Final study guide
Final study guide PHIL 1200
Popular in Philosophy and Society
Popular in Architectural Philosophy and History
This 8 page Study Guide was uploaded by rema9824 on Thursday September 22, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to PHIL 1200 at University of Colorado at Boulder taught by Adam Hosein in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 6 views. For similar materials see Philosophy and Society in Architectural Philosophy and History at University of Colorado at Boulder.
Reviews for Final study guide
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/22/16
Exam Study Guide Basics As of today, the ﬁnal exam is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, March 1st. Structure There will be: – Multiple choice and true/false questions (1 pt each) – Short answer questions (3 pts each) – Short essay questions (5 pts each) Examples of each type of question are given below. You may not bring any materials into the ﬁnal exam—no notes, books, etc. I only ask you to bring writing implements. The exam itself is fairly short. It is not a test of how fast you can write. If you are well-prepared, I expect that you will not experience time pressure in completing it. To prepare, you should review the readings, handouts, and your notes. It is a good idea to make sure that there is someone else from the class that you can contact if there is a gap in your notes. Because the exam is closed books, closed notes, I do not expect you to be able to quote the texts we’ve read in answering the essay questions. It will sufﬁce if you paraphrase arguments you attribute to the thinkers you’ve encountered. You should also focus on making sure that you know the major theories we have looked at and their implications. Finally, you will need to be familiar with the basic details of the legal cases we have looked at. The emphasis in this exam is placed on a thorough mastery of the material covered in class. Some of the short answer and essay questions may also ask you to present objections to positions we’ve discussed in this class. In answering these questions, you may draw the objections from the class discussion, either in lecture or section. You may, but need not, come up with an original objection for this exam. One ﬁnal criterion of successful completion of the exam. It matters not just that you present everything relevant to the question under discussion, but also that you refrain from introducing irrelevant material. The exam gives you plenty of time to revise your answers and to ensure that you’ve written as concisely, and with as much focus, as possible. Review Session Will be held in class on Thursday, 2/24. Collaboration I strongly encourage you to form study groups and collectively prepare for the exam. However, the exam itself must be taken individually. Sample Questions a. True/False and Multiple Choice Hedonists believe that some pleasures are of higher quality than others. (T/F). Lawrence v. Texas holds that gay sex is constitutionally protected because a. It can be a means to solidifying long-term relationships. b. It can bring people a lot of pleasure. c. Sex is intimate. b. Short Answer 1. Brieﬂy, what is the difference between Mill and Meiklejohn’s approaches to speech? What would each of them say about artistic expression? c. Essay Questions 1. “The quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry.” Who thinks this and why? Do you agree? Why or why not? Mill→ tick tack toe lower pleasure because it doesn't challenge our abilities if we satisfy ourselves with lesser desires then we’d be less happy, less fulﬁlled. Some study questions 1. Arguments: a. What are: premises, conclusions and inferences? b. What is the difference between a necessary and a sufﬁcient condition? (Be prepared to give and evaluate examples.) 2. Utilitarianism: a. What is utilitarianism? Of all the available actions, perform the one that will produce the greatest net balance of pleasure over pain. Bentham’s hedonism→ may be labeled quantitative hedonism, since all pleasures and pains appear on the same scale, being measured according to the same set of criteria (such as duration and intensity). b. What are the arguments for utilitarianism? The minority may suffer but the majority’s overall happiness is greater. Mills developed bentham's ideas. Consequentialism → weighing their welfarism. if you do something that had a positive effect of socienty then it is accepted. V(x)= f(x1, +x2 + x3..) value of x (each person) is cumulative. how you assign the values of x → hedonism Hedonism: specifying the pleasure. fecundity, intensity, duration, extent, certainty ect...how well off an individual is. assessing consequences is exclusively a matter of considering the amount of happiness brought about by an action. Welfarism: consequentialism At a higher level. effects on the well being of all people including animals. Sum rankings: which person gets the most pleasure from the same action. c. What is happiness according to Bentham? “greatest happiness principle”--> universal truth, it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.’ Mill→ human beings are on a higher level in society to animals because humans have a higher level of intelligence. d. What should utilitarians say about scenarios where goods are divided unequally or where particular people are mistreated for the sake of the common good? Cannot appeal to people’s rights (for the individual), interest of the community is one of the most general expressions for morals. So, yes, appeals to rights are not allowed. On inequality: look at the stuff in your notes about why utilitarians might prefer more equal distributions. (Consider whether, as a utilitarian, you would give an extra 1K to a richer person or a poorer person, given that choice.) greater value to the poorer person. As far mistreating individuals, remember that utilitarianism is aggregative, so think about what that means when weighing harms to the individual versus beneﬁts to others. e. How would a (Benthamite) utilitarian defend individual freedoms? Here you want to think about what the effect on overall happiness is when some individual is denied an important freedom (such as the opportunity to have sex with a partner of the same gender). Benthamites would deny individual freedoms if the majority are against those freedoms unless its unharmful. f. How would a Bentham assess a proposed criminal law? by consequentialism and the sum ranking. performing the act or thinking about the implications of performing the act. g. What are some objections to utilitarianism? It lacks ethical depth. It reduces values to facts. You should behave in a way that contributes to the greatest good - maximize utility, pleasure, happiness. Okay, but what about humans rights, justice, truth telling. Utilitarianism (a theory of the good) often collides with deontology (a theory of the right). It's subjective. Happiness can be a slippery concept. What causes, say, authentic happiness versus false happiness. Might self-sacriﬁce, pain and suffering ultimately contribute to happiness. It's too simplistic. We're driven by more than the pursuit of happiness or pleasure -- we're psychologically more complex. We admire heroism, we value the well-being of posterity. It can't account for evil. Utilitarian does not scratch the surface of human intention very deeply. It hardly seems plausible that evil is simply the wrong calculation of consequences. Any system that can be corrupt will be corrupt. It presumes we are more prescient than we in fact are. Who can really know the consequences of particular acts? What behavior now brings happiness in the future? Our track record in this respect is abysmal. It lacks a religious sensibility (of course, a plus for many). What about God, the soul, life after death, sin? Utilitarian pushes all these off the table, insisting they're largely irrelevant a a guide to behavior. 3. Enforcement of morals a. What is Devlin’s argument for enforcing community morals? Enforcing community morals is a legitimate and important rationale for policy making, including criminal laws. It is important to enforce community morals “public morals” - some general set of morals that makes a community cohesive = stable society with trust and overall law plays a role whether moral standards are contained. You can sustain public morality by creating a law. Essential means (you have to have) and can be supported by law, however law cannot stand on its own without a direct effect on the people. How would it apply to, say, prostitution? Prostitution should be illegal because it is against “public morals” Is it a good argument? If not, exactly which part of the argument is problematic and why? Not a good argument, does not take enough into account and does not offer a solution to properly regulate prostitution b. What was Bowers charged with? SODOMY Criminalizing oral and anal sex as unconstitutional. (1986) laurence V texas cuffed for homosexuality → (government arrested him for having sex in his own house). Argument: cannot regulate these actions as they are held in a private house. the court overruled criminalizing oral and anal sex, making it legal in 2003. it was overturned because of due process: protects the individual, cannot enter someone’s private household. c. What does it mean for something to be a “fundamental right” according to the Supreme Court? d. What are examples of things the court has considered fundamental rights? The right to intrastate travel The right to parent one's children  Protection on the high seas from pirates The right to privacy The right to marriage e. What are the competing criteria considered in Bowers v. Hardwick for deciding what counts as a fundamental right? → homosexuality is wrong because it is morally wrong → just because the action is in a private sphere, does not make it legal. should be regulated Hardwick→ one of the descents said who really cares about homosexuality if it doesn't harm society because the actions takes place in a private space. (questions why is is so wrong) maroity opinion said it was wrong but the decent question why it was wrong. refer to above Benthem’s opinion on homosexuality→ deterrence of crime, the pleasure people take knowing that some actions are not being performed. Betham rejects the regulation of actions that simply cause offense or are considered intrinsically immoral. f. The court asks whether there is any justiﬁcation for anti-sodomy laws. What does it conclude? Why? court concludes that it is just morally wrong. there is no liberty in being a homosexual. majority think it’s wrong, therefore it should be illegal. 