sample exam I

Sample Final Exam

Questions, Terms etc.

Study Guides

Oxford Website Questions

Class Outlines 


 Phil. 120 Adventure of Ideas

Spring 2008

Instructor: Dr. Norman Lillegard   Office:  H 229    881 7384

Office Hours:  8-9a.m. and 12-1 p.m. MWF and by appointment.

Text: Philosophical Questions by James Fieser and Norman Lillegard (In UC and Bradley).


Course Title: Pressing Questions:

Is it rational to believe that a Good God exists, given the existence of evil? Are there valuable arguments for the existence of God? Should my emotions and desires affect my religious beliefs?

Am I determined by my genes and environment (could a bad upbringing be an excuse for committing murder)? 

What, if anything, makes me or might make me “somebody”? (Being a Heisman winner? A decent person?)

How do I differ from other animals, such as dogs or pigeons, or is there no really fundamental difference?

Am I anything more than an elaborate machine (a computer or android)?  

Do my vices and virtues affect my ability to know anything?

How can I be Happy (What is the best way to Live)? Is there some connection between being virtuous and being happy or fulfilled? 

Should I stick to looking out for #1?

Are there any moral absolutes, or is it “all relative”?

What is “justice” anyway? Should I be able to live as I please, or does the government and community have a right to interfere in my life? If so, how much?


 The Purposes of this Course: To help you develop the capacity to READ CRITICALLY and with comprehension, and to THINK CRITICALLY about questions and issues which are of concern to all thoughtful persons and which have figured prominently in the history of both eastern and western thought. The stress in this course will be on recent ideas (19th century to the present).

The issues indicated in the course title, and closely related issues, will provide the primary focus. We will be studying the views of some major thinkers, but the aim is not that you be able to repeat their views, but that you learn to think with them.  Therefore, the ability to parrot views (whether those of an author, the instructor or anyone else's) or regurgitate information (like a quiz show participant) is of no use to you or anyone.  You will not be tested on such an ability. Exams are designed to test understanding of arguments and issues, and critical reading skills, rather than retention of information. It is also important to grasp the connections between the “pressing questions” mentioned above.  Exams and quizzes will test your grasp of such connections, as well as your grasp of arguments related to specific issues.  Exams will  also test your understanding of some terminology. The text contains a glossary to assist you in mastering the relevant concepts.


Course Requirements:

·         Attend class and participate, do the readings, prepare assigned questions, pass the exams. 

·         Two mini exams, 60 pts each. Low score may be thrown out. Two major exams, a mid-term worth 120 pts, and a Final exam, which is comprehensive, worth 180 pts.

·         Quizzes: there will be frequent (once a week or more) unannounced quizzes, falling into two categories;

            1. Study guide quizzes; your text contains study questions in the readings. Every week, or more, you will be given an unannounced quiz based on one or more of those questions.

            2. Extra credit quizzes. Every other week or so you will be given a quiz over assigned material; any earned points will be counted as extra credit.

                                Missed quizzes cannot be made up.

Each quiz will be worth 6 – 12 points, and will consist of multiple choice and T/F questions. The questions will be similar to those on the exams. Total, ca. 200 pts. One purpose of the study questions, and the quizzes that focus on them, is to prepare you for classes. Therefore you should work through any assigned questions BEFORE the class in which they are due. You will be given ample opportunity to discuss any questions in class PRIOR to any quizzes.

!               Attendance.  Regular attendance and informed participation in class are essential since (a) not everything covered in class is included in the text (b) you will need help with this material, and that is what class sessions, and the instructor, are for. 40 points.

!               Extra Credit:  Don’t count on any beyond the quizzes.  There may be some opportunities to earn extra credit by attending a campus lecture or other event, including film, theatre, etc. (Max. of 30 pts.).

 Total points ca. 660.  Normally %90 of total points gets you an 'A', %80 a 'B' and so forth, but significant adjustments for curve are made when necessary.

Helpful Stuff

The purchase of your text gives you access to an interactive web site that includes chapter summaries, further resources, and self grading practice quizzes. Go to

In addition the instructor’s web page for this course will include sample exams, lists of important terms, and outlines of every class. All quizzes will also be preserved on that page for review purposes.  Finally, it will eventually give you a fairly up-to-date record of your grades as we progress. Access the link for the Phil. 120 web page through the UTM page (click on faculty staff, then on faculty web pages) or by using this address directly:


Class Conduct, Instructor's Role, etc.  What I Expect of Students.

1.Treat each other with respect. 2.Treat the instructor with respect. 3.Do not talk unless called on.

4. Do not leave the room without permission except in extreme emergency. 5. Be on time.

6. Be eager to learn.  The best indication of progress is engagement with the issues and ideas we deal with.

7. Do not be afraid to say "I don't understand."

8. Expect the same of me as I expect of you. (Except for  #3, and #4,  of course. You will see that I follow #7 a lot.)


            Classes will consist of a mix of lecture, discussion, possible occasional reports, and watching of a few videos (designated as >ICA@ (in class assignments) in the outline) followed by discussion and/or written reviews. Students are expected to treat other students in a polite fashion, even though they should feel free to express disagreement on ANY topic or ANY claim that is advanced by anyone, including the instructor.   At the same time, each student must attempt to exercise responsibility by keeping discussion focused on the subject at hand and by listening carefully to the responses of the instructor and other participants.

 Particular value is placed on argument, as opposed to mere expression of opinion.  Say what you believe, but be prepared to say why. The instructor will attempt to clarify difficult concepts and passages in the text, and will attempt to model philosophical dialogue in his own lectures, which will be devoted primarily to showing the patterns of argument in the textual assignments.  Students should feel free to interrupt with questions or comments, even though on occasion answers may be postponed for the sake of coherence.  The instructor will be available for help in and out of class, and is eager to engage in one‑on‑one (or one‑ on‑two, three, etc.) discussion of the course's issues with any student any time.  He is pledged to careful consideration of any view, including those which he finds unsupportable, and to critical thinking with any student who values thoughtful discussion. Students  who feel a need for individual  help should feel free to ask..


Academic Dishonesty (AKA ‘cheating’). Any kind of cheating is a serious offense and will be dealt with accordingly. It also ought to be beneath the dignity of each and every student. You may not

            Solicit or offer help during an exam or quiz

            Look at a cell phone during a quiz or exam

            Copy someone else’s study guide answers

            Do someone else’s study guides.

Anyone caught violating any of these common-sense rules will AUTOMATICALLY GET AN ‘F’  for the particular test or assignment involved and possibly FOR THE ENTIRE COURSE



NOTE: "Any student eligible for and requesting academic accommodations due to a disability is requested to provide a letter of accommodation from P.A.C.E. or Student Academic Support Center within the first two weeks of the semester."                                                        


COURSE OUTLINE: (Approximate. Content and time periods may vary slightly.)

Week 1 (1/14) Philosophical Perplexity in Children and Adults. The Can of Worms   A little logic.

Week 2 (1/21) (MLKing day) Belief in God and the problem of Evil.

Week 3 (1/28)  Mystical experience. The cosmological argument. Religion and rationality.

Week 4 (2/4) Human nature. Determinism and free will. 

                        Mini-exam I Monday, Feb.11.

Week 5 (2/11) . Frankfurt on freedom of the will. Achieving self-hood.  Kierkegaard, Marx.

Week 6 (2/18) Achieving self-hood. Nietzsche.. Chuang Tzu, Darwin

Week 7 (2/25) Mind and Body. Intentionality ; Review.TEST I  Friday, Feb. 29th.         

Week 8 (3/3)   Minds and machines. ICA. “The Measure of a Man”

Week 9 (3/10 – 16 -  SPRING BREAK) 

Week 10 (3/17) Week 9 continued March 21-Good Friday

Week 11 (3/24) The social construction of Knowledge. Moral relativism.  Morality and self-interest                                 

Week 12 (3/31). Virtue and the best kind of life.  ICA “Weapons of the Spirit” Utilitarianism and Mill. Mini-Exam II, Wed. April 2.

Week 13 (4/7) Week XII cont. ICA Cruzan Video. 

Week 14 (4/14). Theories of Justice

Week 15 (4/21) Individual rights and the Limits of State Coercion.

Week 16. Classes end Mon. April 28. Review.  FINAL EXAMS, MAY 1-7.





I have read the full syllabus, I am familiar with all requirements and directions, I consider these requirements to be reasonable, and I will do my best to fulfill and observe them.


Signed  ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_________________________________________________________

Print name _________________________________________

Section time___________________________





* Those who use on-line dictionaries, or very large printed dictionaries, must write down the definitions of any unfamiliar words and bring them to class.


Study Guides   Phil. 120  Sp 2008



Read                                       Answer Questions

p. 2-12                         Jan 14             q. 1-10


                                    Jan 21

p. 35-41                       //                      q. 37-42

p. 48-56                                               q. 54-56, 58-62


                                    Jan. 28

p. 63-68                                               q. 73,74,76,77.

p. 90-99                                               q. 99-108

p. 103-110                                           q. 112-114, 116-118 and

            EQ 1. If you follow the “agnostic rule” for truth seeking, what do you stand to gain? To lose?


                                    Feb. 4


p. 116-122                   //                      q. 1-4,

p. 125-129                                           7- 11

p. 129- 137                                          q. 16-21


                                    Feb. 11

p. 137- 146                  //                      q. 22- 34


p. 164-183                   //                      q. 57-88




                                    Feb. 18

p. 202-208                   //                      q. 114-116, 118


215-221                                               q. 129-140


                                     Feb. 25


p. 248-53                                             q.  34-42

                                    Mon. Mar. 3

253-60                                                             q. 43-51

282-292                                                           q. 79-92

293-314                                   ANSWER     q. 93-121


                                    Mon. Mar. 17


Questions on “The Measure of a Man”


D1. Data keeps a book from Picard and a “photo” of a crewmate. What are we supposed to infer about Data from these facts?


D2. The robotologist asks Data whether the words in his book are just words or whether they mean something to him. What does this question have to do with intentionality and mind? What would Searle say?


D3. The robotologist claims that if Data were a “box on wheels” rather than “human in appearance” there would be no question about his civil rights. This amounts to the claim that we may_______ when we think about Data. Do we? Argue.


D4. Could an android be “intimate” with a human being? Does the fact that Data does “not alter with the passage of time” have any bearing on this question? Discuss and argue pro and con.


D5.  Picard claims that there are three criteria for sentience. What are they? Are all of them actually criteria for sentience? Discuss.


D6. Data can be disassembled, reprogrammed, and turned off with a switch. What bearing would those facts have on the claim that Data is sentient, according to Ziff?



