Exam Review

Your exam will be consist of maybe one or two short answer questions, and one long
essay question. The short question(s) will be related to definitions and formal arguments
as discussed on your logic handout. The long essay question will be taken from among
the following review questions.

1. Pojman presents a case for Ethical Objectivism (EO). What is EO? What are the two
primary arguments he presents to defend EO? Why does he think it necessary to present
not one, but two arguments for Ethical Objectivism in his essay? Which one of these
arguments does he personally find more persuasive and why?

2. What is Glaucon’s core argument for the origin of justice? How does he use the myth
of the Ring of Gyges to support this argument?

3. Explain the distinction between Psychological Egoism (PE) and Ethical Egoism (EE).
What are the first two arguments that Feinberg evaluates that are given to defend PE?
How does Feinberg go about critically evaluating these first two arguments? Present an
ordered and detailed discussion of his analysis of these two arguments in terms of
validity, truth, and soundness.

4. In an attempt to get to the heart of how normative claims function in the English
language, A.J. Ayer distinguishes between several different types of propositions—viz.
analytic, synthetic, and emotive. He ultimately uses these distinctions to argue that
“Moral judgments have no truth value.” He does this by putting forth his “Argument
from the Verification Criterion.” Using the above distinctions, present and critically
discuss Ayer’s Argument from the Verification Criterion in detail. Note: Do not forget the
importance of his so called ‘verifiability principle’ and its role in his argument.

5. Explain the distinction between Emotivism and Subjectivism.

6. Using the traditional ethical concepts of the morally right, the morally wrong, and the
morally obligatory, divine command theorists define a relationship between God’s
commands and morality in a manner that brings them to conclude, “If there is no God,
then everything is permitted.” Explain carefully how this conclusion is arrived at by
divine command theorists and why it necessarily follows from their principles.