Exam #2 Review Sheet The “final” exam will have two sections. The first will be short answer questions – answerable inroughly 4-5 sentences. You will choose to answer 5 of 8 such questions. The third section will bean essay question – answerable in roughly 4-5 paragraphs. You will choose to answer 1 of 2 suchquestions. In general, you should be able to summarize the basic arguments of the articles we’ve read since the midterm (from famine to war), as well as know how to object to those arguments, and how the authors might respond. The final is NOT cumulative; there’s no direct material on it involving topics from before the midterm. In addition to the above, you should be able to: 1. Identify Singer’s principle of aid and its implications 1. Suffering and death from lack of food is (morally) bad.2. If we can prevent bad without comparable sacrifice, we ought to do so3. It is in our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food and shelterC: We ought to help people that suffer from lack of food and shelter.HI first claim is pretty uncontroversial.The third claim seems true but there are disagreements with this.The focus is on claim 2.Implications:If you adopt claim 2 it brings on a whole set of obligations.- Ex: If there is a child drowning in a pond and you are walking by it would be obvious that you wade in and putt out the child. It would not matter if this ruins your shoes etc. By doing this you would not have to give up anything of comparable significance (being late to class, ruining your shoes, etc. are not excuses) this is analogous of famine cases.It does not matter how many other people are also around to help.- Even if there are 100 people on the mall, it does not make any one person less obligated to save the child. This is analogous of there being numerous people that can also give aid tofamine relief. There being many people that can also help does not mean that you do not have to give aid. It just means there are a lot of people obligated to give aid.Obligations are not dependent on location.- Ex: you are on the mall watching a kid drown in a video. The kid is 10,000 miles away butthere is a lever you can push and this will save the child. It is in your means to prevent this child’s death. This is analogous of writing a check to help a child across the world. Just because there is distance between you and those suffering from famine does not mean your obligation is anything less.How morally dependent is someone to prevent bad things?- Singer says that you only have to keep helping until your standard of living is equal or worse than those you are trying to help. Or until you have to give up something morally significant. 2. Explain Hardin’s “lifeboat” metaphor and his “ratcheting effect”.“Lifeboat” metaphor is you have a lifeboat of 50 and then there is 100 swimmers in the water asking for permission to come to your boat. What do you do? Your boat has only has a carryingcapacity of 10 more people. Essentially we will be jeopardizing everyone. We ought not to send aid until we see the population can control their population size.Ex: We (the country without famine) are on the lifeboat. We pull a person (from the country with famine) out of the water. Unchecked population growth is going to require more and more resources. Eventually we will all be in the water. Ratchet effect – Famine is nature’s correction process. Famine happens when the population becomes too large and nature cannot supply food to everyone. So people will die then nature cansupport everyone. If we help the nation in famine, the population will grow, but nature still will not be able to support them. Therefore, we will have to continually give them resources and there population will keep growing. 3. Identify and explain the four reasons Nielsen gives for thinking we are not nearing the Earth’s carrying capacity. 1.We do not know what the earth’s carrying capacity is.There can be technological advancements, we are always getting better at growing more for less money, 2.Crop choices.Less than half the amount of arable land is not being used for food production.3.Land UseA huge percentage of the land is governed by a small percentage of the people. 4.Economic choices/ cash crop system.You need to maximize profit on the airable land. Get rid of cash crops, example = tobacco. Then we’d be able to grow more food that people could use. Sources of famine our socio-economic, how we structure our market. 4. Distinguish between positive rights and negative rights, with examples. Negative rights are protections, verse others. Rights that protect you.Ex: freedom from violent crime, and right to property.Positive rights are entitlementsEx: right to education, right to public offender 5. Identify and explain the implications of Hospers’ libertarianism. What sorts of governmental programs would be unjustified? Hospers defense of Libertarianism.1.Governments sole purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens.2.There are only negative rights (protections against interference)3. Government is there to protect us from interference of others – only duties of forbearanceThe governments purpose is to protect citizens rights. That is the only appropriate function of government, to protect. The right to life, liberty and property.Hosper would say it is an overstepping of the government to tax, etc. If for anything other than protecting its citizens rights is stealing it. He would also say that censorship is unjustified.You cannot force someone to do something unless it interferes with others.6. Identify the values Nielsen takes socialism to promote better than capitalism and explain why. Socialism is public ownership of productive property. Leave private property untouched. Socialism is classless.Capitalism has 2 classes, owners and workers.Claims1.If an economic arrangement best sustains and furthers the values of freedoms, autonomy, equality, justice, rights and democracy, then we ought to adopt it.2. Socialism does just that.C. We ought to adopt socialism.Freedom and autonomy: interested in conceiving and pursuing life plans. Non-interference is only valuable to the extent that it aids our autonomy. Socialism will interfere less with someone’s autonomy than will a capitalism set-up (ex: controlled by owners). Socialism would increase the autonomy of the majority of society. Capitalism there is less owners. Socialism its more