (used when info is withheld from someone whose decision depends on it).
Example
Not telling job applicants about a risk that affects their decision treats them merely as a means.
Definition: Perfect Duty = strict, absolute, no exceptions, usually negative ("do not lie/steal"). Imperfect Duty = flexible, context-dependent, usually positive ("help others," "develop your talents").
Why it matters
Kant's known weakness: when a perfect duty conflicts with an imperfect duty, the PERFECT duty always wins (but two perfect duties in conflict = no solution).
Common exam wording
"no exceptions to perfect duties, even in extreme situations" (e.g., hiding someone from a murderer).
Example
Perfect: don't lie. Imperfect: help others when you can (you choose how/when).
Definition: An action is right (or wrong) to the extent it increases (or decreases) total happiness of affected parties. (Bentham & Mill)
Why it matters
Root concept for both Act and Rule Utilitarianism.
Common exam wording
"Happiness = advantage = benefit = good = pleasure = profit."
Example
A policy is judged "good" if it raises overall societal happiness/welfare.
Definition: Judges each INDIVIDUAL ACT by whether its own consequences produce the greatest good for the greatest number.
Why it matters
Weakness: can justify breaking a promise if doing so produces marginally more "units of good" elsewhere — ignores our innate sense of duty.
Common exam wording
"consequences that result from (X)" / "greatest amount of good for the greatest number."
Example
Breaking a promise to Y (1,000 units of good) if it creates 1,001 units of good for Z — Act Utilitarianism says break it.
Definition: Judges a RULE by whether its universal adoption produces the greatest good — you follow the rule even in individual cases where breaking it might seem better.
Why it matters
Avoids the "promise-breaking" trap of Act Utilitarianism; overlaps with Kantianism in RULES but differs in REASONING (consequences vs. duty/will).
Common exam wording
"correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed."
Example
"Always keep promises" as a rule produces more long-term happiness than deciding case-by-case.
Definition: Moral/political obligations depend on an implicit agreement among people to form a society with rules and a government to enforce them; without this, people would live in a "state of nature" — no rules, no security.
Why it matters
⭐ Exact fill-in-blank: "The natural condition of mankind would exist if there were no ___ (government/rules/social contract)."
Common exam wording
"to protect natural rights" (state's purpose) / "no one is above the rules."
Example
Traffic laws exist because everyone implicitly agrees to follow rules for collective safety.
Definition: 1st Principle: everyone gets an equal claim to basic rights/liberties. 2nd Principle: social/economic inequalities must be tied to positions everyone has fair opportunity to reach, and must benefit the LEAST advantaged (difference principle).
Why it matters
Extension of Social Contract Theory often tested as "which theory does this align with."
Common exam wording
"fully adequate number of basic rights and liberties" / "difference principle."
Example
Progressive taxation justified because it benefits the least-advantaged members of society.
Definition: Negative right = guaranteed by others simply leaving you alone (e.g., free expression). Positive right = obligates others to actively DO something for you (e.g., free education/healthcare).
Why it matters
⭐ Exact exam item: free basic healthcare for all citizens = a Positive Right.
Common exam wording
"obligating others to do something on your behalf."
Example
Right to free speech = negative right (just don't interfere). Right to free public education = positive right (state must provide it).
Definition: (1) No one actually signed the contract. (2) Some actions have multiple valid characterizations. (3) Conflicting-rights problem (e.g., abortion debate). (4) May unjustly treat those who can't uphold the contract (drug addicts, criminals, mentally ill). (5) Despite weaknesses, still considered a workable theory.
Why it matters
⭐ Appeared verbatim as an MCQ: what critique applies to people who can't uphold their side of the contract?
Common exam wording
"may unjustly treat or fail to provide clear ethical guidance for individuals who cannot uphold the contract."
Example
How should society treat someone with severe mental illness who can't be held to ordinary social rules?
Definition: Employer–Employee, Client–Professional, Professional–Professional, Society–Professional.
Why it matters
Each relationship has DIFFERENT obligations — a common source of matching/scenario questions.
Common exam wording
"serve the interests of Society in general... exercise due care based on specialized knowledge" (Society-Professional).
Example
A licensed engineering body must protect public safety, not just its members' interests.
Definition: Paternalistic (professional decides everything, client has no say), Trust/Fiduciary (both share decision-making, requires mutual trust), Agency (professional does EXACTLY what client instructs).
Why it matters
⭐ Exact fill-in-blank: "Fiduciary model is an example of ___ relationship" (Client-Professional, Trust model).
Common exam wording
"client revokes all decision making" (Paternalistic) / "telling a stockbroker to buy Telkom" (Agency).
Example
A doctor who just follows exact patient instructions without offering medical judgment = Agency model.
Definition: A member (or former member) of an organization discloses an illegal/immoral practice, hoping someone will act to change it, after internal channels failed.
Why it matters
⭐ Exact fill-in-blank: "the whistle-blower makes an ___ (unauthorized) disclosure of information."
Common exam wording
"internal reporting" (told within org) vs. "external whistle-blowing" (told press/government after internal failure).
Example
An engineer reports faulty brakes to their manager first (internal); if ignored, going to the news is external whistleblowing.
Definition: The Altruist (genuine public good), The Avenger (motivated by retribution/revenge), Organization Man (loyal, reluctant), The Alarmist (raises alarm quickly/urgently), The Bounty Hunter (motivated by reward/money).
Why it matters
⭐ Exact exam item: "whistleblower motivated by retribution" = The Avenger.
Common exam wording
"motivated by goals, motivations and context."
Example
An employee who reports fraud mainly to get back at a manager who fired them = The Avenger.
Definition: The typical corporate response is to CONDEMN whistleblowing (labeling it disloyal), since it can cause bad publicity, erode team spirit, and harm the whistleblower (retaliation, being labeled a troublemaker, dim career prospects).
Why it matters
⭐ Exact exam item: "The typical corporate response to whistle-blowing is: To condemn it and express complete disapproval."
Common exam wording
"whistle-blowers are disloyal" / "erodes team spirit."
Example
A company publicly discrediting an employee after they report safety violations.
Definition: Morally PERMISSIBLE when: (1) the organization will do serious/considerable harm, (2) it's been reported to the immediate supervisor, (3) internal channels/procedures have been exhausted with no result. Morally OBLIGATORY additionally when: (4) there's accessible documented evidence that would convince a reasonable/impartial observer, (5) there's good reason to believe going public will actually prevent or reduce the harm.
Why it matters
⭐ Exact past exam question: "mention 2 of the 5 questions/conditions" — memorize at least 2-3 verbatim.
Common exam wording
"before external whistleblowing becomes a moral duty."
Example
A safety engineer who reports to management first, is ignored, and has documented proof of danger meets the first 4 conditions.
Definition: Role responsibility (from assigned duties), Causal responsibility (because you caused something), Legal responsibility (assigned by law). These three are EXCLUSIVE (one person at a time). Moral responsibility is NOT exclusive — it can't be passed off ("my boss made the final decision, not me" doesn't remove your moral responsibility).
Why it matters
⭐ Exact exam item: "responsibility borne because of a person's assigned duties" = Role responsibility.
Common exam wording
"Joe is responsible for the network being down because he released the virus" = Causal responsibility.
Example
A bookkeeper's role responsibility is paying bills on time; if they forget, that's also causal responsibility for late fees.
Definition: Statements of principles/values (e.g., ACM, BCS, IEEE-CS/ACM, LOPSA) meant to guide professional conduct. They are NOT laws and cannot provide a COMPLETE ethical framework, but they inspire public trust and act as decision-making tools.
Why it matters
⭐ Exact exam item: "Which is NOT true about codes of ethics?" → the false option is "Laws passed by public legislative bodies" (codes of ethics are NOT law).
Common exam wording
"cannot provide a complete ethical framework" / "useful tools for computer practitioners for decision-making."
Example
The ACM Code of Ethics guides behavior but breaking it isn't a crime — only a professional/reputational consequence.
🧠 Mnemonic: "Real Divas Don't Care, Sing Chill" → Relativism, Divine Command, Deontology, Consequence(Utilitarian), Contract, Character(Virtue).
