Department of Philosophy
M.A. Exam / Ph.D. Qualifying Exam 2014
Ethics and Political Philosophy Exam
Answer exactly three questions, including at least one question from Section I and at least
one question from Section II. In each case, you should defend your claims as well as you can
and make your answers as detailed as possible. You have two hours for the entire
examination, so you should devote approximately 40 minutes to each answer.
Section I
I.1. Explain the argument of Socrates that virtue is knowledge. What do you think are the
most important objections to either the argument or the conclusion? Evaluate the Socratic
claim.
I. 2. Early Confucian accounts suggest that ethical development consists largely in training
the emotions and that being virtuous resides, in whole or in significant part, in high moralemotional competency. Describe one such account, explaining how the emotions are to be
developed and characterizing the moral-emotional competency in which virtue would
consist. Then explain one significant objection to the account.
I.3. According to Kant, both the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative (the
universal law formulation) and the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative (the
humanity formulation) follow from our rational nature. Choose just one of these formulae
and explain how, on Kant’s account, it follows from our rational nature. Then discuss at
least one potential problem with this argument.
I.4. Explain Mill’s argument that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.
Critically evaluate Mill’s claim within the context of his overall theory.
I.5. Rawls' Theory of Justice is, in a sense, an argument against Utilitarianism both as a basis
for social policy, and as a moral theory. Present Rawls' critique of Utilitarianism, explaining
how it is encapsulated in the phrase "the priority of the right over the good." Then consider
how Rawls' position was criticized on the basis of the concept of the person it seems to
invoke. Finally evaluate those criticisms: in your view, are they fair? Does Rawls' view
withstand them? Do you think that they force us to question Rawls' prioritization of the
right over the good?
I.6. Care ethicists are critical of the standard accounts of and emphases on autonomy and
justice. Explain the basis for care ethical objections to autonomy and justice. Identify and
describe at least two features of moral experience a care ethicist would identify as missing
or elided by standard conceptions of autonomy and justice.
Section II
II.1. Offer an explanation and assessment of the following views about the relation between
moral and aesthetic value: (1) moralism/ethicism (the view that a moral merit counts, at
least sometimes, as an aesthetic merit), (2) autonomism (the view that the two types of
value are independent), and (3) immoralism (the view that a moral defect contributes, at
least sometimes, to an aesthetic merit).
II.2. What is the proper subject for moral theory: people’s actions or their characters? That
is, should morality be a matter of explaining what makes an action right or wrong, or what
makes a person good or bad? Illustrate each position by reference to at least two
philosophers and then defend your own view.
II.3. More than fifty years ago Elizabeth Anscombe complained that the idea of virtue was
unjustifiably ignored in modern moral philosophy. Do you think there is any other
important idea that does not get sufficient attention in contemporary moral philosophy?
Explain what the idea is, briefly give evidence that it is ignored, and explain what you think
we would gain by giving it more attention.
II.4. Discuss and evaluate some of the ways contemporary liberalism has been criticized. Be
sure to mention critiques by both communitarians and libertarians.
II.5. Is there ever progress in ethics? If you think there is, on what issues and in what
respects have we made progress in the last 300 years? If you think there isn’t, what is the
point of the study of ethics? Defend your view.
II.6. What would it mean to have an empirically adequate moral theory? Is empirical
adequacy a worthy ideal for a moral philosopher? Are there ways a moral theory can fail in
this respect? Do you think this idea can be found in the history of ethics or is it a new idea?