Philosophy Final Review PDF

Preview

Summary

Review Material for Final Exam. This will help students study for this specific exam....

Description

1.What is the puzzle of Theseus’s Ship? Be sure to explain the “small changes don’t matter” principle and the “same parts, same configuration, same object” principle. Also explain how these principles generate the puzzle. 2.Explain van Inwagen’s approach to the ship of Theseus. (Hint: he denies that ships exist at all.) How does he deal with ordinary talk about ships? 3.I argued in class that souls do not help very much in solving the puzzles of personal identity. What was my argument? - The puzzle of personal identity is that 1 person can equal another person. The soul theory is: Person 1 = Person 2, just in case they have the same soul. Which as an example if Kirk is on a Star Trek space ship in outer space, and then uses the transporter on the ship. A person appears on earth that goes by the name Kirk. The soul theory doesn’t give a verdict on if the soul transported with Person 1 to Person 2 since for Kirk from the space ship to be Kirk on earth is soul would have to of transported too. 4.Explain the difference between the bodily continuity view of personal identity and the psychological continuity view. How might they differ in the case of the Star Trek transporter, for example? - The bodily continuity - The psychological continuity - How the star trek transport relates to both 5.Recount Sider’s “justice” argument for the psychological continuity view. Are you persuaded by the argument? Why or why not? 6.What is the fission puzzle about personal identity? The possible answers to this puzzle seem to be the following: the original person is destroyed, the original is identical to one or the other of the resulting people, or the original is identical to both. Why is each of these possible answers seemingly problematic? -Destroyed = Implausible -One or the other = Arbitrary -He’s both = Transivitye 7.Explain Gertler’s version of the disembodiment argument for the claim that some psychological states are not identical to any physical state of the brain. 8.Explain the multiple realizability argument against the identity theory. Be sure to say what the identity theory is. -

9.Explain the Chinese Room argument against the functionalist view that mental states are functional states. 10.State one of the attempts to analyze death that we considered and raise an objection to it. 11.What is Olson’s notion of radical resurrection? Why does Olson think that radical resurrection is impossible? 12.Recount Epicurus’s argument that we should not fear death. 13.Epicurus says that all good and evil consist in sensations. Views like this are sometimes called hedonism. Is hedonism plausible? Why or why not? 14.What is the symmetry problem for deprivation theories of the badness of death? How does Nagel try to solve this problem? 15.How does Thomson argue that the question whether the fetus is a person is not the whole issue in the abortion debate? (Hint: she uses the violinist example.) 16.Some people argue that conception is the only non-arbitrary point at which we might say personhood begins. How does Thomson respond to this argument specifically (hint: she discusses it briefly at the outset of her paper)? 17.Let’s suppose that, at 20 weeks (half-way) into the pregnancy, the fetus has a right to life. Would Thomson claim that an abortion at this stage is ever morally permissible? If so, when? 18.Recount Singer’s argument that we should all undergo a drastic change in lifestyle to live up to our obligation to those stuck in absolute poverty. 19.One objection to Singer’s argument is that, if it were correct, then I would have no right to my own money, which some think is obviously absurd. Explain Singer’s two responses to this objection. -

20.Explain the difference between consequentialism and deontology. Which view does Singer’s argument depend on and why? 21.What do you think a consequentialist would say that one should do in the “switching” and “pushing” trolley cases? Why? 22.What are the three main sources of moral concern that I mentioned in class about how factory farms produce animal products? -Intensive Confinement -Mutilation -Slaughtering 23.What is Norcross’s “puppy” argument against eating factory farmed meat? 24.State and briefly explain the six conditions that all just wars must meet according to Just War Theory. -When considering waging war, there is 6 very specific conditions within the Just War Theory. “Just Cause” is the first one for the belief that there must be a just cause to wage war. “Right Intention” is the second one that reassures that the Just Cause is the reason the war waged, or simply a reason that motivates voters. “Proper declaration & Authority” as the third condition makes sure empowered authorities publicly justify the declared war. “Last Resort” being the fourth condition assures that all peaceful non-violent alternatives have attempted before waging war. “Probability of Success” as the fifth condition also assures there must be a reasonable amount of success before waging war. “Proportionality” as the sixth conditions makes sure the universal positives have outweighed the universal negatives. 25.What is the argument for pacifism that we considered in class (about killing innocents)? Does it work? Why or why not? -The argument for pacifism relating to the innocence is a counter argument to why we shouldn’t engage in war. The idea that when we engage in war that there is always innocent people being killed, and that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. Which if killing innocent people is wrong, and war always results in innocents dying, then engaging in war is always wrong....