                                                Monday March 24


p. 406-420                                                                               q. 131-136, 138-147


p. 428-439                                                                               q. 4-16


p. 440, 444-452                                                                       q. 22-37


                                              Monday March 31

p. 484-489                                                                               q. 86-92


                                                Monday, April 7

p. 516-524                                                                               q. 122-136

Cham. 1. Virtues are fairly stable dispositions that, on MacIntyre’s view, are acquired partly through learning to identify with particular historical traditions and stories.

a. mention three virtues of the Chambonais.

            b. How are those virtues related to the particular stories and traditions shared by these people? Mention three such stories or traditions and relate them to their virtues.

c. how do some of the adjectives used to describe the Chambonais, and their behavior,  reveal virtues?


Cham. 2. Compare and contrast the moral thinking of the people of Le Chambon with Mill’s ideas about moral thinking. 


                                    Mon. April 14


p. 561-577                                                                   q.41-59


                                    Mon. April 21

pp.  592-616                                                   ques. 79-115                                      










































                                    Fri. Mar. 9

290-299                                                           88-98

                                    SPRING BREAK

                                    Mon. Mar. 19

299 – 315                                                        99-121






                                                Wed. Mar. 21


Continue Mondays work.

                                                Frd. Mar. 23


342-348                                                                       39-46


                                                Mon. Mar. 26

            Continue with Fri  23rd.


                                                Wed. Mar. 28


p. 405-408                                                       q. 129-30

   p. 415-21                                                      q. 140-46


                                                Fri Mar 30

                        Mini exam

                                                Mon. April 2

p. 422-23

p. 428-439                                                       q. 4 – 16


                                                Wed. April 4

                                    Repeat Monday


                                                Mon. April 9

p. 444- 50                                                        q. 24-35


                                                Wed. Apr 11

515 – 519                                                        q.122 – 29


                                                Fri. Apr. 13

520-26                                                             q. 130-136


                                                Mon. Apr. 16

p.484-89                                                          q. 85-92



                                                Wed. Apr. 18



                                                Fri. April 20

Cham. 1. Virtues are fairly stable dispositions that, on MacIntyre’s view, are acquired partly through learning to identify with particular historical traditions and stories.

a. mention three virtues of the Chambonais.

            b. How are those virtues related to the particular stories and traditions shared by these people? Mention three such stories or traditions and relate them to their virtues.

c. how do some of the adjectives used to describe the Chambonais, and their behavior,  reveal virtues?


Cham. 2. Compare and contrast the moral thinking of the people of Le Chambon with Mill’s ideas about moral thinking. With Kant’s.



                                                Mon. Apr. 23

562-568                                                           q. 41-48

571-576                                                           q. 53-59


                                                Wed. Apr. 25

609-616                                                           q. 105-115


                                                Fri. Apr. 27   



                                                Mon. Apr. 30



Web page items (self quizzes)

Ch. 1: 1-4.


Ch. 2: 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 20, 21


Ch. 3: 1-9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18.


Ch. 4: 1, 4, 5, 13, 17-20


Ch. 5: 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19.


Ch. 6; 1- 8, 10, 16-18, 20.


Ch. 7. 3,4, 8, 12-15







Class Outlines

I. Wonder and a Little Logic

A.Wonder and philosophy.



            Wondering how


            Wondering at




            A world of wonder


            A winter wonderland


Children and wonder


Wondering what sorts of things can feel. Could plants? (How could you know?)


B. The Can of Worms     What do you know? (epistemology).

What sorts of things are there? Minds? Souls? Gods? (metaphysics)

What sort of thing is X?


What sort of thing is a tomato plant?


C. A little logic.

            1. Being logical.  Means what?

                        a. logic and argument.  Give an example of an argument (1.1).



                        b. deductive arguments; for example?


            Validity: If Italy won Sunday, then they are world soccer champs.

Italy won Sunday.

So, they are world soccer champs.






                        c. SOUND deductive arguments. Is that one?  Cook one up.


2. Questions 2,3,4.


3. Criticizing arguments:

            a. counterexamples:  q. 5. q. 6.

            what is the missing premise in “pro life”?  (Think about that!)






            b. confusing necessary and sufficient conditions;  Answer 1.9







Terms to know: atheism; agnosticism; theodicy; fideism.


            A. People who believe in God believe the following:

·         E1. God exists and is all good and all powerful;

·         E2 An all good and all powerful being eliminates (or prevents) all evil.

·         E3 There is evil.


These three statements appear to be inconsistent! So, you cannot believe all three.

            B. How about rejecting E3? But, Look at Doestoevski’s descriptions!


            C. How about E2? It can be denied that E2 is necessarily true (Rowe’s view).  (What does ‘neccesarily true’ mean?)  Examples.




Perhaps E2 could be rephrased:

                        E2’ A good, all powerful                                                      (omnipotent) being prevents                                                 any evil that is not necessary for                  a greater good.

            E1, E2, and E3’ are NOT inconsistent.


            C. Problem with E3’; there seem to be many evils such that it is difficult to see what greater good requires them. Cf. Some of Doestoevsky’s examples.  Perhaps we just cannot know.


                         An example of an evil that is required for a greater good.


                         an example of an evil that is not required for a greater good(?)


                        Ivan’s reactions


            D. Hick. A soul making theodicy.

                        1. Moral imperfection and a dangerous environment are necessary to the development of perfected finite beings (people). 

                                    a. development is necessary for “character.” It cannot be “popped into existence.”  Why not?

                                    Cf. courage, patience, love.




            The argument from evil seeks to disprove the existence of God.


Are there any arguments that seek to prove the existence of God?

Sure. Lots of them.


II. The argument from religious experience.

            A. What KIND of experience?

                        1. Yah right type

                        2. Mystical type

            B. Hindu mysticism and Yoga.

                        1. Description of Yoga, p.54


            C. Are such experiences reliable?

                        1. No

                                    a. Depend upon abnormal bodily state (cf. drug induced visions etc.)

                                    b. Apparent agreement does not go very far.


            D. Yes (Swineburn)

                        1. What are some general principles for sorting out reliable from not reliable experiences?

                        2. The principle of credulity, PC.  (in general, I am warranted in believing A exists if, for example, I see A.)

                        3. Perhaps we need to check experiences in light of what is typical. Uniformity. Mystical experiences are too odd, untypical.

                                    a.Uniformity in experience not necessary (why believe my own memories, for instance?)


                        4. Perhaps the mystic experiences something  but the claim that it is God is an “interpretation”.

                                    a. cannot draw line between experience and its interpretation. Cf. Swineburn on his wife, or tea.

                                    b. ordinary cases where training is required for determining what one is experiencing. Wine.

III. The argument from design:

            A.Design requires a designer.

                        1. Paley’s analogy.



                        2. Darwin’s response




                        3.  A new type of design argument: “intelligent design”.


            The  fine tuning argument.


How should we decide about issues like this?    NOT like this:

"”When mainstream science accepts this, we can put them in science classes," said board member Janet Waugh, of Kansas City, who voted against the standards.


What mainstream science accepts?



Cf. Paul Davies

Only twenty-five years ago it was not considered appropriate to consider the physical mechanism of the birth of the universe. I remember a lecture I attended as a graduate student at University College London. This was a couple of years after the discovery in 1965 of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the implications of that discovery had not yet generally sunk in. A professor was talking about how theorists had computed, based on the existence of this radiation, that there would be about 25 percent helium and 75 percent hydrogen in the universe, and that this had come from an analysis of the nuclear processes that took place in the first few minutes after the big bang. Everyone in the lecture hall fell about laughing, because they thought it was so absurd and audacious to talk about the first three minutes after the big bang, just on the basis of the discovery of this radiation. Now, of course, it is absolutely standard cosmological theory. We feel we understand the first few minutes of the universe very well.

What seems laughable today may not seem laughable tomorrow.




            A. Pascal: Yes!

                        How come?

                        1. Here is the situation:

Either God exists (G) OR not-God exists(not G, i.e. ~G)              

                                    a. There can be no proof or disproof of either G or not G. (why?). So “reason” cannot decide about either G or not G.

                                    b. but reason tells you to BET(wager) that G, rather than not G, is true! Why?

                        Because G is the best (most rational) bet possible in this situation!

                        Why not refuse to bet at all? You can’t. (A forced option). Why not? You are “on the way.” (north pole). There is too much at stake to just opt out? The consequences of not betting are exactly the same as the consequences of betting on ~G? Check James.

            Assuming you have to wager, why is G the best bet?

                        The betting situation:

                                    G is false         (~G)                G is true













Bet G



Bet ~ G


            B. Enter William James

william james


            1. James’ problems with Pascal;

                        * distorts faith


                        * many gods



Nonetheless, James agrees with Pascal that it is still RATIONAL TO BELIEVE IN GOD EVEN WITHOUT PROOF



How come? 

            2. First, consider some possible types of beliefs.

             Types of beliefs (hypotheses):

                        * a hypothesis (belief) can be living or dead.   E.g. 





                        * a Hypothesis(belief) can be forced or not. E.g.




                        * a Hypothesis can be momentous or trivial. E.g.


            Suppose you are faced with this option;

            either believe in God or don’t (that is, either accept the “hypothesis” that G or, accept ~G).


Is that option living (are the belief alternatives alive for you)?

Is it forced?

Is it momentous?

If so, James calls it a “genuine option.”


Compare to “My son is alive/dead.”

            It is living. It is momentous. It is forced.


            3. James claims religious belief is a genuine option. Suppose he is right. So what?


                        a. Here is what: When faced with

                                    * a genuine option,

(i.e. an option that is living, forced and momentous),

                                    * which cannot be decided by reason,


             our passional nature may legitimately be involved in deciding what to believe. (“passional nature”=df. Our nature as loving, fearing, hoping, desiring, or, generally, “emotional” beings)


            4. Objection from Clifford: you should only believe in proportion to the evidence. Never let your emotions contribute to what you believe.


            5. James’ reply;

                                    a. everyone, including Clifford, believes all sorts of things without much or any evidence;

many scientific beliefs, political beliefs, etc. result from prestige, faith in someone else’s faith, and other non-rational factors etc.

cf. belief in telepathy.


                                    b. many matters are by their very nature undecideable by “reason.”


            Examples: she loves me, she loves me not.


(Why can’t reason decide that, at least in some cases? Why not just check all the evidence we can find, make valid inferences, etc. (That is using “reason”)).



                        c. If in such cases we are faced with a genuine option,  then our passional nature may play a role in belief formation. (B3a)


            6.Religious belief illustrates this point.

