Philosophy 302 S
Topics and reading covered: every
If you miss the exam without an approved excuse, you will not be able to make it up.
If you must miss it, you must plan to take it early.
You should be able
RTD, Ch.2. Logic & Argumen
· What is an argument?
· What is a conclusion?
· What are premises?
· What is a logically valid argument? Define ‘validity’ or ‘a valid argument’.
· Give an example of a valid argument.
· Know what the modus ponens, modus tollens and universal generalization valid argument forms are.
· Why is it important for an argument to be valid?
· Can a valid argument have true premises and a false conclusion?
· What is a sound argument? Define 'a sound argument'.
· Can a sound argument be an invalid argument?
· Can a sound argument have false premises?
· Can a sound argument have a false conclusion?
· How, in general, do you show that a conditional, an if-then statement (‘if p is true, then q is true’) is false?
· Identify and give an example of these logically invalid argument forms:
Affirming the consequent
Denying the antecedent
· What is moral relativism? What are the arguments against it?
· Be able
Explain how the term ‘morally right’ is ambiguous between "morally permissible" and "morally obligatory." To explain this distinction, give an example of an action that is ‘right’ in one sense of the term, and another action that is ‘right’ in the other sense of the term.
What is moral skepticism? What are the arguments in favor of it and arguments against it?
EMP Ch. 1:
· Explain, in de
· Explain Rachels’ argument that Baby Theresa cannot be “used as a means.”
· Explain why some people might think that Baby Theresa is already dead. Explain why some people might think that she is not dead yet. (This suggests an ambiguity in ‘being alive’).
· Be familiar with the Jodie and Mary case. What was the hospital’s argument?
· Explain what a “slippery slope” argument or response is; explain how some people gave this response about the case of Tracy Latimer.
· Be able
EMP Ch. 2: CR & FGM
· State a valid argument for cultural relativism from moral disagreements between cultures (“cultural differences”). (Note: Rachels gives a version of this argument that is not clearly valid because it is missing a premise; we discussed, however, a valid version). State whether you think the argument is sound or not; if you think it is not sound, explain which premise(s) is false. If you think it is sound, explain why all the premises are true.
· Be able to give at least 3 valid arguments against CR; be able to explain each premise – that is, explain why someone might think the premises are true (this will often involve explaining why something is a logical consequence of cultural relativism. Explain whether you think the arguments are sound or not and why.
· If you think we should be “tolerant” of everything, should you think that cultural relativism is true? That is, if cultural relativism is true, is it true that we should be tolerant? (You might want to think about these questions also: should we always be tolerant, of everything? If we should just sometimes be tolerant, when should we be tolerant?)
· Rachels argues that, sometimes, there is less moral disagreement than we might think because some moral disagreements are superficial: we accept the same moral principles, but differ in our beliefs about the facts. Explain this idea with an example.
· Some people say
· Female circumcision / female genital mutilation: what do its “advocates” say in favor of the practice, i.e, for why it is not wrong to have it? What do the critics (e.g., the editors at the Harvard Law Review) say against these advocates, and what are their arguments that it’s wrong? Whose arguments are sound, in your view?
· Rachels presen
· Even if cul
EMP Ch. 3: Simple Subjec
· State and fully explain the idea of simple subjectivism. If someone accepts simple subjectivism, how does he or she "translate" moral judgments (i.e., what does someone say when he or she says that something is wrong, or says that something is not wrong?
· Be able
· Explain what Rachels thinks the general nature of “moral truths” or “truths of ethics” are.
· There can be ques
· Be able to state many common arguments against homosexuality (including those discussed in the articles in the RTD book) in valid form (and so add the premises needed to make the argument valid) and explain whether they are sound or not. Be able to state which, if any, premises are false.
· Rachels and Corvino also give arguments for the conclusion that homosexuality is morally permissible. What were those arguments?