1. THIS IS A TAKE-HOME EXAM, AND IT IS DUE AT 5:00 P.M. ON FRIDAY OF FINALS WEEK. Any late answer will receive a failing grade, unless you can prove that you were in a coma, in jail, abducted by aliens, or otherwise involuntarily incapacitated during all or most of the exam time.

2. THIS IS NOT A GROUP PROJECT.  If you have questions about anything, please ask ME rather than your classmates. (I understand that many of you do discuss philosophy outside of class–this is a good thing. However, you are not to discuss the essays on this exam, or the material that relates to them, while the exam is in progress.)

3. EACH ESSAY SHOULD BE BETWEEN 1.75 AND 2.5 PAGES LONG. ("Page," means a standard, double-spaced page, containing around 250-300 words.) Focus on answering the question rather than on trying to tell me everything you know about the topic. (Yes, I did increase the mandatory page lengths a bit, but remember that I made it a 4-question essay instead of a 5-question essay. Also, most of you ended up writing 2-page essays last time, and you’ll want to do so again this time in order to write essays that earn good grades.)

4. ANSWER FOUR OUT OF THE FOLLOWING FIVE QUESTIONS. (If for some reason you decide not to answer them all, do turn in the ones that you do answer, but be aware that failing to answer all of them will have a significant negative impact on your grade for the course.)

5. Format (same as last time): YOUR ANSWERS MUST BE TYPED. Please start a new page for each answer, and put your name and the question number at the top of the first page of your answer. Make sure that each answer is complete all by itself.

Each question asks you to do two things: to explain some key idea from a theory we have examined, and to do some independent thinking. The explanation is worth about three quarters of the grade on each essay.

For the explanation portion of the essay, I want you to explain the material accurately in your own clear words. (Accuracy is the most important here, but clarity is also very important.) Remember that part of writing clearly involves writing grammatically, choosing your words carefully, and organizing your answer logically. Keep in mind that you should support your explanations of the text by referring to (or perhaps quoting) specific passages. (Since you don’t have a lot of space, very long quotes are not an option–please choose any quotes wisely).

For the "independent thought" part of the essay, I am not necessarily looking for the answer that I think is the right one. If you do agree with an opinion I offered, then you should try to build on or add something to it that is your own (at the very least, you should say why you agree with me). In any case, you should have something of your own to say here. Of course there is a limit to how much you can say in support of your opinion in such a short space. This means that you will have to be selective and programmatic in laying out your reasons for your answers to the "independent thought" part of the essays, but I do expect to see REASONS.

(Yes, you have an option–but can you JUSTIFY it??)

Explain Derek Parfit’s argument from the nature of personal identity to utilitarianism. You should briefly explain both the Simple and Complex views of personal identity. Be sure to explain in some detail why Parfit thinks that the Complex view makes utilitarianism more plausible. Next, briefly explain Bernard Williams’s response to Parfit’s attempt to derive utilitarianism from the Complex view. Who, in your opinion, "wins" the debate, or at least this round of it, and why? (Permissible answers include "they tied for first," or "they tied for last.")

Early in his book, Shelly Kagan claims that the moderate is committed to the existence of the pro tanto reason.

A) Explain what the pro tanto reason is, according to Kagan.

B) What reasons does Kagan give for claiming that the moderate is committed to it?

C) Why is the moderate’s (alleged) committment to the pro tanto reason crucial to Kagan’s argument against the moderate? (HINT: This part will require you very briefly to sketch the overall strategy of Kagan’s critique of the moderate, and to show how the pro tanto reason fits into it)

D) Do you think that Kagan makes a convincing case for the claim that the moderate position must be committed to the existence of the pro tanto reason to promote the good? Why or why not?

Briefly define the concept of (agent-centered) constraints. (Be sure that you do so in a way that makes it clear why they are anti-consequentialist in nature). What are the two distinct reasons why, according to Kagan, the moderate must be committed to constraints? Briefly discuss the two (related) challenges to those who would defend the existence of constraints (what I called the "paradox problem" and the "do/allow problem"). What do you think is the weakest part of Kagan’s attempt to raise problems for the moderate’s defense of constraints?

Briefly define the concept of (agent-centered) options. (Be sure that you do so in a way that makes it clear why they are anti-consequentialist in nature.) What is the personal point of view, and what does it have to do with options? Briefly explain the basic outlines of the positive and negative arguments from the personal point of view to the existence of options. Then pick either the positive or negative argument and discuss it in a bit more detail (that is, fill in some of the content of the argument you have chosen to discuss). Does the argument you have just discussed (either the positive or negative argument) seem convincing to you? Why or why not?

This is a disjunctive question; answer ONE of the following disjuncts:

5A. Briefly explain the main criticisms that feminist ethics has leveled at the three major traditional forms of ethics (consequentialism, deontology, and contractarianism), at least in their pre-feminist forms. Briefly explain Marilyn Friedman’s idea that feminist ethics can have "global concern" without impartiality. If she is right about this, and if this view of ethics is defensible, then what implications might it have for the debate between the consequentialist/extremist and the deontologist/moderate?

OR

5B. From what you have read of Rosemarie Tong’s and Marilyn Friedman’s work, do you think that feminist ethics might offer a promising way to break out of what some have begun to see as a deadlock between traditional consequentialism, traditional (largely Kantian) deontology, and social contract theory? Judging from what you have seen so far, what kind of morality would seem to be most in keeping with the themes that have so far emerged in feminist ethics? (Be sure to support any assertions about what those themes are–doing so constitutes the "explanation" portion of this particular question.)