This examination counts as fifteen percent (15%) of your course grade.

This is a closed-book, in-class examination on the scheduled date.

The examination will have two parts.

• Part I (for ten (10) points) will ask you to answer ten (10) "short answer" questions worth one (1) point each. By "short answer" I mean that a sentence or two (or three) will suffice.
• Part II (for five (5) points) will ask you to answer one (1) essay question worth five (5) points. You will have a choice from two (2) questions on this part. By "essay" I mean a discussion that will probably take more than a paragraph or two, but should take no more than a few pages.

Ground Rules

As always, cheating will not be tolerated. No help in answering the questions may be received from anyone (except yourself) during the examination. You may not use books or notes during the examination.

Sample Questions and Points to Study

Whom is the "problem of evil" a problem for? Why. For whom is it not a problem? Why?

How does the evidential problem of evil differ from the logical problem of evil? Critically discuss.

Carefully explicate the problem of evil as an argument to the conclusion that God does not exist. Explain each premise in the argument and how the flow of the argument (i.e. how the inferences go from the premises to the subconclusions and the final conclusion).

Explore possible objections to the argument against the existence of God based on the logical problem of evil and explain how a defender of that argument might reply to those objections. Critically discuss.

It is often suggested that the fact that human beings have "free will" explains the existence of evil in the world and that God is, therefore, not to be held accountable for that evil. Thus, it is concluded, the existence of evil in the world is not really a good reason not believe that a very good, very powerful God does not exist. Critically discuss.

What is a theodicy?

Explain the free will theodicy. What critique has been offered of the free will theodicy? Explain.

Carefully explain one objection to the argument against the existence of God based on the problem of evil and explore how a defender of that argument might reply to that objection. Critically discuss.

Early on in Hick's article he rules out "certain solutions" to the problem of evil. What are these "solutions" and why does he rule them out? Is he right to rule them out? Critically discuss.

John Hick claims that "The idea of a person who can be infallibly guaranteed always to act rightly is self-contradictory." (P 97b) Hick considers a challenge to this claim. Explain the challenge and Hick's reply. Who is correct? Why? Critically discuss.

Explain Hick's "Irenaean" theodicy. (See P 99bf)

What, according to Wolff, does it mean to have authority (in the normative sense).

What is the difference between a de jure state and a de facto state? Explain.

Explain what Wolff means by "moral autonomy."

Wolff argues that "All authority is ... illegitimate." Explain his argument for the claim that the state does not have authority over persons.

Wolff argues that the state does not have authority over persons. Critique his argument.

Hobbes argues that all men are equal. Critically discuss his arguments for this.

What is Hobbes' reason for claiming that all men are equal in body?

Carefully explicate and critique Hobbes' argument(s) for his claim that all men are equal in mind.

What, according to Hobbes, are the principal causes of quarrel? Explain what each is and how it leads to "quarrel."

What does Hobbes mean by the "condition of mere nature?"

Explain what Hobbes thinks people's lives would be like in a "condition of mere nature."

Does the notion of justice or injustice have any application in a condition of mere nature? Why or why not?

What is a covenant, according to Hobbes? What role does the notion of a covenant play in Hobbes' attempt to justify state authority? Explain.

What, according to Hobbes, is war? In a condition of mere nature, who is at war? Explain.

What "articles of peace" does Hobbes say are proposed? Who or what, according to Hobbes, suggests these articles of peace? Why should we accept them?

What is the first "general rule of reason" that Thomas Hobbes appeals to in his Leviathan and what are its two branches? Does reason require us to obey this "law?" Critically discuss.

What is the "second law" (of Nature) enunciated by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan? Explain his defense of this principle. Show how this supposed law of nature shapes the moral system Hobbes advocates. Critically discuss.

What sort of government does Hobbes propose? How does he defend this proposal? Critically discuss.

What did Mill mean by "tyranny of the majority?" Give some examples of this.

Mill wrote "`the tyranny of the majority is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard." (P 468b) Do you think this so-called "tyranny of the majority" is a bad thing or a good thing? Defend your answer.

What is the "one very simple principle" that Mill says is "entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control?" (P 469a) Give examples of situations where, according to this principle, society is entitled to compel and control people. Give examples of situations where, according to this principle, society is not entitled to compel or control individuals.

What is paternalism? Under what conditions, if any, is paternalism justified?

Whom is Mill's anti-paternalistic doctrine not meant to apply to? Critically discuss the exceptions Mill makes to the rejection of paternalism.

What grounds have been proposed as legitimate reasons for limiting the freedom or liberty of a person? Which grounds are acceptable and which not? That is, under what conditions is it morally legitimate to limit the freedom or liberty of another person? Critically discuss.

Should the selling of one's own body organs (e.g. an eye, a kidney, blood) be permitted by society? Why or why not? (Be sure in your discussion to appeal to theories and principles we've discussed in class.)

What does Mill regard as "the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions?"

What "sphere of action" does Mill regard as "the appropriate region of human liberty?" Explain. Do you agree? Why or why not?

What, according to Mill, is "the only freedom which deserves the name?"

Suppose "all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion." Is the remainder of mankind justified in silencing that one person, according to Mill?

Mill argues that "silencing the expression of an opinion" is wrong. Carefully explain his argument.