Final Ethics Study Cards

8/12/2019 Final Ethics Study Cards

1/31

1. [Consequentialism][1C]

I. Discuss utilitarianism. Your answer should include

all of the followings:

1. Explanations about what consequentialism is;

What determines that an act is morally right:

(1) the consequences of the act

(2) the motive behind the act(3) the intrinsic nature of the act

(4) a general rule requiring acts of the same kind

ims (1) that the normative

value of an act depends only on its consequences.

2.Explanations about what hedonism is;

The doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or

chief good in life

What is valuable? Some philosophers like Bentham

and Mill claim that the only thing that is good in itself

is some specific type of state, for example, pleasure

or happiness.

3. Explanations about the notion of utility;

is and what its characteristics are, especially about

the following notions: total value, maximizing

happiness, and universal and equal consideration;

Note: The notion of utility is not what is useful or

practical. The notion of utility means pleasure and

the absence of pain here.

4. Explanations about what classic utilitarianism is

and what its characteristics are, especially about the

following notions: total value, maximizing

happiness, and universal and equal consideration;

Classic Utilitarianism = The consequential principle +

the utility principle (the hedonistic aspect)

We should act so as to bring about the maximumtotal amount of happiness in the long run: The

greatest happiness for the greatest number.

1. Total Value

The moral value in the consequence of an act should

be the total net value of happiness and unhappiness

in it.

An act is morally right if that act has a consequence

as follows: Total amount of happiness for all by the

acttotal amount of unhappiness for all by the act >

the net amount of incompatible act available to the

agent on that occasion.

2. Maximizing happiness

We need to choose an act to bring about the

maximal amount of the net value by the act.

5. Explanations about the questionable issues of the

following features: maximizing happiness and

universal and equal consideration.

Maximizing happiness

We need to choose an act to bring about the

maximal amount of the net value by the act.

[3C] 3. Explanations about the feature of moral rules

made by Smart;

(2) Rules of Thumb

According to Smart, the fundamental feature of our

moral rules is that they can be changed or overridden

at any time in order to produce the greatest

happiness. That is, our moral rules are rules ofthumb.

a. Rule Worship or Rational Decision

Suppose that in most cases, it is good to act in

accordance with a certain rule R, and that at some

time, we have perfect faith in the impartiality/non-

bias of our calculations, and we have worked out the

consequences, and we know that to break R will have

better results than to keep it. Do we need to keep R

in this case? If so, we idolize or worship the rule. It is

not a rational decision.

should be overridden to produce the greatest

happiness.

b. Exceptions to the rules

Suppose that I have a garden. There is a rule that no

water must be used of watering gardens. I calculated

that no harm will be done if (secretly) use water and

that my neighbors can get a benefit of having lovely

flowers. Then, isnt itbetter to break the rule?

exceptions are justified based on the utility in the

consequences of a particular individual action.

4. Explanations about Smarts two criticisms against

rule utilitarianism;(1) Concerning Rules of Thumb:

Having some exceptions of rules is used to supportthe characterization of moral rules as rules of thumb.

However, even a scientific rule can fail to hold in an

abnormal or unfamiliar circumstance. For example, if

a billiard ball hits another billiard ball, then the

second ball will move only when the gravity force

onto the second ball is not radically strong, etc. We

just ignore these conditions to lead the expected

result not to happen. What is the difference between

Smartsrule of thumb and rules in science under

some (normal) condition?

(2) Concerning Sidgwicks Distinction: This distinction

seems to separate the reward for an act from the

value of the act. We ordinarily believe that the value

of an act determines what rewards the agent can get

from it. If not, what determines the praise/condemn

of an act?

5. Explanations about Hookers questions to act

utilitarianism.

(1) Impartiality -We morally allow an impartial

treatment to a certain kind of group, such as a

minority group or my intimate group like my family.


2/31


3/31

[4C] (2) Justice - Justice/fairness does not always

come together with well-being. If a group has a large

member, it will be better to give the members as

much as we can to maximize the utility. But this is

not fair to the people in other groups.

1. Explanations about the thesis of rule

consequentialism; Rule Consequentialism - Themoral value (rightness) of an action is determined by

whether or not it falls under a certain rule. Whether

the rule is accepted is to be decided by considering

the consequences of adopting the rule.

