Study Guide: Final Test

The final test is Monday, December 8,in our regular classroom. The following are some general guidelines, but on the test be sure you answer the exact question asked rather than a pre-prepared response, and base your answers on the readings. A good answer will use your own words rather than just repeat what an author says. No notes.

  1. Explain what moral realism and pacifism have in common that is rejected by Walzer's just war theory.
  2. A theme in Walzer’s treatment of rules for moral behavior in war (even a just war) is a rejection of both a purely utilitarian approach and a rejection of absolute rules. Explain.
  3. Explain how "terrorism" can be defined factually rather than normatively so that one can label an action as terrorism and still ask whether the action might be morally justifiable. How does this oppose the general rhetorical statement that "one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter"? Whether you agree with it or not, make sense of the following claim: "Palestinian suicide bombers are terrorists, but their action is morally appropriate; Israeli assassination attacks are not terrorist but are morally blameworthy for another reason [state what the reason might be]?"
  4. Walzer begins with the claim that the issue of ethical behavior in war (jus in bello) is independent of the question of whether the war itself is just (jus ad bellum). How would the "sliding scale" revise it in a different way? (Discussed in class; also in Walzer, pp.229-232) What is Walzer’s own position, different from the sliding scale but also rejecting utilitarianism and absolute, unbreakable rules in war? How does the example of Churchill's use of the Bomber Command against German cities illustrate Walzer's position? How does it compare to Nagel's "moral blind alley"? [See index if you forget; also discussed in class.]
  5. What is Walzer's position on the moral responsibility of civilian officials and ordinary civilians when a country commits war crimes? Why might we (students and teachers) in the United States have a special responsibility, according to Walzer?
  6. What is Walzer's position on the moral responsibility of commanders and ordinary soldiers when war crimes are committed? Apply this to the situation of the soldiers in My Lai, based on the film (if we see it).
  7. Be prepared to apply concepts and principles to the current war in Iraqor Afghanistanor to a newspaper article dealing with current events in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  8. Be prepared to put an ethical claim in "one clear sentence" and then discuss it. You may be asked, for example, to highlight 2 or 3 ethical claims made by an author that you found especially interesting on one of the important subjects. You would probably be given some choice of subject. Part of the question would be testing your ability to recognize and formulate an ethical claim from the readings in one clear sentence before discussing it.
  9. Along with question 8, be prepared to show that you understand the difference between factual and ethical claims or questions. For example, you might be asked what factual and what ethical questions President Bush or President Obama would have to answer in order to make certain policy decisions.
  10. What ethical arguments can be offered for pacifism? What do you think are Cady's most interesting ethical claims? Why does Walzer oppose pacifism?
  11. How does Cady think that seeing pacifism as a “continuum” helps make the case for pacifism?
  12. What do you consider the 2 or 3 strongest objections to pacifism that Cady discusses. How does he respond? Do you think he offers a sound response? Are there any criticisms of pacifism that you would make that you think he fails to respond to?
  13. (If we see this film) What ethical questions do you think were raised in the film, Paradise Now? Which character’s views did you think were ethically the most appropriate? Why? Which character’s views did you find most morally objectionable? Why?

Do you think the creator of Paradise Now conveys his own point of view on the main ethical issue in the film? What do you take that view to be and what in the film makes you believe that?

  1. Possible test question: formulate your own question and answer it. You will be judged on both the question and the answer. (The more interesting, probing, and less obvious the question, the better.)