1. THIS IS A TAKE-HOME EXAM, AND IT IS DUE AT THE BEGINNING OF CLASS ON THURSDAY, MARCH 19. Late essays will not receive passing grades unless you can prove that you were in a coma, in jail, abducted by aliens, or otherwise involuntarily incapacitated for so long that it was physically impossible for you to complete the exam. (If any of these exceptions apply to you, I will require proof such as a doctor’s note, a copy of an arrest report, or a photograph of the aliens.) Each late answer turned in will receive a failing grade.

2. THIS IS NOT A GROUP PROJECT. Any discussion of the exam questions or the material relating to them during the time that the exam is going on will count as academic misconduct. I’m a big believer in the Russian proverb "Trust, but verify," and I can spot academic misconduct a mile away.

3. EACH ESSAY SHOULD BE BETWEEN 1.5 AND 2 PAGES LONG. (When I use the term "page," I mean a standard, double-spaced page, containing around 250-300 words.) If your answer is much less than a page and a half, it is almost certainly incomplete. Try not to go too long, either. Focus on answering the question rather than on trying to tell me everything you know about the topic. (One way that you demonstrate a thorough understanding of material like this is by showing that you know which ideas are most central to the answer to a question, and which are peripheral details.)  Obviously if you are in doubt, it is better to include something than not, but if you include everything, your answers will be way too long. (I don’t care if you go a little bit over the suggested length, but if an essay approaches twice the suggested length, then I will start asking whether this is because the essay is exceedingly deep in terms of its analysis [which is fine], or whether it is simply because you have not understood the theory well enough to sort out the main idea and most important details from the less important details [which is considerably less fine].)

4. YOUR ANSWERS MUST BE TYPED.

5. ANSWER ALL 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.)

6. 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. Staple all of the pages for a given answer together. Then, when you are finished, either staple or paperclip all of the answers together in order. Thus when you are done, you should have a packet made up of five essays, each of which will have its own pages stapled together and your name and the question number on the first page. (I’ll "dismember" all the exams, and then grade everyone’s answer to Q1 at the same time, then move on to Q2, and so on.)

7. Make sure that each answer is complete all by itself. Although I have tried to minimize the amount of overlap in the questions, you might find that you need to repeat something you said in one answer in order to complete another answer. This is OK. I will not go back and see whether something you said in Q2, when added to your answer to Q5, makes that answer more complete.

ADVICE:

(Yes, I know this is long, but I would not have written it if I did not think it would be helpful.)

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 about it. The explanation will be worth about three quarters of the grade on each essay. This means that you could get a C without any independent thinking; that this is more than fair in an upper-level course.

Explanations: When I ask you to explain something, 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. (While I am not as strict about mechanics on exams as I am on papers, I do expect that your writing will meet the standards of college-level composition. Writing that is significantly below those standards will affect the exam grade.)

Also keep in mind that you should support your explanations of the text by referring to (or perhaps quoting) specific passages. If you claim, for example, that Gewirth says such and such, then you MUST be prepared to SUPPORT that claim by citing or quoting text. (Since you don’t have a lot of space, very long quotes are not an option–please choose any quotes wisely).

Independent Thinking: For the "independent thought" part of the essay, I am not necessarily looking for the answer that I think is the right one. You are, of course, free to disagree with any opinions I may have offered in class. That is one way for your thoughts to be independent, in fact. 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, independence is not the only thing I am looking for here. What you say should be sensible and well-supported as well. In fact, your support for your opnion or assessment is MUCH more important to me than the mere fact that you have an opinion. 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 and not just an assertion that some idea or theory is defective (or the best thing since sliced bread).

