For PHL 317: Ethics and Modern War there will be two objective tests. The first one will be at the half-way point of the class and will cover the material assigned during this period. The date for this midterm test is Thursday, October 6. The second one will occur during the final exam slot given by the registration center (Monday, December 12 at 2:30 p.m.). Each test will cover only material assigned during that half term. Each of the tests counts for forty points out of the total number of points accumulating for the term.
Not all assigned essays covered in each half term will be on the test. Dr. Kunkel will choose some assigned readings and eliminate others. The readings to be covered will be posted below on the class day prior to the test. So be sure to check out this link before studying for each test.
By objective tests two parts are meant. The larger part is statements that are true or false; if you mark them false you must explain why. These statements will be taken from material covered in class on the relevant essays. The professor is interested in whether or not you know the meaning of material that was covered. Statements are carefully crafted, and normally are not false on account of one word. If you are in doubt you may say false and explain what part of the statement bothers you. In this way you may get full credit even if you mark as false something that is true. If you mark the statement true the professor does not read any reasons you give for saying true. Again, the statements are only asking what a particular author thinks, not what you think or whether you agree with that author. These are tests on the content of the course.
Two examples: (PHL 317): Hobbes says the natural condition of human
beings is to be at peace with one another.
Just war doctrine allows the random killing of innocent civilians.
(*for answers see below)
The second part of the test (about 30 percent) is short answer material, such as definitions, examples of key concepts, or brief descriptions of some important ideas. Again these will be taken from concepts we fully discuss in class, but you need to be complete in responding. Incomplete answers will result in points being deducted, even if what you say is correct. So look at your notes to find out what to study for the exams.
If for a serious reason you are unable to take a test at the assigned time then contact Dr Kunkel, preferably in advance. Arrangements may be made for your taking the test at another time or location, or you may be asked to take an oral examination instead. An unexcused, skipped examination will result in a lowered course grade.
Posting of Test Material
The mid-term test is scheduled for Monday, December 12 at 2:30 p.m. The material for the test is as follows, with each of the five main segments being given relatively equal treatment in the test. Each segment is followed by study questions.
1) Kunkel, "Applying Morality to the Economic Sanctions on Iraq" (pdf file)
U.N. Security Council Resolution 661 authorized economic sanctions on Iraq four days after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. What was the purpose of these sanctions? Were there any exclusions? Who monitored these sanctions? Were they effective? The Gulf War began in mid-January 1991. Were the lives of ordinary Iraqi citizens affected by this war? How? After the war the sanctions were extended with Resolution 687 for what purpose? This resolution also authorized UNSCOM. Did this committee uncover any nuclear weapon facilities, and were such labs kept intact? On the economic front were adequate food and medicine supplies allowed into Iraq? Did innocent civilians die? What was the oil-for-food program, and when was it begun? How did it function? When were international aid organizations legally allowed in to provide humanitarian assistance? Had UNSCOM over the years up to 1998 found nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons? Were the sanctions ever lifted? What happened on the eve of President Clinton's impeachment? What did the Washington Post report in March 1999? Were inspectors allowed back into Iraq after the bombing by Saddam Hussein? Were they ever allowed back in? Shifting to consequentialism, explain this system of ethics and how it applies in situations of war (cf. extra sheet on this topic). Is it true that consequentialism only looks at ends and never means? Explain. Does Kunkel think keeping the full sanctions going after the Gulf War was moral? Were there other options? What about the oil-for-food program? What is meant by a carrot and stick approach to sanctions? Are unending sanctions morally responsible? why or why not?
2) MERIP, "Primer on Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" (click on MERIP on the Nov. 1 syllabus entry on our homepage, and then click "Primer" in left column), ch. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12; and MERIP, "Primer on the Uprising in Palestine" (found in the MERIP search box on the right side when you type in "primer.")
