|author||Sean Whitton <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2022-05-03 16:46:08 -0700|
|committer||Sean Whitton <email@example.com>||2022-05-03 16:46:08 -0700|
post rest of final exam questions
1 files changed, 89 insertions, 28 deletions
diff --git a/philos/teaching/PHIL_150C1/final.mdwn b/philos/teaching/PHIL_150C1/final.mdwn
index 700acd4..adae571 100644
@@ -73,22 +73,47 @@ I will write the numbers of four questions on the whiteboard. You must answer
**two of those four**, in 120 minutes---not any of the others. Most people
should write approx. 1000 words for each answer.
-1. [Nozick question tba]
+1. How does Robert Nozick use his Wilt Chamberlain example to argue against
+ patterned and end state principles of justice, and in favour of his
+ entitlement theory of justice? Why is he against the welfare state?
+ Assess the argument and Nozick's theory of justice.
+ Be sure to include: What's a distribution, in the relevant sense? Briefly
+ summarise Rawl's theory of justice as fairness, and explain how it's a
+ patterned principle of justice and an end state principle of justice.
+ Explain the three basic components of Nozick's entitlement theory: justice
+ in original acquisition; justice in transfer; rectification. What makes
+ this a path-dependent, as opposed to end state, conception of justice? In
+ that sense it is unpatterned rather than patterned? Carefully explain the
+ structural contrast with Rawls's view. Who was Wilt the Stilt? Explain
+ Wilt's extra collection box at the game. Why does Nozick think that a
+ defender of the patterned principle of justice has to say that nothing
+ unfair has happened? How does this make such a principle self-undermining,
+ thus supporting Nozick's idea that "liberty upsets patterns"? What is the
+ welfare state? Why does Nozick think that it couldn't be compatible with
+ his theory of justice? What does Nozick mean when he says "liberty upsets
+ patterns"? Does the Wilt Chamberlain argument succeed? Is Nozick more
+ successful than Rawls in arguing for his theory of justice?
2. Are most Westerners morally wrong for not donating significantly more to
charities working in the third world than we do?
Be sure to include: What are consequentialism and utilitarianism?
Carefully explain the shallow pond and envelope scenarios, and then make
- Singer's argument that comparing them shows we are morally obligated to
- put money in the envelope -- that the conduct in the envelope scenario is
- at least as bad as in the shallow pond scenario. Similarly carefully
+ Peter Singer's argument that comparing them shows we are morally obligated
+ to put money in the envelope -- that the conduct in the envelope scenario
+ is at least as bad as in the shallow pond scenario. Similarly carefully
explain the cases of Bob and his Bugatti and Rob and his retirement
account, and how this leads to the conclusion that we should give away
- retirement savings. [tbc]
+ retirement savings. What are each of the four steps of the basic argument,
+ including its conclusion? Explain how the possibility of sacrificing small
+ luxuries supports the second premise -- give some examples. How exactly
+ does the argument depend upon Singer's utilitarianism, if at all? What are
+ our options, in terms of denying premises, to object to the argument? Can
+ it be objected to? Assess the conclusion -- are we all in the moral wrong?
-3. Explain and assess Schmidtz's response to consequentialist arguments like
- those of Singer.
+3. Explain and assess David Schmidtz's response to consequentialist arguments
+ like those of Singer.
Be sure to include: If you didn't also answer question 2, a brief summary
of Singer's position. In what sense is Schmidtz a consequentialist,
@@ -116,20 +141,20 @@ should write approx. 1000 words for each answer.
these basic economic facts? Explain, with examples, how justice in
transaction can be understood as parties being fully informed and not
coerced. Why might selling organs be unjust because coerced? Why does
- Satz think this argument doesn't do much against the libertarian? How does
- this first argument rely for its persuasiveness on one's preexisting
- conception of what people are entitled to? If there were legal markets for
- kidneys, how might this economically disadvantage people who don't want to
- sell? How does this generate an argument against markets for kidneys, in
- terms of protecting freedoms? How is this similar to arguments about
- prostitution and the minimum wage, and dissimilar to the case of owning
- second homes? Is it a human right not to have to sell one's kidneys, and
- is this sufficient for Satz's second argument to succeed? Should law about
- markets focus on protecting people who don't want to trade, or maximising
- the liberty of those who do want to trade?
