This study guide is a guide, not a contract.  All the material in the text, reader, and lectures is fair game, regardless of whether it is explicitly mentioned here.  But this guide does honestly tell you what I consider most important.

The exam will be closed-book. It will consist entirely of definitions and essay questions. You will have a good deal of choice in the questions, although choice will be inversely proportional to the importance of the topic.

If you have the time, it is often useful to include information surrounding the core answer. Please note, however, that this does not mean a "data dump". Irrelevant information simply tells me that you've memorized lots of stuff, not that you understand the subject of the question.

To study efficiently:

• Check the syllabus to see what we've covered.
• Review the online notes I've posted on the various topics. But be aware that these are just my ad hoc efforts to summarize what I plan to say. They aren't necessarily complete.
• You are responsible for all assigned readings, regardless of whether they are covered in class. But (a) the readings / topics covered in class are the ones I consider the most important and thus most suitable for testing, and (b) you cannot be expected to have the same depth of understanding of those readings / topics we don't cover in class.

Here are some good questions to study.  Note that this list will be extended as we move along through the readings.

• RAWLS
  • Definitions:
    • primary goods
    • basic structure
    • original position
    • veil of ignorance
    • difference principle
    • "system of rights compatible with a like system for all"
    • "offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity"
    • maximin criterion
    • "comprehensive doctrines" (of the good)
    • overlapping consensus
    • life plans
    • utilitarianism
    • "efficiency" (as applied to/within Rawls's theory)
  • Questions:
    • Text, p.13 (qs. 1, 2 & 3)
    • Text, pp.16-17 (qs. 2 & 3).
    • One of the objections to Rawls's theory is that it is unrealistic to expect people committed to a particular comprehensive moral doctrine (say, the doctrine of some rabidly fundamentalist religious sect) to adopt a sense of justice that might inhibit them from running society according to the principles of that doctrine. Evaluate this objection.
    • Rawls says in A Theory of Justice that envy is not a moral emotion. This denies that there is any virtue in equality per se. Even if I am in the worst off position, my only concern is doing as well as possible, not in being envious that others are doing better than me. Thus "equality" is not taken to be a "basic good". Is this a weakness in Rawls's scheme? Can he rescue himself by referring to his inclusion of "self-respect" in the list of basic goods?
    • A similar question can be asked about social solidarity. In Rawls's scheme, he seems to maintain the classical liberal view of human beings as independent contracting agents. So feelings of social solidarity don't appear in his list of basic goods. Is this fair? After all, this would seem to put all forms of socialism out of court right from the start, since it ignores one of their basic senses of how a good life is conducted. Or can Rawls rescue himself by including something like solidarity in his list of goods?
    • Why does Rawls need a concept of basic goods?  Through what objective or at least neutral method can we come up with a list of them?
    • Looking at the list of basic goods Rawls does use, are they neutral with respect to life plans / senses of the good?
    • Rawls says his theory applies to a "well-ordered society".  What things go into making a society well-ordered?  What importance does the concept have for his theory?  (In other words, why demand something that makes his theory even more unrealistic?)
• ARNESON
  • Questions:
    • What is the objection Arneson cites (the so called "Nagel-Schwartz objection")?
• HARSANYI
  • Questions:
    • What is Harsanyi's objection to Rawls's logic? Your explanation should include something that gives a sense of your own attitude toward this objection.
• KEKES
  • Questions:
    • What is Kekes's objection to Rawls's logic? Your explanation should include something that gives a sense of your own attitude toward this objection.
• NOZICK
  • Questions: