Week of January 28:

1. Be able to identify when an argument is being given, what its conclusion is, and what its premises are.
2. Be able to diagram an argument.
3. What does it mean to say that an argument is valid? What does it mean to say that an argument is factually correct?
4. What do we know about the conclusion of every sound argument? What, then, are your two options if someone gives you an argument with a conclusion you think is false?
5. Be able to construct a counterexample to an argument.
6. What are the argument forms: modus ponens, modus tollens, and hypothetical syllogism?
7. What is a necessary condition? What is a sufficient condition?

Week of February 4:

8. Explain the view we called K=TB. What is Plato's objection (given via the character Socrates)? Does the objection show that the view classifies too many things as knowledge or not enough things as knowledge?
9. Explain the view we called K=TB+U. Explain how this gets around Plato's objection to K=TB. Then, present an objection to K=TB+U. Does the objection show that the view classifies too many things as knowledge or not enough things as knowledge?
10. Explain the view that we called K=JTB. How is it different than K=TB+U and how does it get around the objection to K=TB+U? What is Gettier's objection to this view (or one similar to Gettier's objection)? Does the objection show that the view classifies too many things as knowledge or not enough things as knowledge?
11. Explain how one could respond to Gettier's objection by maintaining that false beliefs cannot be justified.
12. Explain why the response in question 11 is not a promising response.
13. Explain the view that we called K=ND. How does it get around the objections brought against K=JTB? What is Feldman's objection to K=ND. Does the objection show that the view classifies too many things as knowledge or not enough things as knowledge?

Week of February 11:

14. In his essay, "Of Miracles", does Hume think that it is important to trust the testimony of others? Explain.
15. What is Hume's conclusion in that essay?
16. Why does Hume think that our evidence for laws of nature is evidence against miracles?
17. Why does Hume think that our evidence for the laws of nature always outweighs our evidence in favor of the reliability of some testimony?
18. Why does Hume think that testimony in favor of miracles is especially unreliable? (Give at least three distinct reasons).
19. What is an objection to Hume's argument against believing in miracles?
20. Explain Descartes's project at the beginning of the Meditations. Why does he think he should withhold assent not only from beliefs that are obviously false, but also those that are not obviously certain?
21. What is the Method of Doubt, and how does it tie in with Descartes's project?
22. How could one attempt to convince a person that she can be certain she is not dreaming? Why would these attempts be doomed to fail?
23. What does Descartes think you can be certain of, even if it is true that you are dreaming? Explain.
24. What is Descartes's main conclusion in Meditation I? What hypothesis does he entertain to help him argue for this conclusion? Explain that argument.
25. What is a skeptical hypothesis? Be able to construct a skeptical hypothesis for some proposition that I choose. (For example, construct a skeptical hypothesis for the proposition that there will be a final exam for this class.)

Week of February 18:

26. In Meditation II, what does Descartes argue that he can be certain of, despite the considerations he gives in Meditation I? How does he argue for this?
27. What is Descartes's argument for the conclusion that he is a mind, and not necessarily a physical body or a human?
28. What is Descartes's example of the wax in Meditation II supposed to show? Explain.
29. Give an example of how a word can fail to refer.
30. How does Putnam argue that it is never true to utter the phrase: "I am a brain-in-a-vat."?
31. Does Putnam's argument (in question 30) resolve the skeptical problem that Descartes leaves us with? Explain.
32. Explain the Who Cares? response to Descartes's skeptical problem.
33. What is Nozick's experience machine thought example supposed to illustrate? How does it challenge the Who Cares? response to Descartes's skeptical problem?
34. Why does Hume think that the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature (PUN) is an important foundation of much of our knowledge?
35. Why does Hume think that we cannot know whether PUN is true?

Week of February 25:

36. Is the inductive argument for PUN premise-circular or rule-circular? What does this mean? Why is it bad for an argument to be premise circular? Why is it bad for an argument to be rule circular?
37. Do we need to make inductive inferences? Why or why not?
38. Do we need to justify our inductive inferences? Why or why not?
39. What does the pragmatic justification of induction attempt to show? According to that response, where does Hume's argument go wrong?
40. What is the imitation game? How does Turing think it is related to the question whether machines can think?
41. What does Turing mean when he says that digital computers are universal machines?
42. What is the Consciousness Objection to Turing? What is Turing's response?
43. What is the Lady Lovelace Objection to Turing? What is Turing's response?
44. What is the Informal Behavior Objection to Turing? What is Turing's response?

