Midterm Study Guide

The midterm will be composed of true/false, multiple-choice, short-answer, and 'matching' questions (where you'll be asked to match up statements of philosophical positions with the proponents of these views). If you can answer all of the following questions satisfactorily, you will do well on the exam. What you are mainly expected to display on the exam is mastery of the material, which is embodied by understanding what positions the authors argue for, how they argue for them, and what problems there are with the arguments. A key point to remember, and perhaps a comforting one, is the following--I make my exam from the study guide. So, there are no surprises. The number of questions may seem excessive, but, keep in mind that there is no paper in this course, so the tests count for a lot, and, we've covered a lot of material in the first half of the course. Also, it is beyond doubt that the test will not contain questions on everything covered below. But, a satisfactory understanding of all the issues and articles does require being able to answer all of these questions. [Think of it this way - the test is testing whether it is reasonable to believe that you could in fact satisfactorily answer all of these questions, even though it will actually only test you on a reasonably sized sub-set of these questions.]

If you do not like the study guide, or are overwhelmed by it, you can refrain from using it. Any reasonably intelligent person who carefully reads the material twice should be able to answer these questions without ever seeing them. But, if you do use it, here is my recommendation for how to use it.

First, you should have read everything already. Then, look over the questions. Then, read the material again. Then, look at the questions, and see if you can answer them. If not, go back and look over the material again, until you've got it. I don't recommend typing out answers to all the questions unless you know that you cannot do well without doing so.

Here is how you should NOT use the study guide. First, don't read the material. Then, look at the study guide, and try to read as little of the material as possible in order to answer the questions. I guarantee that you will not do well on the exam if you do this.

Here are some overheads that were used in the course:

[note - there are actually 90 questions, not 107. I left the titles in the numbering for formatting reasons]

Rachels, Chapter 2: Cultural Relativism:

• 1. What is 'Cultural Relativism'? (CR) What are some different claims that Rachels describes (that often run the risk of getting run together) as embodying CR?

  2. How is the 'Principle of Tolerance' inconsistent with some versions of CR?

  3. What is what we called the 'least controversial version of CR'? (Henceforth, just referred to as CR in an unqualified way).

  4. What is wrong with the 'Cultural Differences argument' for CR?

  5. The biggest problem for CR, thinks Rachels, is that it has negative entailments (or, counterintuitive consequences). What are they?

  6. Rachels argues that many supposed moral differences are actually differences in belief about matters of (non-moral) fact, and so there is not as much difference in moral belief as the CRist would suppose. How do these arguments go?

  7. Rachels argues that there at some minimal values shared by all (or, almost all) cultures. What are they? Why are they possessed by (almost) all cultures?

1. Rachels, Chapter 3: Subjectivism in Ethics:

   1. What is 'Simple Subjectivism'? (SS) What is wrong with it?

   2. What is Emotivism? How is it different than SS, in a way that avoids some of the problems that faces SS?

   3. What problems are there with Emotivism?

   4. Rachels defends objective ethics by arguing, against the Subjectivists, that there can be proofs in ethics. How does Rachels diagnose the error of Subjectivists with regards to standards of argumentation?

2. Rachels, Chapter 7 & 8: The Utilitarian Approach:

• 1. What is Utilitarianism? What is the Principle of Utility (POU)? (be able to note the different versions of the POU that we spoke of).

  2. Utilitarianism has three main components - a consequentialist component, a psychological satisfaction component, and an impartiality component. Be able to state what these components are.

  3. What are some 'theoretical desiderata' that I spoke of Utilitarianism as satisfying?

  4. What are the problems with classical Utilitarianism's contention that only feeling or pleasure matter? What examples have been given to show that sometimes an action can be wrong even though no one is hurt by it, and some are pleased by it?

  5. What are the problems with classical Utilitarianism's contention that only consequences matter to assessing an action's rightness or wrongness?

  6. How does Utilitarianism run into problems with regards to not accounting for justice?

  7. What problems are there with Utilitarianism's impartiality component?

  8. How does Utilitarianism succumb to the objection that the supererogatory (i.e., actions which are above and beyond the call of duty) become mandatory?

  9. How can Utilitarians reply to these objections?

3. Rachels, Chapter 9 - Kantianism

• 1. What is the main feature which separates deontology from Utilitarianism?

  2. What is the difference between categorical and hypothetical imperatives?

  3. What is the Categorical Imperative? How is it used to help us decide which actions we can perform?

  4. What problems does Rachels bring up for Kant's view?

  5. Even given the problems with Kant's view, Rachels points out a Kantian insight that still seems correct. What is it?

4. Rachels, Chapter 12 - The Ethics of Virtue

• 1. What, in broad outline, distinguishes Virtue Theory (VT) from rule-based ethical theories?

  2. What are virtues? What does Aristotle say that they are? Why are virtues important, according to Aristotle?

  3. What problems are there with saying that bad people engaged in bad actions cannot be acting courageously? What are the problems with saying that they can?

  4. Be able to explain the challenge to VT based upon cultural differences, and the kind of reply the VTist could make. (similar to 7 above)

  5. What advantages and objections are there to VT?

5. Noonan - An Almost Absolute Value in History

• 1. What is the main question Noonan is concerned with?

  2. What are the problems he gives with the i) viability, ii) experience, iii) visibility, and iv) probability criteria of humanity? What does he think the correct criterion of humanity is?

  3. What is his criterion conjoined with to entail that abortion is usually unjustified?

6. Warren - On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion

• 1. What is the difference between the moral notion of a person and the biological notion of a human being? Why is it important, especially in criticizing arguments such as Noonan's?

  2. What does Warren think are the proper criteria for personhood? Why do fetuses, according to her, not satisfy the criteria? How does this entail that abortion is permissible?

