This examination counts as twenty percent (20%) of your course grade.
Bring a blank "bluebook" to the examination. These will be collected and redistributed before the exam begins.
You will be asked to write two (2) essays (worth ten (10) points each). You will have a choice of at least four (4) essay questions. By "essay" I mean a discussion (in complete sentences) that will probably take more than a paragraph or two, but should take no more than a few pages.
You may use a 3"x5" card of notes of your own making.
| 1. | Naturally no help in answering the questions may be received from anyone (except yourself) during the examination. The work you hand in should be your own work. |
| 2. | Students may bring with them to the examination one (1) 3" x 5" card of notes to use during the examination. You may use any abbreviations or diagrams on the card you find helpful (as well as English, of course). You may not use any unusual aids (e.g., magnifying glass, microfiche reader) during the examination to read the card. (Your usual spectacles and contact lenses are not "unusual aids.") No other books or notes (or electronic devices) may be used during the examination. That means, for example, that you may not have your phone out while the examination is in progress. |
| 3. | What appears on the card of notes you bring to class should be your own work. Each person should be the "author" of his or her own card. One exception: you may include quotations on your card from the textbook or from anything I have handed out or put up on the board during class. |
| 4. | Anyone who uses such a card must hand it in with the examination with her or his name clearly on it. (The card does not have to be legible otherwise--just so you can read it.) The sheet will not be used to help determine a grade for the examination. (So on the examination don't say "see point 6a on the card.") I will return these cards to you when I return your graded examination. |
| G-REL2 | Many people endorse cultural relativism because they think that it naturally supports tolerance toward the moral standards of different societies. Gensler rejects this thought. Explain how he does so, and then assess his reasoning. |
| SL-19-2 | What is the difference between cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism? Why are both theories inconsistent with ethical objectivism? Critically discuss. |
| SL-19-4 | One might object that the theories of ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism both generate contradictions. Explain. How might a subjectivist or relativist respond to this criticism? Do you find their replies to be adequate? Critically discuss. |
| A-CLAS | Into what four main classes does A.J. Ayer divide the pronouncements of ordinary systems of ethics? Explain each and give examples. With which of these classes should ethical philosophers be concerned, according to Ayer? Is he right? What does Ayer say about the other classes? |
| A-MEAN | Explain A.J. Ayer's account of the meaning of ethical statements. On Ayer's account what would it mean to say (i) "It was morally wrong of Geoffrey to tell the company that the computer was broken from the start when it really broke a week after it arrived," (ii) "Lying is morally wrong." Critically discuss the plausibility of Ayer's account. |
| A-SUBJ | A.J. Ayer considers an argument G.E. Moore offered against subjectivism. What is this argument? Does it, with suitable modification, apply to Ayer's own theory? What is Ayer's response to the modified argument? |
| A-DISP | In what way and to what extent do we dispute about matter of value according to A.J. Ayer? Critically discuss. |
| SL-20-1 | What are the two types of moral nihilism and what is the main difference between them? In what ways does each theory agree with ethical objectivism, and in what ways does each disagree? Critically discuss. |
| SL-20-2 | What is the error theory of morality? What do error theorists typically claim is the "error" at the heart of our moral practice? Is the assumption that they identify really essential to our moral thought? If so, do you agree that it is an error? Critically discuss. |
| F-DDE | State and carefully explain the principle (or "doctrine") of double effect. Give examples of actions which would be morally acceptable according to it, and also examples of actions which would be morally unacceptable according to that principle. (And explain, of course, how these examples satisfy or violate, respectively, the principle of double effect.) |
| R-PF | What does W. D. Ross mean by "prima facie duty?" What is the connection, on Ross's account, between prima facie duties and our actual duty? Explain. |
| R-DUT | List and explain the kinds of prima facie duties Ross thinks we have. Is his list complete? Is there anything on his list that shouldn't be there? Is there any way to compress the list to include fewer divisions? Explain. |
| A-VIOL | Judith Jarvis Thomson begins one example with "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist." Explain this example. What is Thomson trying to prove using this example? Is she successful? Why or why not? Critically discuss. |
| A-EX | In "A Defense of Abortion" Judith Jarvis Thomson uses several examples. These include: the violinist, the tiny house, Smith's coat, Henry Fonda's touch, some example involving chocolates, the burglar, and people seeds. Choose one of these examples other than the violinist. Explain the example. Explain the general point Thomson is trying to make by using the example. (Not just: she's making an analogy with abortion.) Explain how the argument is supposed to work. Critique and evaluate the argument. |
| M-ADU | What, according to Marquis, is wrong with killing adult humans? Explain in detail his theory. Is his theory a good account of what is wrong with killing adult humans? Critically discuss. |
| M-DIF | Marquis claims that abortion is wrong for the same reason killing adult humans is wrong. What reason is that? Are there differences between killing adult humans and abortion which would justify abortion? Critically discuss. |
| OL-TOM | What does Mill mean by "tyranny of the majority?" Explain what it is and why Mill thinks it is a problem. Critically discuss. |
| OL-VSP | State and explain the "one very simple principle" which Mill asserts is "entitled to govern absolutely the dealing of society ..." Give examples of applications of this principle. What, according to Mill, are the limits of the principle (viz., where does it apply and where does it not apply)? Critically discuss. |
| OL-HAR | Explain the harm principle, as stated by Lee, and how it differs from paternalism and other competing principles of limitations on liberty. Give examples where the principles would give different answers about what a person should or should not be allowed to do (without legal constraint). Critically discuss. |
| OL-SPH | Mill talks of a "sphere of action in which society ... has, if any, only an indirect interest ..." How does Mill demarcate that sphere? What three parts does Mill think comprise this sphere? Give examples of what Mill would claim about what individuals and society can and cannot do in the parts of this sphere. Critically discuss. |
| C-VAL | According to Corvino, what is the value of sexual activity? Is it of the same value for homosexuals as for heterosexuals? If sexual activity is valuable, is there any reason two males (or two females) should have have sexual activity together? Critically discuss. |
| C-UNN | Some people say homosexual sex is unnatural, and is therefore wrong. Explain in detail Corvino's response to that argument. Critically discuss. |
| H-HARM | It is sometimes argued that drug use is harmful to the user and therefore should be prohibited. Carefully explain Huemer's response to this argument. Critically discuss. |
| H-OTH | It is sometimes argued that a person's drug use is harmful to other people and therefore should be prohibited. Carefully explain Huemer's response to this argument. Critically discuss. |
| H-RIGH | Huemer claims that "Individuals have a right to use drugs." Explain what he means by this and what his argument for it is. Critically discuss. |
| N-FACT | Norcross objects to eating meat from factory farms. Explain his argument. Consider some objections to the argument and evaluate Norcross's replies. |
| N-PUP3 | Some argue that there is a disanalogy between Fred's behavior, as described by Norcross, and that of most meat-eaters, namely that Fred intends to make the puppies suffer, while most consumers of meat don't intend to make any animals suffer. Explain how this is supposed to make a moral difference between the cases. Does this disanalogy undermine Norcross's argument? How does Norcross respond? Critically discuss. |
| N-PUP5 | What is the difference between being a "moral agent" and being a "moral patient?" Does Norcross think that non-human animals are moral agents? Does he think they are moral patients? Explain and critically discuss. |
| T-RES2 | What does it mean to say that an entity has "a good of its own," according to Taylor? Which entities does Taylor think have goods of their own? What -- according to Taylor -- is it for things to possess inherent worth? What, according to Taylor, has inherent worth? Critically discuss. |
| T-SUP | Some people think that human beings are morally superior to non-human animals. What reasons does Taylor mention that people offer for this belief? Explain. Critically discuss Taylor's response to these views. |