                        a. religious belief says the best                                  things are eternal

                        b. religious belief says we are                                   better off even now if we believe



            7. . Assuming religious beliefs are a living option for you, then

                        a. 6b shows that they are momentous.



                        b. is this option forced? Here is the situation:


                        AD (avoid being duped) You can avoid being duped and risk losing an important, vital truth.


                        VT (vital truth) You can go for the important vital truth and risk being duped.


So, what is so great or superior about AD?




                        c. If you opt for AD (you refuse to believe), you may put yourself in a position where you never can collect the evidences for the religious hypothesis.



            AD` I can wait until all the evidence is in that M. is a good woman(or man),  and then decide whether or not to marry M (in which case I may avoid being duped), but also, I may by my very refusal to get overly involved, put myself in a position where I cannot get the relevant evidence


            VT` I can ‘opt for M’ without sufficient evidence,  and risk being duped, but also put myself in a position where I can at least get the best evidence for M’s goodness.


            One thing I CANNOT do;

I cannot refuse to choose at all. For by adopting AD` I in effect choose to exclude marriage to M. (Why?)


            d. The person for whom religious belief is a live, momentous option, but refuses to believe, has made a passional decision in favor of AD. He is motivated by FEAR of being duped into believing a falsehood (fear is a passion).


            e.The believer, on the other hand, is motivated by a fear of missing out on what might be true, as well as a desire for something positively valuable (fear and desire are passions).


Therefore, there is no“being neutral.”

Agnosticism is


                                                Logically untenable


The agnostic rule for truth seeking seems to be itself unreasonable as a policy for dealing with genuine options.  That rule is?.......







Questions: p. 116-18


            1. Three positions:


            A. Determinism (distinguish from fatalism, predestination). Modern determinism and science. Science looks for ‘LAWS.’ Human beings and the unification of science.




            B. Libertarianism (indeterminism, free will-ism)




            C. Compatibilism

(what is “compatible” with what?)


            Position A examined. Determinism:

            a. the kinds of “forces” that work on human beings include ?


            b. d’Holbach : humans are “chained” by law.

                        i. the ‘will’ is nothing more than a condition, state, “modification” of, the __________


                        ii. what explains the person who refuses to drink?


                        iii what explains the action of Mutius Scaevola?


            3. Libertarianism (position B)

                        Reid: in defense of free will.

            a. five points in favor of free will



            b. the answer to 3.9



            c. limits to freedom: think about the circumstances that provide excuses.



            4. Taylor: compatibilism (soft determinism, Position C).

            a. When I am not “externally constrained” I am free.


            b. When my actions proceed “from my own character” I am free.


            c. Problem: “Free action” on the compatibilist view is not free after all. Illustrate the point.




            5. Another position:

                        A. Frankfurt: determinism and second order desires. Such desires are a necessary condition for freedom of the will.


                        i. examples of second order desires:


            ii. second order volitions and freedom of the will: only when I will one desire to win out over another, and succeed,  can I be said to have freedom of the will.



            iii. freedom of action and freedom of the will: example-I can eat all the ice cream I want (there is plenty available, no one is preventing me, etc.). So I have freedom of action in this case. But I might not have freedom of the will.   Example:


            iv.. Responsibility and free will; consider the willing addict – freedom of action? Yes. Free will? Yes. Even if he wanted a different will, he could not have it. But, he is responsible for having the will he has. He is doing what he wants, and he wants to want to do that. 


            v. Why does freedom of the will matter? Because it matters that we be able to want (second order) what we want (first order) and to make that second order want effective, make it our “will.” We care about having a harmonious self. We do not  want to be in conflict within, with first order desires saying one thing, second order desires the opposite. I DO care that I not be driven around by my first order wants or desires.  (Unlike other animals and “wantons”). 


Summing up: Suppose Tony shot Delia (twas on a Saturday night). What should we say about Tony and his action? Did he act freely (could he have done otherwise)? Did he have freedom of the will when he acted? Can he be held responsible for what he did?


Determinist: T’s action was the result of environmental and hereditary forces operating on him. He cannot be held responsible since he could not have done otherwise.


Compatibilist (soft determinist): Unless T was being compelled in some way (someone kidnapped his family and said ‘shoot Delia or they will all die”, or unless he was acted upon by some other force imposed upon him (someone slipped some kind of drug into his Pepsi) T can be said to have acted freely and can be held responsible for his act.  However, could he have done otherwise????


Simple indeterminist or Libertarian: Assuming T was not being coerced, T was himself the source of his action, probably. He freely chose to shoot Delia. He could have chosen otherwise. Therefore he is fully responsible.


Frankfurt: The traditional debate, as illustrated in the previous three positions, is defective. If T wanted to shoot Delia, and also wanted to marry her (he shot her when he found her with another guy, say), and nothing would have prevented him from fulfilling either of those wants, then he may have acted freely when he shot her, but he may have lacked freedom of the will. How come?  Well, suppose he really wanted his desire to marry her to win out over his desire to shoot her. That was the desire he identified with. He regarded the desire to shoot her as alien to who he really was, so when he did it he felt as though it was not really him who was acting. Instead he felt caught up in a passion which overwhelmed him, so that he could not have the will he wanted to have. In such a case he lacked freedom of the will, even though he acted freely. When tried in court, he might well get a reduced sentence – why?



Selfhood. The Self as Active Being

1. The self as “Spirit” (Kierkegaard)

            a. The self is a constant striving to “relate itself to itself.”

            b. The self as given, the self as an ideal. Cf. “a synthesis of freedom and necessity.”


            1.Does it matter to you what kind of person you are?


            2. Are you the kind of person you want to be now?


     3. If the answer to #2 is ‘NO’, what is holding you back? (bad habits, bad influences from the past or present etc.?)





            c. Despair as a “misrelation” in the relation. Two main types:

                        i. I weakly refuse to take up the task (to be all I was meant to be)

                        ii. I defiantly will to be as I am. Presupposes revolt against X. What could X be?


d. The universality of despair.

            i. Think of the lazy and complacent. (everything is going fine, etc.)


ii. Think of the constant “unrest” in human life.




d. there is no “immediate health of spirit”





Week V

1. The Self as Worker (Marx)

            a. Capitalist production and “alienation.”

                        i. Factory production – labor as a “cost.”

                        ii.  Alienation – means?(175-76)



            b. How humans differ from other animals –

                        i. Humans construct their lives, they do not just “live.”


                        ii. man only truly produces in freedom from need.  Self fulfilling labor.




            c. Humans are essentially social, belong in commun ity. Socialism, communism as the economic arrangement in which humans realize their essence.

                        i. wages, private property, and alienation.


            d. summing up “alienation”

under capitalism, people are alienated from







            e. summing up the solution.



2. The self as Will to Power (Nietzsche)

            a. “Venerations” and weakness – examples (181-82)




            b. strength, will, freedom.



            c. is this “nihilism”?



1. The Self-God (Upanishads)

            a. Metaphors for the union of the (supposedly individual) self and the Divine (atman-Bhraman).





            b. Everything is “God” (pantheism). Including “you, my son”  (at the deepest level)


2. Ghandi – the Isa Upanishad

            a. the four parts

                        i. pantheist union-implies

                        ii all is from God as gift to all

                        iii so, no coveting

                        iv  renounce private claims, acknowledge God in all, be reborn.


            b. Education, “mukti,”  service.

            c. God everywhere makes everything sacred, including nature.


3. Chuang-Tzu - Taoism

            a. Acceptance of “nature” and are place in natural process.

                        i. how to live? Go with the flow!

                        ii. don’t try to make your surroundings conform to you. Vice versa. Be passive rather than active.

                        iii. “loosen the rope.” Don’t be in bondage to “life” in any sense.


4. The self and nature – a non-religious view (Darwin).

            a. Humans are part of nature, not so different from other animals.

            b.  physical similarities, common descent. (no “special creation”)

                        i. continuous development, intermediate forms.


            c. intellectual similarities.

                        i. gradation from very low to very high, with everything in between.

                        ii. instinct, reasoning, and conditioning. The pike.


            d. emotional similarities.

                        i. examples – joy (play), fear, love, pride, shame.

                        ii. anthropomorphizing –


            e. what are the ethical implications of Darwin’s views?


Chapter IV

 Mind and Body-20th cent. Views.

1. Ryle - Logical behaviorism

a. Descartes, the mind as non-physical, and behavior.


                        b. “dispositions” to behave=thoughts.  Illustrate.


                        c. category mistakes – illustrate


            2. Mind /brain identity

                        a. Reductionism – examples


                        b. reducing the mental to the physical – “microphysical” brain states.


                        c. problems –

3. Eliminative materialism –

            a. “Folk psychology” (our ordinary conceptions of the mental, used to explain human behavior) is a bad theory, and should be eliminated. To illustrate:

                        i. I have a theory about why George is in class. The theory is that he is in class because he thinks he has a better chance of passing if he attends class. 

                        His behavior is explained by using a folk psychological concept, i.e. ‘thinks.”

                        ii. My theory is a BAD theory. Folk psychology concepts can explain certain things but completely fail to explain other things, e.g. non-responsiveness to certain aural stimulations in brain damaged people, or even such a thing as aspect blindness in a normal person.

             iii. Therefore, we should abandon folk psychology. (cf. abandonment of phologiston chemistry).  THAT MEANS that we should give up references to “beliefs” “thoughts” “hopes”

                        iv. All that exists is a physical (material) world that includes such things as neuronal events.




4. Functionalism

            A. It is a mistake to IDENTIFY a mental event with a particular brain event.

                        1. It is a mistake to identify a valve lifter with a camshaft.


            B. mental states are functional states.


                        1. consider the machine states of a coke machine.

                        Input – internal relations of states –            output

                        .50                   move from a to state b

                        .25                                                                   coke


                        2. think of state b as a “desire” for a quarter. What matters to being in that state is the relationships between inputs, internal states or program, and outputs.  Mental states are functional states in this sense.



5. Intentionality

            A. Brentano – thoughts, beliefs, feelings, are always “about” something, directed “on” something–








                        1. contrast with physical things.  Examples: a stone.

A tree.

A planet.


                        2. what follows?




5. Minds and Machines

            A. Humans as machines – Huxley

                        1. “Mind like” activity in a frog with severed nerves.


                        2. “Mind like” activity in a brain damaged human.


                        3. what can you do without a “mind” (or, consciousness?)


                        4. “epiphenomenalism”  Consciousness and train smoke.


            B.        Wittgenstein/Ziff

                        1. Could the number 17 feel pain?


                        2. What kinds of things can feel tired, or feel pain?

                        a. living things

                        b. things that cannot be taken apart, rearranged, reprogrammed etc.

