Anonymous
timer Asked: May 6th, 2020

Question Description

10 question test, need done in next hour should take less time. 3-4 sentence answer, study guide attached as well

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Final Exam Study Guide General Instructions for the Final You will have two hours to complete the final on May 6th. You can begin the quiz at any time on that day (Mountain Time), but once you have begun it you will only have two hours to complete it. It will be available under “Quizzes” on Canvas, just as the make-up exam for the midterm was. The final exam is open book and open note, so you may use whatever resources you have available to you. The final will have about the same number of questions as the midterm had. Like the midterm, it will have a few questions asking you to evaluate the validity and soundness of some basic arguments. The rest of the questions will be from the list below. Questions which might be on the Final What is the fair-start defense of affirmative action, and what is the analogy that Himma uses to support it? ​The Fair-Start Defense justifies affirmative action. It is justified as a response to harms caused by institutional sexism and racism. On this line of defense, institutional discrimination harms the self-esteem of females and blacks and inhibits their academic achievement relative to that of white males. In supporting it Himma says that he argued they are justified in virtue of the effects institutional discrimination has on the goals and aspirations of its victims. In particular, he argued that institutional discrimination puts women and blacks at an unfair competitive disadvantage by encouraging academic disidentification. Affirmative action, he concludes, is justified as an attempt to negate this unfair disadvantage. What is the Nondiscrimination Principle, and why does Himma object to it? The nondiscrimination principle: every person has a right to be free of discrimination. Himma objects to it because he believes there are many morally permissible reasons for hiring other than the most qualified candidate, he also says it violates the moral right to equal respect. What is the Merit Principle, and why does Himma object to it? The Merit Principle is, the most qualified applicant for an educational/employment position has a right to the position . Himma objects to it with the same reasons as nondiscrimination. I think Why does Boonin think that both sides are right in the debate about whether race is real? According to Boonin, what is the Unjust Enrichment Principle and what are some cases which seem to illustrate it? ● Unjust Enrichment Principle:​ It is wrong to profit from unjust acts ● Cases: ​Stolen paintings, the Shadowy figure,​ and ​the tragic accident ● Stolen paintings​: You are an artist. You take a vacation. I break into your house. I steal some of your work. I display it in my gallery. I charge money to see it. I am benefited by this. Are you entitled to recover the profits from me? ​YES. ● The Shadowy figure​: A stranger steals your art. He brings it and tells me it's his. I have no reason to doubt. He lets me display it in my gallery. Are you entitled to recover the profits from him? ​YES​. ● The Tragic Accident: ​Just like the other cases. Except in this case, you die in a tragic accident. Who gets the money? ​Your children/someone closely related. ● The Argument: 1. I owe you money in the example. 2. The example is like current whites benefiting from slavery. 3. Therefore, descendants of slave owners owe money to the descendants of slaves. What is the analogy that Boonin uses to support the step from past debtors to present debtors in his discussion of the Compensation Argument, and what is the moral claim that the analogy is supposed to support? According to Boonin and Anderson, what are at least two ways in which black Americans are worse off than white Americans? Black Americans have a shorter life expectancy. ​Blacks lag behind whites on every measure of educational attainment. According to Anderson, what is ​de facto​ segregation and what is the spatial mismatch hypothesis? De facto segregation is by fact not law, meaning it is not enforced but still occurs. The spatial mismatch hypothesis is that due to lack of opportunities and jobs available creates low employment and salaries among the african american population. According to Fullinwider, who is still responsible for injustices against black Americans and why is someone like Henry Hyde obligated to pay for reparations? It is the nation. This is because it was the laws that really oppressed African Americans. It was corporate acts of the nation that came together with laws and the government that disadvantaged African Americans. It is not individuals or its citizens who owe the country's debt. This is because