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

Name the five features identified by Pojman that a moral principle is generally required to possess. Explain each feature.

Utilitarianism is representative of a particular normative ethical view; name the view, name its basic evaluative unit, and name its basic moral term.

Kant's ethical theory is representative of a particular normative ethical view; name the view, name its basic evaluative unit, and name its basic moral term.

Offer a sound, non-question-begging, argument either for the conclusion that non-marital sex (sex between people who are not married to one another) is morally wrong or for the conclusion that it is morally permissible.

Explain what Pojman calls the "diversity thesis," and what he calls the "dependency thesis" and how these together yield the conclusion that "there are no universally valid moral principles." Critically discuss.

What does Pojman mean by "conventionalism?" What does he mean by "subjectivism?" What is the difference between these views?

What "absurd consequences" does Pojman think follow from subjectivism?

Pojman argues that there is a contradiction in the view that ethical relativism entails intercultural tolerance. Explain and evaluate his argument.

Explain Pojman's argument that ethical relativism "seems to entail that reformers are always (morally) wrong."

Explain why the possibility that a person may simultaneously belong to several societies (or subcultures) presents a problem for conventionalism.

Explain how Pojman argues that "conventionalist relativism seems to reduce to subjectivism."

How does Pojman distinguish moral absolutism from what he calls "moral objectivism?"

What is meant by saying of a moral principle that it is a "prima facie principle?"

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 principle does Mill accept as the fundamental principle of morals? Give an example of its application.

How would a utilitarian go about determining whether it would be right for the United States government to bomb Korea?

John Stuart Mill distinguishes a utilitarian "theory of life" from a "theory of morality." Explain what each of these is and how they are related.

How does Mill respond to the objection that his utilitarian doctrine is "a doctrine worthy only of swine ...?" Critically discuss.

Mill claims that pleasures differ in quality as well as in quantity. What does Mill mean by this and what support does he offer for the claim? Critically discuss.

J. S. Mill claims that some pleasures have "higher value" than other pleasures. Explain his argument for this claim. Critically discuss.

Explain the distinction Mill draws between being happy and being content.

John Stuart Mill claimed that "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Critically discuss his argument for this claim.

Some people who have experienced the "higher" or mental pleasures still at times choose sensual pleasures instead. How does Mill account for this? Critically discuss.

How does Mill think we are to decide which pleasures are more worth having? Is this method reasonable? Critically discuss.

John Stuart Mill has been amply criticized for this passage: "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible is that people hear it; and so of the other sources of our experience. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to provide that anything is desirable is that people do actually desire it." What evidence is it possible to provide that something is desirable? (To answer this you will have to discuss what it means for something to be desirable.)

Does Kant believe that morality is based in human nature? Why or why not?

What, according to Kant, is the only thing that can be called good without qualification? Why? Critically discuss.

Explain what Kant means by "gifts of nature" and "gifts of fortune." Give examples of each.

How does Kant argue that calm deliberation is not something which is good without qualification? Critically discuss this argument.

Suppose there was a will such that "owing to a special disfavour of fortune or the niggardly provision of a step-motherly nature, this will should wholly lack power to accomplish its purpose, if with its greatest efforts it should yet achieve nothing." (P 420a) What, if anything, could or would the value of this will be, according to Kant? Explain.

Explain Kant's "jewel" analogy. What point is he trying to make?

Explain the distinction Immanuel Kant draws between acting from duty and acting merely in accordance with duty. Give examples of each. 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.

Explain Kant's distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting from duty. Use examples.

Apart from duty or respect for the moral law, what other motives does Kant think one can have in acting?

Under what circumstances, according to Kant, is there moral worth in an action (i.e., when does a person deserve moral credit for acting as she does)? Is Kant's view on this reasonable? Why or why not?

What, according to Kant, is an imperative? Explain.

Explain the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative.

Explain the differences Kant sees among rules of skill, counsels of prudence, and commands of morality. Give examples of each.

Give an example of a hypothetical imperative. What makes it a hypothetical imperative?

According to Kant how many categorical imperatives are there?

What does Kant mean by the term "maxim?" Give examples. What maxims does Kant say it is permissible or impermissible to act from? Explain.

Explain Kant's distinction between "perfect" and "imperfect" duties. Give examples of each and critically explore the distinction.

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.

"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.

Kant considers four illustrations of the application of the categorical imperative. Explain one of these. What in that illustration is Kant saying is morally right or morally wrong? How does he use the categorical imperative to derive this answer? Is his derivation a good one? Why or why not?

Suppose that it is possible to download copyrighted music via the internet without paying for it. Suppose that the makers of such music (the artists) don't want their music freely copied in this way. How would Kant address the question of whether it is morally permissible to download such music by such artists without paying for it? Explain in detail what a Kantian (a follower of Kant's moral theory) would say. Would a utilitarian give a different answer? Why or why not? Critically discuss.