About the Executive Summaries: You will have written executive summaries that deal with much of the material covered in this exam. These may help you quite a bit. However, do not assume that because you got a check or check plus that you can simply splice in what you wrote on the ES and have a good exam essay. My criteria for grading the ES assignments is much different from those that I use for the exam essays. When I grade an ES, all I am really looking for is evidence that you made a good-faith effort to read and understand the material. If you did, then you will have gotten a check, even if much of what you said on the ES is not quite right (after all, you are writing the ES before we discuss the material in class). I do not always mark the inaccuracies in the ES assignments before I hand them back (under the theory that I am about to explain the material in class anyway, and will be able to do so more clearly and thoroughly then than by trying to write out everything on ES comments). Nevertheless, depending on how summary-ish a given ES was, it might still be quite useful as a draft of at least part of an answer. But be sure to look at it only as a draft, and make sure that you revise it in light of what went on in class, as well as a subsequent reading of the text after we discussed it in class.

QUESTIONS

1. INTUITIONISM, THEN AND NOW: Compare and contrast the classical intuitionism (of people like Locke) that grew out of the rationalist project in early modern philosophy on the one hand, with contemporary ("new wave") intuitionism exemplified by Rawlsian reflective equilibrium (REQ) on the other. To what extent is contemporary intuitionism an improvement over classical intuitionism? Then briefly explain the problem of moral conservatism, and how REQ attempts to (at least partially) solve it. To what extent (if any) do you think that REQ succeeds in solving this problem? Why?

2. HARE’S DERIVATION OF UTILITARIANISM: Give a clear, accurate, and concise summary of how R. M. Hare attempts to defend a from of utilitarianism without appealing to moral intuitions. (Note that this question has two parts: (1) How does Hare defend utilitarianism? (2) How does that defense avoid the appeal to moral intuitions?) What do you think is the weakest part of this argument, and why?

3. GEWIRTH’S ARGUMENT: Give a clear, accurate, and concise summary of Gewirth’s derivation of moral rights. Concentrate on the argument from the claim that we are purposive agents to the principle of generic consistency. Then compare and contrast Gewirth’s argument with Hare’s argument. What seems to be the main difference that accounts for the fact that they start from such similar ideas but end up supporting such different moral theories?

4. CONTRACTARIANISM, THE PRISONERS’ DILEMMA, AND AXELROD: Answer EACH of the following parts (obviously, you’ll want to be succinct but also clear and complete).

(A) Very briefly lay out the basic theory of contractarianism, focusing on its claim about how a moral theory should be justified.

(B) Briefly explain why the Prisoners’ Dilemma is important in contractarian approaches to ethics.

(C) How does Axelrod attempt to solve the Prisoners’ Dilemma (PD)? What does his solution imply about the content of morality (assuming for the sake of argument that the basic program of contractarian ethics is sound)? (That is, if we buy into the contractarian’s principles of justification/theory choice, then what might Axelrod’s work suggest about the nature, content, and limits of our moral duties)?

(D) What do you think is the biggest weakness with either Axelrod’s theory or the contractarian approach to ethics in general? Why?

5. GAUTHIER’S THEORY: This question has three parts. Be sure to answer each part.

(1) Briefly lay out the basics of Gauthier’s theory of morality, and briefly explain the role of Gauthier’s remarks about both the compliance problem and the bargaining problem in this Gauthier’s theory. (This should only take about a paragraph–somewhere around a third of a page, I should think.)

(2) In more detail, discuss EITHER the compliance problem OR the bargaining problem, and Gauthier’s solution to it. For this part, choose either A OR B below:

(A) The Compliance Problem. What is it, and why is it important for a proponent of a rational egoist theory of morality to solve it? How does Gauthier attempt to solve it? What role do the concepts of transparency and translucency play in his proposed solution? (You don’t have to go through all of Gauthier’s math, but you should explain in general terms what the math tells us.)

(B) The bargaining problem: What is it, and why does Gauthier think it is so important for his theory to solve it? Explain what the principle of minimax relative concession is. Explain why Gauthier thinks that this is the proper solution to the bargaining problem.

(3) What do you think about the moral conclusions that Gauthier draws from his theory (e.g., about the Purples and the Greens)? Do you think that his approach succeeds in justifying such a limited notion of our moral duties toward one another? Why or why not?