Phil 251 (Fall 2008) Final Exam

This exam has four questions. You need to answer all of them without relying on any notes. You will be given the questions in class, so you do not need Blue Books or scratch paper.

The exam is scheduled for Dec. 9 (Tuesday), 10:30-12:30 in our regular classroom (Zach 102). If you have three exams scheduled for Tuesday, or simply would prefer to take the exam earlier, you can take it on Dec. 8 (Monday), 1:00-3:00. To take the exam on Monday, you need to contact Dr. Daniel no later than Dec. 5 (Friday) so that we can find an appropriate room for those of you who take it then. If you are not absolutely sure that you will be ready to take the exam on Monday, then plan to take it Tuesday.

You are not being graded on grammar, spelling, or punctuation, but you should know that errors in your writing distract your reader and can often cause a reader to miss the point you are trying to make. You should therefore prepare your answers to the questions carefully beforehand, taking note of common spelling errors such as the following:

argument, judgment (no "e")	its (possessive); it's (contraction of "it is")	Sartre (not "Sarte")	libertarian	independent (not "ant")
etc. (not "ect.")	their (possessive); there (location); they're ("they are")	therefore ("e" on the end)	perceive, conceive ("i" after "e" when after "c")	explanation (not "explaination")
your (possessive); you're ("you are")	exist (not "exsist")	existence (not "existance")	cause and effect (not "affect")	separate (not "seperate")
Feuerbach, Marx	Anselm, Aquinas	Utilitarianism, utilitarian	Existentialism, existentialist	Kierkegaard, Nietzsche

The exam questions:

1. How do objections to the cosmological and design arguments for God's existence reveal that both arguments rely on the ontological argument, and how could Kant use this to argue that an ethics based on God's existence (e.g., divine command, natural law) provides only hypothetical, not categorical, imperatives?

For this question you must briefly describe the cosmological and design arguments for God's existence, show how objections to those arguments highlight assumptions characteristic of the ontological argument, and explain how Kant's ethics does not depend on commands other than those dictated by universalizable maxims.

2. How does Kierkegaard's explanation of the apparent contradiction between the existence of both God and evil in the world emphasize the isolated individuality of the self in a way that not only reaffirms Hobbes' state of nature but also makes impossible Rawls' (or even Locke's) social contract?

For this question you must indicate why there is an apparent contradiction between the existence of God and evil in the world, describe how Kierkegaard addresses this challenge to reason, and show how his assumptions about radical subjectivity explain why the state of nature is both terrifying and unescapable.

3. How is ethical egoism not relativistic, and how is existentialist ethics not egoistic?

For this question you must indicate how ethical egoists, ethical relativists, and existentialists make moral judgments, and you must show how they differ by describing how the attempt to make them sound similar misunderstands them. Referring to the arguments of individual thinkers would help here.

4. How does Aristotle's strategy for determining the golden mean draw on a view of moral competence similar to that found in both Plato's critique of democracy and J. S. Mill's proposal that qualitatively superior kinds of happiness can be identified without encouraging governmental coercion?

For this question you must describe how, for Aristotle, one identifies the golden mean, and how this procedure is similar not only to Plato's account of how justice is achieved in the State but also to Mill's version of both utilitarian ethics and his discussion of the individual's relation to society.