- A rule utilitarian calculates the utility in the

consequence of keeping a rule by an action.

2. Explanations about Hookers distinction between

compliance and acceptance, and his corresponding

distinction between compliance-based

consequentialism and acceptance based

consequentialism;

Compliance or Acceptance - There are two kinds of

attitudes to accepting rules, compliance with rules

and acceptance of rules.

Compliance with rules: Conforming rules even

without believing the rule right and intending to keep

it Acceptance of rules: Conforming rules with the

agreement of rules

Ex. A patient in rehab can comply with not drinking

or drugging for a while even when she does not

accept the need to do.

and understanding why the rules need to be.

Compliance-Based Consequentilaism and

Acceptance-Based ConsequentialismAn act is permissible if and only if it is allowed by

rules the compliance with which would result in as

much good as would result from any other rules.

An act is permissible if and only if it is allowed by

rules the acceptance with which would result in as

much good as would result from any other rules.

3.Explanations about Hookers three reasons to take

acceptance-based consequentialism;

Hookers Arguments for Acceptance-Based

Consequentialism:

(1) Moral Consideration about taking a rule

People are not just complying a rule but also

considering whether taking this rule is appropriate.

This consideration should be included in our utility

calculation of moral rules. In order to take this

consideration into account, we need to take the

acceptance-based consequentialism.

(2) The consequence of the acceptance of a rule

Someones acceptance of a rule can have an effect

on

[2C] 3. Universal and Equal Consideration

We should care about the happiness and

unhappiness of all the people or sentient beings. And

also their happiness and unhappiness should be

equally considered.

1.Explanations about what act utilitarianism is and

what rule utilitarianism is;Act Utilitarianism (Extreme Utilitarianism by Smart)

The moral value (rightness) of an action is

determined by whether the actions consequences

are at least as good as that of any alternative action.

Rule Utilitarianism (Restricted Utilitarianism by

Smart)The moral value (rightness) of an action is

determined by whether or not it falls under a certain

rule. Whether the rule is accepted is to be decided by

considering the consequences of adopting the rule.

An act utilitarian calculates the utility in the

consequence of a particular action.

A rule utilitarian calculates the utility in the

consequence of keeping a rule by an action.

2. Explanations about why Smart thinks that moral

rules are useful;

Smarts Argument 1: Rules of Thumb

(1) Moral Rules

Our moral rules are helpful when we have the

following cases of utility calculation:

a. Lack of Time

Imagine that a man seeing a person drowning jumps

in and rescues him. Even when there is no time to

calculate the utility of the consequences of his action,

he internalizes a rule rescue a person in need and

rescues the person, which is morally good.b. Biased in Ones Favor

Imagine a man unhappily married and deciding to get

divorced. It is possible that he exaggerates his own

unhappiness and underestimates the harm done to

his children and to the general faith in marriage

vows. If the man has a rule keep the promise in

marriage, or consider your childrens pleasure as

much as yours, he can avoid the miscalculation of

utility based on his bias.

c. Issues of Public Morality

Recently we have many issues of public morality

rather than private morality, such as tensions in the

international relations. The issues of public morality

cannot be calculated based on the consequences of a

particular action in a particular occasion. One of the

things we should consider in this case is the promise

between countries, which constitute a diplomatic

rule between the two.

In order to avoid lack of time, bias in utility

calculation and solve the problem of public morality,

we need to adopt some moral rules.


4/31


5/31


6/31


7/31

[2K] 6.Explanations about the relation between

maxims and universal laws;

A duty is a moral law to describe how people ought

to act in a certain circumstance.

(1) Moral laws express necessity like a scientific law.

(2) Moral laws are universal (anyone, any place, any

time)Sometimes your maxim = a universal law (duty) and

sometimes not.

7. Explanations about the distinction between

hypothetical imperatives and categorical

imperatives;

Hypothetical Imperatives and Categorical Imperatives

(1) Hypothetical Imperatives: conditional (if you want

., do x (dont x))

(2) Categorical Imperatives: no condition, no end (do

x (dont x))

l imperatives are categorical.

The Categorical Imperative: one supreme categorical

imperative of morality

CI: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become

through your will a universal a law of nature

CI: An act is morally right if and only if the agent can

will that the generalized form of her maxim be a law

of nature.

