Final Exam Study Guide

Final Exam Date: 12/15, 10:30-12:30, in our normal classroom

The final exam is closed-book, and non-cumulative. That is, it will only cover material after the midterm (although to do well on some of the essay questions you will need to re-read one or two of the Rachels chapters).

There will be an essay component, which will account for around 40% of your total grade on the final. The rest of the questions will be multiple choice, true/false etc.

There will be an essay on the final exam, but I will give you the questions now. Nevertheless, the essays will be graded as if they were surprise essay questions. Other study questions are below. You cannot bring in notes or an outline, but I suggest that you prepare your essay's structure and main arguments beforehand. Some students may benefit by writing out a practice version, but this is not necessary. Use your own judgment about what helps you best.

On the exam, you will choose one of the following questions and answer it. Keep in mind that your main goal with the essay is to demonstrate mastery of the relevant course material. Your secondary goal is to make good arguments of your own.

A. Patriotism and Just War Theory

Is patriotism a virtue or not? Compare Gomberg and MacIntrye on this issue, and argue for who you think is correct, or more correct. Be sure to compare the patriot to the cosmopolitan 'citizen of the world'. Then, lay out some of the principles of either Jus ad Bellum or Jus in Bello. Who would most likely respect these principles in warfare, the patriot or the cosmopolitan? Why? Do the results you find show that we ought to favor patriotism or cosmopolitanism, or some middling position? Or do the results show that justice should sometimes be disregarded in favor of partiality to one's own people?

B. Utilitarianism and Same-sex Unions:

Present Lee's argument against legalizing same-sex marriage based upon the bad consequences of doing so. Then, present some of Sadler's arguments that disallowing all marriage, either gay or straight, and only allowing civil unions, will have better consequences overall. Then, explain Utilitarianism. Does it seem that the Utilitarian should be against same-sex unions? Why or why not? Lastly, for the sake of argument assume that legalizing gay marriage will in fact lower utility. If this is so, should it remain illegal? If so, does this mean that rights are based on concerns of utility? If not, does this show that some rights should be had regardless of the utility/disutility involved?

[note: We shouldn't assume that either Lee or Sadler are Utilitarians, although they do employ some Utilitarian arguments.]

C. Torture, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Theory:

Will a virtuous person ever torture anyone? Can it ever be virtuous to torture? When? Be sure to explain Virtue Theory and what it might say about either becoming a professional torturer or torturing someone in a ticking-time-bomb (TTB) scenario. Explain how Wolfendale's arguments reflect some of the Virtue Theorist's concerns. Then, explain Utilitarianism and show how Steinhoff's views fit in with them. Are Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics really at odds with regards to training torturers? How about torturing in TTB scenarios? Defend your views. What is your position on torture and when, if ever, it is justified?

D. Bullshit, Partisanship, and Patriotism:

Explain Frankfurt's view of bullshit--what it is, and what is wrong with it. Then, explain MacIntyre's position on patriotism. Can MacIntrye's argument be extended by analogy to show that it is good to be a partisan of a political party? Why or why not? If part of defining a patriot or partisan is that they are partial to their country/party, does this show that the partisan/patriot should use bullshit when it advances their cause, which they believe is just? Why or why not? Does your answer here show that something is wrong with partisanship or patriotism, or merely that it is wrong to use bullshit, even for a cause you are partial to? Lastly, does this show that a justified partiality never robs us of our need to respect our foes, at least in some ways?

[note: don't make the mistake of thinking that because this topic is bullshit that you will be graded any less stringently.]

Study Guide Questions

[keep in mind when you subtract the #'s which are not questions, the actual number of questions is 59, not 70]

Adele Mercier - “On the Nature of Marriage: Somerville on Same-Sex Marriage”

    1. What are Mercier's arguments against Somerville's arguments against same-sex marriage based upon nature?

    2. How does Mercier criticize Somerville's 3 claims (p.410) about what is essential to marriage? (note: 410-417 are especially important pages to understand for the exam)

  1. Patrick Lee - "Marriage, Procreation, and Same-Sex Unions"

    1. What is Lee's view of marriage as laid out on pp. 422-424?

    2. What component of marriage seem to be essential to it, according to Lee?

    3. What does he say in favor of complementarity of parenting on pp. 424-5?

    4. Why does Lee think that the political community should protect and promote heterosexual marriage?

    5. What role does sex within marriage as a 'genuine biological union' or a 'two-in-one union' play in Lee's arguments? (see 430, 423)

    6. What harm does Lee foresee with legalizing same-sex marriage? (see p. 432, amongst others)

  2. John Scott Gray - “Rawls Principle of Justice as Fairness and Its Application to the Issue of Same-Sex Marriage”

  3. RAWLS OVERHEADS

    1. What is the 'Original Position'? What is the 'veil of ignorance'?

    2. Why does Rawls think that we should structure our society in line with a hypothetical thought experiment?

    3. What is the equality principle (sometimes called the 'liberty principle')?

    4. What is the difference principle?

    5. How are they both motivated?

    6. How does Gray use Rawls' political philosophy methodology to support same-sex marriage?

  1. Brook Sadler - “Re-Thinking Civil Unions and Same-Sex Marriage”

    1. What two assumptions do both proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage share in common? What is Sadler's position on these assumptions?

