The final exam will be held on Wednesday March 19 at 10:30 AM in Miller 301.


            Please answer all questions completely, but concisely.  Answer in complete sentences.  In preparing for the exam, you are encouraged to discuss these questions with other members of the class, and to discuss what the relevant considerations would be in answering them.  However, each student is expected to develop his/her own answers to the questions.  You should not discuss the wording of an answer or attempt to come up with an agreed upon answer.  If you draft answers to the questions, you should not show your draft answers to others, nor should you read or copy someone else's draft answers.  Final Exams will be available for pick-up during the first week of spring quarter in the Philosophy Department Office, Savery 361.  If you would like your Final Exam mailed to you, please bring a sufficiently large, stamped, self-addressed envelope to the Final Exam and insert it inside your blue book.


Review guide


The following questions test your knowledge of the topics and ideas discussed in this course.  Some questions also ask you to take a position.  To get full credit on the opinion questions you need to clearly explain your opinion in a way that shows that you have seriously considered the views of at least one author with whom you disagree.




1.  Explain and distinguish the following terms.  You may use examples to do so.

a)       domestic justice/global justice

b)      utilitarian/social contract/libertarian theory of justice

c)       liberal society/decent hierarchical society (Rawls)

d)      domestic difference principle/global difference principle

e)       Negative duty/positive duty

f)        Resource privilege/borrowing privilege/Aid privilege

g)       Resource curse/borrowing curse/Aid curse

h)      Token benefits and costs/type benefits and costs

i)        Utopian social engineering/piecemeal democratic reform (Easterly, from Karl Popper)

j)        Humanitarian aid/development aid

k)      Absolute right/presumptive right

l)        Strong deontic view/complex deontic view concerning the right to freedom of association

m)    Brute luck/option luck

n)      “community of fate” as understood by Held/as understood by Kymlicka

o)      Global/mixed/parochial citizenship

p)      Subjective/objective universality of human rights norms (or any other moral norms)

q)      Descriptive cultural relativism about morality/normative cultural relativism about morality



2.  Each of the following authors represents a certain kind of moral view as applied to international justice.  For each, identify the kind of moral view and why the author’s view is an illustration of it.

(a) Peter Singer;

(b) Charles Beitz;

(c) Thomas Pogge;

(d) David Schmidtz.


3.  What is your view on international justice?  In your answer, explain your view by reference to the author in the previous question whose view is closest to yours.  If none of the four authors in the previous question has a view close to your own, explain how and why your view differs from theirs.


WEEK #1:


1.  Explain Singer’s example of the drowning child.  In class, we distinguished two kinds of bottom-up moral reasoning, undermining reasoning and supporting reasoning.  Use Singer’s example of the drowning child to illustrate both kinds of bottom-up moral reasoning.


2.  In his article in which he discussed the example of the drowning child, Singer proposes two principles, a weaker one and a stronger one.  State the two principles.  Use an example to explain the difference between them.


WEEK #2: 


1.  Why does Rawls base his theory of justice on hypothetical agreement in the original position (OP) rather than actual agreement in the real world?  Explain the OP in which the parties represent individual people.  Explain the OP in which the parties represent states or nations.  Which OP does John Rawls use in his theory of international justice?  Why?  Which OP does Charles Beitz use in his theory of international justice?  Why? Why is it correct for Beitz to describe his theory of international justice as “radical”? 


2.  Rawls’s theory of domestic justice contains 2 principles.  We divided the second principle into two parts.  Name and explain briefly the first principle and each part of the two parts of the second principle.  


3.  Why does Charles Beitz think that ownership of natural resources raises an issue of international justice?  Why does Beitz think that the globalization of trade raises an issue of international justice?


4.  On Rawls’s theory, what conditions must a non-liberal hierarchical society satisfy in order to be decent?


5.  What does Alison Jaggar mean by “cycles of gendered vulnerability”?  Give two examples.  Why does she think that these cycles of gendered vulnerability are problems of international justice, rather than just problems of domestic justice? 


6.  Explain why in the OP in which the parties represent states or nations we would NOT expect there to be a consensus that discrimination against women is wrong.  Explain why in the OP in which the parties represent individuals we would expect there WOULD be a consensus that, at least, most discrimination against women is wrong. 