of corporate liability, the “United States in an individual under law”. Because it “is in an individual who doesn’t die it can acquire and retain debts over many generations, though individual Americans come and go. “ This means that Henry Hyde or other Americans can owe reparations for their ancestors. What is the difference between ​jus ad bellum​ and ​jus in bello​ principles in Just War Theory, and what are three principles of ​jus ad bellum​? The difference between jus ad bellum and jus in bello principles is jus ad bellum are considered laws of war while jus in bello is whether war is conducted justly. Three Principles: Just Cause- “There must be a sufficient reason for war.” Competent authority- “War may only be initiated by those who are appropriately authorized to do so. “ Right Intention- “Belligerents may resort only to war only for the right reasons.” What is preventative war and what does McMahan think is wrong with it? ● Preventative war is a war initiated in preventive defence ● McMahan thinks preventive war encourages unnecessary war and provides cover for wars of aggression What is the independence thesis, and why does McMahan think that it is false? According to Walzer, what are the two clusters of rules of war, which of these two is morally important, and why is it morally important? The two clusters: First, there is no way to justify prohibitions on certain ways of fighting, but any limitations on combat will be welcome. Example would be an arrow without feathers. Secondly, there are a class of people outside the range of warfare (the innocent). It’s morally wrong to harm non-combatants. What is Ramsey’s analogy to nuclear deterrence, and what is Walzer’s response to this analogy? According to Walzer, why does nuclear retaliation seem undo-able and why is this fact a source of considerable anxiety? According to Anscombe, why is Truman a mass murderer? Anscombe states her critics towards Truman’s “On Truman’s Degree” by exposing his efforts to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima as killing innocent people just to prove a point. She claims that Truman didn’t have to take this route to end the war and so many innocent people shouldn’t have been murdered without any warning. Anscombe’s views are not motivated by the moral justification that all warfare is bad, they are more based on the principles that the specific conditions were unprecedented. Anscombe speculates that Truman withheld so much power that he felt and itch to use this mass destruction weapon without weighing other options and scenarios. Yes, war was justified here, but the use of a mass destruction weapon on thousands of innocent people wasn’t. She believed that Truman jumped to a conclusion too quickly. What are Rawls’ fourth and fifth principles of war, and why does he think that they are especially important for the leaders of the nations in conflict? State whether the following arguments are valid/invalid and whether they are sound/unsound. If unsound, state why. Also: Kaufman is in Denver, by the way. (a) 1. If Kaufman is in Denver, then he is in Colorado. 2. Kaufman is in Denver. 3. Therefore, Kaufman is in Colorado. Valid, sound (b 1. If Kaufman is in Boulder, then he is in Colorado. 2. Kaufman is in Boulder. 3. Therefore, Kaufman is in Colorado. Valid, unsound. Unsound because Premise 2 is false. (c) 1. If Kaufman is in Boulder, then he is in Colorado. 2. Kaufman is in Colorado. 3. Therefore, Kaufman is in Boulder. Invalid, Unsound. Invalid because premise 1 states that Kaufman being in Colorado is merely a necessary condition for being in Boulder. So, even if both premises ​were ​true, the conclusion wouldn’t necessarily follow. Unsound because invalid. (d) 1. If Kaufman is in Boulder, then he is in Colorado. 2. It is not the case that Kaufman is in Colorado. 3. Therefore, it is not the case that Kaufman is in Boulder. Valid, Unsound (because premise 2 is false) (e) 1. If Kaufman is in Colorado, then he is in Boulder. 2. It is not the case that Kaufman is in Boulder. 3. Therefore, it is not the case that Kaufman is in Colorado. Valid, Unsound (because premise 1 is false) (f) 1. If Kaufman is in Denver, then he is not in Boulder. 2. Kaufman is in Denver. 3. Therefore, Kaufman is not in Boulder. Valid, Sound An Argument is VALID when: IF the premises WERE true, then the conclusion WOULD HAVE TO BE true. - In other words, the premises force the conclusion. - The premises do not have to BE ACTUALLY true for an argument to be VALID. In other words, an argument can be VALID even if some of the premises ARE ACTUALLY false. An Argument is SOUND when: It is VALID and all of the premises ARE ACTUALLY true. - SOUND arguments are the gold standard of philosophy. This is because they are valid (IF the premises WERE true, then the conclusion WOULD HAVE TO BE true) and the premises ARE ACTUALLY true. Thus, if an argument is SOUND, the conclusion HAS TO BE ACTUALLY true. - Since the conclusion HAS TO BE ACTUALLY TRUE, you must accept it even if the conclusion is something you really don't want to be true or wouldn't otherwise think is true, like "It is seriously wrong to have sex outside of marriage" or "There is nothing wrong with killing infants". Consider the following argument: 1. My name is Wyatt. 