THE COLLEGES OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY PHILOSOPHY MONDAY, 5 DECEMBER 2011 Time Allowed: 1 hour For candidates applying for

the joint school of Philosophy and Theology

Answer TWO questions ONLY, PART A and ONE QUESTION FROM PART B. Spend half an hour on each and do as much as you can within that time.

PART A 1. Read the following passage carefully, and then answer questions (a) and (b).

If it is discovered that torture has been officially used, or its use sanctioned, on suspected terrorists, then most peoples feeling is one of profound shame, moral shame at being part of a society that would allow such a thing to happen. No arguments based on the utility of the information thus acquired or the need to extract confessions and find culprits could weigh against this outrage. Whether we say there is a human right not to be tortured, or simply that it is profoundly morally wrong to subject anyone to torture, does not matter. What we immediately want is for the law to be made more explicit, the sanctions attached more severe, and the monitoring more scrupulous, so that torture can be stamped out. But I am more sceptical than I used to be about the extent that moral consensus exists or can be achieved, still less assumed. And this is perhaps the justification for introducing the concept of human rights. For the language of rights at least sounds objective, as if what was a right (or the violation of a right) could be established as a matter of agreed fact, not subject to variation or difference of opinion. It interweaves the law more closely into morality, perhaps for the benefit of both. Moreover the language of human rights is universal, the rights being derived from humanity itself, no matter of what society the human beings might be a part. (Mary Warnock)

a) What justification is suggested in the above passage for introducing the concept of human rights? b) Discuss any problems or difficulties inherent in the line of argument suggested in the passage.

TURN OVER 1

PART B

2.

Religious believers sometimes counter the claim that if there were a loving God, there would be no evil in the world, by pointing out various goods which may follow from those evils, such as compassion. Could there, then, be too little evil in the world?

3.

Does one need to believe in God in order to worship God?

4.

If there were only one religion, would anything important be lost?

END OF PAPER