True or false?

1. Epicurus is claiming that one is never too young or too old to seek wisdom and that true wisdom comes from fear of what follows death.

2. Epicurus is claiming that happiness is the only thing that finally matters when it comes to "the health of the soul"; we seek it in all of our actions and for young and old philosophy is the way to wisdom in what brings happiness.

B. While Epicurus placed a high value on friendship and the happiness of persons generally, he did not formulate the ethical altruistic version of hedonism that in the 19th century came to be known as utilitarianism. This school of ethical thought originated in Britain with the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The general principle of utility prescribes that each of us should strive to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In order for this to be accomplished, individuals must be prepared to sacrifice some pleasures so that others may have happier lives. The utilitarians were deeply committed to social action, especially to the reduction of suffering, a necessity if persons are to have a chance for genuine happiness.

Which is correct?

1. Utilitarianism is a version of hedonism and ethical egoism.

2. A utilitarian is a libertine.

3. Utilitarianism is a version of hedonism and ethical altruism.

C. During the Second World War the Nazis would come to a village and say something of the following sort: "We will shoot one of you every three hours until you identify the person in the village who blew up the bridge." But suppose that everyone in the village is innocent, despite the Nazis' unshakable certainty that someone in the village is guilty. The villagers know from previous occasions that the Nazi's will behave just as they say. What would a utilitarian say that the villagers should do in order to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number?

1. Remain silent and hope that the Nazis will grow tired of shooting people.

2. Repeatedly claim to be innocent even though every three hours the Nazis shoot one of them.

3. Pick someone to be "guilty," perhaps someone old and with a heart problem, so that the great majority of them will be saved.

D. Utilitarianism offers itself as an ethical rule for realizing the good in our actions. The problem which is demonstrated by the example of the Nazis and the villagers is that . . .

1. Utilitarians show regard for the pleasures of people in general but insufficient regard for their pains.

2. Utilitarians are prepared to do something morally wrong if it will create the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

3. Utilitarians show regard for the good of people in general but insufficient regard for individuals.

E. I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But they haven't. They have only had slightly different moralities. Just think what a quite different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud for double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to‹whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you oughtn't to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you mustn't simply have any woman you liked.

Which is correct?

In the above, Lewis is defending

1. . . . the view that all moral standards are culturally relative.

2. . . . the view that morality is at root a law of our humanity and not culturally relative.

3. . . . the view that a moral standard is at root both culturally relative and a law of human nature.

F. The laws of nature, as applied to stones or trees, may only mean "what Nature, in fact, does." But if you turn to the Law of Human Nature, the Law of Decent Behaviour, it's a different matter. That law certainly doesn't mean "what human beings, in fact, do"; for as I said before, many of them don't obey this law at all, and none of them obey it completely. The law of gravity tells you what stones do if you drop them; but the Law of Human Nature tells you what human beings ought to do, and don't. In other words, when you're dealing with humans, something else comes in above and beyond the actual facts. You have the facts (how men do behave) and you also have something else (how they ought to behave).

Which is correct?

1. The moral law is a law of nature in the sense that it describes the way human beings in fact behave.

2. The moral law is a law of human nature in the sense that it describes how some human beings in fact behave.

3. The moral law is a law of human nature in the sense that it prescribes how a fully human being ought to behave.

G. Something instrumentally good is good because it is a means to an end that is intrinsically good. Something is intrinsically good if it is either the thing or one of the things that gives life meaning. Which of the following statements is correct?

1. Hedonists believe that the only intrinsic good is living in accord with the moral law.

2. Theists believe that living in accord with the moral law is intrinsically good.

3. Hedonists believe that pleasure is the only thing intrinsically good.

4. Hedonists believe that painful expeiences may be instrumentally good.

H. Those who accept science as the vehicle to the whole truth about the world, see no reason to believe in any other reality, whether standing behind the empirical world, this world we have come to know through science, or within it in a way which science is unable to reveal. Those who believe that there is something real which stands behind the empirical world as its ground or some purposive order within the world which transcends the purposes of individual human beings have a religious view of the world.

Which is correct?

1. If you accept a scientific view of the world as a whole, this implies that you are a religious person.

2. If you accept the findings of science, then if you also believe in God you have contradictory beliefs.

3. Religion and science may well be compatible so long as neither alone is held to present the complete truth about the world.

I. Those who hold a religious view of the world divide into two groups: those who think that religion gives us the whole basic truth about the world, religious fundamentalists, and those who think that basic science (especially modern astrophysics and evolutionary biology) does give us part of the truth about the world, just not all.

Which is correct?

1. Religious fundamentalists accept scientific findings that the world is millions of years old.

2. Religious non-fundamentalists do not accept evolution as being part of the truth about the development of life on earth.

3. Religious fundamentalists and religious non-fundamentalists both believe in God but differ about the truth of the claims of modern astrophysics and evolutionary biology.

