Midterm

Here is your midterm. I'm 90% certain I won't make any changes...(Sorry, Descartes...)

Part 1:
Any basic vocabulary and concepts we've covered so far in class. These will be one or two sentence answers.  Please avoid the machine-gun approach (i.e., be concise).

Part 2:  Paragraph Answers (Not Essay). You should be able to answer each in no more that 5 sentences. Point form is OK.
Section A:  Epistemology (Choose any 3)

1. Locke asks, if ideas are innate why don't children have them? A rationalist can reply to Locke's by saying we don't access a priori knowledge until we reach the age of reason. (a) What is Locke's counter-reply? (It's another dilemma). (b) Explain how one horn of the dilemma (your choice) undermines the Rationalist reply.

2. Kant makes two main criticisms against Empiricism (Locke).  In the first he argues that Locke is right about how ideas get into our head but empiricism can't explain how we come to know things like "a straight line is the shortest distance between two points." (a) Why does Kant think empiricism can't explain how we know things like "a straight line is the shortest distance between two points", "every effect has a cause", and "7+5=12". (Hint: this has to do with necessary truths being a prior).

3.  (a) According to Goldman, what is a required for a belief to be justified (a sentence or two should suffice)?  (b) According to current-time-slice theorists, what is required for a belief to be justified (a sentence or two should suffice)?  (c) What is the key difference between current time slice theorists and process reliablists?

4.  (a) In a sentence, what is Descartes' main project?  (b) What is the method of doubt and why does Descartes employ it rather than some other method?  (c) What category of beliefs does the dream argument undermine and which category does it leave unscathed?

5. (a) Briefly summarize the argument for innate ideas. (b) What is the dilemma Locke uses against this argument. (c) Explain how one horn of the dilemma (your pick) undermines the argument for innate ideas.

Section B:  Meta-Ethics  (Choose any 3)
1.  (a) Explain the "old" argument from disagreement/relativity.  (b) Why is this argument weak?  (c) How does Mackie strengthen this line of argument with his argument from relativity (i.e., what is Mackie's complete argument from relativity)?

2.  (a) Give Mackie's 2 general arguments from queerness that are also covered in Smith (not the arguments about internalism and property relations).  (b) Why does Mackie think all forms of realism are susceptible to the epistemic argument?  (c) How does Smith respond to both (queerness) arguments?

3.  (a) Explain Glaucon's historical account of why people act justly.  (b) What of the 3 major meta-ethical positions we've studied is implied by his account?  (c) In the context of his debate with Plato, what is Glaucon's historical account intended to show?

4.  (a) Present Plato's Euthyphro argument.  (b) What is it purported to show? (c) What is it not intended to show?

5.  (a) What is the convergence claim?  (b) What 3 arguments does Smith give to support the convergence claim.

6.  In 2 sentences summarize cultural relativism.  What are the 3 criticisms Rachels makes against cultural relativism.

Part 3:  

In the last paragraph of p. 464 in the Smith article, Mackie's argument from relativity is interpreted as a pessimistic meta-induction (i.e., there will never be moral agreement) while Smith makes what can be interpreted as an optimistic meta-induction (i.e., the convergence claim). Smith then says that, eventually, whichever argument is right will be decided empirically—it's just too early to tell right now. Who do you think will eventually turn out to be right? Justify your answer (try to limit yourself to 2 paragraphs--I'm looking for quality, not quantity). Where appropriate use concrete examples to illustrate your points.