Take home exam, final (1) PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Take home exam, final (1) PDF

Description

Introduction to Ethics and Values Phil 133.3 (02) Final, Take Home Exam Due: April 23rd, 7pm

Dr. Emer O’Hagan [email protected]

Carefully read all of the instructions This exam has two parts. Answer two questions from Part I, one question from Part II. Failure to comply with the exam instructions will result in significant penalties. This is a take home, or open book exam, and should be written by you alone. Submit your exam through the Assignment feature on Canvas, as a doc, docx, or pdf file.

When writing all of your answers be sure to: 1. include word counts at the start of each answer 2. submit only honest work, free of plagiarism. It is your responsibility to know what that involves. See: https://artsandscience.usask.ca/philosophy/undergraduates/honesty.php 3. write in complete, grammatical sentences 4. do not exceed word limits 5. stay on topic 6. answer all parts of the question 7. make argument structures clear (don’t just explain the conclusion) 8. give clear, charitable readings of the positions being discussed 9. use examples, where appropriate, to illuminate a point you have already made 10. your first citation should follow this format – see the example in this footnote1 11. subsequent uses of that citation should follow this format2

PART I

1.

Short Answers:

answer both of the following two questions. Each answer is worth 25% of the total 100 marks. Each answer should be at least 200 words, but not more than 300 words. Good answers will demonstrate understanding of the relevant texts as well as any important concepts highlighted in lectures.

Define ethical subjectivism. Explain the two main problems for subjectivism discussed in class.

1

Aristotle, Selection from Nichomachean Ethics, in Andrew Bailey ed., The Broadview Introduction to Philosophy, Vol. II, Values and Society. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2019, 33. 2

Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Broadview, 35.

2.

Virginia Held argues against the view that terrorism is necessarily worse than war. Explain her argument. Briefly evaluate, defending your own view with an argument.

PART II

A)

Short Essay: answer one of the following two questions. It is worth 50% of the total100 marks. Your answer should be at least 350 words, but no more than 600 words. Include at least 50 words of skillfully selected quotation to the relevant authors in our text. Good answers will demonstrate understanding of the relevant texts as well as any important concepts highlighted in lectures.

Epictetus holds that unpleasing experiences should be examined in accordance with the following rule: “whether it concerns the things which are within our own power or those which are not; and if it concerns anything beyond our power, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you”. Each day for 5 days in a row, take 15 minutes to contemplate an unpleasing experience of that day. Regarding that experience, consider what you have control over and what you don’t have control over. Consider also any relevant passages from the selection from Epictetus in our text. Take some notes for yourself (these will not be submitted). After the five days write a brief essay in which you: (1) briefly outline the most significant tenets of Epictetus’s theory, (2) describe the application of these tenets to your own situation with at least one concise but relevant example, and (3) evaluate the theory, and defend your view with an argument.

B) Carefully explain ethical relativism. Does ethical relativism show that we should be tolerant? Evaluate the following argument for ethical relativism. 1. Different cultures have different moral codes 2. Different cultures disagree about what is morally right 3. Therefore, there are no universal moral truths...