Study Guide

Midterm Exam

 

I will pick two of the following questions at random for your midterm exam. The midterm will be held March 1, 2006 from 8:00-9:00 am. You will be expected to write approximately for 25 minutes (500) on each question. You should have prepared responses to the questions posed. (With minor exceptions, the questions are taken from the “Discussion Questions” at the back of each chapter.)

 

  1. Were the Mayans capable of thinking critically? Mention some conditions fro being able to think critically, according to the Bridgehead view. Is there any evidence that the Mayans satisfied those conditions? Be sure to explain fully and clearly YOUR position.

 

  1. Consider the following argument:

Since the Mayans failed to perform empirical tests on their astrological predictions and prophecies, it follows that these predictions and prophecies could not have been the outcomes of rational thinking.

In light of the conclusion of [chapter 2], is this argument persuasive? If so, why? If not, what is wrong with it? Be sure to explain fully and clearly YOUR position.

 

  1. José Vasconcelos states that philosophy is an activity that follows a special method. What is his proposed super-criterion? Under a charitable interpretation, are the ideas underlying Vasconcelos’s criterion plausible? Why or why not?

 

  1. According to cultural anthropologists, ethnocentrism must be avoided in passing judgment on the ways of life of other ethnic groups. But what, exactly, is ethnocentrism? Do you agree with the claim that “It is wrong to make any evaluation of a culture other than one’s own”? Why or why not?

 

  1. Can moral relativists accommodate the notion of universal human rights? If so, how? If not, why not? Be sure to explain clearly what the notion of universal human rights implies.

 

  1. At one point Las Casas say “It is time we stopped to reflect on the other costs: the blasphemous and dishonorable outrages against God and against divine law, and the countless souls, now beyond redemption, who burn in everlasting Hell as a direct result of greed and inhumanity…” While it is clear that Las Casas is concerned about divine judgment, how, if at all, does a human rights approach help us understand Las Casas’ argument? Is his faith compatible with a human rights perspective? Why or why not?