Week of March 4:

45. Explain Searle's Chinese Room argument. What is it supposed to show?
46. Give an example that illustrates why Searle thinks that if I am merely following formal rules, I don't understand.
47. Explain the Systems Reply to Searle's argument (several groups in class gave this reply, including International Superstarz and Hooked On Logic). How does Searle respond to this?
48. Consider the response to Searle's argument presented by Socrates's Students: anything that follows a set of rules must have some level of understanding to follow those rules, so anything that can follow the rules to respond to sentences of Chinese must have understanding. What would Searle say in response to this?
49. What is the Robot Reply to Searle's argument? How does Searle respond?
50. What is the Brain Simulator Reply to Searle's argumnet? How does Searle respond?
51. What is Searle's positive view about why humans can understand but programs that simulate human behavior cannot?

EXAM 1

---

Week of March 11:

1. What are the attributes that are held to be essential to God (that is, such that if there is no being with those attributes, then God would not exist)?
2. What are Aquinas's Five Ways?
3. Explain in detail Aquinas's Second Way to prove that God exists.
4. What is Aquinas's subargument for the claim that nothing can cause itself?
5. What is Aquinas's subargument for the claim that there could not be an infinite chain of causes into the past?

Week of March 18:

6. One natural objection to Aquinas's Second Way is to claim that if Aquinas's causal principles are true, then we would need a cause of God, and a cause of a cause of God, ... etc. Is this a good objection to Aquinas? Explain.
7. Imagine someone who goes along with Aquinas's argument up to the conclusion that the universe has a first cause, but denies that this cause is God. Instead, the person maintains that the first cause can simply be some natural event. Evaluate this response. How might Aquinas respond? Evaluate this response.
8. What is the Birthday Fallacy? Explain how it seems that Aquinas commits this fallacy in his Second Way.
9. What is Cleanthes's argument for God's existence? How does he think it allows us to know something about the nature of God?
10. What is Philo's Part II objection to Cleanthes's argument?
11. What is Philo's Part V objection to Cleanthes's argument?
12. How do the objections in Part II and Part V work together?
13. How is Paley's argument for God's existence different than Cleanthes's?
14. What is inference to the bext explanation? Give an example of an everyday argument that uses this principle.
15. Why does Paley think that Chance and Series are worse explanations for complex parts of the natural world (like the eye) than Design?
16. How does Darwin's theory of evolution raise trouble for Paley's argument?  Does Darwin's theory have to be true to cause problems for Paley's argument? Why or why not?

Week of April 1:

17. How does Dawkins argue that it is possible that there is an organism with no eye that has a descendent with an eye?
18. Explain Francis Hitchings's argument that although such a sequence is possible, it is not plausible according to the Darwinian Hypothesis.
19. What is Dawkins's response to the argument in 18?
20. Explain how one could grant that the theory of evolution is true and still argue that there is a need for a designer in the very beginning. How is this related to the apparent paradox that Dawkins raises for the theory of evolution?
21. What is Dawkins's response to the argument that a designer is needed at the very beginning?
22. Explain how we can understand Dawkins as giving a Paley-style argument for atheism.
23. In Perry's dialogue, what three properties of God does Weirob claim result in an inconsistency between God's existence and evil in the world? Why are all three properties important?
24. Explain Miller's painting analogy to respond to the Problem of Evil (in class we called this the Aesthetic Response). Why does it fail?
25. Consider the following quote, from Weirob:
Explain what the objection is here, and how Miller responds.
26. What is the difference between what we called the Simple Problem of Evil and the Strengthened Problem of Evil?
27. Why does the What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger theodicy fail?
28. Why does the Evil For Appreciation of Good theodicy fail?
29. What is the Free Will theodicy?
30. Consider the following objection to the Free Will theodicy:
What is a response to this objection?
31. Consider the following objection:
Why is this not a problem for the Free-Will Theodicy?
32. Explain the argument for why God's omniscience is inconsistent with human freedom.
33. What is Miller's response to the seeming inconsitency described in question 32? Evaluate this response

Week of April 8:

34. Explain the difference between natural evil and human evil. Why does natural evil seem to show that the Free Will Theodicy, on its own, isn't enough to get out of the Problem of Evil?
35. What is Peter van Inwagen's response to the problem of natural evil?
36. Consider someone who objects to van Inwagen's response by claiming that God could have created a lawlike (and so not massively irregular) world where there is significantly less natural evil than in our world. What is van Inwagen's response?
37. Explain the difference between a prudential reason to believe and an epistemic reason to believe.
38. What is the Principle of Dominance? What is the Principle of Expected Value? (Be able to apply these principles to situations).
39. How could one argue that believing in God does not dominate failing to believe?
40. What is the best objection to Pascal's best argument for believing in God?