                        c. Imagine your fellow worker (an android, unknown to you!) expressing tiredness (Miller time, buddy!)

Ques. What else besides that behavior do you need to know about before you will say ‘he is tired’?



            C. Searle: The Chinese Room

                        1. Any device, like the “Chinese room” that operates on purely formal input and produces purely formal output cannot have “intentionality”

            a. what does “formal” mean?

            b. what does “intentionality” mean? Give an example.

            c. the people in the room do not understand Chinese. Could the room, the people, the rule books etc. all taken together understand Chinese?


            2. No machine that operates on purely formal input, and nothing more, has any understanding of anything.

            a. Would it matter if the machine had the same “structure” as a human brain, according to Searle? What is his example?


3.  The belief that devices that operate on “meaningless” input could understand, believe etc. is encouraged by confusions about “information processing.”

            a. two senses of ‘information processing.’ (Wittgenstein, Searle)






            D.        Haugeland: AI and “holism”

            1. Understanding (grasping “meanings”) requires appreciation of “wholes.”

                        a. holism of intentional interpretation – illustrate


                        b. common sense holism- cf. ‘the box is in the pen’


‘though her blouse draped stylishly, her pants seemed painted on.”


Got it?


                        c. situation holism – The Bond movie.


                        d. existentialism holism – example  p. 311-12.


Week XI

Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology)

            1. First reactions (316-317)

            2. Empiricism – Knowledge and perception. Locke, Hume.

a. what is perception? The senses – examples;

b. Searle – confusions about perception.

1. perception is not the “passive reception of data.”


2. perception and      

a. expectations

b. background and training. Examples:



            3. Ques. What, besides truth and belief, is required for knowledge?

                        Some answers, briefly sketched:

                        a. justification

                                    1. foundationalism


2. coherentism


                        b. warrant


                        c. intellectual virtues


4. Knowledge and intellectual virtues (Zagzebski).

            a. Ethical concepts and epistemology

                        1. Deontological concepts

                                    Act centered


                        2. Consequentialist concepts

                                    Also act centered


                        3. Virtues

                                    Character centered


            b. Advantages of a virtues approach.

                        1. Virtue concepts are “thick”

            As opposed to “thin” ethical concepts.  Illustrations:


                        2. There are no strict rules for achieving knowledge – compare virtues vs rules in ethics. Illustrations:


                        3. Virtue concepts are “personal.”  The place of wisdom (as opposed to impersonal “rationality” or possession of truth). Illustrations:

                                    a. notice that while knowledge seems to increase over time, wisdom does not.

                                    b. knowledge can be misused; can wisdom?


                        4.  cognitive integration-some aspects of epistemic evaluation refer to such things as ability to balance various beliefs, conduciveness to understanding of various beliefs, etc.


                        5. cognitive power (cf. Dennis and Christopher) cf. q. 115. Are Dennis and Christopher EQUAL in their knowledge of T (the set of true beliefs they share)?


            c. Supposed disanalogies between intellectual and moral vitues

                        1. Knowledge is often thought to be “cool” and require getting rid of feelings. Virtues are “warm”. Is that right? Do right feelings help produce knowledge, wrong ones block it? Examples.

a. moral virtues concepts stress importance of feelings. Q. 119.  But they also stress intelligence.


                        2. Moral virtues cannot be taught. Intellectual traits can be taught. Oh?

                                    a. The really valuable intellectual traits are “caught”, not taught.


            d. examples of intellectual vices and virtues;


                        1. Some virtues seem to be a mean between extremes; (intellectual) cowardice vs. (intellectual) rashness. 


                        2. Training of feelings necessary for acquiring knowledge.

            e. A Definition of Knowledge

                        Knowledge is a state of cognitive contact with reality arising out of acts of intellectual virtue.


Problem: are there not people with intellectual vices who acquire knowledge through those vices? E.g. noseyness. Or compulsive collection of facts (uncle Toby).


Response: such people have intellectual virtues (e.g. careful observation) but also vices. The nosey person is motivated by desire for the truth (good motive) and by, say, envy (bad).  These are examples of mixed motives.


The social construction of knowledge.

Opposed to the STANDARD VIEW, particularly in the sciences.

That is the view that scientists

            i. are motivated only by a desire to learn the truth

            ii. do not bring any biases to their work, (they are “objective”, not subjective)

            iii. have a method that protects them from bias

            iv. build on the work of previous scientists in order to get better and better accounts of what the world is really like.

            v. scientific change occurs when older views are overthrown by the evidence against them.


Kuhn rejects the standard view.

                        a. Kuhn – Scientific revolutions are the result of “paradigm” shifts.


What is a “paradigm?” 

            a. dominant ways of thinking about what counts as a problem worth investigating

            b. certain standard examples used in teaching a theory

            c. certain favored ways of viewing the “data”


            d.  social factors (politics, power, peer pressure, age of a scientist (old ones like old theories they developed!?),

            e. asking certain kinds of questions and ignoring others,a way of looking at the data … cf. TOOT)   f. particular vocabularies,       

            g. exaggeration of problems with new views, discounting of problems with old views,

            and other factors, all taken together, constitute


Two examples.

I. Ptolomaic astronomy vs Copernican ideas.

            i. social pressures -  church and scientific community

            ii.big problems with new view- e.g the problem of earth’s rotation on new view, etc. Exaggerate or minimize?


            iii. way of looking – how does it look? Sunset or earthturn? (what a lovely earthturn). Does the earth shine? Does Mars?


            iv. vocabularly. Earth (dirt, element, fixed object). Sphere.


            v. what problems are worth worrying about? Epicycles? Apparent brightness of Venus?




ptolomyCopernicus                                      Ptolemey (150 1550 CE                                                                                             CE)

Retrograde motion-Ptolemaic

Retrograde motion, Copernican or heliocentric account.



There is no “fact of the matter” proved by observation.



II. Darwin now(?)

            i. social prestige, peer pressure.


            ii. Making the data fit the theory, rather than vice versa (how you see gone bonkers). 


e.g. Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings and modern biology texts.


Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny


But, Kuhn says,

                                    ii. there is no theory-free knowledge (cf. again, Searle, gestalt)

                                    its all in how you see it. How you see it reflects your (social) interests etc.


Conclusion: quotes from Kuhn


5. Soakal

                        1. social factors may influence research, but they are not decisive.


That is true at least of the “hard” sciences – physics, etc.


                        2. The fact that science is “infected” by social factors does not show that no objective truth is ever attained. Cf. military influences and atomic research.






I. Moral relativism – two kinds.


                        a. Sextus – there is nothing good by “nature” (cf x is cold)


                        b. Montaigne – “Custom” is king.


                        c. the pattern of argument in Sextus and Montaigne:

            i. people have varying moral customs (beliefs, standards).


ii. there are no objectively right  moral customs (beliefs, standards).

Ques. Does ii follow from i?


            d. Mackie – ii does not follow deductively from i. But i does give inductive support to ii.

                        1. Moral disagreements are not like disagreements in the sciences, for example.  In what way?


II. Against Relativism (Rachels)

            a. relativist ideas are expressed in a variety of ways: (add your own)



            b. the “cultural differences argument” is unsound.  An argument from analogy: state it!


            c. Some (bad)consequences of taking cultural relativism (CR) seriously.

                        1. If CR is true, we could never condemn the practices of a different society.  So, is that so bad?



                        2. If CR is true, we can determine what is right or wrong just by consulting our social rules. Examples:


So what?


                        3. If CR is true, there can be no such thing as moral progress. Why not?

So what?


            d. Cultural relativists overestimate the moral differences between cultures. Examples;



For further examples, see Phil 110 page, link to “moral relativism, tolerance etc.”


Multiculturalism –

Accepting differences –


e. All cultures (societies) have some moral beliefs in common. Examples:


How come?


III. Egoism and altruism

                        a. Hobbes – egoism

                                    1. Pity – rooted in?

                                    2. Charity – rooted in?

                                    3. Tautological egoism

                                    4. Psychological egoism


                        Ques. How should one respond to a.3? a.4?


                        b. Butler – self love and altruism are compatible

                                    1. self love is a “general affection” – a desire for ?


                                    2. love of others (altruism) is a particular affection

                                                a. examples of particular affections.

                                    3. the “hedonistic paradox”


                                    4. confusions about the relations between self love and happiness, egoism, selfishness.

                                                a. “benevolence” (love of others) may actually increase happiness in benevolent person.


            Notice: 2 and 1 are “made for each other.” 3 is made for 2. 4 for 3. All are to be understood in relation to one another.




IV. Virtues and traditions (MacIntyre).

            a. Virtues and the good for a whole life (the nature of a virtue).


            b. human action embedded in  story or narrative q. 85

                        1. learning to live virtuously through learning stories.


            c. “quests” as searches for the good of a “whole life.”

            d. virtues, communal stories, and community.


            e. virtues, “practices” and traditions.


            f. illustration: the people of Le Chambon.  Notice the adjectives used to describe these people. Notice how they describe themselves.


                        Relevant concepts:

                        1. virtue

                        2. a “whole life”

                        3. a whole life and narrative

                        4. learning to live (well or badly, virtuously or viciously) from examples, including those given in communally shared stories, traditions.

            Notice: 2 and 1 are “made for each other.” 3 is made for 2. 4 for 3. All are to be understood in relation to one another.



Planned Parenthood vs. Casey 1992

These matters involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the state.



V. Utilitarianism (Mill)

            a. actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote ----?


                        1. “consequentialism”

                        2. kinds of pleasures (pains)


            b. “higher pleasures”  How decide which are higher?


            c. rejection of virtue theory – what ultimately matters is actions


            d. rule utilitarianism



Consider this. There are two types of liberty: one precritical, emotive, whimsical, proper to children; the other critical, sober, deliberate, responsible, proper to adults. Alexis de Tocqueville called attention to this alternative early in Democracy in America, and at Cambridge Lord Acton put it this way: Liberty is not the freedom to do what you wish; it is the freedom to do what you ought. Human beings are the only creatures on earth that do not blindly obey the laws of their nature, by instinct, but are free to choose to obey them with a loving will. Only humans enjoy the liberty to do-or not to do-what we ought to do.

Social implications?

There cannot be a free society among citizens who habitually lie, who malinger, who cheat, who do not meet their responsibilities, who cannot be counted on, who shirk difficulties, who flout the law-or who prefer to live as serfs or slaves, content in their dependency, so long as they are fed and entertained.








I  Justice

            1. Rawls: Justice = ?


                        a. Social contract

                        b. the original position and the veil of ignorance.


