Philosophy 152, Final Exam Review Sheet

What do you need to be able to do for the final exam?

You must be able to make an argument using conditional sentences. Any such argument should be in the "If X then Y, if Y then Z, thus if X then Z" format we have learned in class. One way I might test this would be to give you some conclusions, and ask you to make an argument with that conclusion.

For example:
Question: Make an argument with the conclusion "All drinking and driving is wrong."
Answer: All drinking and driving endangers innocents. All things that endanger innocents are wrong. Thus, all drinking and driving is wrong.

You must be able to show why conditional sentences are false. I may test this by giving you conditional sentences and asking you to show they are false.

For example:
Question: Show that the sentence "All things that endanger innocents are wrong" is false.
Answer: Going to war usually endangers innocents, but sometimes it is acceptable to go to war. For example, it was acceptable for the U.S. to go to war with Germany in WWII.

You must understand the difference between good, bad, right, and wrong. You should be able to give examples of things that are good but not right, bad but not wrong, right but not good, and bad but not wrong. These examples should not be examples that we discussed in class.

You must be able to talk about the issues we discussed in class: abortion, adultery, charity, the death penalty, following/obeying the law, prostitution, investigating/prosecuting suspected terrorists. You should be able to explain at least one argument about each of these issues that we talked about in class, either an argument from the reading or an argument that one of your classmates gave (if we had no reading on a subject, then give an argument we discussed in class). You should be able to put that argument in "All X are Y" format, and give at least one objection to one of the premises (this criticism should not be given in the reading). The argument should involve the terms good/bad/right/wrong/acceptable.

In each of the following readings, the author brought up arguments that they with: "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," "The Ultimate Punishment," "A Defense of Abortion," "Is Adultery Immoral," and "Should Feminists Oppose Prostitution?" For each of these readings, you should be able to give one argument that the author disagreed with (in "If X then Y" form), and explain how they author tried to show one of the premises is false. Finally, you should be able to say whether or not you think the author's criticism is a good one, and why. The argument you talk about here should not be the same as the one you talk about for the previous section.

In the readings, the authors gave arguments to support their own views (this is not true for "A Defense of Abortion"). For each reading (other than "A Defense of Abortion"), you should be able to identify the author's main arguments, explain them, and explain which premises (if any) you disagree with and why.