J. The fundamental evidence we have for the existence of God, according to Lewis is that there is a moral law within us which is not of our own making. This is not evidence available to science for we discover it only when we "introspect", look inside ourselves, and find this moral demand that we should love others. And if we do love others, we will have to be truthful, not steal, kill, covet, and so on. If this law is not of our own making, someone or something else, something like a mind, impresses the law upon us, challenging us to become fully human.

Which is most correct?

1. Lewis thinks that the best evidence for the existence of God is to be had by looking at the world around us.

2. Lewis thinks that the best evidence for the existence of God is the fact that we have a conscience.

3. Lewis thinks that the best evidence for the existence of God is that we find the moral law within us, a law which is not of our own making.

K. Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God. . . . I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.

According to Russell, what is wrong with the first-cause argument for the existence of God?

1. The idea that there is a first cause contradicts the idea that there is a cause for everything. (I.e. If there is a cause for everything, there can't be any first cause.)

2. If everything has a cause, then the world must have a cause.

3. Since not everything has a cause, nothing caused the world and nothing caused God.

L. The argument from design:

The world seems to be in every detail perfectly fitted for the lives of the creatures who live within it. (As a watch is perfectly fitted to the ordering of time.) So there must be an intelligent creator, responsible for this harmonious design.

"...since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it."

M. What does Russell think is the best explanation for the fact that living creatures and their environment seem to be so wonderfully fitted to each other?

1. The fit between living things and their environment is explained by the fact that life is beautiful.

2. The fit between living things and their environment is explained by the fact that such a fit is good and God created the world to be good.

3. The fit between living things and their environment is explained by the fact that the struggle for survival between species has simply left surviving those species which are able to live in the environment which surrounds them.

N. The argument from the moral law within:

This is Lewis's argument. The moral law is evidence of the existence of a being who wants us to be moral.

Russell's criticism: What is it that makes the law within us a moral law, that is, a truly good thing for us to strive for? Simply that God commands it? No, it is because the law represents something truly good that there is the demand that we follow it. So it is true goodness, not God, that is primarily responsible for the moral character of the moral law.

Which is or are correct?

1. Russell thinks that if the moral law in us is not of our own making, then it must be made by God.

2. Russell thinks that if God commands us to be good, it is goodness which claims our allegiance and not God; therefore the existence of the moral law does not imply the existence of God.

3. Russell thinks that it is God that makes the moral law moral.

O. According to the idealist, there are two different ways of conceiving of our being in death. On one view, we survive in death because we each have an immortal soul. On the second view, we survive in death as eternal beings. Which of the following statements are true .

1. An eternal being as such is immortal, i.e. lives on endlessly in time.

2. An immortal being lives on endlessly in time.

3. An eternal being is mortal, i.e. does not live on endlessly in time.

4. An eternal being is a timeless, changeless, being, i.e. what is true of it is true at all times, no matter when, no matter what.

P. The materialist answers the question: "What is death?" this way:
Death is the complete and final disfunction of the human organism followed by its physical disintegration. So death (mortality) is equivalent to perishing, at least once there is no one to remember us. Why does David Hume think that in all probability we have no immortal soul?

1. . . . because everything in us that has a mental or spiritual quality belongs to an immaterial substance.

2. . . . because, according to what our senses tell us, everything in us that has a mental or spiritual quality exists only as long as our bodies continue to function.

3. . . . because, according to what our senses tell us, we are eternal, if not immortal beings.

Q. Which of the following statements makes sense as a Humean reply to the claim that human beings are eternal.

1. We can't be eternal beings because death involves our material annihilation.

2. We can't be eternal beings because an eternal being is immortal and the body no longer functions when we die.

3. If it isn't the body that supports our being in death and it isn't an immaterial substance, a soul that supports it, our senses give us no evidence of anything which supports being in death no matter when, no matter what. (The best that could be said is that we "survive" as long as there is someone to remember us.)

R. What, according to the idealist, supports our eternal being in death?

1. the memory of others

2. the record of our lives in history

3. the record of our lives from the standpoint of the eternal truth of the moral law and the reality of our freedom in life.

S. A theist is someone who believes in God on the basis of what is thought to be good reasons or evidence for the belief. A fideist is someone for whom faith is a matter of expecting the good to be realized whatever in fact happens in the world. The theist believes only if she or he sees signs (evidence). The fideist anticipates that the good will be realized and, given power by faith, is able to see signs (manifestations). Which of the following statements are correct?

1. Throughout much of the first part of the film, Signs, Graham Hess acts like one who thinks that being religious is a matter of faith not belief.

2. Throughout much of the first part of the film, Signs, Graham Hess acts like one who thinks that being religious is a matter of belief not faith.

3. Merrill's attitude has become atheistic because of disappointments in life.

4. Despite his disappointment in life, Merrill is basically a person of faith who looks for encouragement from Graham.