1
SAN DIEGO MESA COLLEGE
PHIL 109
SPRING 2013
INSTRUCTOR: PROF. NINA ROSENSTAND
ISSUES IN SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY
STUDY GUIDE for MIDTERM MARCH 13
OFFICE HOURS: MTWR: 11:15-12:30
Office: MV2404. Phone: (619) 388-2407. E-mail: nrosenst@sdccd.edu (e-mails will be answered
during the instructor’s office hours.)
Website: http://classroom.sdmesa.edu/nrosenst
STAY INFORMED ABOUT POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE READINGS AND TEST DATES. CHANGES, IF ANY,
WILL BE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE.
FORMAT OF MIDTERM
50% objective, 50 % subjective/essay test. Use a scantron Form #882. Please use pencil #2 for the
scantron, and pen for the short answer section. Make sure your scantron answers are clear and
unambiguous; otherwise the scantron machine can’t read them. Read the question carefully. You may
write on the test. Total possible points: 100. NO BOOKS, NO NOTES ALLOWED.
Plagiarism policy: Using unauthorized open books, notes and/or electronic devices during the test, or
consulting with other students, will result in an F on the test, and will be reported.
There will be 12 True/False questions; each correct answer is worth 2 points.
There will be 13 Multiple Choice questions; each correct answer is worth 2 points.
There will be 6 essay questions. Answer 5 out of 6. Max. 50 points. Use a pen for this part. If you use a
pencil you will be docked 3 points! Each essay will be worth max. 10 points. 10-9:A, 8:B, 7:C, 6:D,
3-0:F Respond in the write-in area on the test prompt; do not go beyond the area.
Sample Questions:
1.In what way can Gattaca be said to illustrate moral problems raised by genetic engineering?
2.What kind of genetic intervention would Habermas accept, and what kind would he reject? Explain
why.
3.What are Hobbes’s 3 reasons for war, and how does he explain them?
READINGS:
Course Packet (CP): Rosenstand: Major Perspectives in Moral Reasoning pp.3-6
CP: Rosenstand, “Personhood, Rights, and Justice” Ch.7, pp.9-19 + Primary Reading: Habermas, and
Narrative: Gattaca
Wolff: An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Introduction; Ch.1, The State of Nature: Hobbes. Pp. 117
Social and Political Philosophy (SPP): Hobbes pp.141-148
Course Reader: “Maester Hobbes goes to King’s Landing” pp.97-104
Wolff: Ch.1: Locke pp.17-23
SPP: Locke pp.169-175
2
KEY CONCEPTS:
[BE READY TO RECOGNIZE THE DEFINITION OF THESE CONCEPTS AND IDENTIFY PHILOSOPHERS]
THE ITEMS MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK * (“STAR SYMBOL”) ARE POSSIBLE SHORT ANSWER TOPICS
Major Perspectives in Moral Reasoning:
Consequentialism:
Utilitarianism: promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number. (The end justifies the
means.) *
Jeremy Bentham: the hedonistic calculus helps decide all issues *
Problems: Rights are disregarded, and so are duties, and good intentions. *
Ethical egoism: promoting the best consequences for oneself
Ethical altruism: promoting the best consequences for others
Kant’s deontology (duty theory):
Hypothetical imperatives are just practical, not morally praiseworthy. The categorical imperative
is unconditional: prescribes an action because it is morally right. Intentions count if they reflect
respect for a moral law.
Cat. Imp. Approach: Find the maxim, then universalize it; then ask if this could be a moral law. If
not, don’t follow the maxim.
Never treat others merely as tools = merely as a means to an end, but [from your notes:] “always
as an end in themselves” *
Course Reader: Rosenstand, The Moral of the Story Ch.7 to p.19
Personhood: descriptive and normative
Attitudes toward serial killings of prostitutes: less than persons
Historical overview of the expansion of the concept of personhood to women, children, etc.
Science and Moral Responsibility:
Habermas: science is not value-free; scientists don’t just seek knowledge for the sake of
knowledge, they have goals and sometimes agendas.*
Genetic engineering, stem cell research; Molly and Adam Nash*
Cloning: reproductive and therapeutic *
Designer humans: 3 fears: (1) Only God is supposed to create life, (2) We may lose control of our
creation, like Frankenstein, (3) Designer humans may lead to discrimination
Questions of Rights and Equality
The four principles of equality: fundamental equality, social equality, equal treatment of equals,
and
“Treat equals equally and unequals unequally”: addition to the fundamental equality principle
Primary Reading:
Habermas: A Kantian, deontological approach: Never use another merely as a means to an end.*
Therapeutic genetic intervention / negative eugenics: helps the individual and respects him/her as
an end in himself or herself *
Genetic enhancement/positive eugenics: alters the individual to specifications of others and risks
treating him/her as merely a means to an end.*
Narrative: Gattaca
Future populations are genetically engineered, except for the few natural-born such as Vincent.
Discrimination through DNA profiling; the story illustrates political/moral personhood: *
Wolff: The State of Nature/Hobbes
State of Nature: a state prior to/without any government [pre-social]
Hobbes: Nothing is worse than life without government, because of selfish human nature
Hobbes is a materialist (only matter exists): he sees humans as machines in motion.
Humans desire things, so they need power. That leads to competition [1st reason for war]
The state of nature is a ”war” of everyone against everyone
Fear of others [2nd reason for war]
Has Hobbes overlooked morality? “No right or wrong in SoN” But “Laws of Nature” exist in SoN. Isn’t
that a moral code? Not for individuals, but collectively. A sovereign helps reinforce the laws of nature
(=seeking peace)
SPP: Hobbes
Monarchist, materialist, atheist, psychological and ethical egoist [from your notes]
Humans are equal in nature: in strength and faculties of the mind [descriptive equality concept, from your
notes]
Hobbes’ state of nature: everyone’s war against everyone
Three reasons for quarrel in the state of nature: competition for possessions, diffidence (fear), glory
3
Life in the state of nature: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short
Governments are in state of nature; American Indians, too
Right of nature: Right to take what you can and hold on as long as you can (might makes right)
Law of nature: Nobody can be forced to put their life on the line
Two rules in nature: seeking peace, and defend oneself if peace is not possible.
From this: social contract: Giving up one’s liberty for protection and law [from your notes]
Inalienable right: To self-protection
Defense of monarchy [from your notes]
Course Reader: Greg Littmann, “Maester Hobbes goes to King’s Landing”
Game of Thrones (books/TV series) as illustration of Hobbes’ political philosophy
Hobbes: Social contract should lead to absolute monarchy
GoT: The royal families battle for power. No democracy, except initial election (Rob Stark)
Hobbes: Anything is better than civil war, except if the ruler can’t protect you. Then you elect someone
who can.
Hobbes: Three reasons for conflict: possessions, defense against danger, and glory
Hobbes: Everyone is selfish
Game of Thrones: Almost everyon is selfish incl. the eunuch Varys, Lord Littlefinger, Joffrey, Cersei, but
not Eddard Stark and Jon Snow.
Littman: If we didn’t understand Eddard and Jon, the story would make no sense: so we are not all selfish.
Littman: Hobbes is right that peace should outweigh principles of succession.
Wolff: The State of Nature/Locke
Locke: Life can be lived without government. (1) Perfect freedom, (2) equality, (3) bound by Law of
Nature.
Equality entails rights (is normative contrary to Hobbes) to life, liberty, property = law of nature, sets
boundaries for individual liberty. But since people can’t be wholly trusted, it is easier to enforce the rights
with a social contract. In SoN individuals can punish each other, but it is easier within a society.
Hobbes assumes there will be scarcity of goods (so: competition), but Locke sees nature as abundant.
SPP: Locke
The Western Enlightenment/Age of Reason, 17th-18th centuries: Focus on science, education, democracy
[from your notes]
Influence on leaders of American Revolution [from your notes]
Natural law: the law humans would conform to in the state of nature [from your notes]
Three natural(negative) rights to non-interference: life, liberty, property [from your notes, and Course
Reader]
State of Nature is perfect freedom within a Law of Nature, among equals.
State of nature has laws: self-preservation; law against harm to others’ life, liberty, health, and property
Everyone can punish transgressors in the state of nature, and protect themselves and others from
perpetrators
To what degree? Enough to make the perpetrator repent, and deter others from doing the same.
Easiest to conduct within a social contract (civil government).
Who lives in state of nature? Princes, governors, everyone who hasn’t agreed to a political society
State of Nature: any situation where people have not expressly decided on becoming a body politic, or
petitioned to become part of the existing body politic
[From your notes:]
Social contract: giving up right to perfect freedom in exchange for protection of property and legislation.
Social contract: to facilitate punishment, and protection of three natural rights
Giving up power to majority of community [not monarch!] for the sake of common good
Agreeing to the social contract means agreeing to majority rule
Social contract is “signed” by everyone by staying in a society
If you disagree with terms of contract, you can leave
Express and tacit consent
Problem: When has a person not given tacit consent?