Philosophy

Question 1

Dworkin’s two elements of the “religious point of view”

Answer 1

(1) Our lives have objective value
(2) Nature is sublime

Question 2

Dworkin: two things the religious point of view rejects

Answer 2

(1) Naturalism
(2) Grounded realism

Question 3

Dworkin in RWG: “naturalism” is…

Answer 3

…the view that there is no such thing as justice, morality, beauty etc.: there are only things we can observe and measure

Question 4

Dworkin in RWG: “grounded realism” is…

Answer 4

…the view that our value judgments are real, but only in virtue of some capacity we have to detect moral truths, which is separate from the moral values themselves

Question 5

Dworkin - three types of interpretation…

Answer 5

(1) Collaborative
(2) Explanatory
(3) Conceptual

Question 6

Dworkin - three types of concept…

Answer 6

(1) Criterial
(2) Natural-kind
(3) Interpretive

Question 7

Dworkin - interpretation has three stages…

Answer 7

(1) We identify a genre
(2) We attribute a package of purposes to that genre
(3) We try to find the best realisation of those purposes in this instance

Question 8

Galen Strawson’s paradox on moral responsibility for change in ourselves:

Answer 8

Either (1) We used our current values in coming to a new position, in which case we did not change, or (2) Something acted upon us to change us, in which case we are not responsible

Question 9

According to Agnes Callard, what three “games” do we play in conversation?

Answer 9

(1) Basic game
(2) Status game
(3) Levelling game

We also tend to assume we ourselves are playing the basic game, while thinking others might be playing the other games

Question 10

Dworkin in Model of Rules I: Three tenets of positivism are:

Answer 10

(1) There must be a decision-criterion for what makes a law valid
(2) This criterion is separate from morality
(3) We can “run out of law”, in which case there is only discretion

Question 11

Dworkin in Model of Rules 1: There are three forms of discretion…

Answer 11

(1) Weak form 1: When there are pre-existing standards, but we have to exercise judgment
(2) Weak form 2: When there is a rule, but we have the final say (e.g. a linesman)
(3) Strong form: When there are no pre-existing standards, and we can just pick

(1) A sergeant is ordered to take his five most experienced men, but he must exercise judgment in who is most experienced
(2) A linesman has the final decision on whether a player is offside, and can’t be overruled
(3) A dog show organiser can decide whether to take airedales or boxers first

Question 12

Dworkin’s argument for ‘living tree’ approaches:

Answer 12

Constitutions use “vague” words, and this is deliberate: they are referring to concepts, not conceptions…

…E.g., if I told my kids to act ‘fairly’, I would have in mind the concept of fairness, not one particular conception of it

Question 13

Rawls: in the original position, people are assumed to be two things:

Answer 13

(1) Rational
(2) Mutually disinterested

Question 14

Rawls: all social contract views, including justice as fairness, involve two parts:

Answer 14

(1) An interpretation of the initial situation
(2) A set of principles which, it is argued, would be agreed to

Question 15

Rawls: two principles that would be agreed to in the original position:

Answer 15

(1) Everyone has the maximum liberty, compatible with the same for others
(2) Social and economic inequalities would be:
- (a) To everyone’s advantage
- (b) Attached to positions and offices open to all

Question 16

Rawls: the phrase “to everyone’s advantage” (in his second principle of justice as fairness) could mean two things:

Answer 16

(a) principle of efficiency; or
(b) difference principle

Question 17

Rawls: the phrase “equally open to all”(in his second principle of justice as fairness) could mean two things:

Answer 17

(a) equality as careers open to talents; or
(b) equality of fair opportunity

Question 18

Bernard Williams: two virtues of truthfulness

Answer 18

Accuracy: trying to get to the truth by deliberating carefully

Sincerity: genuinely expressing what one believes

Question 19

JS Mill: Reasons for free speech (4):

Answer 19

(1) Our views may be wrong
(2) Our views may be partly wrong: Often, the truth is about combining different elements of two opposing forces
(3) Even if our views are correct, if we just learn them by rote with no challenges, we will hold them only as prejudice; and they will blow away at the slightest challenge
(4) Also, in that third case, our convictions won’t be able to move us properly to act, as they won’t have emotive or motivational force

There’s also (5) A bad view must be brought into the open to be challenged

Question 20

How does Rawls describe the concept of justice (for social institutions)?

Answer 20

Institutions are just when:

• no arbitrary distinctions are made between persons in the assigning of rights and duties
• the rules determine a proper balance between the competing claims to the advantages of social life

Question 21

Rawls: In his concept of justice, what two phrases are ambiguous?

Answer 21

“Arbitrary distinctions”
“Proper balance”

Question 22

Rawls: a conception of justice is one part of a larger…

Answer 22

… Social ideal

Question 23

Aristotle’s definition of justice (with reference to acts):

Answer 23

Refraining from pleonexia: that is, gaining an advantage by seizing what belongs to another or by denying him what is due to him

This is from Rawls, who in turn is interpreting Vlastos’ interpretation

Question 24

How does Rawls define ‘teleological’ theories (like utilitarianism)?

Answer 24

(1) The good is defined independently of the right
(2) The right is defined as maximising the good

Question 25

Rawls: 'justice as fairness' is justified by two things:

Answer 25

(1) The notion that it would be rational to choose these principles in a situation which is fair (2) Reflective equilibrium and fit with our existing intuitions on justice

Question 26

Rawls: equality of fair opportunity, without the difference principle, is unsatisfactory for two reasons:

Answer 26

Though there are efforts to create fair opportunity through things like better education: (1) Natural differences in abilities remain, which are just as arbitrary as social contingencies (2) So long as the family exists, these efforts to equalise can only be imperfectly carried out

Question 27

Rawls: What are some arguments in favour of the difference principle (made from the original position)?

Answer 27

(1) It reflects the principle of fraternity (2) It would promote the basic good of self-respect and confidence by mitigating hierarchies

Question 28

What is Euthyphro's Dilemma?

Answer 28

Is something good because the gods command it (meaning morality seems arbitrary, as the gods could command anything) or Do the gods command it because it's good (meaning morality doesn’t come from the gods)?

Question 29

According to Hobbes, what are the three reasons for which humans fight?

Answer 29

Competition Pre-emption Reputation ## Footnote Or: competition, diffidence, and glory

Question 30

Who are the two most prominent natural law theorists in the English-speaking post-WW2 world?

Answer 30

Fuller Finnis

Question 31

How was Grotius' *On the Laws of War and Peace* controversial in terms of religion?

Answer 31

He secularised morality by saying that even if God did not exist, natural law would still be the same Just as 2+2=4 would be the same without God, certain natural law principles would exist too

Question 32

What are John Finnis' seven ends of life?

Answer 32

1. Life 2. Knowledge 3. Play 4. Aesthetic experience 5. Sociability 6. Practical reasonableness 7. 'Religion'

Question 33

What are the three categories of *philia* in Aristotle's Ethics (as formulated by Finnis)?

Answer 33

1. Relationships of business 2. Relationships of play 3. Friendship ## Footnote Or for Aristotle: 1. Friendship of utility 2. Friendship of pleasure 3. Friendship of virtue

Question 34

What is the key tenet of Habermas' discourse ethics?

Answer 34

Habermas: Moral norms can only be justified through rational, inclusive discourse among free and equal participants

Question 35

Austin came up with three types of acts that a speech act could be: what were they?

Answer 35

1. *Locutionary act*: simply the act of generating sound and literal meaning 2. *Illocutionary act*: Doing something like promising, where the statement is the act 3. *Perlocutionary act*: Producing a reaction, like persuading or frightening someone

Question 36

In Austin's theory, a speech act can be analysed in terms of two things:

Answer 36

1. Its propositional content 2. Its illocutionary force ## Footnote Illocutionary force: e.g., it could be a warning, a promise, a command

Question 37

What are the five methods of constitutional interpretation set out by Michael Dorf?

Answer 37

1. Judicial restraint 2. Natural law reading 3. Process theory 4. Originalism 5. Eclecticism

Question 38

What are four objections to Mill's Harm Principle?

Answer 38

(1) Harming ourselves could harm others (e.g. a parent wearing no seatbelt) (2) Sometimes we want paternalism (e.g. drug laws) (3) Some harmful things are not criminalised (e.g. adultery) (4) Offence is a kind of harm

Question 39

What are seven conditions for an essentially contested concept, according to WB Gallie?

Answer 39

1. It's an appraisive concept (it signifies an achievement) 2. The achievement has an internally complex character 3. The achievement's worth could be described in many ways 4. The achivement could be different in different circumstances 5. Each side acknowledges that other parties are using different criteria And the justifying conditions: 6. Each side derives their conception from an exemplar which is acknowledged by all as an achievement 7. The striving to follow this exemplar helps develop the exemplar's achievement

Question 40

For Rawls, what are the "circumstances of justice"?

Answer 40

1. Co-existence 2. Mutual vulnerability 3. Moderate scarcity 4. Limited altruism 5. Ethical diversity ## Footnote This is in *Theory of Justice*