philosophy：Contemporary Moral Problems

1. How does Lackey explain the difference between preventive and preemptive force? Which does Lackey intend to support and oppose in this article?

 

2. Summarize the preventive force argument. What criticisms does Lackey list against it right after he explains it?

 

3. Summarize the Dr. Y & Mr. X scenario. How is that intended to support the distinction that the preventive force argument claims is “bogus?”

 

4. How are Lackey’s discussions of uncovering and interpreting overt acts intended to illustrate what he calls the “problem of knowledge?”

 

5. What argument does Lackey present to support that assuming the worst of one’s opponents is not as prudent as some suggest. Does he make a good case?

 

6. How is the first “trolley case” intended to support the argument for preventive force?

 

7. Why point is Lackey trying to make by constructing the second, more complicated “trolley case” example? Do you think he makes a good case?

 

8. Summarize Lackey’s position on the subject of solicitation, corresponding to “substantial steps” and “overt acts” from the example in #3. How does his example of the television and the stereo illustrate this point? Does it make a good foundation for his comments on Mr. Tamimi’s comment about the Columbia?