What does it mean to treat a person as an end and not as a means only? Give an example of such treatment or explain why there can be no examples. Critically discuss.

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.

Define "determinism." What is the universe like if determinism is true?

What does it mean to say of something that it is "causally determined?" Is any event not causally determined? Explain.

How might a hard determinist argue that no one is responsible for any of her or his actions? Critically discuss.

Explain the compatibilist view on the relation between free action and determinism. Make this view as plausible as you can and give examples of actions that would be free, and others that would not be free, according to this view. Is compatibilism correct? Explain.

What does it mean to say that someone does some action freely? That is, how is "acting freely" to be defined? What would an incompatibilist say it means? What would a compatibilist say it means? Who is right? Critically discuss.

What, according to a soft determinist, does it mean to say that someone did something freely? How is the soft determinist's understanding of freedom different from that of the hard determinist and the libertarian? Critically discuss.

Argue for or against the view known as compatibilism. Critically discuss this view and the arguments for and against it.

There are three propositions such that the hard determinist, the soft determinist, and the libertarian each accept two of the propositions and deny a third (although they each deny a different one). What are these propositions and which do which views accept and deny? Explain.

Be able to define and discuss the interrelationships among: determinism, indeterminism, libertarianism, compatibilism, incompatibilism, hard determinism, and soft determinism.

What does it mean to say that someone does some action freely? That is, how is "acting freely" to be defined? What would an incompatibilist say it means? What would a compatibilist say it means? Who is right? Critically discuss.

What, according to a soft determinist, does it mean to say that someone did something freely? How is the soft determinist's understanding of freedom different from that of the hard determinist and the libertarian? Critically discuss.

How might a hard determinist argue that no one is responsible for any of her or his actions? Critically discuss.

Walter T. Stace wrote: "The problem has been created by the fact that learned men, especially philosophers, have assumed an incorrect definition of free will, and then finding that there is nothing in the world which answers to their definition, have denied its existence." What was the "incorrect definition" that Stace thought some philosophers assumed? How did this lead philosophers to deny the existence of free will? What, according to Stace is the correct definition of free will? Which definition, if either, is correct? Critically discuss.

What is Stace's account of free action? Is this account correct? Critically discuss.

Explain Stace's "internal cause" account of free action. Give examples of actions caused by psychological states. Give examples of actions caused whose immediate cause is not a psychological state. Does Stace's account seem to distinguish free actions from those that are not free? Explain.

One example of an "unfree act" that Stace gave was "stealing because one's employer threatened to beat one." Is such an act unfree on Stace's own account of free will? Explain and critically discuss.

Walter T. Stace argues:

Thus we see that moral responsibility is not only consistent with determinism, but requires it. ... If there were no determinism of human beings at all, their actions would be completely unpredictable and capricious, and therefore irresponsible. And this is in itself a strong argument against the common view of philosophers that free will means being undetermined by causes.

What, according to Richard Taylor, are the "three claims of soft determinism?"

How does Taylor imagine the soft determinist would reply if asked whether one could have chosen otherwise? Explain this imagined reply and explain and critique Taylor's response to it.

Explain Richard Taylor's "ingenious physiologist" example. How does it figure into his refutation of soft determinism?

Explicate and critique Richard Taylor's argument against the view he calls "simple indeterminism?."

In a section of "Freedom and Determinism" entitled "Determinism and Simple Indeterminism as Theories" Richard Taylor argues that if determinism is true we cannot deliberate about we are going to do. Explicate and critically discuss Taylor's argument to this conclusion.

Explain and explore the argument Taylor puts forward to the conclusion that determinism is false.

Explain Taylor's Theory of Agency. According to that theory what is a free action?

How does the view Richard Taylor calls "The Theory of Agency" differ from that which he calls "Simple Indeterminism?" Explain why Taylor thinks the theory of agency is not susceptible to the same objection he raised against simple indeterminism. Critically discuss.

In regard to determinism, freedom, and compatibilism, what do the hard determinist and the soft determinist agree on? What do the hard determinist and the libertarian agree on? What do the soft determinist and libertarian agree on ?

Frankfurt at the beginning of "Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person" distinguished several ways someone might try to distinguish persons from non-persons (such as most non-human animals). Explain three of these ways. Which does Frankfurt propose? Is it a better way of distinguishing persons from non-persons than the other ways? Critically discuss.

What does Frankfurt claim to be "peculiarly characteristic" of humans as persons? Explain.

Explain what a "second-order desires" is. Give an example of a "second-order desire." Give an example of a "first-order desire."

Frankfurt talks of second order volitions. What are these? Compare and contrast second order volitions with desires of various kinds. Give examples. What kinds of beings, if any, have second order volitions, according to Frankfurt? Does Frankfurt seem right about all this? Why or why not? Critically discuss.