EXAM 2

---

 
Week of April 15:

1. Give an objection to the view we called The Golden Rule Theory.
2. Explain Act Utilitarianism and be able to apply it to specific cases (including those on the handout).
3. Explain The Categorical Imperative and be able to apply it to specific cases (including those on the handout).
4. Explain how Singer's Principle in his essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is similar to Act Utilitarianism.
5. Explain why Singer's Principle seems to have as a consequence that we should give to charities until we have been reduced to the same level as the worst-off person in the world.
6. What is Singer's argument in his essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality? How is the conclusion different from the claim that it is good to give to charity?
7. What kind of case that seems to support Singer's Principle?

Week of April 22:

8. In class, we discussed 8 objections to Singer's argument (these are listed in a document on Moodle). Be able to describe the objection, how it attacks Singer's argument, and what his response is.
9. What does it mean to use someone simply as a means? How does this differ from using someone as a means?
10. According to Kant, what is a maxim of an action? Why are maxims important in Kant's ethical system?
11. Explain the difference between duties of justice and duties of beneficence in Kant's ethical system.
12. Suppose I live in a part of the world where food is scarce. Am I permitted, according to Kant's ethical system, to steal food to feed my family? Explain.
13. Suppose I am CEO of a large company. What constraints am I under, according to Kant's ethical system, in setting up factories in impoverished areas of the world?
14. What does Kant's ethical system say about what normal people who live in affluent societies should do given that we know there are others who live in poverty?
15. Consider Singer's argument in his paper, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality." How would a Kantian Ethicist respond to that argument?
16. Explain this quote from O'Neill:
17. Does Kantian Ethics say that we are obligated to give to charity? Explain.
18. Does Kantian Ethics say we are obligated to not buy goods from companies that exploit their workers? Explain.
19. Consider Singer's argument in his paper, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality." How would a Kantian Ethicist respond to that argument?
20. What does Hardin think that we should do with respect to those in other countries who have less resources? What is his argument for this claim?
21. How does Hardin think that our situation in an affluent country is similar to a lifeboat situation? Evaluate the analogy: are there any important differences between these situations?
22. Why does Hardin think that if we continue to give aid to poor countries, the ultimate consequences will be extremely bad for everyone?

Week of April 29:
23.  At one point during the presentation of his view, Thrasymachus says:
In your own words, explain what Thrasymachus is claiming here.
24. A bit later, Thrasymachus says:
In your own words, explain what Thrasymachus is claiming here.
25. Explain how the view presented in the quote in question 23 is different from the view presented in the quote in question 24.
26.  Consider what we called Thrasymachus's Challenge:
Socrates uses the example of a band of theives to respond to this challenge. Explain how this response goes, and whether or not it is a satisfying response to the challenge.
27. Suppose that we can show that the claim made in Thrasymachus's Challenge is mistaken. Does this answer the Big Question? Explain.
28. What is Glaucon's Challenge? How does it differ from Thrasymachus's Challenge?
29. Glaucon uses a story about the origin of justice to argue against the view that justice is valuable in itself. How does this argument go? What is a response?
30. Glaucon uses the Ring of Gyges example to argue against the view that justice is valuable in itself. How does this argument go? What is a response?
31. Glaucon uses a story about a perfectly just man and a perfectly unjust man (we called this "The Pure Cases") to argue against the view that justice is valuable in itself. How does this argument go? What is a response?
32. In the end, do Glaucon's arguments succeed in showing that justice is not valuable in itself? If not, what do they show?
33. What is Hume's reason for thinking that it is in our own self-interest to have the agreeable and companionable virtues?
34. What is Hume's reason for thinking that it is in our own self-interest to perform our duties to society, for example being generous and beneficent?

Week of May 6:
35. What is Hume's reason for thinking that it is in our own self-interest to perform our duties of justice, for example, to be honest, even when no one is looking? What is a response to Hume's argument here?
36. Explain how the Prisoner's Dilemma illustrates how cooperating sometimes allows the group to get a better result than if everyone is self-interested.
37. Does the answer to 36 give each person a self-interested reason to be moral? Explain.
38. What is an evolutarionary stable strategy?
39. Consider the cake-splitting game. Explain why a population of Fair individuals is stable in a way that a population of Modest individuals is not.
40. Consider the cake-splitting game. Explain why a population with an even split of Fair and Greedy will, over time, become a population with just Fair individuals.
41. Consider the cake-splitting game. Explain why a population with an even split of Fair and Modest will, over time, become a population with just Fair individuals.
42. Suppose that we are able to extend the result from the cake-splitting game and show that moral behavior is an evolutionary stable strategy. Does this give a person a reason to act morally? Explain.

EXAM 3

---