    2. What are Sadler's arguments against the first assumption?

    3. What are her arguments against the second assumption?

    4. How does Sadler explain resistance to same-sex marriage, given that proponents of same-sex marriage share the same normative ideal of marriage as opponents of it?

    5. What advantages of replacing marriages altogether with civil unions does Sadler point out?

  1. Paul Gomberg - "Patriotism is Like Racism"

    1. Explain the distinctions between moderate patriotism, moral universalism (or cosmopolitanism), and chauvinistic patriotism? Which view is most supported by 'commonsense morality'?

    2. How does Gomberg argue that a significant and sensible distinction between moderate patriotism and chauvinism cannot be found?

    3. How does he argue that patriotism is like racism?

    4. How do univeralism and patriotism conflict?

  1. Alasdair MacIntyre - "Is Patriotism a Virtue?"

    1. What three candidate descriptions of patriotism does M. consider? Which two does he reject? Which does he accept?

    2. How does M describe the morality of patriotism (MOP)? How does he describe the Classic Liberal Enlightenment tradition morality (also called 'Impersonal Moral Standpoint' (IMS), and in other articles, 'Universalism')?

    3. What are the problems for IMS? How about for MOP?

    4. What is the tension or conflict built between IMS and MOP?

    5. Why does MacIntrye favor MOP?

    6. Be able to explain the irony of how countries which favor IMS will still need soldiers to possibly die for it, who will need to accept MOP in order to be good soldiers.

    7. What is the one component of MacIntrye's favored kind of patriotism which is non-negotiable?

    8. What are the permanent sources of moral danger inherent in both IMS and MOP? Why does MacIntrye think IMS is, overall, more dangerous?

  1. Uwe Steinhoff - "Torture - The Case for Dirty Harry"

    1. What is Steinhoff's main argument for the permissibility of torture? What position is S. trying to support--that torture should be often practiced whenever utility will be maximized, or is he only arguing against an absolute prohibition on torture in situations like 'ticking-time-bomb' (TTB) cases?

    2. How does Steinhoff defend the actions of the Dirty Harry character?

    3. Does there need to be an actual threat averted in order to justify torture, according to Steinhoff?

    4. How dos Steinhoff justify torture even if there is only a small chance that the torture will be effective?

  1. Jessica Wolfendale - "Training Torturers: A Critique of the 'Ticking Bomb' Argument"

    1. How does Wolfendale argue that justifying torture by TTB scenarios would require us to train torturers?

    2. What does Wofendale contend happens to professional torturers so that it will become bad for them, not just the torturees?

    3. What are the moral hazards of training torturers (or, crimes of obedience)?

    4. Under what precise circumstances would Wolfendale admit that torture is permissible? But, how does she argue that such circumstances are impossible?

  1. Just War Theory (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    1. What's the problem with embracing wholeheartedly either a consequentialist or 'intrinsicist' theory of Just War Theory?

    2. What is the distinction between jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and just post bellum?

    3. Why should they be distinguished?

    4. What are the six conditions (that there is broad consensus about) which are individually necessary and jointly sufficient to declare war?

    5. What are the two main overarching principles that should guide one in thinking about jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and just post bellum?

    6. What are the various reasons given as to why non-combatants (perhaps excepting politicians) ought prima facie not be harmed?

    7. How do the two aforementioned principles restrain both victorious and failed sides in the post bellum period?

  1. Michael Walzer talk transcript - Arguing About War

    1. How is the case of regime change in Germany post WWII disanalogous to the case of Iraq?

    2. In which circumstances does traditional Just War Theory regard regime change as permissible?

    3. What is the import of the distinction between regime change as a consequence of a just war (fought for other reasons), versus a war declared for the explicit purpose of regime change?

    4. When, according to Walzer, is a war for regime change justified according to humanitarian reasons? Does he say that regime change is justified directly, in consequence of slaughter or oppression, or indirectly, as a means to stop the slaughter or oppression?

    5. How does Walzer argue that the (second) Iraq war is unjustified? How does he argue that containment was justified?

    6. Lastly, what recommendations does Walzer make to the international community so that multilateral, potentially harmful actions by powerful countries is decreased?

  1. Harry Frankfurt - "On Bullshit"

    1. What is the difference, according to Frankfurt, between bullshit and lying?

    2. How is it that telling a falsehood is not the same as lying?

    3. How is the liar fooling those taken in by the deception twice over?

    4. How is it that bullshit, often, is 'short of lying'?

    5. In what ways is the liar worse than the bullshitter?

    6. In what ways is the bullshitter worse than the liar?

    7. What are some of the functions of bullshitting? Are all of them bad?

That's all, folks.