8. Explanations about what the supreme categorical

imperative (the CI) of morality, which is called the

categorical imperative, is;

The Categorical Imperative: one supreme categorical

imperative of morality

CI: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become

through your will a universal a law of natureCI:An act is morally right if and only if the agent can

will that the generalized form of her maxim be a law

of nature.

9. Explanations about the categorical imperative

test (the CI test) and two kinds of contraction in the

test with example cases;

CI test:

(i) Check a maxim; (ii) Generalize the maxim (shared

by everyone); (iii) Consider whether you can WILL

that the generalized maxim be a universal law.

Two Contradictions

(i) Contradiction of Will: Impossible to will the

is flourishing does not help others

(ii) Formal Contradiction: Impossible to imagine ones

need can make a promise even though she cannot

make it.

[6C] (1) Emergency Room Thought Experiment

(2) Self-Sacrifice

Money devotion: Suppose that it is maximally

beneficial to contribute a considerable amount of my

salary to aid agencies rather than use it to myself.

Then, I should move to the better paying job so that I

will have a bigger salary and give an even largerpercentage of my earnings to aid agencies.

Hooker says that this requirement of sacrifice comes

from the requirement of impartiality. But his version

of rule consequentialism can allow that the innocent

healthy person values his life more than the others

and people care more of oneself than others if being

impartial costs too high to internalize.

4. Justice

Consequentialism is criticized because it does not

care about justice like redistribution. For example, if

we can get a better result to educate people over IQ

140, we should spend our government education

budget only to this kind of people. But Hooker can

answer to this. We already have some fairly general

rules about redistribution. For example, Try to give

everyone equal chance for education. If internalizing

the redistribution rules requires too high cost, then it

is not allowed. But if the cost of internalizing

redistribution rules is not high, we can have the

redistribution rule.

5. Conflicts of rules

Our moral rules sometimes conflict. For example,

suppose that you have two rules, keep promises

and shield others from hardships of certain

magnitudes. What if you can save a person fromconsiderable inconvenience only by breaking a

promise to meet another person at the same time?

As a normative ethics theory, rule consequentialism

should give us which action is morally right. Rule

consequentialism has been criticized because it

cannot resolve the conflicts and our question of how

we should do in this case remains unanswered.

According to Hooker, rule utilitarianism allows

exceptions in rules if the cost of this allowance is not

high. So we can build some exceptions into the rules

so as to keep them from conflicting. For example, the

rule about promise-keeping could have an exception

such that no one is required to keep a promise made

to anyone who obtained the promise by lying.


8/31


9/31

[3K] 10. Explanations about the distinction between

the CI and the Golden Rule.

Golden Rule (GR)

An act is morally right if and only if in performing it,

the agent refrains from treating others in ways in

which he would not want the others to treat him.

The GR has restriction of the relation with others(consideration about how the agents treat others and

what if others treat the agents in the same way) but

the CI does not have this restriction.

Example 1: Suicideallowed by the GR but not by

the CI.Example 2: Flourishing Persons not helping

othersallowed by the GR but not by the CI.

1. Explanations about the problems of Kantian

Deontology discussed in class:

Problems of Kantian Deontology

(1) It disallows the following intuitively accepted

behaviors: the case of helping others (any actions

considered to be good) just for happiness; the case of

bank run

(2) Mill: Disguised Consequentialism

(i) Formal contradiction is not plausible because

there are permissible but logically impossible cases: a

maxim to be the smartest/the first/the president in

order to (something considered as good)

(ii) the contradiction of willing is based on the utility

calculus of the consequences of the action in

question: Ex. Helping others is not better than not

helping others because not helping others will bring

about a bad consequence that we cannot get some

help when we need it.

2.two unintuitive conclusions by KantianDeontology and Mills criticism;

Problems of Kantian Deontology

(1) It disallows the following intuitively accepted

behaviors: the case of helping others (any actions

considered to be good) just for happiness; the case of

bank run

(2) Mill: Disguised Consequentialism

(i) Formal contradiction is not plausible because

there are permissible but logically impossible cases: a

maxim to be the smartest/the first/the president in

order to (something considered as good)

(ii) the contradiction of willing is based on the utility

calculus of the consequences of the action in

question: Ex. Helping others is not better than not

helping others because not helping others will bring

about a bad consequence that we cannot get some

help when we need it.

[1A] [The Ethics of Abortion]

1. Explanations about the personhood argument for

anti-abortion;

The problem of personhood argument:

It is wrong to kill a new born baby.

If it is wrong to kill a new born baby, then it is wrong

to kill a 10 month1 day fetus.If it is wrong to kill a 10 month -1 day fetus, then it is

wrong to kill a 10 month2 day fetus

If it is wrong to kill a 2 day embryo, then it is wrong

to kill an 1 day embryo.

Therefore, it is wrong to kill any fetus or embryos.

2. Explanations about the classic argument for anti-

abortion with its problem;

Classic Anti-Abortion Argument

Premise 1: it is wrong to kill an innocent person

Premise 2: Fetuses are innocent persons

Conclusion: it is wrong to kill fetuses

clear extension of personhood.

3. Explanations about the modified classic argument

for anti-abortion with its problems;

Premise 1: it is wrong to kill a potential human being.

Premise 2: Fetuses are potential human beings.

Conclusion: it is wrong to kill fetuses.

potential x always has the same value or right with x.

(Ex. A potential king does not have the right or duty

of a king.) Then we cannot infer that fetuses as

potential human beings can have the right to life as

human beings have.

4. Explanations about Don Marquiss reason of whykilling is bad, including his application of this reason

to the following cases: the removal of medical

treatment for comatose patience, euthanasia and

killing non-humans;

Marquiss Argument based on Future-Like-Ours

(1) Future-Like-Ours: A premature death is bad

because it deprives future good of conscious life, the

future like ours (FLO). Many things have the FLO:

human beings, human children, fetuses, ova, sperms,

some animals like pigs, dogs, cats, aliens, etc. Killing

the things in above is bad for the deprival of their

FLOs.

5. Explanations about Don Marquiss argument for

anti-abortion;

Premise 1: it is wrong to deprive an individual of a

FLO. Premise 2: Abortion deprives a fetus of a FLO.

Conclusion: Abortion is morally wrong.

Application to controversial cases

(i) Removal of the medical treatment for a comatose


10/31


11/31

[2A] patient: the patient is not conscious, and then

she does not have a FLO. It is permissible to kill this

person.

(ii) Euthanasia: If a patient is and will be suffering too

much pain to have a future good, she does not have

a FLO. It is permissible to kill this person.

(iii) Killing animals: Some animals have FLOs. It iswrong to kill them.

6. Explanations about the problems against Don

Marquiss argument, including whatthe argument

cannot explain, what kind of unintuitive cases it

implies, and how it answers to the controversial

problems like pregnancy from rape and the health

problem of a pregnant woman.

Problems

(i) missing cases: wrongness to the dead; a backup

assassin

(ii) Unintuitive implications: the FLO of a sperm in an

experiment; the FLO of a sperm naturally deprived

(iii) Exclude well established intuitions: pregnancy

from rape; the health problem of the pregnant

woman

VII. Discuss the Doctrine of Double Effect. Your

answer should include all of the followings:

1. Explanations about what the doctrine of double

effect (DDE) is;

The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE): An act is

permissible even when it causes a serious harm if the

serious harm is a side effect (double effect) of

promoting some good end.


foreseeing and intending;Foreseeing and intending

The distinction between intending to do something

and foreseeing something to happen in the course of

events The side effect is something not intended but

just foreseen.

3. Explanations about the conditions to apply the

DDE; (i) Good aim; (ii) Good effect is intended; (iii) No

evil means; (iv) Sufficiently good effect intended.

4. Explanations about the application of DDE to the

following cases:

(1) Self-defense; (2) The terror bomber and the

tactical bomber; (3) Hysterectomy and abortion; (4)

the trolley case and the emergency room case;

Applications (i) Self-defense: the saving of ones life is

the intended effect and the slaying of the aggressor is

just foreseen. Therefore, this is permissible by the

DDE. (ii) The Terror Bomber and the Tactical Bomber:

In the case of terror bomber, the harming of civilians

is included as means in his direct intention. In the

tactical bomber, the civilian casualties are not

intended but

[4K] 3. Explanations about Rosss criticism

against Kantian Deontology and his criticism against

Utilitarianism;

Against Utilitarianism:

An utilitarians limited understanding of the relation

between people: giving or having benefits(or harm)

with others: the relationship of spouses (duty of

fidelity), the relationship of parents to children (duty

to nurture), the relationship of promisor to promisee

(duty to keep promises), etc.