                        c. the principles that emerge are?



            2. Justice as entitlement-Nozick

                        a. distribution is irrelevant


                        b. what matters is HOW someone comes to possess wealth.

                                    1. Justice in acquisition

                                    2. Justice in transfer.

                        c. historical principles of justice vs. end-result principles.

                                    1. Rawls’ veil of ignorance violates historical principles. How?


3. Justice and Community (Sandel)

            a. individualist conceptions

                        1. a person belongs to a community only for what he can get out of it (Hobbesian egoism).

                        2. A person feels something for the community itself (Rawls’ “sentimentalism”)


            b. a 1 and a2 ignore that fact that “individuals” are who they are by virtue of the communities that have shaped them.

            People are bound by community norms because they are only who they are in community.


II Limits of State Coercion  

Six principles (p. 592-93) for determining when the government can or cannot interfere with the lives of citizens.

1. Harm principle

2. offense principle.

3. legal paternalism

4. legal moralism.

5. extreme paternalism

6. welfare principle.


 1. Mill – the harm principle.

            a. the tyranny of the majority (even if not expressed in law) must be prevented.

            b. the govt should interfere in individuals’ lives only to prevent harm to others

                        1. examples of where it goes beyond that –

2. Problem?


                        3. Individualism. “pursue your own good in your own way” p. 605 (cf. Sandel, etc., relativism, etc.)

                        4. cf. q. 101


2. Offense to others (Feinberg)

            a. the offense principle = it is the legitimate business of govt. to prevent offensive conduct (whether it is “harmful” or not).

            b. any offensive conduct?    

 c. Offenses can be classified according to



                                    volenti element

                                    kinds of sensibilities


d. offensive nuisances – 1. affronts to the senses. 2. The mere occurrence of X (something that offends me) is not necessarily offensive. 3. Thought wrong because it produces the offended reaction, not vice versa.

e. profound offenses – compare to nuisances.

f. problems with the identity of X. cf. copulating on the bus. Is X ‘copulating on the bus’ or just ‘copulating’?

            g. cf. Mill, q. 98. Likes and dislikes, emotion and morality, etc.




Quizzes, Spring 2008

Quiz 1(1/23)

1. The argument from evil is an argument purportedly proving that there is no God.


2. Rowe argues that belief in God

            a. involves a logical inconsistency.

            b. requires that the believer ignore very strong inductive evidence against the existence of God

            c. is conclusively (logically) refuted by the meaningless sufferings of animals

            d. all of these.


3.  Ivan Karamazov claims that looking for explanations of terrible evils tends to make us less aware of the fact of evil.



Quiz 2 (1/25)

1. Ivan Karamazov’s references to a “harmony” are to a harmony between

            a. What some human planned to happen and what we experience

            b. What God plans and the evil we experience

            c. What sounds good in music and what is good.

            d. all of these


2. A theodicy is an attempt to justify the ways of a good God, given the evil in the world.



Quiz 3 (1/30)

1. When I hear my wife’s voice on the phone, I have good reason to believe I am talking to my wife, that she actually exists, even though I cannot say how I identify those sounds as her voice. According to Swineburn, the mystic

            a. has the same kind of reason for believing God exists

            b. must be able to say how he knows that he has been in contact with God, rather than hallucinating

            c. is as entitled to the principle of credulity as I am when on the phone

            d. all of these

            e. a and c.

2. According to James, the religious “option” is or can be

            a. forced

            b. momentous

            c. living

            d. all of these.


3. Intelligent design theories claim that there are features of the world that are best explained by postulating that those features were produced by [an] intelligence.



QZ 4(Feb. 1)

1. The fine tuning argument focuses on adaptive features in particular organisms.


2. According to James, it is wrong, always, to

            a. believe on insufficient evidence

            b. allow emotions to be involved in belief formation

            c. believe at the risk of being wrong, rather than refuse to believe in order to avoid error

            d. all of these

            e. none of these.


Qz V (2/6)

1. Modern determinism is largely the result of scientific ways of thinking.


2. d’Holbach

            a. was a determinist

            b. believed that supposed cases of the exercise of “will power” are not what they appear to be

            c. argued that a person who follows their own desires is free

            d. all of these

            e. a and b.


3. If I can do what I want to do, then I must have free will.






Qz VI (2/8)


1. According to Reid, if I do not have free will, then I might as well deliberate about other people’s actions as my own.


2. Compatibilists hold that determinism and freedom of the will are compatible with one another.


3. I am free (and responsible), according to compatibilists, just in case

(a) I am not constrained by external forces

(b) I am doing what I want to do

(c) There is no explanation of my actions in terms of physical causes (brain states, etc.)

(d) a and b.


QZ 9 (2/25)

1. Many eastern religions (India, China etc.) stress the union of all individuals in the whole, which may be supreme being (or God).


2. Darwin argued that there are no fundamental differences

a. between the emotions of humans and the emotions of higher animals

b. between the ways lower animals and humans learn

c. between the way humans run and lizards run

d. all of these

e. a and b.


3. One question that often arises in thinking about the mind is this: could mental events be nothing more than brain events. 



QZ 11 (3/17)

1. Huxley conjectures that the frog in the experiments that he mentions is a “mere insensible machine” since it

a. lacks common sense

b. behaves purposefully even though its spinal cord is severed

c. acts in a mechanical fashion

d. none of these.


2. Ziff argued that a robot could not feel tired since it is a machine and no machine can feel anything.


3. Searle’s “Chinese room” is a thought experiment intended to show that no mere “program” could understand a language.




Qz 12 (3/19)

1. Haugeland argues that

            (a) the grasp of meanings requires relating parts to wholes

            (b)understanding a sentence like “the box is in the pen” may require a grasp of the whole “situation” in which it is uttered

            (c) understanding terms like “sheepish” requires that one has actually been a sheep

            (d) a and b.


2. The kinds of linguistic competence that a programmed computer lacks are only the kinds that people like Einstein and Shakespeare have, not the kinds ordinary folk have. 


3. Lycan argues that a computer might have thoughts and beliefs if it was “raised” in a sufficiently complex physical and social environment.


Qz. 13 (3/26)

1. Kuhn argues that there is steady progress in science, so that our knowledge of what the world is really like increases day by day.


2. The triumph of Copernican (heliocentric) over Ptolomaic (geocentric) astronomy was entirely due to the discovery of new evidence against the Ptolomaic view.


3. Soakal claimed that

a. the physical sciences are obviously “socially constructed”

b. the social sciences involve a lot of social construction

c. the fact that scientific work serves various social (e.g. political) purposes does not in itself detract from the objective truth of science

d. all of these

e. b and c.



QZ 14 (3/31)

1. . According to Hobbes, charitable acts are motivated by a desire for power over people. 


2. Some relativists think that differences in moral beliefs prove relativism.


3. Rachels argues that relativism does not conflict with any of our ordinary intuitions about such things as moral progress, etc.





Quizzes, Spring 2006


Quiz 1

1. The argument from evil

            (a) is an argument against theism

            (b) assumes that a perfectly good etc. God would not permit any evil to exist

            (c) assumes God is smart

            (d) all of these

            (e) a and b.





1. Compatibilists claim that since determinism is true there can be no sense in which humans are free to choose.

2. d’Holbach

            a. was a determinist

            b. believed that cases of the exercise of “will power” are not what they appear to be

            c. argued that a person who follows their own desires is free

            d. all of these

            e. a and b.




1. According to Marx, the fact that workers do not own the product of their own labor causes them to be

            a. unemployed

            b. alienated

            c. proud of what they have produced

            d. all of these.



 “The self is a relation that relates itself to itself.”

2. The preceding quote 

            a. is from Kierkegaard

            b. amounts to the claim that human beings typically strive to merge their actual selves with some ideal self that attracts them

            c. implies that human “self hood” is an achievement, not something that happens automatically

            d. all of these.


3. Marx argued that under capitalism workers are alienated from the produce of their work.




1. Many eastern religions (India, China etc.) stress the union of all individuals in the whole, which may be supreme being (or God).


2. Darwin argued that there are no fundamental differences

a. between the emotions of humans and of higher animals

b. between the ways lower animals and humans learn

c. between the way humans run and lizards run

d. all of these

e. a and b.


3. Nietzsche thought religion was OK so long as the believer was sincere and really committed.


QZ. V (Fri. Mar. 3)

1. Huxley conjectures that the frog in the experiments that he mentions is a “mere insensible machine” since it

a. lacks common sense

b. behaves purposefully even though its spinal cord is severed

c. acts in a mechanical fashion

d. none of these.


2. Ziff argued that a robot could not feel tired since it is a machine and no machine can feel anything.


3. Searle’s “Chinese room” is a thought experiment intended to show that no mere “program” could understand a language.


QZ VI (March 10)


1. Haugeland argues that

               (a) the grasp of meanings requires relating parts to wholes

               (b)understanding a sentence like “the box is in the pen” may require a grasp of the whole “situation” in which it is uttered

               (c) understanding terms like “sheepish” requires that one has actually been a sheep

               (d) a and b.


2. Haugeland is claiming that a necessary condition for understanding a language is the ability to grasp “wholes” rather than just “bits” of “information.”


Qz. VII (Mar. 20)

1. The TOOT in Searle’s essay illustrates how what we perceive depends upon

               a. our background

               b. the condition of our retinas

               c. the distance of perceived objects

               d. all of these.


2. The following are examples of intellectual virtues:

               (a) patience

               (b) a tendency to always doubt testimony

               (c)  dogmatism

               (d) all of these.






3. It is obvious that Mr. Truetemp

               a. knows what he knows about the temperature because he is intellectually virtuous

               b. understands how he came to have the knowledge he has

               c. is to be admired and praised for his very accurate knowledge

               d. none of these.




QZ VIII(Mon. Mar. 27)

1. Kuhn argues that there is steady progress in science, so that our knowledge of what the world is really like increases day by day.




2. A scientific paradigm is constituted by such things as

               a. entrenched ways of interpreting data

               b. socially approved sets of theories and beliefs

               c. paramilitary approaches to problems

               d. all of these

               e. a and b.


3. According to Soakal social constructionism in the hard sciences is mostly nonsense.



QZ 9 (Wed. April 5).

1. According to Butler, the view that humans are always motivated by egoistic or selfish impulses is probably due to

               a. the mistaken assumption that self-love is a particular affection

               b. confusing acting selfishly, with acting in a way that interests me or matters to me.

               c. the belief that humans are always selfish

               d. all of these

               e. a and b.


2. According to MacIntyre, it is crucially important that life be unified in some way.


3. According to Butler, the following would be examples of “particular affections”

               a. self love

               b. liking to play tennis

               c. enjoying conversation with my roommate

               d. all of these

               e. b and c.