WEEK #3: 


1.  What is the Purely Domestic Poverty Thesis (PDPT)?  Does Pogge agree with it?  Why or why not?


2.  Thomas Pogge argues that the international order harms the world’s poor.  Explain why to make such an argument one must specify a baseline for comparison.  What are the three possibilities for specifying a baseline that we discussed in class?  Explain why the first two raise problems for Pogge’s position.


3.  Explain David Schmidtz’s example of Tragic Commons.  Note that Schmidtz is not claiming that providing food to starving children will motivate other parents to starve their children.  So, what is the point of the example?  Explain Schmidtz’s Van Gogh in the Lake example.  What is the point of the example?  If you were in that situation, would you throw the Van Gogh into the lake?  Explain. 


4.  State how each of the authors listed would answer the following question and briefly explain why:  Should rectifying existing trade rules and regulations that now favor the richer nations so that they would favor poorer nations instead be considered providing assistance, preventing harm, or both?

(a) Thomas Pogge;

(b) David Schmidtz;

(c) Your opinion.


WEEK #4: 


1.  Explain the concept of moral hazard, and how it might relate to global poverty relief.


2.  What does Leif Wenar call “The Donor’s Question”?  Why does he think it is a difficult question to answer?  What is Wenar’s Iron Law of Political Economy?  Why does it make the Donor’s Question more difficult?


3.  What is the goal of the UN Millenium Development Project advocated by Jeffrey Sachs?  Why is Sachs confident that we can reach that goal?


4.  What forms of aid does William Easterly oppose and what kinds does he support?  Explain why. 


5.  What forms of aid does Dambisa Moyo oppose and what forms does she support?  Explain why.  What does Moyo mean by:  “No representation without taxation”?  Moyo lists ten problems with the kind of aid she opposes.  Which of the ten do you regard as the most serious?  Explain.  How could this problem best be addressed?  Explain.  Is Moyo arguing that Africa is poor because African people are incapable of entrepreneurial activity or incapable of democratic governance?  Explain.  Why does Moyo praise Muhammed Yunus and the Grameen Bank?


6.  Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn highlight the fact that fixing problems such as lack of education does not always depend on solutions we think of as educational; often the connection is indirect.  For example, building schools and providing scholarships have a direct connection to promoting education.  List three of the indirect ways to “invest in education” and explain why they make a difference in some contexts.


7.  In your opinion, do wealthy nations and/or the citizens of wealthy nations have a moral responsibility to act to reduce and ameliorate world poverty?  Explain.  Regardless of your answer to the previous question, in your opinion, what would be the best strategy for reducing and ameliorating world poverty?  Explain.


WEEK #5: 


1.  What does Joseph Carens mean by a “feudal privilege”?  (In your answer, give at least one example.)  Why does he believe that restrictions on immigration are analogous to laws that protect feudal privileges?


1.  Explain why Carens thinks that the following views all support open borders, or at least, much less restriction on immigration than currently exists (at least as an ideal):  (a) libertarianism; (b) utilitarianism; (c) social contract theory.


3.  Why does Christopher Wellman believe that marriage is relevant to immigration policy? 

Christopher Wellman argues for a presumptive group right to freedom of association.  What does ‘presumptive’ mean?


4.  Michael Blake suggests two options for interpreting a presumptive right to freedom of association. Explain each.  On which alternative would the right to freedom of association be a trump right?  Use the role of trumps in card games to explain what a trump right is.  In his article, Michael Blake refers to two Supreme Court cases:  Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) and Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale (2000).  Does Blake refer to those two cases because he thinks that the court decided both of them correctly?  If so, explain why he thinks the court decided both of them correctly.  If not, explain why he refers to those two cases.


5.  Why does Carens think that there should be a time limit (like a statute of limitations) on enforcement of laws against illegal immigration?  What does Carens believe the time limit should be?  Do you agree?  If so, explain why.  If not, explain why not.


WEEK #6: 


1.  Stephen Gardiner calls climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions a “perfect moral storm” because he sees it as the convergence of three moral storms.  (a) Name the three moral storms.  (b) Briefly explain each.


2.  (a) What is a Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) [or a collective action problem]?  (b) What is the normal solution to a ToC?  (c) Why does the global storm show problems with this usual solution to the problem of climate change?  (d) How does the intergenerational storm exacerbate this problem?"  


