PHIL 1200 – Contemporary Social Problems (honors)
Spring 2020
Prof. Chris Heathwood
University of Colorado Boulder

Study Guides for Biweekly Exams / Take-Home Exams

Exam #1
Week 3
Tuesday, January 28

1. What is it for an argument to be valid, as we use the term in philosophy?
2. What is it for an argument to be sound, as we use the term in philosophy? 
3. Can an argument in which every line is false be valid?  If so, invent an example of an obviously valid argument in which every line is obviously false.  It not, explain why not.
4. Suppose we have an argument with a certain conclusion.  If you say that that argument is unsound, are you thereby saying that you think that the conclusion of the argument is false?  (In other words, if an argument for a certain conclusion is unsound, does this show that the conclusion is false?)  Explain your answer.
5. What is the argument we called 'Lauren's First Anti-Abortion Argument'?  (Probably best to put it in a line-by-line formulation, but explaining it in a paragraph is also ok.)
6. This argument has two premises.  What rationale (if any) does Lauren give for each premise?  (The "rationale" for a premise is the reason that the premise is supposed to be true.)
7. Explain Alex's objection to this argument (Lauren’s First Anti-Abortion Argument).  Be sure to include which premise his objection is supposed to be attacking.
8. Explain why this is a bad objection.
9. Explain Lauren's own objection to that same premise.
   

Exam #2
Week 5
Tuesday, February 11

1. State the moral principle that appears in the argument we called "The Antiabortion Argument." It's ok either to state the principle how they do in the book, how we did it in class, or even in some slightly different way that you prefer, so long as the principle is similar enough and, crucially, has the implications it is supposed to have about the key cases.
   
2. What is the main reason for thinking that that moral principle is true?  Explain this in detail.  Be sure to apply the principle to the case in question.  (When I ask you to apply a principle to a case, I am asking you to say what the principle implies about that case and explain why it implies this.)
3. Try to think of the best counterexample to this principle that you can think of, but it has to be one that doesn't have anything to do with abortion (after all, we are trying to use this and competing principles to try to help us figure out what to think of abortion)?  Present the best counterexample that you came up with.  Do you think the counterexample ultimately succeeds?  Why or why not?
   
4. What, in broad outline, is the Contraception Objection to "The Antiabortion Argument"?  Explain the putative problem thoroughly.
   
5. Which premise in "The Antiabortion Argument" is this objection attacking, and how.
6. Explain in detail why your humble instructor thinks the Contraception Objection fails.
7. Is your humble instructor right about this?  Explain.
8. In class we discussed three senses of the word 'person', or three things that someone might mean when they are using this word.  What are they?  Give both the label we gave it and the definition.
9. Consider the view that x is a person in the moral sense just in case x is a person in the biological sense.  State in detail your own counterexample to this view.
10. Consider the view that x is a person in the moral sense just in case x is a person in the psychological sense.  What does this view imply about 3-month-old babies, and why?  Is this a problem for this view?  Why or why not?
11. Which of the four theories that we discussed of what it takes to be a person in the moral sense is most in line with the Golden Principle?  Explain.
12. Boonin thinks that the general lesson of McFall v. Shimp is that “the fact that someone is a person with a right to life doesn’t mean they have the right to use another person body, even if they need to use that person’s body in order to go on living” (Boonin 2019, p. 9). Describe the thought experiment of Judith Thomson that also appears to show this, and explain why it appears to show this.
13. Here is a natural thing to think about the ethics of abortion: abortion is morally permissible if and only if the fetus is not a person in the moral sense (i.e., does not have a right to life).  Why does the general lesson that Boonin quotes above and that the Thomson thought experiment supports cast at least some doubt on this natural thought?
14. Does Thomson's thought experiment show on its own that fetuses in fact typically do not have a right to the use of their mother's body?  Explain.
    
15. According to Boonin, why didn't the state have the right to force Shimp to let McFall use Shimp's bone marrow?
    

Exam #3
Week 7
Tuesday, February 25

1. What is Boonin's argument by analogy for the view that abortion should be legal in the case of Alice?
• State the argument in line-by-line, premise-conclusion format.
  
• Be sure to explain the details of both of the thought experiments that figure in this argument.
  
2. What more general thing about abortion and the law is this argument about the case of Alice supposed to show?
3. Consider the following objection to this argument: "There is a morally relevant difference between these two cases. Al is Alice's son, whereas McFall is merely Shimp's cousin. This seems morally relevant because we in general have much greater obligations to our own children than we do to our cousins."  Employ the technique of variant cases to decide whether this difference is indeed a morally relevant difference, and one that might undermine the argument from #1 above. Be sure to make it clear what your verdict is.
   