QZ 10 (Fri. April 7)

1. A virtue is a character trait that persists through time.




2. According to MacIntyre, the acquisition of virtues is made possible by such things as

               a. family stories that model those virtues

               b. stories that show how past, present and future are connected in a whole life

               c. a cultural tendency to divide life into stages

               d. a and b.



Qz 11 (Wed. April 19)

1. Mill considers happiness to consist in pleasure, with all pleasures being equal. 


2. According to Mill, we should always  calculate the consequences of any contemplated action.


3. Rawls argues that

               a. justice is a matter of fairness

               b. fairness requires being unbiased

               c. justice requires being unbiased

               d. all of these.


QZ 12. (Mon. April 24)

1. Nozick argues that justice is a 

            a.fair distribution of benefits and burdens

            b. a matter of how wealth is acquired and/or transferred

            c. the result of government actions that redistribute wealth

            d. all of these.


2. Sandel argues that a person’s identity is a function of their communal relations and history.


3. Mill argued that people should be free to do whatever they want so long as no harm to others results.








  Questions for Exam I   Phil. 120   

1. Define the following: determinism; indeterminism; soft determinism or compatibilism.
2. The soft determinist claims that as long as I act from my own desires and intentions, my actions are free. How does the determinist reply to this claim?


5. Explain the following: “the self is a relation which relates itself to itself.”  In your explanation mention the notion of what is “necessary in the self” and “possibility.”
6. What does Kierkegaard mean by “despair?”
7. Define the following: alienation; homo faber; capitalist.
8. How, according to Marx, does labor under capitalism alienate the worker from (a) the product of his work (b) his work itself (c) other workers (d) capitalists?
9. Why, according to Nietzsche, do “venerations” get in the way of  self-assertion?
10. What does the Taoist mean by “loosening the rope.”?

11. What is meant by the expression ‘you are that’ in the Upanishads?


14. What is problematic in Darwin’s claim that a “dog can feel shame, as opposed to fear?”
15. How does Darwin’s account of the way a pike learns supposedly support his view that there is no fundamental difference between humans and other animals?
16. Explain Marx’s claim that under capitalism the laborer “in his human functions feels himself to be nothing more than an animal.”
17. Illustrate how, according to Frankfurt, someone could be responsible and have freedom of the will in doing X even though when they do X they cannot do otherwise.

18. Define the following: premise; conclusion; inductive argument; valid deductive argument; reduction to absurdity; refutation by counterexample.

 a. Huxley – animals, and people, can perform many complex actions even when not fully conscious (when brain damaged, when spinal cord is severed, etc.). THEREFORE, it is plausible to assume that consciousness is an insignificant feature of humans. Humans are basically machines.

 b. Wittgenstein and Ziff – both argue that ‘a machine could not think’ is not an empirical claim. We do not know it is true via an empirical study of machines. It is more like ‘the number 17 could not feel tired.’ We know this is true because of our grasp of concepts, of how we use words.  Ziff points out that we could not seriously claim that something which is clearly a machine, could feel tired (for example). KNOW HIS ARGUMENTS FOR THAT CLAIM!

 c. Searle – Focuses on intentionality of the mental. Thoughts, beliefs, etc. (and also the sentences or utterances we use to express them) are about something, directed upon an object. His thought here is close to Brentano. The “Chinese room” argument shows that a Turing machine, a device which processes input according to some program and produces appropriate output, could not have intentionality.  If its output consisted of written or spoken words, it could not know what those words were about or what they meant. That would be so even if the machine passed the “Turing test” i.e. we could not distinguish its behavior from that of a native speaker of a language. KNOW SEARLE’S ARGUMENTS FOR THIS CLAIM!

 d. Lycan – agrees with Searle that merely instantiating a program (processing input, producing output etc) is not sufficient for thought or belief. But, a machine or robot that has a structure that mimicked that of the human brain might have thoughts. A difference in the kind of stuff used to build the robot should not make a difference to the possibility of thought. What is required is a complex thing which interacts with the environment in complex ways that are similar to the ways we interact.

 e. Haugeland – he wants to show the limitations of AI, by showing that no machine could handle language the way humans do.  Linguistic knowledge is “holistic.” In order to understand individual words I must understand how they fit in sentences. In order to understand that, I must have a pretty good grasp of how sentences fit into larger “wholes” such as stories or essays. Certain difficulties with language translation programs show that computers or robots or androids cannot relate parts to wholes in the ways necessary for linguistic understanding.  He distinguishes four different “holisms.” KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. BE ABLE TO ILLUSTRATE EACH.

 Epistemology is the study of knowledge, what it is, how we get it.  It is completely obvious that when I know that, for example,  the sun is shining (call ‘the sun is shining’  ‘S’ for short) then it is the case that
 1. I believe S
 2. S is true.
However, I could believe S because it was reported to me by a very unreliable source, or because I dreamed it and didn’t realize it was a dream, or for all sorts of other bizarre reasons. Even though such sources of my  belief that S are unreliable, they might in this instance be right, since maybe the sun IS shining. But do I KNOW it? Most people would say NO, since I am not JUSTIFIED in believing it. I ought not to believe things told me by unreliable people, for example. So it seems natural to add a third element in the definition of knowledge; I know S just in case both 1 and 2 hold, and furthermore
 3. I am justified in believing S.
This analysis or definition of knowledge is called the JTB analysis. Knowledge is Justified True Belief.
 Much of the history of epistemology has consisted in an attempt to show that we can, (or cannot, in the case of skepticism) be justified in at least some of our beliefs, and, to show how we can be justified (or, why we cannot).

One of the most common ways of justifying a belief is by claiming to have seen or, more generally, perceived, something. Thus I would be justified in believing S if I had actually just seen, or am seeing, that the Sun is out.

This section begins with a discussion of perception. It turns out that perception is more complicated than we ordinarily think.

 a. Searle on perception – Empiricists like Locke have supposed that when I perceive a tree, for example, I do not directly perceive the tree; rather, I perceive an “idea” of the tree in my mind, an idea which is supposedly caused, normally, by the tree causally interacting with  my nervous system. They hold this view primarily because of
 SCEPTICISM. Sceptics have pointed out that I can have exactly the same experiences when a tree is present and when it is not. I could be hallucinating, or dreaming, for instance. They also use other arguments. KNOW THEM! These arguments have led empiricists to look for something that true or “veridical” perceptions, on the one hand,  and hallucinations etc.on the other, have in common. They have supposed that what they have in common is the same mental content, the same “idea”, and thus in both cases what is perceived is that idea. I thus never directly perceive a tree, even when there is one right in front of me!
 Searle refuses to let sceptical arguments lead him to the idea that I never directly perceive a tree.  On his view, when I see a tree I directly perceive the tree.  On those rare occasions when I seem to see a tree, but there isn’t one, I simply have a peculiar experience which is like that of seeing a tree, but even then I am not seeing an “idea” of a tree. I am just having an experience similar to the one I have when actually seeing a tree.
 Perception, Searle insists, is intentional. It is directed upon something. Perceptions have conditions of satisfaction, just like beliefs and statements do. When I am perceiving a tree and there is a tree in front of me, then one of the conditions of satisfaction for that perception is fulfilled. When I am hallucinating a tree then one of the conditions of satisfaction for that experience is missing. Similarly, if I have a belief that there is a tree in front of me, one of the conditions of satisfaction is that there be a tree in front of me.
 There is this  difference between beliefs and perceptions; one of the conditions of satisfaction for my perceptions is that they be caused by their content. If my perception that there is a tree is caused by there being a tree, then one of the conditions is met. But if it was caused by a drug, say, then even if there is a tree in front of me, it would not be the case that I see the tree (I am too busy hallucinating to see much of anything).  That is however NOT the case with beliefs. It is not one of the conditions of satisfaction of my belief that there is a tree there that  that belief be caused by a tree being there.
WHY NOT? Give an example.

An important point made by Searle is that perception is not simply a passive reception of data, but is active and involves background and expectations. The TOOT example, and the gestalt drawings, illustrate that point. WHAT I see usually depends upon my background, other things I know or have experienced, what I am expecting, and so forth.
Thus, an illiterate person COULD NOT see the TOOT drawing as an English word.


Terms to know, Concepts to Define

Alienation (Marx)

* Intentionality
Identity theory
Logical behaviorism
Simple indeterminism
Compatibilism (soft determinism)
AI research
Virtue Ethics
Ecological philosophy


Common sense



* Foundationalism
Internalism in epistemology
Externalism in epistemology
Virtue epistemology
Criteria of personal identity
*Folk Psychology
Eliminative materialism
Turing Machine test


Harm principle

Principle of offense




Phil. 120, Test 1

True(a) or False (b)
Phil. 120, Test 1

True(a) or False (b)

1.Identity theorists in the philosophy of mind hold that mental events are identical with specific brain events.

2. Ryle argued that mental “states” are actually complex dispositions to behave in various ways.
3. Compatibilists claim that human actions are free since they are uncaused.
4.  Second order desires are desires that are of secondary importance to a person.
5. Some thinkers have argued that since there is evil in this world, and it was created by an all good God, it must be the case that those evils are necessary conditions for goods that could not exist any other way.

6.Darwin argued that there is no sharp qualitative difference between humans and other animals.
7.To anthropomorphize is to attribute animal qualities to humans.
8.Nietzsche thought that most people are weak and need to belong to a “herd” in order to feel strong.
9. The notion of “information” coming through the eyes (for example) breeds confusion, according to Wittgenstein and Searle.

10 An android could actually feel tired after lifting a feather.

11. Kierkegaard thinks that a person is in despair only if they feel despairing,

12. The Hindu view of the unity of man with God encourages extreme individualism.

13. A good example of Taoist advice might be, ‘go with the flow, man.’

14. James argued that religious belief is only rational when it is based on sufficient evidence.

15. Marx is interested in communism primarily as the solution to the problem of alienation.

16. The argument from design is an argument meant to show that there must be a God.

17.  On Frankfurt’s account of freedom of the will, any being that has freedom of action has freedom of the will.

18. Reid points out that one reason for thinking that determinism is false is that if it were true, it would be pointless to deliberate before acting, but of course it is not pointless.

19. A mind/body dualist would agree with the identity theory.

20. The “free will defense” is one kind of “greater goods” theodicy.


Multiple Choice (choose the best answer)

21. James argues that it is just as reasonable to commit to religious beliefs and risk being wrong as it is to

(A) reject religion out of fear of being wrong and risk losing an important truth

(B) commit to another person and risk being wrong about him or her

(C) risk being right

(D) all of these

(E) A and B.