🧠 Mnemonic: P.I.R.I. — "Please Include Rules Impartially."
Morally Permissible (first 3):
Morally Obligatory (add these 2):
| Concept A | Concept B | Key Distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Act Utilitarianism | Rule Utilitarianism | Act = judge each act by ITS OWN consequences. Rule = judge the RULE by the good it produces when followed universally; avoids the "break a promise for marginal gain" trap. |
| Perfect Duty | Imperfect Duty | Perfect = strict, absolute, negative, no exceptions ("do not lie"). Imperfect = flexible, positive, contextual ("help others"). |
| Subjective Relativism | Cultural Relativism | Subjective = the INDIVIDUAL'S approval makes it right. Cultural = the CULTURE'S approval makes it right. Both are "not workable" theories. |
| Positive Right | Negative Right | Positive = obligates others to actively DO something (free healthcare/education). Negative = guaranteed just by others leaving you alone (free speech). |
| Internal Whistleblowing | External Whistleblowing | Internal = reporting within the organization first (preferred, less damaging). External = going to press/government after internal channels fail or are punished. |
| Role Responsibility | Causal Responsibility | Role = tied to your assigned job duties. Causal = tied to something you actually did/caused, regardless of your job title. |
| Role/Causal/Legal Responsibility | Moral Responsibility | The first three are EXCLUSIVE (one person at a time). Moral responsibility is NOT exclusive — it cannot be passed off to someone else. |
| Paternalistic Model | Agency Model | Paternalistic = professional decides everything; client has no say. Agency = professional does EXACTLY what the client instructs, no independent judgment. |
| Kantianism | Rule Utilitarianism | Both are rule-based, but Kantian rules come from DUTY/the Categorical Imperative (will/motivation); Rule Utilitarian rules come from maximizing COLLECTIVE HAPPINESS (consequences). |
| Divine Command Theory | Ethical Relativism | Divine Command = morality is OBJECTIVE and fixed by God's will. Relativism = morality is SUBJECTIVE, varying by person or culture. |
| Social Contract Theory | Utilitarianism | Social Contract = state exists to protect natural rights via mutual agreement. Utilitarianism = actions/policies are judged by the greatest good/happiness they produce. |
How to recognize it: A short story about a professional (professor, engineer, banker) facing a conflict of interest, negligence, or fairness issue, followed by "what ethical principle/issue is at risk?"
Reasoning process: Identify the ROLE relationship involved (employer-employee, client-professional, professional-professional, society-professional) and match the described tension to one of the 4 ethical principles or a specific concept (e.g., conflict of interest, negligence, accountability).
Common mistakes: Picking a principle that sounds dramatic (e.g., "fraud") instead of the specific concept the scenario is built around (e.g., "conflict of interest" when a professor consults for a company they're also evaluating).
For full marks: Name the exact concept ("Conflict of Interest") not just a vague "it's unethical."
How to recognize it: A long narrative involving a technology/institutional failure causing real-world harm to an ordinary person, followed by 8-10 sequential MCQs about responsibility, ethical principles, and theories.
Reasoning process: Work through the story chronologically: (1) identify the core ethical issue (accountability for a malfunction), (2) identify WHO holds responsibility (usually the party whose system/decision caused the harm), (3) identify what ethical VALUE is threatened (accountability, beneficence, fairness), (4) identify which ethical THEORY best supports fixing it quickly (Utilitarianism — greatest good for greatest number), (5) draw the general lesson (ethical responsibility includes managing/correcting failures promptly).
Common mistakes: Blaming the end-user/victim instead of the party that controls the system; confusing "negligence" (failure of reasonable care, no bad intent) with "fraud" (deliberate deception).
For full marks: Keep responsibility with the institution that has technical/decision-making CONTROL, and use Utilitarianism as the default "greatest good" justification for prompt correction.
How to recognize it: A sentence taken almost word-for-word from the slides with one or two key terms blanked out.
Reasoning process: Recall the EXACT phrase from the theory definitions in Section 1 — these are rarely paraphrased, so memorizing verbatim phrasing (duty/consequences, fiduciary/trust, justice principle, universalizable) is the highest-value use of your study time for this question type.