4. Religious Freedom a. What is the difference between the Sherbert and Smith standards for evaluating claims for religious exemption? How do they apply to different examples, such as the ones mention on the class handout? Sherbert→ against her religion to work on saturdays (sabbath). she asked for unemployment beneﬁts, denied because she was physically able to work. she was ﬁred for refusing to work on a saturday. was unemployed and was unable to access beneﬁts because her actions were voluntary. working on saturdays was a burden on her religion, she should receive ﬁnancial beneﬁt. Smith→ Native American ingesting Peyote (religious medical belief). Lost his job due to misconduct (illegal). he could not receive employment beneﬁts. → “every time the law conﬂicts with religion, you don't have to obey the law.” → NOT TRUE. b. Which standard should a Millian prefer? Why? prefer the Smith case, because it hasn't been tested. it needs to be trialed. c. Are there other reasons for preferring one standard over the other? as long as there is not negative impact on society, everyone should be able to use their full capacity for free will. yes one was illegal practice of religion (smith) which was a misconduct. Sherberth refusing to not work on saturdays due to religion was not a violation of the law. 5. Mill a. How does Mill’s view differ from classical utilitarianism? there are certain things that give you greater pleasure than other things(Mill). Utilitarianism → pleasure and not pleasure. b. What is the difference between higher and lower pleasures? higher pleasures→ more human capacity lower pleasure→ more basic pleasures (tick tack toe or dog receiving food) c. Which pleasures does Mill think are higher and which lower? Do you agree? more capable to humans (more intellectual capacity) higher d. How, according to Mill, do we know which pleasures are higher and which lower? if an animal or uneducated person can enjoy it its lower. if it challenges your intellectual ability, the outcome is more rewarding. it’s better to be depressed and sad than to be dumb and happy. → you begin to appreciate the smaller things. e. What makes some pleasures higher than others? f. How would Bentham reply to Mill? Is his reply successful? Is it true that ‘The quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry’? 6. Mill on Autonomy: a. What is the harm principle? if it harms others it should be discontinued. b. What is “individuality”? Why does Mill think it is important? Why does following the harm principle, according to Mill, foster individuality? c. Does Mill have any other arguments for the harm principle? 7. Enforcement of Morals 2 a. What does the Lawrence court rule about the status of anti-sodomy laws? the law “a person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex” is in conﬂict with fundamental human rights. “free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise as their liberty under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. b. What grounds does the Lawrence court give for disagreeing with the ruling in Bowers? the court deemed it necessary to reconsider the Court’s holding in Bower. the fact that the governing majority in the State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufﬁcient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice. individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by Due Process CLause. (mills view on individuality) 8. Feminism a. What is the difference between sameness (humanist) feminism and difference (gynocentric) feminism? Given an argument for each. Think about how each approach would apply to current debates about feminism. humanist feminism→ all are equal. female and male doctors should be treated the same. difference feminism→ said that they were undervalued but they should be revalued. b. How do Mill’s ideas about freedom of action apply to gender inequality? stands for humanist feminism . all genders are equal. c. What is Addams’ argument for including more women in government? Is it a good argument? Argues for the importance of having more women involved in the government. Masculine values are associated with aggression and physical strength. feminism values virtues are associated with care and concern for the needy. government functions males → defense (small portion) Females→ feminine values education, public health, city planning is best conducted in accordance with women. d. Should women be allowed to serve in all parts of the military? Yes, if they are willing to go into the army. 9. Speech a. According to Mill, can the government restrict speech that it deems to be false? they should not restrict false speech, public should be open to hearing different opinions. ﬂase opinions will be ruled out eventually. b. What is Mill’s argument for the value of free speech? we should be wary of false speech and contemplate what is truly free speech. rule out pure emotional responses. by regulating speech, inhibit communication and suppress society. as long as the speech does not hurt anyone directly. c. Does Mill think that the government should restrict speech that is offensive? And if so, when? As long as no one is getting directly threatened, speech should be allowed. d. How does Meiklejohn’s approach to speech differ? What is his argument for his approach? What are some examples of speech that Mill might protect but not Meiklejohn and vice versa? more of a moderated/ constructive way to express freedom of speech. mill would argue that its not entirely freedom of speech. e. Should ISIS propaganda be banned in the United States, as Posner proposes? no because people know it's wrong 10. Speech cases a. What are the constitutional issues in Skokie, Brandenburg, and R vs. Keegstra? Skokie→ nazi party wanting to march through skokie where a lot of jewish people lived. was seen as wrong because the jews lives felt threatened. Brandenburg→ KKK rallying that they wanted to create videos advocating “no black”. brandenburg won because it did not indicate that something was going to happen, there was no rallying in killing black people but they were just expressing their hate towards black people which is allowed. Keegstra → was anti semitic. he was teaching that being jewish was wrong. he said the holocaust was a tool to feel sorry for Jews. teaching kids false facts. hate speech is something that facilitates debate rather silence it. however, children do not know how to debate and see these statements as true facts. b. What did the US and Canadian courts rule in those cases? c. What is it to regulate speech based on its viewpoint? taking the speech literally. just because it doesn't align with your belief system does not mean that it's not allowed to be said. d. What do the US and Canadian courts say about viewpoint regulation? Where do those courts differ in their reasoning? Canada says if things are inherently not true, they should not be said. US does not regulate viewpoints, believe in being viewpoint neutral. e. What harms can hate speech cause? Are these serious? f. What are the arguments for allowing hate speech, what does the Keegstra court say in reply to these? Is there a good response to those replies? 11. Pornography a. What kinds of pornography does McKinnon think we should regulate? only when pornography causes and is a form of discrimination. IN SUM: Pornography that sexualizes women being treated as objects, physically harmed, humiliated, or subservient should be regulated. Why? What is the difference between McKinnon’s argument for regulating (certain kinds of) pornography and traditional obscenity arguments for regulating pornography? Mckinnon→ accepts pornography if it does not discriminate women. she describes it as “not a moral issue” her concern is the justiﬁcation of pornography. not concerned with the banning of porn because it is obscene. shw wants to blan it because it is not right to women. Traditional→ all pornography should be banned as it is described as sexual explicit material, produced for the intent of sexual arousal. banning porn because it is obscene. taking away the meaning of sex and making it more for entertainment. b. What is the difference, according to Dworkin, between a “goal-based” and “rights based” argument for legally permitting pornography? Dworkin’s argument→ if you regulate pornography, take away their liberty to create own “art”, this also affects equality. individuality cannot be expressed. sex is a normal action, cannot be regulated. there are harms but they are not direct and present. right based → citizens should have the same rights to equality despite their sex. if we only regulate what women do, that’s sexist in itself. goal based→ banning porn will eventually make society better. c. Why does Dworkin reject the goal-based argument in favor of the rights based argument? d. MacKinnon says that pornography silences women. What does this mean? Is it true? Dworkin says that women have no right not to be silenced in this way. Why? Is he right? Mckinnon→ Allowing people to produce pornography also harms liberty because pornography silences women by objectifying them. women should be able to do whatever they want. if they choose to be objectiﬁed and portrayed in that way that’s their decision.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'