2. Atheism naturally goes together with
 (D)all of these.


23.  Kierkegaard and Marx differ on the source of human misery since

(A) Marx is an individualist

(B) Kierkegaard denies that changes in social or economic arrangements will produce “health of spirit”

(C) Kierkegaard thinks that improved working conditions will resolve human anxieties

(D) all of the above.


24. When I assert “If A then B (e.g. A=’a thought is occurring’ and.B=’a brain event is taking place’)” I am claiming that

(A) A is a necessary condition for B

            (B) B is a necessary condition for A

            (C) B is a sufficient condition for A

            (D)None of these.


25. When we think about such issues as the nature of the mind, of feeling and thinking, and about what sorts of things could have feelings or be happy, our thinking may profitably, and naturally, involve us

            (A) in trying to imagine various possibilities, such as the possibility that plants might feel

            (B) in bringing together metaphysical, epistemological and ethical issues

            (C) in a philosophical “can of worms”

            (D) all of the above.


Study the following numbered quotes, and answer the questions about each
which follow.

#I "The self is a relation which relates itself to itself..."

26. What Kierkegaard is claiming in this statement is that
 (A)to be a self is to be actively involved in pursuing some ideal or improved way of  being
 (B)the finite particular "self' which I actually am at any moment is
constantly reaching out to some imagined self (trying to "be like so and so", for instance).
 (C)selves are related to themselves like brother to sister
  (D)A and B.
27. The view of the self suggested by this quote is
 (A)incompatible with the notion that a human is a machine
 (B)incompatible with the notion that people are simply the product of heredity and environment
 (C)incompatible with the claim that immediate health of spirit is possible
  (D)all of these.


II " Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the scholastics of the Middle Ages referred to as the intentional (and also mental) inexistence of the object, and what we, although with not quite unambiguous expressions, would call relation to a content, direction upon an object (which is not here to be understood as a reality) or immanent objectivity. …This intentional inexistence is exclusively characteristic of mental phenomena. No physical phenomenon manifests anything similar. Consequently, we can define mental phenomena by saying that they are such phenomena as include an object intentionally within themselves.

28.This quote is from

(A) Fodor



(D)none of these

29.The author of this quote is trying to show that

(A) mental phenomena have something physical phenomena lack

(B) thoughts, beliefs, desires, etc. are always about something or directed upon some object

            (C) it is possible for thoughts etc. to be directed upon non-existent as well as          existent “things

            (D) all of these.


#III "one could imagine a delight and a power of self determining, and a freedom of will whereby a spirit could bid farewell to every belief, to every wish for certainty, accustomed as it would be to support itself on slender cords and possibilities, and to dance even on the verge of abysses. Such a spirit would be the free spirit par excellence.

30.This quote is quite obviously from
 (C) Ryle
 (D)all of these.
31.The point of the remarks in #III is that
 (A) in order to achieve true freedom a person must give up all reliance on “certainties” of all kinds
 (B) in order to achieve true freedom of will one must will on ones own, without relying on any help from systems of belief (religious, ethical, scientific etc.)
 (C) even heavy people should be able to support themselves on slender cords
 (D) A and B.


#IV "As a result, therefore, man (the worker) no longer feels himself to be freely active in any but his animal functions-eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up, etc.; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.

32.The author of #IV
 (A)is complaining about the effects of capitalist modes of production upon the workers
 (B)is Karl Marx
 (C)thinks humans can turn into dogs and cats
 (D)A and B

33. What is being claimed in #IV is part of an argument which tries to show that
 (A)people only feel human when they are doing the least human things
 (B)we cannot achieve human fulfillment by having fun on weekends
 (C)our human functions are specifically our functions as workers or
producers, not our functions as eaters, procreators, etc.
 (D)all of these
 (E)none of these


#V"There can, I think, be no doubt that a dog feels shame, as distinct from fear..."

34.If what is claimed in #V is true then
 (A)a dog might feel ashamed of something it did last year
  (B)a dog might feel ashamed of something it did even though it was not caught or
blamed for doing it
 (C)a dog might feel ashamed of being glad that another dog got run over
 (D)a dog is a very different sort of critter than we all, with good reason, suppose it to be (E)all of these

35.#V is part of
 (A) a feeble attempt by Darwin to show that humans are not all that
different in their emotions from dogs and other animals
 (B)a feeble attempt by Marx to show that dogs are capitalists
 (C)a feeble attempt by Nerkegaard to show that aesthetes are dogs
 (D)a feeble attempt by a dog to show how human it is.



“The living Self itself, though, does not die. Everything that exists has as its soul that which is the finest essence. It is Reality. It is the Self, and you are that, my son.”

36. This quote is

a. from the Upanishads.

b. teaches the immortality of individual souls.

c. teaches that individuals are one with Reality, which is God or Brahman.

d. all of these.

e. both a and c.


37. The ideas expressed in this quote are

a. typical of western individualism.

b. typical of eastern or mystical “holism.”

c. typical of Darwin.

d. none of these.


#VII "The consciousness of brutes would appear to be related to the mechanism of their body simply as a collateral product of its working, and to be as completely without any power of modifying that working as the steam‑whistle which accompanies the work of a locomotive engine is without influence upon its machinery.  Their volition, if they have any, is an emotion indicative of physical changes, not a cause of such changes.


38.The author of #V is

(A)downplaying the importance of "consciousness" in animals

(B)claiming that locomotives are brutes

(C) claiming that conscious has no causal effect upon the "mechanism" of the         body

 (D)all of these

(E)A and C

39.The author of #V is probably


(B) a determinist

(C) unsympathetic to religious ideas

(D) all of these






QZ I                                        QZ 7               

1. E                                                     1. A

                                                            2. A

QZ 2.                                       3. D

1. F

2.  E                                                    QZ 8

                                                            1. F

                                                            2. E

Qz 3                                                    3. T

1. B

2. D                                                     QZ 9

3. T                                                     1. E

                                                            2. T

                                                            3. E

QZ 4.

1. T                                                     QZ 10

2. E                                                     1. T

3. F                                                      2. D


QZ 5                                                    QZ 11                                     

                                                            1. F

1. B                                                     2. F

2. T                                                     3. D

3. T

                                                            Qz 12

QZ 6.                                                   1. B

1. D                                                     2. T

2. T                                                     3. T



Key, Test I

1. t
9. t
11. f
12. f
13. t

17. f
18. t
27. d
28. c

29. d

30. b
31. d

32. d

33. d

34. e

35. a

36. e

37. b

38. e

39. d






Phil. 120       SAMPLE  FINAL EXAM

True(a) or False(b)

1. Searle argues that computerized robots could not be in intentional states.
2. Epistemology is the study of knowledge.
3. Since Data can carry on a conversation in English, it is obvious  that he understands the meaning of English words.
4. Data could be programmed to act tired after lifting a feather.
5. According to Zagzebki’s virtues approach to epistemology, all that matters for knowledge is that beliefs be justified.
6. Mill argued that some actions are intrinsically wrong, no matter what the consequences.
7. Rawls argues that justice requires the complete elimination of any bias.                      

8. Searle points out that the Chinese room actually knows Chinese

9. A virtue is like a vice in this respect; both are character traits..

10.  According to MacIntyre,  the development of good character requires a cohesive community..

11. The claim that a machine could feel is, according to Ziff, absurd.

12. Folk psychology is the psychology we all use from day to day, in which we employ ordinary notions of belief, emotion etc.

13. If (like Truetemp) I possess information that P, then clearly I know that P.

14. To believe something or desire something is to be in an intentional state.

15. To forget something is to be in an intentional state.     

16. Functionalists argue that mental states are identical with specific brain states or events.

17. Kierkegaard tried to show how a life that is lived in pursuit of inadequate or shoddy ideals is a life of despair.

18. Hard determinists hold that all human actions are the result of factors, such as heredity and environment, over which individuals have no control.  

19. According to Feinberg, governments should have the power to prevent some offensive behavior.

20.  Marx agrees with egalitarians like Rawls that taxes should be used to redistribute wealth.     


Multiple choice.
21. Searle’s account of perception emphasizes that a perceiver
 (a) is a passive recipient of data
 (b) brings a background of knowledge and expectations to perception
 (c) is only directly aware of ideas in the mind
 (d) all of these
22.  Darwin tries to show that humans are not so different from other animals by

            (A) comparing human and animal emotions

 (B) comparing the hair on monkeys to the hair on philosophers

            (C) comparing human and animal behaviour

            (D)all of these

            (E) A and C

23.   The Chambonais provide a good illustration of

            (A) the relevance of action centered accounts of morality to real life

            (B) the relevance of agent centered accounts of morality to real life

            (C) the relevance of Aristotelian ideas about virtue and character to real life

            (D) b and c 

24. A libertarian would argue that affirmative action laws

(A) are obviously good since they tend to make people more equal

(B) might be justified if they rectify past injustices in acquisition

(C) are good if they bring about the greatest good of the greatest number

(D) all of these.     

25.  Huxley tried to show through experimental evidence and observation that

(A)purposive activities can take place without consciousness

(B)both humans and other animals function very much like machines

(C)consciousness is merely a byproduct of physical states (brain states, for instance)

(D)all of these.

26. The fact that there are some differences between peoples or cultures about what is morally right and what is wrong

            (a) proves relativism

            (b) is compatible with there being absolute moral truths knowable by all

            (c) could be explained in terms of differences in non-moral beliefs

            (d) b and c.

27. “Folk psychology” is

            (a) the kind of psychology used exclusively by old folk

(b) the kind of “psychology” nearly everyone uses in explaining and predicting behavior.

            (c) a refined psychological theory which first appeared in the 20th century

            (d) all of these.

I. Learning to speak, and learning to sing, are processes by which the vocal mechanism is set to new tunes. A song which has been learned has its molecular equivalent, which potentially represents it in the brain, just as a musical box, wound up, potentially represents an overture. Touch the stop and the overture begins; send a molecular impulse along the proper afferent nerve and the singer begins his song.

28. The author of this quote is trying to show that
 (a) humans are basically machines
 (b) that “knowing” a tune is nothing more having a brain in a certain state
 (c) that humans are no different than music boxes
 (d) a and b.
29. According to I in coming to learn a tune, what happens is that the brain gets set up or configured in such a way that
 (a) under certain prompts my vocal chords etc. will start to move in such a way as to produce the tune
 (b) that configuration amounts to a representation in some sense of the tune itself
 (c) I will need to be wound up to sing
 (d) A and B.

