Study Questions for Final Exam
Philosophy 2003C
Fall 2005
Professor Senor
(First Draft: There will be a couple questions added to this list.
Apologies for the doubtless myriad typos.)
1. In Meditation II, Descartes concludes that he knows for certain that he exists and
that he is a thinking substance. However, he has nagging doubts that what should
be the mostly easily known are objects perceived by the five senses. So he
decides to temporarily shelve his skeptical doubts, and allow himself to see just
what he can know through the senses. To this end, he examines a piece of wax.
Explain the wax example and what he finds when he makes this examination.
What lesson does he take away from it?
2. In the third Meditation, Descartes states a principle about clear and distinct ideas.
What is that principle? Why does he think that he must prove the existence of
God in order to validate this principle? How does the argument go that he gives
in this meditation? What is the Cartesian Circle and how does it invalidate the
argument?
3. Explain the theory of perceptual knowledge known as “Direct Realism.” What
would you say the strengths of it are? Discuss the perceptual relativity argument
against direct realism.
4. Explain representative realism in some detail by stating and explaining the tenets
as presented in class.
5. “If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make any noise?” Explain
what the direct realist, the representative realist (e.g., John Locke), and the idealist
(e.g., George Berkeley) would say in answer to that question. (Don’t just answer
“yes” or “no” for each but explain why the theories say what they do.)
6. Berkeley was a strong opponent of representative realism. Explain each of these
criticisms of representative realism offered by Berkeley: i) representative realism
leads to skepticism; ii) all qualities are mind dependent; iii) the RR’s concept of a
physical object is incoherent, and; iv) we can have no idea of unthinking, material
substance.
7. What is idealism? Give one of Berkeley’s arguments for idealism. Discuss two
objections to Berkeley’s idealism.
8. Explain how the view that humans are moral agents and the view that we are fully
natural entities (as I defined these terms views in the online paper) can lead to a
conflict.
9. Define the following terms: determinism, compatibilism, incompatibilism,
libertarianism, hard determinism, and free will nihilism.
10. State and explain an argument for incompatibilism. Make the argument as clear
and compelling as possible. Now how can the compatibilist go about attacking
this argument? Make sure you make clear the relevant concepts, including the
compatibilist account of free will.
11. What does the incompatibilist think is wrong with the compatibilist account of
free will? State and discuss an incompatibilist example aimed to show that the
compatibilist condition of freedom can be satisfied even when the agent is not in
fact free.
12. What is the difference between the incompatibilist’s account of free will and that
of the compatibilist? How can the compatibilist argue that the incompatibilist
account of free will is extremely puzzling?
13. Define the following terms: extrinsic value, intrinsic value, value monism, value
pluralism, consequentialism, and deontologism.
14. According to Peter Singer, what is distinctive of ethical behavior? What is his
fundamental ethical principle? Why might someone who basically agrees with
Singer be pretty dissatisfied with that principle as a primary ethical principle?
How does adding the Singer/Mill principle help? Oh, and by the way, what is the
Singer/Mill principle?
15. How does Peter Singer argue that non-human animals deserve ethical
consideration? Be as exact as you can in tracing the development of Singer’s
thought from the Principle of Equality of Common Interests to the conclusion that
animals are no less worthy of ethical consideration than are humans.
16. You rush into your neighbor’s burning home. The pet dog Rover is at one end of
the house and your neighbor Nick (who happens to have two broken legs, but is
otherwise a typical adult) is at the other. You can save only one. You think,
“well, this is a no brainer; of course I should save Nick and leave Rover.” As you
come out of the house covered in soot, Peter Singer eyes you skeptically and asks
“Why’d you save Nick and not Rover?” Give one answer that he would think
was ethically sound and one answer that he would think is not.