-5. In the face of environmental catastrophe, is Meyer's expansive notion of
- sacrifice truly distinct from that of self-abnegation?
+ Debra Satz think this argument doesn't do much against the libertarian?
+ How does this first argument rely for its persuasiveness on one's
+ preexisting conception of what people are entitled to? If there were legal
+ markets for kidneys, how might this economically disadvantage people who
+ don't want to sell? How does this generate an argument against markets for
+ kidneys, in terms of protecting freedoms? How is this similar to arguments
+ about prostitution and the minimum wage, and dissimilar to the case of
+ owning second homes? Is it a human right not to have to sell one's
+ kidneys, and is this sufficient for Satz's second argument to succeed?
+ Should law about markets focus on protecting people who don't want to
+ trade, or maximising the liberty of those who do want to trade?
+5. In the face of environmental catastrophe, is John M. Meyer's expansive
+ notion of sacrifice truly distinct from that of self-abnegation?
Be sure to include: What is self-abnegation? Why does Meyer think that the
notion of self-abnegation is not going to help the political cause of
@@ -153,10 +178,46 @@ should write approx. 1000 words for each answer.
between self-abnegation and sacrifice real, or is this just a way to
make the need for self-abnegation seem more appealing?
-6. Assess Young's conception of the politics of social groups and Shelby's
- case that racism is fundamentally a political problem against 21st century
- liberal individualism.
- Be sure to include: [tbc]
-7. [Nussbaum question tba]
+6. Assess Iris Marion Young's conception of the politics of social groups, and
+ Tommie Shelby's case that racism is fundamentally a political problem,
+ against 21st century liberal individualism.
+ Be sure to include: How do Rawls and Nozick conceive of oppression? Is
+ there much of this in contemporary Western countries? In what ways does
+ Young find this conception to be mistaken (there are at least three)? What
+ is Young's conception of oppression? Why does she object to just calling
+ it "discrimination"? What does Young mean by a social group? How does she
+ think philosophers like Rawls and Nozick oversimplify social groups? What
+ is a privileged group? Explain each of the five faces of oppression, with
+ examples, but not only with examples -- say precisely what is distinctive
+ about each one. What does Shelby mean when he says that contemporary
+ racism is primarily a political philosophical problem rather than a moral
+ problem -- how would things be different if it was just a moral problem?
+ How are the views of Young and Shelby similar, and similarly different from
+ the views of Rawls and Nozick? Are Young and Shelby right, and why?
+7. Does Martha Nussbaum succeed in responding to feminist critiques of
+ Be sure to include: What two ideas does Nussbaum think form the core of
+ liberalism? What sort of views is liberalism opposed to? Explain the
+ worry that liberalism falsely describes individuals as existing outside of
+ all social ties. How do feminists cast this as a form of egoism? How does
+ Nussbaum respond? How is liberalism meant to subvert family and community?
+ Why does Nussbaum think that, on the contrary, liberalism avoids
+ overemphasising family and community to the detriment of oppressed groups?
+ How do ideas about religious freedom lead Rawls to exclude families from
+ the basic structure? What problems does this cause? How does Nussbaum
+ argue liberalism ought to be revised in response to those issues? How do
+ feminists argue that liberalism might fail to leave room for treating
+ groups differently where that's appropriate, such as granting women
+ maternity leave? How does Nussbaum think her capabilities approach can
+ respond to this? Explain the feminist worry about liberalism unduly
+ privileging reason over emotion. Why does Nussbaum think this is
+ misplaced? What does Nussbaum mean when she says that what's important is
+ that members of oppressed groups must distinguish their own wellbeing from
+ the wellbeing of others, and how does this not involve them caring any less
+ about what they already care about? Assess this -- is Nussbaum denying the
+ existing identities of certain women? Does religious freedom require
+ permitting gendered hierarchies within families, even though a liberal
+ society should discourage that in other ways?