The final exam will be held on Friday, December 12 from 8-11am in CSB 001 (our normal lecture room).  The exam questions will be drawn from these study questions; there will be no "surprise" questions.  You will notice there is overlap among some of the study questions in different categories.  The exam itself will be closed book, though you will be allowed to consult two pages (= two sides of paper) of notes during the exam (small fonts are ok).  You can study together, but you must write your own notes; essay questions cannot regurgitate material from the handouts verbatim (though short answers can).  There will be two review sessions for the exam.  The first will be Wednesday, December 10 from 8:30-9:50am in CBS 001 (our normal lecture room).  The second will be Thursday, December 11 from 9-10:30am in the Philosophy Department Seminar room (H&SS 7077).  I hope that those who can will attend the first review session.  The second session is in a room with much smaller capacity and is intended primarily for those who are unable to make the first session. Please bring two empty blue books to the exam (don't even fill out the cover page).

SHORT ANSWER (approximately 20-50 words each; usually 2-4 sentences)

1. Define soundness and vailidity, as applied to arguments.
2. For a defense of any proposition P, it is possible to distinguish two kinds of critical response: Oh Yeah? and So What?  Explain and contrast these two kinds of response.
3. Explain and distinguish descriptivism and expressivism as forms of subjectivism.
4. What two interpretations does Socrates offer of Euthyphro's definition of piety as what (all) the gods love?
5. What is psychological egoism?
6. Explain the difference between extreme and moderate subjectivism about happiness.
7. What is hedonism?
8. Explain the difference between act and rule utilitarianism.
9. What is Mill's higher pleasures doctrine?
10. When are restrictions on liberty paternalistic, when are they applications of the harm principle, and what is Mill's attitude toward these two kinds of restrictions?
11. What does Kant think that a good will involves, and what sort of value does he attribute to the good will?
12. What is the difference bewteen categorical and hypothetical imperatives?
13. What are the Universality and Humanity formulas of the Categorical Imperative?
14. Explain the difference between perfect and imperfect duties.
15. Explain Rawls's conception of the original position.
16. Explain the difference principle.
17. Explain the difference between consequentialist and retributive justifications of punishment.
18. What's the difference between general and specific deterrence?

1. Explain why someone might think that the importance of tolerance supports subjectivism or undermines realism.  Do you agree?  Why or why not?
2. Divine Command says that if God exists, then something is good or right just in case God approves of it.  Does Divine Command imply that morality requires a religious foundation?  Why or why not?
3. Explain and assess one argument for psychological egoism.
4. Explain and assess extreme subjectivism about a person's good.
5. Explain Mill's higher pleasures doctrine.  Is this doctrine consistent with hedonism?  Why or why not?
6. In chapter 5 of Utilitarianism Mill says that an action is wrong if a person should be punished in some way for doing it (v 14).  What does Mill mean, and is his view here consistent with act utilitarianism?
7. Does Mill think that people have the right to voluntarily sell themselves into slavery?  Why or why not?
8. Kant says that the sympathetic benefactor does not display a good will. Why might this be troubling?  Does Kant have any reply?
9. Describe Rawls's contractual argument for his conception of justice.  In what ways and to what extent does this contractual argument embody Kantian ideas about the Categorical Imperative?
10. Rawls's rule utilitarianism is supposed to solve a problem with the act utilitarian theory of punishment.  Explain Rawls's claim.

LONG ANSWER (approximately 175-300 words each; usually 2-4 blue book pages).

1. Bentham appears to endorse both psychological hedonism and hedonistic utilitarianism.  Is there any tension between these commitments and how, if at all, does Bentham respond to this tension?
2. Explain and assess Mill's "proof" of the principle of utility.
3. Rawls and Nozick criticize utilitarianism for failing to recognize the separateness of persons.  Explain and assess this criticism.
4. Explain and assess Kant's use of the Universality formula of the Categorical Imperative to defend a duty of mutual aid.
5. Explain a consequentialist conception of punishment and discuss any possible problems for the view.
6. Explain a retributive conception of punishment and explain any possible problems for this view.
7. In the Trolley case many people think that it would be permissible to deflect a runaway trolley from a track with five (innocent) people on it to a track with one (innocent) person on it, thereby killing one to save five.  However, in the Transplant case many people think that it would be impermissible for a surgeon to harvest the organs of one healthy (innocent) patient to permit transplantations that would save the lives of five (innocent) patients needing transplants, thereby killing one to save five.  What are your intuitions about these cases?  Do you see any moral principles that help explain your views?