Philosophy 103
Final Exam Study Guide

IIdentifying terms and distinctions

You should be able to explain the following in a few sentences:

From the Midterm Study Guide:

Logic:  valid argument; modus ponens (include example); modus tollens (include example)
"Euthyphro":  Euthyphro's attempted definitions of piety (at least 3); "divine command"
                           theory of morality
Republic:  Glaucon's three categories of value; Socrates' definition of justice in the city and in
                    the individual
Nicomachean Ethics:  the two criteria that Aristotle claims that anything must meet in order to be the best
          good; his definition of happiness (eudaimonia); his account of the human telos; his account of what
          a virtue is; his account of virtue as a mean; his distinction between continence and temperance and
          incontinence and intemperance; his 3 types of friendship
Encheiridion:  Epictetus' distinction between what is and is not up to us; his view of
          the attitude we ought to take toward death--either our own or family members'
Leviathan:  Hobbes' definition of appetite, aversion, power, felicity; his First and
             Second Laws of Nature

From 2nd Half of Semester

Utilitarianismhedonism; Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle (the standard of right action);
             the "doctrine fit for swine" objection; internal vs. external sanctions; higher vs.
             lower pleasures
Kant's Groundwork:  hypothetical vs. categorical imperatives; a priori vs. a posteriori
             knowledge; necessary vs. contingent truth; Kant's Formula of Universal Law;
             his Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself

II.  Short Essay

You should be able to develop short essays of a few paragraphs on the following topics.
(The more carefully you can develop your answers the better.)

From the Midterm Study Guide

    1.  Explain the "divine command" theory of morality.  What is the most important objection against
        this theory?  How might a defender respond to this objection?

    2.  What criteria, according to Aristotle, must something meet in order to qualify as the "chief good?"
            What does he think actually meets these criteria?  How does he defend this view?

    3.  Set out Aristotle's substantive account of eudaimonia?  What does he think it doesn't consist in?  What
            alternative account does he develop?  How does he defend this view (especially relying on the telos
            for human beings)? 
  
    4.  Aristotle claims that virtue is a mean.  How does he explain and defend this claim?
            Use an example to illustrate this view.

    5.  Explain the maint features of Epictetus' account of how we ought to live.  What is
             the most important objection against this account?  How might Epictetus respond?


    6.  Explain the most important features of Hobbes' view of human nature and the "state of nature."
            What objections are there against this view?  How might Hobbes respond?

From 2nd Half of Semester

    7.  Explain the objection against utilitarianism--that it is "a doctrine fit for swine."  How does Mill respond
            to this objection?  Is his response adequate?

    8.  How does Mill defend or "prove" the claim that happiness is the sole intrinsic good? (See Chpt.
            4 in Utilitarianism.) Consider potential problems with this argument.  How might a utilitarian
            address these problems?

    9.  Set out Kant's Formula of Universal Law and illustrate it by applying it to a particular case
        (you may choose one of Kant's examples or one of your own).  What potential problems are
        there with the way in which the formula applies in this case, or problems with the formula in
        general?  How might a Kantian address these problems?

    10.  Set out Kant's Formula of Humanity and illustrate it by applying it to a particular case
        (you may choose one of Kant's examples or one of your own).  What potential problems are
        there with the way in which the formula applies in this case, or problems with the formula in
        general?  How might a Kantian address these problems?

    11.  How does Nietzsche describe the difference between what he calls the morality of good and evil
        ("slave morality") and the morality of good and bad ("master morality")?  Why does he think that
        "master moralities" are superior?  What fundamental features of human nature does he think are
        denied and degraded by "slave morality?" Explain what you take to be the most important objection
          against Nietzsche's account.

    12. Set out  Singer's account of animal equality.  How does he make the case for the moral equality of
            animals and humans?  What practical implications does he think this equality has for our treatment of
            animals?  Explain what you take to be the most important objection against Singer's view.  How might
            Singer respond? 

    13.  Set out Singer's argument regarding our moral obligations toward people in poverty.
            Explain what you take to be the most important objection to this argument.  How
            does (or how might) Singer respond to this objection?  Is his response adequate?

III   Longer Essay 

       You should be able to develop an essay of several paragraphs on the following
        topic.  If you wish you may write the essay in advance and turn it in (typed, double-spaced)
        with your final exam.

Topic:  I stated in the syllabus that the following questions are among the most fundamental
            questions of ethics:  1.  What is the foundation of morality?  2.  What is the sole intrinsic
            good (or the highest good, or good without qualification)?  3.  What kinds of acts are right
            or wrong?  4.  Why should I be moral?

            In this essay, your task is to focus on one of these questions and set out carefully the
            answers that two of the philosophers we read provide for it.  Explain each philosopher's
            approach as carefully as you can, and be sure to point out important similarities and
            differences between the two.

            Once you have set out both accounts carefully, criticize one or both of them.  Is one of
            these accounts more plausible than the other?  Are there problems with both?  Explain
            and defend your view.  Finally, what does your discussion lead you to conclude regarding
            the answer to this fundamental question?