JLS 601

Philosophy of Law and Social Science

Mid Term Exam

Posted 4/8/2006 3:39 AM

This is an open book take home exam. Although you may consult any source you choose, your work should be your own. So you may not communicate about these questions with any other live human beings, including brains in vats. The purpose of this exam is to see how well you have absorbed the central ideas of the course. So while you are not prohibited from citing other works not assigned in class, it is not likely to help you and you are not encouraged to do so.

Each answer is limited to 750 words so you will have to edit carefully. Please put the word count at the end of the essay and submit it to the digital drop box as one single file using your own name its title.

The answers should be submitted to the digital drop box by 5:30 pm by Tuesday April 11. As we discussed in class, this will give you approximately 72 hours to complete the exam.

Please answer three of the questions below. In your answer refer to the arguments of at least three of the philosophers we have read, outlining and critiquing their arguments as part of your answer.

1. Natural science purports to explain the world as it really is independent of human beliefs about that reality. Some social scientists attempt to use the same techniques to study social phenomena. Explain the empirical method and what it counts as an objectively correct answer. Can this method be used to describe reliably natural or social phenomena independent of the observer’s beliefs? Explain why or why not with respect to at least two empiricists and two theorists of any other stripe.

2. Was O.J. Simpson really guilty of murdering his wife, Nicole, and her friend Ron Goldman? Explain your answer using different theories of meaning and explanation in the social sciences. Can any theory of social science provide a correct answer to this question? Explain why or why not.

3. Freddy Fixer, a local lawyer, who never actually went to law school, uses his knowledge of local police habits, astute observations of his neighbors and a magic weegie board to predict with 100 % accuracy whether any specific action will incur legal sanctions (i.e. fines, indictments, convictions etc). Larry Laborer, another lawyer in town and graduate of Yale Law School, uses the traditional methodology of examining the texts of laws and past legal decisions to infer what the law is in his town. But he loses nearly 25% of his cases. Which lawyer would you consult about the legality of a tax deduction you hope to take. Which would you consult to find out what the law actually is? Can the two be different? Explain this with reference to theories of Taylor and Winch and compare it to the views of Hempel, Ayer or Freedman.

4. Our idea of law is based on the notion that people are rational creatures who act for reasons they decide freely to be good or bad reasons for action. This idea is developed further by some behaviorist philosophers and social scientists who argue that the one reason that drives every decision is the desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Can this latter assertion ever be proven? If so how, if not why not. Would the fact that this model predicts behavior reasonably well alter your response? Why should it and why shouldn’t it?

5. Social scientists attempting to explain the phenomena of terrorism follow different methodologies. Some of those explanations focus on facts outside the person’s control such as socio economic background (social facts) or bio chemical and psychological markers such as levels of the neurotransmitter, serotonin (natural facts). These facts are out of the control of the subject being studied. Other methods attempt to understand what motivates the terrorists and hence what he believes he is doing when he blows himself up.

Which method best explains what terrorism is? As part of your answer, explain the difference between the meaning of something and the explanation of why it happened. Is one of these explanations “better” than the other in the sense that it gets at the truth of what it is explaining? Can one explanation be better for all phenomena?