Format of the Examination:

This examination counts as twenty percent (20%) of your grade. You will be asked to write two (2) essays, each worth ten (10) points, with a maximum possible of twenty (20) points. You must answer one question from each of two parts. At the start of the examination I will list the "names" of at least four (4) questions from which you must choose two (2) on different philosophers. Please print out this document, put your name on it, and bring it (without notes written on it) to the examination for reference. It will be collected at the end of the examination.

Be sure to bring a blue book with you to the examination.

Ground Rules:

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. Undergraduate students: You may bring with you to the examination one (1) 3" x 5" card (crammed as full as you care to make it) 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 sheet. (Your usual spectacles and contact lenses are not "unusual aids.") No other books or notes may be used during the examination. 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 (but not photocopied) on your card from the textbook or from any handout I have given. Everyone 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 card 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 if and when you come by to pick up your graded examination.

Questions:

"Name"	Question
Part I: Bentham
B-ARGU	Explain how Bentham argues with those who reject the principle of utility as the principle for separating right from wrong actions. Critically discuss.
B-THEO	Explain Bentham's view of what he calls the "theological principle" in II.18. Critically discuss.
B-VALU	Explain all the factors Jeremy Bentham delineates for considering the value of a pleasure or pain. Give examples of pleasures and pains which have and lack these features. Does his way of evaluating pleasures seem adequate? Why or why not? Critically discuss.
B-DETER	How, according to Bentham, are we ideally to determine whether some action is right or wrong? What considerations are to be taken into account? Is Bentham's method adequate? Why or why not?
B-EG	Bentham details how to determine the "general tendency of an act, by which the interests of a community are affected." Explain this method and apply it to an example. That is, explain how one could apply Bentham's method to determine whether tell a lie, for instance.
B-KIND	Explain the various kinds of pleasures and pains Bentham lists in chapter V, giving examples of each. Does his list seem complete? Do the categories overlap? Critically discuss.
Part II: Kant
K-FIRST	State the first sentence in section I of Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. How does Kant defend the claim he makes in that sentence? Critically discuss.
K-FIRS	State, explain, and critically discuss Kant's "first proposition" of morality.
K-IMP	What, according to Kant is an imperative? Explain and explore the distinction Kant draws between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Explain the different sorts of hypothetical imperatives Kant says there are. Critically explore.
K-SUI	How and to what extent does Kant argue that suicide is morally wrong? Critically discuss Kant's arguments on this matter.
K-SAME	Immanuel Kant states several formulations of the categorical imperative including, among others, one having to do with willing something to be universal law and one having to do with ends in themselves. Kant claims that these several statements are "many formulations of precisely the same law." Critically discuss this claim.
K-GOLD	Explain what differences there are, if any, between Kant's categorical imperative and the golden rule (or variations on the golden rule). Critically discuss.
K-PERF	Explain the distinction Kant draws between "perfect" and "imperfect" duties. Gives examples of duties Kant would classify as "perfect" and examples of duties he would classify as "imperfect."
K-HNAT	Does Kant believe that morality is based in human nature? Why or why not?
K-GOOD	What, according to Kant, is the only thing that can be called good without qualification? Why? Critically discuss.
K-FUNC	Explain Kant's argument intended to show that the function of reason is not to make us happy. What, according to Kant, is the function of reason?
K-FROM	Explain the distinction Immanuel Kant draws between acting from duty and acting merely in accordance with duty. When people are not acting from duty what, if anything are they acting from, according to Kant? Give examples. What does Kant claim to be the relevance of this distinction? (I.e., what difference does it make whether we act from duty or merely in accordance with duty?) Is Kant right about all this? Critically discuss.
K-WORT	Under what circumstances, according to Kant, is there moral worth in an action (i.e., when does a person get moral credit for acting as she does)? Is Kant's view on this reasonable? Why or why not?
K-EG	Kant claims that "worse service cannot be rendered morality than that an attempt be made to derive it from examples." What does Kant think wrong with basing morality on examples? Explain. Is Kant right about this? Critically discuss.
K-WILLS	Kant wrote "Whoever wills the end, wills (so far as reason has decisive influence on his actions) also the means that are indispensably necessary to his actions and that lie in his power." Carefully explain what this means, being sure to explain each qualification and why it is included. Is this claim right? Explain why or why not, giving examples.
K-2FRM	Specify two significantly different formulations Kant offers of the categorical imperative. Explore an application of each; that is argue that some action is right or is wrong based on a formulation of the categorical imperative. (You may consider the same action for each formulation, or different actions.) Critically discuss.
K-POOR	"A ... man, for whom things are going well, sees that others (whom he could help) have to struggle with great hardships, and he asks, `What concern of mine is it? Let each one be as happy as heaven wills, or as he can make himself; I will not take anything from him or even envy him; but to his welfare or to his assistance in time of need I have no desire to contribute.'" What would Kant say to such a man? Why? Critically discuss.
K-LISA	Suppose that Lisa Appleby, a bright electrical engineering student, devises a "black box" which when attached to her telephone allows her to make international calls from her home in such a way that neither she nor anyone else is billed for them. She wonders whether it would be morally right to use her invention in this way. Consider how Kant would address her question and how he would support his position. Critically discuss. Would a utilitarian such as Bentham give a different answer? Why or why not? Critically discuss.
K-MEAN	What is it to treat someone as a means? What is it to treat someone as an end? Does Kant say we must never treat someone as a means? Does Kant say that we should always treat people as ends? Critically discuss.