II What sorts of beliefs might a thermostat have? Well, it records input (temperature changes), processes that input, and provides output (reading on a dial, plus activation of an air conditioner or heater). So, when the temperature goes up by a certain amount, it’s reaction could be said to amount to the “belief” that “it is too hot in here.”
Anyone who thinks strong Al has a chance as a theory of the mind ought to ponder the implications of that remark. We are asked to accept it as a discovery of strong Al that the hunk of metal on the wall that we use to regulate the temperature has beliefs in exactly the same sense that we, our spouses, and our children have beliefs,

30. #II is or includes
 (a) an attack on strong AI
 (b) a description of what some advocates of strong AI believe
 (c) a description of a thermostat as a Turing machine
 (d) all of these
31. The author of #II
 (a) obviously believes that thermostats have beliefs
(b) wants to deny that the mere implementation of a program is sufficient for having beliefs
(c) is John Searle
(d) b and c.

III Again: defenders of Utility often find themselves called upon to reply to such objections as this – that there is not time, previous to action, for calculating and weighing the effects of any line of conduct on the general happiness. This is exactly as if any one were to say that it is impossible to guide our conduct by Christianity, because there is not time, on every occasion on which any thing has to be done, to read through the Old and New Testaments. The answer to the objection is, that there has been ample time; namely, the whole past duration of the human species. During all that time, mankind have been learning by experience the tendencies of actions, on which experience all the prudence as well as all the morality of life are dependent.


32.  The author of III is arguing that

(a) when I try to decide what is the right thing to do, I must always calculate the consequences of my actions as best I can

(b) it is no objection to utilitarianism that sometimes we do not have time to calculate the consequences of our actions

(c) sometimes when we decide what to do we legitimately rely on the experiences of other people in order to settle on the act with the best consequences

(d) b and c.

33. The author of III is

            (a) J.S. Mill

            (b) James Rachels

            (c) a consequentialist

            (d) Kant

            (e) a and c.


IV. Thus it appears that there is no peculiar contrariety between self-love and benevolence, no greater competition between these than between any other particular affections and self-love.

34. Butler’s argument here

            (a) assumes that self-love is not a particular affection

            (b) depends upon the idea that benevolence is a particular affection

(c) depends upon the idea that self love is a general concern for my own well being which can only be fulfilled by a wise indulgence in particular affections

(d) all of these

(e) none of these.

35. If Butler is right, then

            (a) Hobbes is wrong

(b) a lot of people are confused, since many people think that if I act in my own interest, or out of self-love, I cannot be acting out of love for others

            (c) some people simply enjoy helping others

            (d) all of these.


V. An excessively proud person, who refuses to take seriously challenges to his own beliefs, might just for that reason be more likely to have true beliefs, if in fact he is an intellectually powerful person who tends to get to the truth when he goes his own way. But intellectual pride looks like a vice, not a virtue.

36. Zagzebski is here considering

            (a) an objection to her definition of knowledge in terms of intellectual virtues

            (b) the view that it is always best to be proud

            (c) the view that knowledge is possible for a person with intellectual vices

            (d) a and c.

37. The view under discussion in V is

            (a) virtues epistemology

            (b) externalist epistemology

            (c) coherentism

            (d) none of these.


VI. The study of the mind starts with such facts as that humans have beliefs, while thermostats, telephones, and adding machines don’t. If you get a theory that denies this point, you have produced a counterexample to the theory and the theory is false. One gets the impression that people in Al who write this sort of thing think they can get away with it because they don’t really take it seriously, and they don’t think anyone else will either. I propose, for a moment at least, to take it seriously. Think hard for one minute about what would be necessary to establish that that hunk of metal on the wall over there had real beliefs, beliefs with direction of fit, propositional content, and conditions of satisfaction; beliefs that had the possibility of being strong beliefs or weak beliefs; nervous, anxious, or secure beliefs; dogmatic, rational, or superstitious beliefs; blind faiths or hesitant cogitations; any kind of beliefs. The thermostat is not a candidate. Neither is stomach, liver, adding machine, or telephone. However, since we are taking the idea seriously, notice that its truth would be fatal to strong Al’s claim to be a science of the mind. For now the mind is everywhere. What we wanted to know is what distinguishes the mind from thermostats and livers. And if McCarthy were right, strong AI wouldn’t have a hope of telling us that.


38. The author of VI is attacking the view that

            (a) a thermostat could have beliefs

(b) that having a belief is nothing more than receiving input, processing it, and producing output

(c) stomachs could have beliefs

(d) all of the above.

39. The topic under discussion in VI is

            (a) Artificial Intelligence

            (b) the attribution of intelligence to machines

            (c) stomach anatomy

            (d) all of these

            (e) a and b.


VII. If the relation that relates itself to itself has been composed by another, then the relation is no doubt the third, but this relation, the third, is yet again a relation and relates itself to that which composed the whole relation. The human self is such a derived, composed relation, a relation that relates itself to itself and in relating itself to itself relates itself to another.

40. The author of VII is

            (a) presenting a certain conception of what it is to be a genuine self

            (b) suggesting that genuine self-hood requires a relation to a creator

(c) assuming that being a self requires relating who I am at any moment to some ideal which I have not yet achieved, or, maintaining myself in such an ideal

(d) all of these

41. The author of VII is

            (a) Karl Marx

            (b) Baron d’Holbach

            (c) Kierkegaard

            (d) Mill


#VIII  "The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.


42.  If #VIII is both true and worth mentioning then it would seem that

(a) there should not be seat belt laws

(b) there should not be a lot of difficulty in determining what concerns only myself and has no effect upon others

(c) if a fetus is just part of a woman’s body then she should be able to kill it if she likes

(d) all of the above.


#IX actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain. . . . It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others.


43. The author of #IX

(A) is a consequentialist

(B) thinks the pleasures maximized by morally right actions include “higher (more valuable)pleasures”

(C) gives no convincing morally neutral test for determining which pleasures are “higher”

(D) is the same as the author of VIII

(E) all of the above


#X   The only conception of action that accords with our data is one according to which men -- and perhaps some other things -- are sometimes, but of course not always, self-determining beings; that is, beings which are sometimes the causes of their own behavior. In the case of an action that is free, it must be such that it is caused by the agent who performs it, but such that no antecedent conditions were sufficient for his performing just that action. In the case of an action that is both free and rational, it must be such that the agent who performed it did so for some reason, but this reason cannot have been the cause of it.

            Now this conception fits what men take themselves to be; namely, beings who act, or who are agents, rather than things that are merely acted upon, and whose behavior is simply the causal consequence of conditions which they have not wrought. When I believe that I have done something, I believe that it was I who caused it to be done, I who made something happen, and not merely something within me, such as one of my own subjective states, which is not identical with myself. If I believe that something not identical with myself was the cause of my behavior-some event wholly external to myself, for instance, or even one internal to myself, such as a nerve impulse, volition, or what-not-then I cannot regard that behavior as being an act of mine, unless I further believe that I was the cause of that external or internal event. My pulse, for example, is caused and regulated by certain conditions existing within me, and not by myself. I do not, accordingly, regard this activity of my body as my action, and would be no more tempted to do so if I became suddenly conscious within myself of those conditions or impulses that produce it.       

44.  #X is

            (a) a clear expression of determinism

            (b) a clear rejection of determinism

            (c) a rejection of simple indeterminism

            (d) b and c..

45. The author of X

(a) believes soft determinism or compatiblism does not account for our intuitions about what it is to act freely

(b) believes the notion that an action is free if it is caused by my own desires and impulses does not accord with our intuitions about free actions

(c) believes genuine actions must arise from myself, where “myself” is not identified with any particular internal state, or states, of mine

(d) cannot give a description of that agent-self which his theory postulates.

(e) all of these.


#XI .I shall now state in a provisional form the two principles of justice that I believe would be chosen in the original position....

The first statement of the two principles reads as follows.

First:  each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.

Second:  social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.... [The Difference Principle]

46.  The author of #XI

(A) holds that there should be no inequalities

(B) is an egalitarian

(C) reasons like a utilitarian

(D) none of these


47.  Examples of social and economic inequalities which might arguably be expected to be to everyone’s advantage include

(A) the high compensation which medical doctors receive

(B) the very high compensation many professional athletes receive

(C) the low (relative to USA wages) pay given to many otherwise unemployed third world workers.

(D) All of these

(E) A and C.


XII    Entitlement Theory. The subject of justice in holdings consists of three major topics. The first is the original acquisition of holdings, the appropriation of unheld things. . . .We shall refer to the complicated truth about this topic, which we shall not formulate here, as the principle of justice in acquisition. The second topic concerns the transfer of holdings from one person to another. By what processes may a person transfer holdings to another? How may a person acquire a holding from another who holds it? Under this topic come general descriptions of voluntary exchange, and gift and (on the other hand) fraud, as well as reference to particular conventional details fixed upon in a given society. The complicated truth about this subject (with placeholders for conventional details) we shall call the principle of justice in transfer. .  . .If the world were wholly just, the following inductive definition would exhaustively cover the subject of justice in holdings.


1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding.

2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.

3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2.

 48. The views expressed in XII

            (a) are typical of libertarians

            (b) consistent with the belief in a minimal state

            (c) consistent with the belief in a welfare state

            (d) all of these

            (e) a and b.

49. XII is referring to the idea(s) that

(a) if I have justly acquired something through my own labor, no one can justly take it away from me without my consent

(b) if I have justly acquired something by being given a gift by someone who had justly acquired that thing, no one should be able to take it away from me

            (c) inheritance taxes, medicaid taxes, etc. are unjust

            (d) all of these.


#XIII   The senses of the social man are other senses than those of the non-social man. Only through the objectively unfolded richness of man’s essential being is the richness of subjective human sensibility (a musical ear, an eye for beauty of form-in short, senses capable of human gratifications, senses confirming themselves as essential powers of man) either cultivated or brought into being.

50. If what is being argued in this quote is correct, then

         (A) how I see things depends upon other people

         (B) my capacity to enjoy the arts depends upon my “socialization” in a broad sense

         (C) achievement of a truly human (humanized) life requires a social development which is deeply humane

         (D) all of these.

51. The argument advanced in #VII has something in common with

         (A) MacIntyre’s account of human life as a function of living traditions

         (B) Aristotle’s notion that humans are political animals

         (C) Dennet’s notion that beliefs can be shared

         (D) none of these

         (E) A and B.










Key Sample Exam II

1. t 

16. f


29. d

30. d

31. d

32. d

33. e


35. d

36. d

37. a

38. d

39. e

40. d

41. c

42. d

43. e

44. d

45. e

46. b

47. a

48. e

49. d


50. d

51. e