With the first primer were there any refugees following from the 1947-1949 war? How many are we talking about, and why were they made refugees? Where are the six million Palestinians located today? Do any of them live in the state of Israel? How did the June 1967 war develop? Were the Palestinians under their own rule at this time? What is meant by an occupied territory? How are they governed? Is Jerusalem an independent, international city? Explain. When and how did the PLO get organized? What was the effect of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242? What is meant by the Intifada? Did the Israelis negotiate with these mostly nonviolent actors? What effect did the Israeli actions have on more militant Palestinian groups? How did the Oslo Accords come about? What principles were agreed upon? What was left to be negotiated within five years? What is the significance of the Israelis continuing to build settlements in the occupied territories? Shifting to the second primer, was Bill Clinton successful in bringing together the two sides at Camp David II in July 2000? Who is Ariel Sharon? What happened on September 28, 2000? Are there Palestinian terrorists? Are they connected with other terrorists groups? Was Arafat in charge of these terrorists? What authority does the Palestinian Authority have? Who orders the suicide bombings? Are the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories increasing or decreasing? Where are these settlers located? Is the very recent Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza territory significant for slowing the pace of the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Is the United States being an honest broker?
3) Gaddis, "A Grand Strategy of Transformation"
George W. Bush released a report on "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" in September 2002. It lists three strategic goals. What are they? What is the significance of equating terrorists with tyrants? How are they interconnected? What is the significance of preemption? What danger is the United States preempting? What is the meaning of hegemony? Why is building good relations with great powers important? What does the Bush Administration see as the cause of terrorism and tyranny? Why are tryants as dangerous as terrorists? Why does Bush focus on Saddam and Iraq? What is the grand plan for transformation as focused on Iraq? What are the implications for Muslim countries? Can the plan work? What does Gaddis mean by multitasking? What are the dangers? What does he mean by the welcome and what is the danger? What is involved in maintaining the moral high ground? What does Gaddis mean when he says the Bush Administration has not been thinking ahead? What is the difference between self-interest and diplomacy? What happens if we tell the rest of the world powers to shove it?
4) Walzer, "Five on Iraq", pp. 143-168.
Note the time sequence of the five essays. The first four are written before we went to war, and the last is written eight months after we invaded Iraq. In the first essay Walzer speculates on what weapons of mass destruction Saddam might have.Does he believe Saddam has nuclear weapons? Why does he opt for bringing back the inspectors? He distinguishes preemption from prevention. Why does he say this is a case of prevention? Does he believe that the prevention argument fits the United States in 2002? What is his view about regime change? Does he think humanitarian intervention is a compelling argument? [Keep in mind that the three northern Kurdish provinces had already in 1991 been placed under U.N. control, and that no-fly zones, overseen by the U.S., existed in both the north and the south of Iraq. In the second essay he sets forth a wrong and a right way to oppose the war. What are they? What does he say about the embargo? In the third essay he talks about an exit strategy to get out of the U.N. impasse with European nations. What does he suggest as a substitution for going to war? In the fourth essay he asks whether the U.S. war is just or unjust. How does he conclude and why? In the final essay, written after the war had begun he asks whether it is possible to fight an unjust war and produce a decent postwar political order? What does he say should be included is such a picture? What does he say about the capitalistic reconstruction? What is he gripe with European nations?
5) Gruzalski on Gandhi, pp. 5-25 and 33-52, plus the sheet on "Ethics as Consistent Right to Life"
Explain the difference between passive resistance and satyagraha. What
is meant by nonviolence as a method of transformation? How does Gandhi's
example of transforming thieves fit in? What does he man by civility? Does
nonviolence work? Why does Gandhi think violence does not work? Under ethics
as a consistent right to life does Gandhi limit his approach to opposing
abortions? What other issues would he see as part of a consistent right
to life? Would Gandhi be pro capital punishment? In chapter three Gruzalski
takes up the question as to whether Gandhi was truly a proponent of nonviolence
if he allowed instances of using violence. Can a nonviolent person also
be a coward? Why or why not? Is preferring an action the same as justifying
an action? What is the difference? Relate this, as Gruzalski does, to vegetarians
preferring that people eat wild fish. In chapter five what does Gandhi
mean by equitable distribution? How does this relate to a consistent right
to life? Why is full employment necessary? What does he think about using
all forms of modern technology? What is the significance of the spinning
wheel? Compare globalization with self-reliant villages. Why does Gandhi
believe the latter is better? What is the significance of decentralization?
What does he mean by progress? [Skip the section on economics.]
* All the true/false statements given as examples above are false. For full credit you would need to explain why.