2. If my name is Wyatt, then my name starts with W. Conclusion: My name starts with W. - Is the argument VALID? Yes. - How do you know that the argument is VALID? Well, if it WERE true that "My name is Wyatt" and that "If my name is Wyatt, then my name starts with a W", then it WOULD HAVE TO BE true that "My name starts with W". - Is the argument SOUND? Yes. - How do you know that the argument is SOUND? Well, you know the argument is VALID (see above for how), and you know that all of the premises ACTUALLY ARE true because you know that my name ACTUALLY IS Wyatt and that it IS ACTUALLY true that if my name is Wyatt, then my name starts with W. Now, consider this argument: 1. My name is Travis, 2. If my name is Travis, then my name starts with T. Conclusion: My name starts with T. - Is the argument VALID? Yes. - How do you know that the argument is VALID? Well, if it WERE true that "My name is Travis" and that "If my name is Travis, then my name starts with a T", then it WOULD HAVE TO BE true that "My name starts with T". - Is the argument SOUND? No. - How do you know that the argument is NOT SOUND? Well, it IS NOT ACTUALLY true that my name is Travis, so NOT all of the premises ARE ACTUALLY true. How about this argument: 1. My name is Wyatt, 2. If my name is Wyatt, then my name starts with T. Conclusion: My name starts with T. - Is the argument VALID? Yes. - How do you know that the argument is VALID? Well, if it WERE true that "My name is Wyatt" and that "If my name is Wyatt, then my name starts with a T", then it WOULD HAVE TO BE true that "My name starts with T". - Is the argument SOUND? No. - How do you know that the argument is NOT SOUND? Well, it IS NOT ACTUALLY true that “If my name is Wyatt, then my name starts with a T”, so NOT all of the premises ARE ACTUALLY true. Finally, consider this argument: 1. My name starts with W. 2. If my name is Wyatt, then my name starts with W. Conclusion: My name is Wyatt. - Is the argument VALID? No. - How do you know that the argument is NOT VALID? Well, even if it WERE true that "My name starts with W" and "If my name is Wyatt, then my name starts with W", it WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE true that "My name is Wyatt". (My name could be Wyatt, but it could also be any other name which starts with W, like Wallace.) - Is the argument SOUND? No. - How do you know that the argument is NOT SOUND? Well, you know the argument is NOT VALID (see above for how), - Note that the argument is NOT SOUND even though it IS ACTUALLY TRUE that "My name starts with W" and "If my name is Wyatt, then my name starts with W". In other words, if an argument is NOT VALID, it is NOT SOUND even if all of the premises ARE ACTUALLY true. What, according to Anderson, is morally wrong with de factosegregation? How does the spatial mismatch hypothesis help her show that segregation is morally wrong? Explain Himma’s thesis; what is the ‘middle of the road’ view that Himma endorses with respect to affirmative action, and how does he argue for that view? According to the Boxills, what is the major upshot of backward-looking arguments? Why have philosophers objected to backward-looking arguments, and how does their account avoid those objections? Using some analogies, what is Boonin’s unjust enrichment principle? What are these analogies ultimately supposed to show about the unjust enrichment principle, and about reparations? What is Fullinwider’s thesis? According to Fullinwider, who has to pay reparations on his view, why do they have to pay them, and what do reparations accomplish? Explain the difference between Jus ad Bellum, andJus in Bello. Which is McMahan concerned with in his paper and why? Please explain, in detail, how his examples illustrate that the justification for preventative war is hard to obtain. What does Walzer mean when he says ‘War is Hell’? Are there any substantial ways to alleviate the hells of war? What is the analogy from Ramsey that Walzer considers, and why does Walzer find it unsatisfactory? Using the doctrine of double effect, please explain (1) why Anscombe thought that Truman was a murderer, and (2) why pacifism is a false doctrine. In which principles does Rawls invoke the distinction between leaders/soldiers/ citizens, and why does he invoke this distinction? ...
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors