1. You're on a first date and things are going really well. At the end of dinner, your waiter hands you the check. After reviewing your tab, you realize the appetizer you ordered wasn't included on your bill. What do you do?

2.At the end of an important meeting your boss turns to you and compliments the suggestion you had for streamlining the reporting process. The idea actually came from a coworker who shared it with you over lunch last week. What would you do?

3. On your commute into work you notice the woman in the car driving in front of you putting on her makeup as she drives. Several minutes later she knocks the side mirror off of a parked car and keeps going. What do you do?

4. It's lunchtime, so you head to the office kitchen to heat up your food. While you're waiting on the microwave, you notice an open file folder sitting on the table with what looks like a list of employees and their salaries hanging out of it. No one else is in the room, so you have no idea who the folder belongs to. What do you do?

5. You've been craving a soda all day. After digging through your desk for change, you head down to the vending machine to get your mid-afternoon sugar fix. You insert the correct change, push the button and two sodas come rolling down the shoot. What do you do?

6.You come home to find that your roommate broke your headphonesthe ones that took you two months to save for. On your way to the electronics store the next day you run into someone selling the same headphones on the corner. The headphones are still in their original packaging but based on the price you think they were either stolen o counterfeit. What do you do?

1. Can morality be (fully) understood/explained from the perspective of empirical science? Why or why not? Discuss with respect to at least two philosophers.

2. Kant claims that a beneficent action performed out of natural sympathy has no moral worth. Why does he think this? Discuss Kant's position critically, with reference to least one of his critics on this subject.

3. Why be moral? Compare, contrast, and discuss critically two different approaches to answering this question.

4. Explain what is at issue between cognitivists and non-cognitivists in metaethics and briefly review the prima facie case for each position. What do you consider the best reason or argument in favor of accepting one rather than the other? Anticipate counter responses that your opponent is likely to offer.

5. Explain Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. What is the basis of this distinction? What is Mill's point in drawing it? To what extent is the distinction reconcilable with Mill's theory of Utilitarianism? Critically evaluate Mill's position on this matter.

6. Can moral rights or principles of justice be defended strictly on utilitarian grounds? How might the importance of rights and justice be weighed against the maximization of happiness overall? Discuss regarding at least one philosopher.

7. In "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker charges modern ethical theories with "schizophrenia." Explicate and assess this charge with reference to at least two theories.

8. Some ethicists argue that the basic unit of moral assessment is, or ought to be, an agent's character, rather than individual actions, and that the assessment of actions is, or ought to be, grounded in the assessment of character. What speaks for and against this position on the basic unit of moral assessment? Discuss with reference to at least one philosopher.

9. Explain what is at issue between cognitivists and non-cognitivists in metaethics and briefly review the prima facie case for each position. What do you consider the best reason or argument in favor of accepting one rather than the other? Anticipate counter responses that your opponent is likely to offer.

10. It is common to appeal to moral intuitions in normative inquiry. What are moral intuitions? Are appeals to moral intuitions methodologically sound and epistemically respectable? Critically discuss with reference to at least two philosophers.

11. According to Hume, there is no substantive distinction between moral virtues and other kinds of virtues. What is his argument for this claim? Is there a way of drawing a substantive distinction between moral evaluations of people and evaluations of other kinds? Defend your answer.

12. What role, if any, should blame and praise play in moral life and moral philosophy? Discuss with reference to at least two philosophers.