  3. How does Warren argue against a fetus's right to life via the claim that it is a potential person? What's wrong with this argument? (in-class)

  4. How does Warren's argument entail that infanticide is permissible?

7. Jarvis Thomson - A Defense of Abortion

• 1. What assumption does JT grant to the anti-abortionist, while still arguing for the permissibility of abortion?

  2. What is the violinist case supposed to show? How is this supposed to cut against the 'extreme view' of the anti-abortionist?

  3. JT admits that the violinist analogy is relevantly disanalogous with standard cases of unwanted pregnancies, and so she offers another analogy. What is it, and how does it work?

  4. What different interpretations of having the 'right to life' does JT discuss? Which interpretation does she think is most plausible?

  5. What role does the distinction of being indecent vs. being unjust play in JT's arguments?

  6. How does a fetus apparently get its right to not be aborted, according to JT?

8. English - Abortion and the Concept of a Person

• 1. What immediate problems does E point out with extreme liberal and conservative views about abortion?

  2. How does E argue that the concept 'person' and when it applies cannot bear all the weight we've put on it in the abortion debate?

  3. What are the hypnotism cases supposed to show?

  4. How does E argue that a certain coherence of attitudes towards the fetus should be one of the desiderata in developing a satisfactory account of abortion?

  5. What is E's final, nuanced position?

9. Hursthouse - Virtue Ethics and Abortion

• 1. The article has two parts, a defense of VT and arguments about abortion. How do they relate?

  2. How do VTists go about the abortion debate in a significantly different way than Utlititarians or Kantians do?

  3. Why does H think that the status of the fetus, and the issue of women's rights, are irrelevant to the abortion issue? Why does H think that a focus on familiar biological, sociological, and psychological facts is more relevant to deciding the issue?

  4. What tension does H point out with those who believe abortion is unproblematic and yet miscarriage is tragic?

  5. What is H's view on when and why abortion is permissible or not?

  6. How does H argue that abortion in a certain case can be permissible, and yet feeling guilty may be appropriate?

10. Singer - Famine, Affluence, and Morality

• 1. How does Singer argue that we are obligated to give far more for famine relief and international aid than we do?

  2. How does he defend a key principle(s) about assistance in his argument, and what is it?

  3. What does Singer think about the relevance of proximity with regards to our obligation to help?

  4. What shocking implications does Singer's argument have about how we in the developed world live our lives?

  5. What does it mean that his view seems to entail that we should give to the point of marginal utility? How does Singer reply to this objection?

  6. What is one of the strongest objections to Singer's position? (in class)

11. Hardin - Lifeboat Ethics...

• 1. What are the spaceship-earth and lifeboat-country metaphors, and what are they supposed to show or support?

  2. What is the 'tragedy of the commons'? How does it relate to the World Food Bank?

  3. How does Hardin argue that we should not give famine relief (in the form of either food or technological assistance) to impoverished countries?

  4. How does Hardin argue for a closed-door immigration policy (or something like it)?

  5. What problems did we discuss with Hardin's arguments?

12. Singer - All Animals Are Equal

• 1. What is really wrong with racism/sexism, according to Singer, and why should it not be based on factual errors?

  2. How does he argue that 'speciesism' is wrong in the way that racism or sexism should be held as wrong?

  3. How does the failure of a search for a non-speciesist feature F, (the having of which renders a thing prima facie wrong to harm) that all and only humans have and all animals lack, support Singer's view?

  4. How does Singer argue that a lot of philosophers' talk of the 'intrinsic dignity of humanity' etc. is really just gussied-up speciesism? (relates to 84)

13. Steinbock - Speciesism and the Idea of Equality

• 1. Steinbock seems to argue that, while Singer is right that animals might merit moral considerability, that there are relevant differences between us and animals that could override the prima facie equality of considerability. How do these arguments work?

  2. How does Steinbock argue that sentience/ability to suffer are not the only basis for equal consideration of interests.

  3. How is feeding children before dogs (i.e., putative speciesism) not like cases of racism (e.g., feeding whites before hispanics).

  4. How does Steinbock argue that intelligence/rationality can play a role in determining interests, without entailing that anybody with a higher intelligence always has a greater interest than one with lesser intelligence?

14. Rachels - Active and Passive Euthanasia

• 1. What are Rachels’ two arguments against the traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia?

  2. What is the moral significance of the Smith and Jones example?

  3. What is Rachels response to the objection that the cases of euthanasia are not like the Smith and Jones example?

  4. What is Rachels response to the objection that “letting die” is different type of action from killing?

  5. How is a “legal point of view” relevant to Rachels’ analysis?

15. Brock - Voluntary Active Euthanasia

• 1. What is the difference between physician-assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia? What is Brock concerned with in his essay?

  2. What are Brock’s two central ethical arguments for voluntary active euthanasia?

  3. How does Brock respond to the claim that Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of an innocent person?

  4. What are the four potential good consequences of permitting euthanasia?

  5. What are the six potential bad consequences of permitting euthanasia?

  6. Explain the slippery slope objections to permitting euthanasia.

16. Luke Gormally - Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide...

17. What seven reasons does Gormally give against legalized voluntary euthanasia, and what problems, if any, are there with these reasons? (in-class)

18. Arthur Dyck - "An Alternative to the Ethic of Euthanasia"

19. What is the difference between the ethics of euthanasia and what Dyck calls benemortasia?

20. How can euthanasia enable the forming and enactment upon bad motives?

21. How does, in Dyck's view, the ethics of benemortasia have a better view of the value of life?

22. How does Dyck argue that the very notion that there are lives not worth living is a dangerous stepping stone?