Choose any four of the following questions to answer. Each is worth 25% of your overall test grade.
1) Based on “The Apology” by Plato – (i) provide an elucidation of Socrates’ indictments; (ii) elaborate his defences against these charges; (iii) provide three arguments to convince your reader that the asking of questions can count as a form of corruption (specifically, an act that can corrupt others); and (iv) provide three arguments to convince your reader that the asking of questions may not count as a form of corruption (specifically, an act that can corrupt others).
2) Ethical subjectivism – (i) provide an elucidation of the various versions of ethical subjectivism that exist (look to the textbook AND my lecture(s)); (ii) provide two arguments not included in the TEXTBOOK for why ethical subjectivism (specify which version(s) you are referencing) contains internal tensions/confusions/problems that make the position implausible; and (iii) provide two arguments for why even if ethical subjectivism is true/plausible (specify which version(s) you are referencing), ethical subjectivism does not challenge our ability to engage in practical ethics together.
3) Ethical relativism – (i) provide an elucidation of the TEXTBOOK’s account of ethical relativism; (ii) provide two arguments not included in the TEXTBOOK for why ethical relativism contains internal tensions/confusions/problems that make the position implausible; and (iii) elaborate on two arguments for why even if ethical relativism is true/plausible, ethical relativism does not challenge our ability to engage in practical ethics together.
4) Mill’s utilitarianism – (i) elaborate Mill’s account of utilitarianism; (ii) provide four arguments not referenced in the textbook to suggest that Mill’s utilitarianism suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend Mill’s utilitarianism on two grounds not offered by Mill himself.
5) Kant’s deontology – (i) elaborate Kant’s account of deontology (his Categorical Imperative); (ii) outline four issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that Kant’s deontology suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend Kant’s deontology on two grounds not offered by Kant himself.
6) (i) Outline Rawls’ theory (articulate the premises and conclusion/operative principles); (ii) clearly articulate three issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that Rawls’ theory suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend Rawls’ account on two grounds not offered by Rawls himself.
7) (i) Outline Nozick’s theory (articulate the premises and conclusion/operative principles); (ii) clearly articulate three issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that Nozick’s theory suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend Nozick’s account on two grounds not offered by Nozick himself.
8) (i) Outline Smart’s position (articulate the premises and conclusion/operative principles); (ii) clearly articulate three issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that Smart’s position suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend Smart’s account on two grounds not offered by Smart himself.
9) With reference to the “What Were You Thinking?” YouTube video, (i) outline the basic argument that Bill Maher is attempting to put forth; (ii) provide two arguments not offered by Maher himself that suggest that his basic argument suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend Maher on two grounds not offered by Maher himself.
10) (i) Outline Narveson’s position (articulate the premises and conclusion/operative principles); (ii) clearly articulate three issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that Narveson’s position suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend Narveson’s account on two grounds not offered by Narveson himself.
11) (i) Outline Greenfield’s position (articulate the premises and conclusion/operative principles); (ii) clearly articulate three issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that Greenfield’s position suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend Greenfield’s account on two grounds not offered by Greenfield himself.
Grading Rubric:
Grades for tests are based on depth of analysis, novelty of the content, whether the grammar is affecting the clarity of the claim that is attempting to be put across, the quality of a student’s inferential and step by step argumentation made explicit in their writing, ability to present examples/analogies to produce arguments, ability to anticipate counter-objections to positions/arguments and answer them (when appropriate). I also must take into account the presence and quality of all of these factors compared to the same work turned in by other students.
General Advice for Philosophy Test-Writing to Students from my last marker:
1- Refrain from asking rhetorical questions to further your arguments. It is cliche, unhelpful (unless you try to answer those rhetorical questions and use them only as introductions to some point you will expand on further therein and immediately thereafter). This tendency was overused.
2- Students need to take the time to explain their arguments in greater detail – with more step-by-step, explicit reasoning – and then support their arguments with examples. The student should show why the example/issue raised is relevant to the topic at hand and thoroughly explain its importance to the argument. In the tests, some students would state their argument (almost better to say, state a conclusion) and nothing else (i.e., they provided no reasons to support their argument or conclusion/statement).
3- Test answers should be made into multiple paragraphs. Students would put three arguments into one paragraph and this becomes difficult to read. Some would even put all six arguments into one paragraph. If Dr. A has separated the question into parts (i.e., (i), (ii), etc., indicate by use of (i), (ii), etc., which part of the answer to which you are attending in your written test).
4- Please proofread your work before submission. Simple mistakes (spelling, grammar, and syntax errors) can disrupt the flow of your arguments. Worse, they can sometimes make the content of your claims difficult or impossible to make out. There are free grammar checkers online.
5- Students need to take the time to reread their arguments. Some arguments were formulated poorly and this could have been avoided if they took the time to review their work. Or, have someone else review your work.
6- Add references when appropriate (i.e., when citing empirical data, using someone else’s words directly).
7 – Make sure your grader can tell in your writing when you are summarizing/glossing/referring to someone else’s views and when YOU are advancing your own argument/issue/point. If we can’t tell whether you are referencing/glossing someone else’s position or advancing your own, marks will be lost.
***If you are using counter-objections/points/issues raised in the textbook (these are usually present in the textbook before or after a given reading) or from the internet (text or video), you must cite these sources in your test. However, I would advise you to avoid using counter-objections/points/issues raised in the textbook (before or after a reading) or internet sources unless you are going to develop or expand upon them significantly. Otherwise, you’ve shown very little of your own initiative towards thinking in answering the question. Your assigned grade for the test question will reflect this.***
0 comments