I. Choose two of the below questions to answer. Make sure that you answer every part of the question and do so in complete sentence form.

1. Does one who kills another "deserve" to die? Why or why not? If your answer was 'yes', are there any circumstances that would change your answer? If you answer 'no', address the issue of why such a person should be punished. What theory or theories best justifies punishing such a person? What are problems with the theory of punishment you selected?

1. Do you think that 'cause' is important or not in tort cases (where a person is injured by another person or persons)? Why or why not? How far back in the 'causal chain' should a court be reasonably expected to go and why? For example, given that the United States government at one time funded Osama bin Laden, can it be held responsible at all for the attacks that occurred on 9/11? Why or why not?

1. Is it the responsibility of the state (government) to ensure that its citizens do not harm themselves? Why or why not? If yes, to what extent can such care be taken and enforced (mandatory tooth brushing, mandatory vitamin consumption, mandatory healthcare/yearly medical exams) and why? If no, does that mean that citizens have the freedom to endanger themselves (and only themselves) to whatever degree they see fit? Why or why not?