3.  Peter Singer identifies four potential responses to the problem of climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions.  [He also discusses a fifth alternative, property rights, but he dismisses it as not an adequate response.]  (a) Which one does he favor?  Explain.  (b) What approach do you favor (not necessarily one of Singer’s four alternatives?


4.  Explain why Gardiner believes that the use of a 5% discount rate to discount the costs of climate change on future generations shows a moral problem with this kind of cost-benefit analysis. 


5.  (a) Explain why, even though he believes that climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions may well cause millions of deaths in the future, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong does not think that we cause anyone any harm if we drive gas-guzzling SUVs.  (b) Sinnott-Armstrong concludes that even if climate change may cause millions of deaths, it is not wrong for any of us to drive a gas-guzzling SUV.  Do you agree?  If so, respond to the strongest objection to your position.  If not, respond to the strongest argument Sinnott-Armstrong makes against your view.


WEEK #7:


1. (a) What kinds of acts does the International Criminal Court have jurisdiction over?  (b) Does it have jurisdiction over any such acts committed anywhere in the world?  Explain.


2.  Suppose that the Russian incursion into Ukraine becomes a military invasion involving the use of force.  (a) Is it reasonable to believe that the United Nations will take action to oppose the act of aggression?  Explain.  (b) Is it reasonable to believe that the International Criminal Court will take action to oppose this act of aggression?  Explain.  (c) Suppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine had taken place in February 2017 and that in January 2017 the International Criminal Court had adopted a definition of “aggression” that applied to the Russian invasion, would it be reasonable to believe that the International Criminal Court would take action to oppose the act of aggression?  Explain.  (d) What kind of institution would you recommend, if any, to deal with acts of aggression of this kind?  Explain. 


3.  Jamie Mayerfeld lists several differences in the US and the European Union response to 9/11/2001 with respect to the use of torture.  (a) Describe two of these differences.  (b) According to Mayerfeld, what is an important factor responsible for the differences?  Explain.


4. (a) Suppose Bill Gates hires an army of mercenaries and uses it to intervene to stop genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity whenever such acts occur anywhere in the world.  Would Michael Blake find this morally objectionable?  Explain.  (b) Suppose that instead of his mercenary army, Bill Gates funds the Gates Foundation Criminal Court in Seattle and hires mercenaries to arrest perpetrators of genocide, war, crimes, and crimes against humanity (when there is no other court with jurisdiction over them) to bring them to Seattle for trial and, if they are found guilty, for punishment in the Gates Foundation Prison for International Criminals.  Would Michael Blake find this morally objectionable?  Explain. 


5.  In your opinion, should the US ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC?  Explain why, being sure to respond to the strongest argument against your view that we have considered. 


WEEK #8:


1. (a) In our discussion of world government, we discussed three authors, Peter Singer, David Held, and Will Kymlicka.  What kind of citizenship does each of them favor?  Explain.


2. (a) What does “cosmopolitan” mean?  (b) What does Held mean by “cosmopolitan democracy”?  (c) Why does Kymlicka oppose Held’s proposal of a cosmopolitan democracy?


3.  What is state sovereignty?  Why does Held believe that globalization has made state sovereignty and state power much less relevant?  Why does Kymlicka disagree?


WEEK #9:


1. (a) What is the cultural imperialism argument?  (Hint:  What is its starting point and what is its conclusion?) (b) Why is that argument incoherent? (Hint:  Why is its conclusion inconsistent with its starting point?)


2. (a) Both Lee and Mutua give cultural values priority over human rights.  Explain why.  (b) How would Nussbaum respond to both of them?  Which side of the argument do you agree with?  Explain.


3. (a) What is paternalistic intervention?  (b) Explain why Lee Kwan Yew’s political philosophy is paternalistic.  In your answer, give two examples of his policies that are paternalistic. 


4. Why does Mutua object to the individualism of most human rights documents?


5.  Explain why Nussbaum rejects each of the following as a standard for human rights:  (a) GNP per person; (b) total or average utility; (c) resources (e.g., Rawls’s primary goods).


6.  Give an example of one of Nussbaum’s central human capabilities that is not included on previous lists of human rights and explain it.  Do you believe that it should be included as a human right?  Explain.