4. What is the case that I called Slippery Socks and what is it supposed to show about abortion and the law? Explain in detail.
5. Why does Boonin think that it would be a mistake not to have a discussion about whether abortion for the purposes of sex selection should be legal?
6. Roe v. Wade said that the constitution requires that abortion be allowed until when? 
   
7. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, what percentage of abortions are performed after viability?  Does Boonin argue that these abortions should all be legal?  Explain his position.
8. Some defenses of abortion rights are based in the idea that the fetus does not have a right to life. Boonin thinks that his defense of abortion rights is superior to these defenses because these defenses face a challenge regarding infanticide. What is this challenge? How does Boonin's way of defending abortion rights avoid this?
9. Boonin discusses the idea that laws against feticide and laws against abortion should stand or fall together and that there is a kind of inconsistency or double-standard involved in the position that feticide and abortion should be treated differently under the law.  He notes that many pro-life people and many pro-choice people are in agreement about this.
• Why would a pro-life person accept this?
• Why would a pro-choice person accept this? 
  
• What is Boonin's view about this?  Illustrate how Boonin's view is supposed to be consistent using a variation on the Shimp v. McFall case.
  
10. What is hedonism?
    
11. Consider the following argument against hedonism: "Hedonism is a silly view. It says that pain is always bad for a person. But some pain is good. For example, if you accidentally touch a searing hot skillet, the pain you experience is actually a good thing, because it gets you to withdraw your hand immediately, thus minimizing bodily injury." Explain why this is not a good argument against hedonism. In doing so, explain how a hedonist can accommodate the idea pain can be good.
    

Exam #4
Week 9
Tuesday, March 10

1. What is your student ID#?
2. (a) State the Argument by Analogy for the View that Elective Abortion Should Not be Legal after Viability.
   (b) Describe both of the thought experiments that figure in the argument.
   (c) Does Boonin endorse this argument?  Explain.
   (d) Assuming (as we have been for our whole study of Boonin's book) that the fetus is a person (in the moral sense), is this argument sound?  If your view is No, then explain which premise is false and why (probably you will need to employ the technique of variant cases).  If your view is Yes, then present the best objection that you can think of to this argument (probably will need to employ the technique of variant cases to do so), and then explain why you think it ultimately fails.
   
3. An article about the case of Dynel Lane in Longmont notes that "Colorado is one of a dozen where prosecutors must prove that a child had been born, and was alive outside the mother, before they may charge someone with killing the child. That was not the case here, said Stan Garnett, the Boulder County district attorney."  The article also notes that "Voters in Colorado have overwhelmingly rejected three 'personhood' measures that sought to include the unborn as a person or child for legal purposes. Opponents said the redefinition would have criminalized abortion."
   (a) Would Boonin agree that such a redefinition would, or at least must, criminalize abortion.
   (b) Explain how Boonin thinks it can be true both that abortion should be legal (at least pre-viability) and also that Dynel Lane could have been charged with the murder of a person even if the fetus she killed died when it was still in the womb.
4. Advocates of the responsibility objection think that in each of the cases of Barbara, Carol, Dorothy, and Elaine, the fetus has a right to the use of its mother's body. 
   (a) Why do they think this?  In other words, what moral principle would they appeal to and why does it have this implication?
   (b) Does this principle commit advocates of the responsibility objection to the idea that McFall has a right to the use of Shimp's body?  Explain.
   Boonin thinks that this moral principle can be divided into two more specific versions. 
   (c) What are they?
   (d) Which of these two principles is helpful in explaining why McFall has a right to the use of Shimp's body in Fireworks?  Explain that case and why this principle has that implication.
   (e) What does this principle imply about the cases of Barbara, Carol, Dorothy, and Elaine?
   The other principle implies that in the cases Barbara, Carol, Dorothy, and Elaine, the fetus has a right to the use of its mother's body. 
   (f) Explain why it implies this.
   But Boonin thinks this pro-life-friendly principle is false. 
   (g) Explain his counterexample.
5. (a) State the Natural Right Argument as we formulated it in class.
   However that argument is supported, it will likely involve the idea that it is wrong to act against or in conflict with a thing's natural purposes.
   (b) Give your own counterexample to this idea.
   

1. Ben Franklin was a Founding Father, author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat.  So it's probably fair to say that he was also a genius.  But, like so many of us, he nevertheless found it difficult to reason well about ethics.  Consider this passage from his Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1793):

Franklin appears to be giving an argument for the moral permissibility of killing and eating fish.

(a) Extract Franklin's argument from this text and put it in a valid, premise-conclusion format.

Here is some guidance for part (a).  When extracting an argument from a piece of text, it’s usually best to start with the conclusion.  So first write down the conclusion of the argument.  (Hint: I basically told you the conclusion above.)

Then ask yourself, What is Franklin’s reason for thinking that this conclusion is true?  (Hint: it seems to be this: that fish kill and eat other fish.)

Then ask yourself, What is the general moral principle at work here?  Recall that authors often neglect to explicitly state the moral principle that is required to derive their conclusion from the reason that they give.  The "reason" that people state is often just a factual premise.  But since their conclusion is a moral claim, there must be a moral principle operating behind the scenes.  We have to do some work to figure out exactly what it is.

Your ultimate answer to part (a) should just be three sentences: two premises and a conclusion.

(b) Present, very clearly and thoroughly, a compelling counterexample to the moral principle that appears in this argument.  Or, if you think there are no successful counterexamples to it, present the best one you can think of and then explain why it fails.

(Do you think that maybe Franklin, genius that he was, knew that this argument was no good and that's why he ended this passage with, "So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do"?)

2. Suppose you went backpacking in the mountains, got lost, and ran out of food.  Suppose that, unless you hunt down and kill an animal for food, you will starve to death.  As Huemer understands Ethical Vegetarianism, does Ethical Vegetarianism imply that it would be wrong for you to do this?  Explain.
   
   
3. The character V in Huemer's dialog claims that the meat industry inflicts great suffering on animals for the sake of only minor benefits.  Consider the following objection to this claim: "That's not true; the benefits of eating meat are not minor. It is our very health that is on the line."  Your humble instructor claimed that this is not a good objection.
   
   (a) Explain why he thinks this and where he gets his evidence.
   (b) Is he right?
   
   
4. The part that we read of the Rachels article aims to show that industrial farming is cruel to animals.  Cite one fact each about
   (a) Pigs
   (b) Cows
   (c) Chickens
   (d) Turkeys
   (e) Fish
   (f) Bivavles
   that illustrate this cruelty.  (Just one sentence for each.)
   
   
5. According to V, what philosopher thinks that what the meat industry does is about as bad as torturing 74 billion people each year?

Exam #6
Due by email by 11:59 p.m., Sunday, April 26

1. (a) On p. 58 of Huemer's dialogue, V gives a condensed restatement of V's main argument against eating meat.  State this version of the argument in valid premise-conclusion format.
   (b) Which premise is the moral principle and which premise is the empirical premise?
   (c) Present a defense of the moral principle by coming up with and laying out two different examples of acts that don't involve meat-eating, are seriously morally wrong, and are such that the principle seems to provide a good explanation of their wrongness.  Be sure to describe your examples in sufficient detail.
   (d) Provide a complete and thorough rationale for the empirical premise.
   (e) Here is an objection to the empirical premise:
   "Meat-eating doesn't actually cause enormous suffering. It's true that animals suffer greatly on factory farms, but no act of mine of buying and eating meat has ever had any effect on animal suffering. That's because, for any act of buying and eating meat that I have ever done, the following is true: there would have been no less animal suffering on factory farms had I not done it."
   Present in detail what you take to be the strongest response to this objection. 
   (f) Is the argument that you state in part (a) sound?  If you think it's not sound, explain why, thoroughly and persuasively.  If you think it is sound, present the best objection that you can think of to it (other than the objection from part (d)), and then explain why you think your objection ultimately fails.
   
2. (a) V gives two reasons for thinking that animals feel pain.  What are they?
   (b) Are these good reasons for thinking that animals feel pain?
3. (a) V gives two "deontological" reasons (to use a term we introduced in class) for not buying meat from factory farms.  What are they?
   (b) What makes these reasons "deontological"?
   (c) Describe the other main putative category of moral reasons we discussed in class.
4. Suppose I buy a whole rotisserie chicken from King Soopers and devour it over two meals.  Suppose I claim that the chicken was so delicious that the amount of additional pleasure I got from eating the chicken, as compared with the pleasure that I would gotten from eating my favorite vegetarian dish for those two meals, was greater than the amount that the chicken had to suffer.  Would my claim be plausible?  Explain.  In explaining your answer, include factual information about the nature and duration of the lives of chickens on factory farms.
5. Which of the following cognitive biases does V not appeal to in explaining why M finds it so hard to believe that factory farming might one of the world's worst problems (select all that apply):
   - status quo bias
   - social proof
   - confirmation bias
   - self-interest bias
   - affect heuristic
   - fading-affect bias.
   
6. (a) Vegetarians don't eat meat.  Vegans don't eat animal products of any kind.  What is ostroveganism?
   (b) Are there things that a vegetarian can eat that an ostrovegan cannot?  If not, explain why not.  If yes, give an example.
   (c) Are there things that an ostrovegan can eat that a vegetarian cannot?  If not, explain why not.  If yes, give an example.
   (d) Which of these three views does V ultimately adopt, and why does V think that it is a more sensible view than the other two?
7. V says that he doesn't buy humane-certified meat because he says he doesn't know if it is ethical.  Explain thoroughly and in your own words why V finds it hard to figure out whether buying humane-certified meat is morally permissible.