Some Review Questions:

The following are sets of study questions on several of the readings from the second part of the semester.  They are intended as aids to help you prepare for the exam.  They should serve as guides as you review the readings from the course.  Studying this sheet is no substitute for doing the readings!  The questions will help you see what issues you need to focus on, but you will need to consult the articles themselves in order to do well on the exam.

Remember, you also need to review Brave New World, Bacon’s “Great Instauration,” and Twain’s Connecticut Yankee for the exam.

 Sandel, Saletan and Savulescu:

Saletan thinks Sandel’s objection to genetic engineering (and other similarly bold technologies) is rooted in the fact that some of today’s norms, like a sense of the importance of “giftedness,” oppose it. He finds this sort of criticism to be “incoherent,” for norms change and today’s concern with “giftedness” may simply disappear tomorrow. Once we have a bit of genetic engineering, people will live and think differently. “The old fogeys will die out, and new norms will solidify,” he says. Of course this is true: the future will be different from the past. A harder question is knowing whether this is all there was to Sandel.  The hardest and most important question is knowing whether all we can say about a future with genetic engineering is that it will be different: Can we not say also whether it will be better or worse? Should we not try?

Savulescu’s short piece is especially excited about the importance of cybrids, which he thinks Sandel would oppose. Why is he so strongly in favor of creating cybrid embryos, and why does he see no moral problems with doing so? [Simple answer: He thinks research on cybrids will save lives, and he thinks the moral issue can be avoided by not letting any such cybrids develop, by not trying to develop them into for reproduction. [His emphasis on saving lives as the absolutely key question is an illustration of the sort of reasoning Levin thinks typical of an age dominated by modern science; Levin would grant that lives are very important, but he fears this single and simple emphasis will drive out all other important considerations.]

Bill Joy: “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us:" What are “GNR” technologies?  Why does Joy believe that they pose a unique risk to mankind?  Recall his comparisons with the WMD of the 20th Century; why are the new technologies even more worrisome?  What is a “molecular assembler,” and what is the “gray goo” problem to which it might give rise?

Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth: How does Gore convey the message that global warming 1) has already reached very serious levels, and 2) has anthropogenic causes? What was his best evidence in support of these conclusions? His least good evidence? What did Gore propose be done about this problem?

Eric Cornell, "What was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell:" Eric Cornell argues that scientists should act to keep intelligent design from being taught in classrooms as science. He also thinks scientists should be careful not to get involved in questions of religion or “values,” or, rather, that they should make it plain that their involvement is not based on their capacity as scientists. How does he draw this sharp line between science on the one hand and religion and values on the other, and why does he think it so important that it not be crossed? [Big question: Since other of our authors, like Pinker and, in his own way, perhaps even Socrates, think that science does have implications for religion and ethics, whom do you this is more right, and why?]

See also: http://engscisoc.pbwiki.com/A+comment+on+Cornell

Tom Wolfe, “I’m Sorry, Your Soul Just Died:” Wolfe claims that Nietzsche was right to think that “the death of God” came with dangerous consequences, and he thinks the “death of the soul” – note the title of his essay – will also have revolutionary consequences. What in his view is threatening to bring about this “death of the soul,” and why or how does he think it is doing so? How would he defend his view against Pinker, who seems quite content to see the idea of “soul” ridiculed? How is his implied view of the relationship between science and values different from that of Cornell? (Or, more simply, how does Wolfe think that modern neuroscience is changing our conception of individual responsibility?)

Steven Pinker: “The Fear of Determinism”: Pinker argues, contra Wolfe, that the discoveries of neuroscience will not undermine the idea of human responsibility.  He claims that neuroscience does not create a new problem, and that the idea of personal responsibility can be made consistent with the way that neuroscience understands human beings.  Why does Pinker think that neuroscience does not pose a new problem?  And upon what does he base his defense of the notion of personal responsibility?

Aristophanes, Clouds: Why does Strepsiades approach Socrates?  When he approaches him, what is Socrates doing?  What unconventional beliefs does Socrates teach?  What takes place in the exchange between Just Speech and Unjust Speech?  How does each defend his position?  What effect does Socrates’ education have on Pheidippides?  Why does Pheidippides beat his father?  How does Strepsiades react when Pheidippides beats him?

Plato, Apology of Socrates:

What charges were brought against Socrates? How does he respond to them? (Does he defend himself well? How or how not?) What does he present as the most important features of the life he lived? How was he different from most or all other Athenians? Did he represent any sort of threat to Athens, or was his rationalism harmless? Did Athens represent any sort of threat to his philosophic investigations?