1.     Some of the thinkers we have read this semester defend a distinction between higher and lower pleasures, or different forms of happiness; and some don’t.  Who is right? And why?

2.     Both Plato and Mill are, in some sense, elitists. What (if anything at all) is wrong with the elitism that they defend?

3.     Rawls’s Theory of Justice rejects simple egalitarianism in favor of a society that allows inequalities insofar as they benefit the least well-off. Is he right?

4.     Mill, Berlin, and Rawls offer different conceptions and justifications for the priority of liberty. Why? Who is right? 

5.     In the Rawlsian original position, representatives of the society are assumed to reach the principles of justice behind the veil of ignorance. Those principles should apply the basic structure of the society (hint – but not in the family). Consider Susan Okin’s feminist response to Rawls in terms of the original position, principles of justice and their application in the basic structure of the society. In what aspects do you think it is correct and in what aspects it might be insufficient or wrong? 

6.     Rawls offers a thought experiment to arrive the principles of justice in a well-ordered society. If you consider it as a way to solve practical problems, how would it apply to law-making concerning pregnancy, abortion, and childbirth leave?

7.     You may also expand and improve upon one of your earlier short papers. You will be graded, at least in part, on the demonstrated improvement and development of that earlier paper.

8.     If you have a different question/topic in mind, it should be relevant and based on the course material (and it should cover at least two philosophers/themes).