Explanations about Rosss Pluralism;

Pluralism

We can have more than one source of morality.

Promoting happiness and avoiding unhappiness +

Our actions to keep duties like keeping promises,

justice, fairness, etc.

= Considering and balancing the net value of all the

duties we can keep by each action.

4. Explanations about prima facie duties and seven

sources of them;

Prima facie duties and all-things-considered duties

Prima facie duties: duties we know at first glimpse

(Seven prima facie duties: fidelity, reparation,

gratitude, justice/fairness, beneficence, self-

improvement, non-malfeasance)

All-things-considered duties: duties we know after

balancing all the conflicting prima facie duties we

have.

5. Explanations about Rosss thesis in determiningwhat we ought to do.

Duty balancing

When we decide what we should do, we need to

consider the followings:

a. Consider all the prima facie duties that are

relevant,

b. Weigh and balance all of them.

Rosss thesis:

An act x performed by person P at time T is morally

right if and only if it is the act that best balances the

seven possible kinds of prima facie duties that may

apply to person P at time T.


12/31


13/31

[1V] [The Aristotelian Virtue Ethics]

1.Explanation about Aristotles argument with four

premises to conclude that the human should be the

one who live according to the golden mean;

Aristotles argument:

Premise 1: All the things have an end or goal.

Premise 2: It is the virtue to achieve the goalexcellently.

Premise 3: The goal of human life is to be rational.

Premise 4: The Golden Mean is concluded through

our rationality. Conclusion: The human should be the

one who live according to the golden mean.

2.Explanations about Aristotles metaphysics about

four causes;

On premise 1: Four causes

The material cause: the stuff a thing is made of; The

efficient cause: the force that has brought a thing

into being; The formal cause: the shape or idea of a

thing; The final cause: the purpose or function of a

thing

3.Explanations about Aristotles notion of

happiness;

On premise 2: Happiness

Aristotle says that the goal of ethics is to describe the

good life, human flourishing or happiness.

According to Aristotle, happiness is tied to the final

cause of a thing.

Ex. Good hammer = it functions well at hammering

Explanations about the purpose of human life;

On premise 3: Rationality

What is the purpose of the human in life? In order to

know this, we need to find the essence or the uniquecharacter of the human. Aristotle thinks that

rationality is the essence of human beings.

4. Explanations about the golden mean;

On premise 4: the Golden Mean

Virtue is the mean between the two extremesa

middle way. (called the Golden Mean)

Ex. An excellent appetite is the mean between greed

and crazed dieting.

By rationality, we can find this middle way.

Finding this middle way is the key to leading a moral

life. Ex. RashCourageCowardice

5 .Explanations about Consequentialists and

Deontologists possibleresponse to the virtue

ethics. The nature of the virtues can only be derived

from right actions or good consequences.

The character traits of truthfulness - a virtue because

telling the truth, in general, is a moral duty (or a rule

maximizing utility)


normative laws and descriptive laws and about the

[3A] foreseen. Therefore, the tactical bomber is

permissible but the terror bomber is not permissible

by the DDE.

(iii) Hysterectomy and Abortion of pregnant women:

In the case of hysterectomy, the intended effect is to

save the pregnant womans life and the death of the

fetus is just foreseen. In the case of abortion, thedeath of the fetus is included as means into her

direct intention. The death of fetus by hysterectomy

is permissible but abortion is not permissible by the

DDE.

(iv) The Trolley Case and the Emergency Room Case:

In the trolley case, the direct intention is to save five,

and the sacrifice of one life is just foreseen. In the

emergency room case, the death of a healthy guy is

just used as means to save five. The trolley case is

permissible and the emergency room case is not

permissible by the DDE.

Explanations about the two problems of the DDE

discussed in class.

(1) It is hard to make a distinction between intended

means and foreseen side effects? If we need to

consider counterfactual situations to figure out the

intention of an agent, the decision will be more

complicated. Ex. a terror bomber does not need to

kill the civilians if she can deceive the opponent

government to believe that the civilians are death.

(2) There are many descriptions about an event. The

decision about whether an event is an intended

effect or just a foreseen side effect is arbitrarily made

by our choice of description about the effect.

