1) Would Plato endorse Mill's harm principle? Did Plato recommend any government action that violates this principle? Argue for your answer and be sure to state your interpretation of the harm principle.

2) Present and evaluate Mill's arguments for freedom of thought and expression. In doing so, be sure to make clear the principle or principles he relies on in making those arguments. (In evaluating Mill's position, you might want to think about Plato's arguments for censorship.)

3) Is Mill's harm principle effective in restricting the rights of government to interfere with the actions of individuals? What are some of the problems one meets in making use of the harm principle to defend liberty? Discuss in detail. (Be sure to interpret the harm principle, discussing what both "harm" & "produces harm" mean.)

4) Define the three different versions of hedonistic act utilitarianism that we talked about in class. Are any of these versions of utilitarianism consistent with Mill's harm principle? In answering the question be sure to indicate your interpretation of Mill's harm principle.

5) Define the three different versions of generic act utilitarianism that we talked about in class. Which do you take to be the most plausible and why? Consider and evaluate at least one argument designed to show that all versions of act utilitarianism are implausible and briefly describe RULE utilitarianism as an alternative to act utilitarianism.

6) In connection with Hobbes's discussion of religion we distinguished three different senses of "reasons for believing something". Define each and illustrate each with an example.

7) What did Hobbes call the "right of nature?" What does Hobbes mean by saying that the right of nature is inalienable? Why does Hobbes think that we all have a right of nature? What is the connection between the right of nature and each of the first three laws of nature? (Explain what a law of nature is).

8) What objection does "the Fool" make to Hobbes (pp. 215-16)? What is Hobbes's reply to the objection? Evaluate whether Hobbes answers the objection satisfactorily and in a way consistent with his view of human nature?

9) Why, on Hobbes's view, do we need a sovereign with virtually unlimited power? Why, on his view, can we not cooperate without a sovereign? Evaluate Hobbes's position. What reason would the people have to trust a sovereign not to abuse power to their detriment?

10) Describe the hypothetical situation we called Prisoner's Dilemma. If the prisoners were non-empathetic egoists, should they confess or remain silent? Why? How might one appeal to this sort of situation to argue that the best state rational people can achieve is not the state which would be best for them? Can one appeal to the example of Prisoner's Dilemma to show that it is irrational to be an egoist?