Common mistakes: Answering with a synonym that doesn't match the specific term taught (e.g., writing "outcome" instead of "consequences").
For full marks: Use the exact vocabulary from the slides/lists above.
How to recognize it: A well-known moral dilemma or fictional scenario is described, then you're asked "what should X do if they were a [Kantian/Utilitarian/Social Contract theorist]?"
Reasoning process: Apply EACH theory's core test separately: Kantian = would the action treat someone merely as a means, or can it be universalized as a rule? Utilitarian = which choice produces the greatest good/least harm for the greatest number? Social Contract = what rule would rational members of society agree to in advance?
Common mistakes: Giving one generic "it depends" answer instead of clearly deriving a DIFFERENT conclusion (or the same conclusion via different reasoning) for each named theory.
For full marks: Show the theory's REASONING PROCESS explicitly, not just the final verdict.
Perfect structure:
Keywords that MUST appear: duty, categorical imperative, means vs ends, greatest good for the greatest number, consequences, universalizable.
Examiner expectations: Apply EACH theory explicitly to the scenario's specific facts — don't just define the theories in the abstract.
Perfect structure:
Keywords that MUST appear: internal reporting, external whistle-blowing, DeGeorge's conditions, documented evidence, retaliation.
🧠 Perfect vs Imperfect Duty: Perfect = "Perfectly strict, no excuses" (negative: don't lie/steal). Imperfect = "I'm flexible" (positive: help others, when/how you choose).
🧠 Act vs Rule Utilitarianism: Act = judge the SINGLE ACT like a photo snapshot. Rule = judge the RULE like a movie playing out over and over — does following it forever produce more happiness?
🧠 Whistleblower types, by motive: Altruist = heart (public good). Avenger = grudge (revenge). Bounty Hunter = money ($$$). Alarmist = megaphone (urgency). Organization Man = loyalty (reluctant).
🧠 Positive vs Negative rights: Positive = "Please DO something for me" (active). Negative = "Please just leave me alone" (passive).
🧠 Society-Professional relationship: Think of it as a "license to operate" — like a driver's license, the society (government) grants the privilege, so the professional owes due care back to society.
🧠 DeGeorge's conditions: Think "H-R-E-D-B": Harm exists → Report to supervisor → Exhaust internal channels (= permissible) → Documented evidence → Belief it will help (= obligatory).
🧠 Six ethical theories: Picture a courtroom: Relativism (juror's personal opinion), Divine Command (a holy book), Deontology (a rulebook of duties), Utilitarianism (a scoreboard of happiness), Social Contract (a signed agreement), Virtue Ethics (the judge's own character).
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Fill-in-the-blank on exact theory definitions (duty/consequences, fiduciary/trust model, "the ___ principle states decision makers should focus on fairness") — appeared verbatim in Major 1 and is highly repeatable.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Multi-part extended scenario (institutional/technology failure causing real-world harm, 8-10 linked MCQs) — matches the exact "Maria" style question format already used.
⭐⭐⭐⭐ MCQ on whistleblower typology (Altruist/Avenger/Organization Man/Alarmist/Bounty Hunter) — a recurring, easily-tested memorization item.
⭐⭐⭐⭐ MCQ/listing on the Case Against Social Contract Theory or Case Against Kantianism — both appear multiple times in past exams as critique-recall questions.
⭐⭐⭐⭐ Listing question: "List and explain the 4 professional relationships" or "List the 5 DeGeorge conditions" — matches known preference for List-type questions.
⭐⭐⭐ Essay/scenario comparing Kantianism, Utilitarianism, and Social Contract Theory applied to a moral dilemma (Batman-style) — possible if extended-response section included.
⭐⭐⭐ Short answer: "Define Role, Causal, and Legal responsibility and explain why moral responsibility differs" — tests a distinctive, easily-confused concept.
⭐⭐⭐ MCQ on Virtue Ethics golden-mean pairs (e.g., courage between cowardice and rashness) — a specific, testable Aristotle detail.