1.Explanations about the pair of two cases, thewicked merchants and the gravediggers discussed in

class, and what the result is if we apply the DDE to

the cases, and what our general intuitions about the

pair of cases are. The cases of wicked merchants and

gravediggersDDE: The gravediggers necessarily

intends to kill people to achieve the goal. Therefore,

they take the peoples death as means to achieve

their direct intention. But the merchants do not need

to kill people to earn money. The death is just

foreseen. The gravedigger is not permissible but the

merchant is permissible. Intuition: they are both bad

(even though not equally bad).

enough to explain our moral judgments.

2. Explanations about Foots distinction between

allowing and doing, with the definitions of these

two. The distinction between doing and allowing

- An agent does or brings about a consequence if and

only if her behavior is part of the sequence leanding

to the consequence. An agent allows a consequence

if her behavior is relevant to, but not part of, the

sequence of events


14/31


15/31

[4A] leading to the consequence.

However, this distinction does not explain the

following judgment.

It is wrong to allow ones own child to die of

starvation.

It is not (that much) wrong to allow people to die of

starvation in the world.3. Explanations about Foots example to show that

the distinction between allowing and doing is not

enough to analyze our moral judgments

4. Explanations about Foots distinction between

negative and positive duties

Positive Duties and Negative Duties

A negative duty is to permit or oblige inaction

A positive duty is to permit or oblige action

5. Explanations about why we have different

attitudes toward the following pairs of cases, given

Foots distinction of negative and positive duties:

(1) The pair of the Trolley case and the

emergency room case;

(2) The pair of allowing ones own child to die of

starvation and allowing people to die of starvation in

the world.

When we have a conflict of these duties, we need to

weigh them.

(1) The Trolley Case:

Two negative duties conflict: not to harm five people

and not to harm one person

(2) The emergency room case:

A negative duty (not to kill an innocent person) and a

positive duty (to save the lives) conflict.

is important.

(3) Allowance of ones own child to die of starvation

A negative duty (not to kill a person) is violated.

(4) Allowance of people to die of starvation in the

world

A positive duty (to save people) is violated.

[2V] distinction between persons who already are

virtuous and person who wants to be virtuous;

Normative Laws and Descriptive Laws

Normative laws are about how one should do; the

way of what things ought to be. (failure,

consciousness)

Descriptive laws are about the way of how things are.(no failure, no consciousness)

If you are not a virtuous person, virtues will work as

normative laws.

If you are a virtuous person, virtues will work as

descriptive laws.

2. Explanations about Aristotles notion of habit;

Habit habits are tools of turning the ought into the is.

The basic idea is that if we repeat the same activity

that a person who already acquired the ought would

do, then we can naturally and automatically do the

virtuous act, without any consciousness and without

any failure.

3. Explanations about the four conditions for

appropriate habitualization;

Four conditions of habitualization

(1) Knowledge: We need to know what the virtue is.

- Coward person Case:

Suppose a coward person MISTAKENLY imitates the

behaviors of brave ones. This person is not virtuous.

(Being vs. Doing) The person needs to know who are

brave one and who are not.

(2) For the sake of virtue: We do virtuous things only

for the sake of virtues.

- Ultimate Self-Interest Case

Suppose that a person does a virtuous thing and doesit knowingly, but she wants to do it for some prize.

This person is not virtuous. (Intention vs. Action)

(3) Consistency: We need to do virtuous acts

regularly. Suppose that a person decides to act brave

this time. Usually the person acts cowardly. This

person is not brave. (States acquired by habit vs.

Particular Actions)

(4) Enjoyment -A virtuous act with enjoyment is a

sign of the fact that the agent is in the virtuous state

and naturally do the virtuous act. If a person does a

brave act with the following pleasure or enjoyment,

then she is brave. But if she feels pain in doing a

brave act, she is not yet in the state of brave.

4. Explanations about the four cases to show the

unintuitiveness of Aristotelian virtue ethics.

Problems

(1) Virtuous excessively

(2) Courageous in a unjust war

(3) Different opportunities to establish virtues

(4) Conflict virtues


16/31


17/31


18/31


19/31


20/31


21/31


22/31


23/31


24/31


25/31


26/31


27/31


28/31


29/31


30/31


31/31

Final Ethics Study Cards

Documents