Phil 38 – Midterm Exam Study Guide

We will have a blue book essay exam during class on Wednesday, April 23. It will consist in writing essays on two of the following four topics (one on social contract theory and one on civil disobedience).

1. Locke and Rousseau both emphasize the equality of citizens under the law and use this to argue against absolute monarchy, but they disagree about whether the power of the state should be inherently limited. State their views about the legitimate power of the state over its citizens, and their rationale for these views. Then critically evaluate their views, discussing, among other things, Rousseau’s claim that the state is not a threat to individual rights or the well-being of minorities.

2. According to Locke, what are the conditions under which revolt and nullifying the social contract are justified? On what grounds does he forbid other cases of revolt, succession, or individuals opting out of the social contract? Identify at least one particular case that you think is especially difficult for Locke. Do you agree that this case is forbidden? Why or why not?

3. In contrast with Locke and Rousseau, proponents of civil disobedience like Thoreau advocate breaking the law in cases in which it is the will of the majority and there are mechanisms for reform within the political system. What justification does Thoreau provide for civil disobedience, and why is this justification paradoxical from a legal perspective? Critically evaluate Thoreau’s views, considering in part their positive and negative social consequences.

4. If civil disobedience is justified in certain cases, are there any limits on the violent or nonviolent means used to achieve one’s goal? Is the basis for these limits merely pragmatic? Summarize and critically evaluate both King’s criteria for civil disobedience and the justification for terrorism, stating and defending your own views on this issue.