Phil 330 04: First Exam Prompt

General Directions: Your response to these questions should be typed, double-spaced with 10-12 point legible font. In answering the questions do not spend time introducing the issue, but get straight to the question being asked. Also, complete the entire exam in one file. Do not send me separate files for each part of the exam. This exam is due via email by Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 9:00 PM. The email attachment must be in .doc, .docx, .rtf, or .pdf format.

Part I: Answer three of the following four questions. Your answer for each question should be no more than two pages. Each question is worth 10 points.
  1. How does Kant use the formula of universal law to argue that it is wrong to commit suicide? The answer is on page 49-50 of our text.
  2. On page 44 Mill considers the following objection, "And hence the opponents of the utilitarian standard deem that they have a right to infer that there are other ends of human actions beside happiness, and that happiness is not the standard of approbation and disapprobation." Explain this criticism and Hume's Mill's response to it.
  3. On page 63 of our text, Rawls criticizes the theory of Utilitarianism. Explain this criticism.
  4. According to Lindemann, what is the relation between feminism and politics?

Part II: Read the following passage and then answer the questions that follow in an articulate, well-written essay of 2-3 pages (typed, double-spaced with 10-12 point legible font). This question is worth 20 points.

Suppose you are a poor and uneducated person from Chicago. Your only chance for success in life is through athletics, particularly distance running. You have trained hard, and you have placed high in ten-kilometer and marathon races, but you have never run a major race. You need to be just a little faster to win. In one month, there is the Chicago Marathon, with a cash price of $50,000 for the winner. There is a good chance that the winner will also get a lucrative contract with a major shoe company, such as Nike. A friend who is an athletic trainer tells you she has obtained a limited supply of a new drug that dramatically improves endurance by preventing the buildup of lactic acid in the muscles. The drug is the result of genetic research on human growth hormones, and thus far, it has been tested on animals with no bad side effects. It seems much safer and more effective than steroids or the human growth hormones used by some runners. Your friend offers you a month’s supply of the drug. She assures you that it is not on the list of banned drugs and that it will not show up on any of the drug tests currently being used. In return for giving you the drug, your friend wants $5,000, but only if you win the race and collect the cash prize. If you do not win you owe her nothing.

Should you take the drug? Why or why not? Answer these questions from the perspectives of two of the following authors: Aquinas, Hume, and Aristotle. What do you think of this issue?
Comments