Philosophy of Law

Midterm Oral Exams

THESIS STATEMENTS

1. Platos Allegory of the Cave illustrates three stages of movement to and from the
Truth. Integral to each stage is what Plato calls Openness or Education. His ultimate
conclusion is that Truth cannot survive without Education.

2. From the perspective of a student of the law, ultimately, Aristotles definition of truth is
more valuable than Platos because of his emphasis on the particular and on empirical
observation. There is no place for general or abstract thinking before a court of law.

3. The relationship of Truth and Justice is dynamic, not static. They can sometimes coincide
but other times diverge. Truth is integral to the pursuit of Justice in the courts of law, but
ultimately is not and cannot be the main concern, neither of the lawyers nor the courts.

4. Plato discredits any definition of Justice that is too narrow, acknowledging Justice as a
comprehensive virtue which governs entire bodies and entire cities. However, he
contradicts himself by eventually giving the equally narrow definition of Justice as
minding ones own business.

5. The dialogue with Thrasymachus regarding Justice as an advantage of the stronger

signals a shift from trying to define Justice to examining the value of Justice all together,
and this is evident in the way he has defined it. It is also more a commentary on how he
sees Government than it is a discussion on the concept of Justice.

6. A country wherein extra-judicial killings are prevalent, and even encouraged, is

incompatible with civil government as understood by John Locke. In fact, it is more akin
to his idea of a State of Nature. The State of Nature is not necessarily bad or evil, a fact
John Locke himself recognizes. However, its operation is made inconvenient by the
natural biases of humans.

7. Thomas Hobbes characterizes life without government as solitary, nasty, poor, brutish,
and short. This stems from his idea that left in an ungoverned state, humans acting in self-
interest will naturally destroy eachother. Governments therefore have a set purpose,
which justifies their rule over subjects. Correlatively, there are also instances when these
subjects are justified in not obeying the government.

8. The question of whether to adopt a Federalist or Unitary government is a complex one,

which must take into account economic, social, political, geographical, and historical
factors. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the Philippines, a Unitary government
is best, as the countrys most pressing problems cannot be solved by Federalism.
9. In order to be valid, a law must satisfy three structural criteria: Generality,
Reasonableness, and Enforceability by tribunals. As a further requirement, outside of
structure, a law must also have a moral element. Satisfaction by law of these
requirements is crucial for a society if they desire to live under the Rule of Law. This also
means that the Rule of Law cannot survive in a society with laws which lack these
requisites.

10. History has shown that humans do not definitively settle with the Rule of Law, as certain
factors can cause society to gravitate towards the Rule of Man, even with the former
already firmly established within its government. This shows that the Rule of Man and
the Rule of Law are equally desirable, as they can each address different needs in human
history. This also suggests that the Philippines could be justified in tending towards the
Rule of Man today.
 MECHANICS AND GUIDELINES

Each student will sign up for a 15 minute slot scheduled on 7 October 2016. The venue
will be in the Deans Office for all time slots. For those who cannot be accommodated on
7 October 2016, they will have their oral exams on 30 September 2016, with some
concessions to be determined depending on how many students there are.

Students are expected to be on time for their respective slots. Any student who is more
than 3 minutes late for their timeslot forfeits it and must sign up for the earliest vacant
slot. Should there be none, they get an automatic 65 for their midterm grade.

Students must dress appropriately during the examination (i.e. classroom attire). Students
may bring one 4x6 index card with them to the oral exam, which may have key words or
helpful notes written on it back-to-back. No other materials will be allowed. A copy of
the thesis statements will be provided during the exam.

At the beginning of the oral exam, the student will randomly pick one thesis statement.
They will then be given 6 minutes minimum to 8 minutes maximum to explain and argue
on the topic. Any remaining time will be used by the professor to question the student
regarding what they have just said or to ask the student to explain another thesis
statement, at her discretion. Though normally the professor will not interrupt the student
during their initial speech, certain circumstances may warrant such an interruption.

During the 6 to 8 minutes given to the student, they must first read aloud the thesis
statement, and then explain it in its entirety, carefully unpacking each thought behind it.
They must discuss thoroughly the assumptions, implications, and conclusions of the
statement, regardless of whether they agree with these. Students must display a thorough
understanding of what the thesis statement is trying to convey, as culled from the
readings and the class discussions. After the student finishes with their discussion, they
may then proceed to the argumentation portion, explaining whether or not they agree with
the statements proposition, to what degree, and why.

The exam will be conducted in straight english. Students should refrain from code
switching and using filler words and phrases such as uhm and you know. They are
highly encouraged to use up the eight minutes allotted to them in order to fully flesh out
their explanation and arguments. Maintain a calm, well modulated tone. Students may
bring water should they require it.
 GRADING CRITERIA

For the oral exam, a student may obtain a grade ranging from 70 100. While there will
be a specified criteria, none of these will have a particular apportionment of your grade. This
means that an above average performance in one criterion may make up for a lack in others,
whereas normally they would be confined to their corresponding portion. However, in general,
students are expected to be well equipped both in substance and in manner of speaking, in order
to pass this exam.

During the orals, the professor will be looking at the following:

Comprehension of Subject Matter Students must display a clear understanding of the

texts which form the bases of their explanation and their arguments. They must be able to
display a correct grasp of the readings and the discussions in class as related to the ideas
they are trying to convey during the oral examination. They must also show that they can
detect misunderstandings about a concept, should the opportunity arise.

Thoroughness of Argumentation Students must show that their arguments about a

certain topic are not limited to arbitrary opinions. They must show that these opinions are
things they have thought through, and have good and educated justifications for. Students
will not be judged on the morality of their opinions, but on their soundness. Note that
students may use bases outside of law, such as economic, social, political, and cultural
justifications if appropriate.

Relevance of Ideas When appropriate, students must be able to integrate within their
answers real life examples, in order to show that their understanding is not limited to
theory, but that they are able to apply the ideas contained in the text to real
context/situations. However, students will also be graded on how appropriately they
position these examples within their arguments. Examples cannot come before an
explanation of the theoretical foundations from which they are sourced. (e.g. you cannot
use the Philippines as an example of how geography affects Federalism without
explaining first what Federalism is and why geography is important to it.)

Time-management Students must make good use of the time given them to explain
themselves and answer questions. Within the 8 minutes given them, they must be able to
make sufficient if not complete exposition of the thesis statement. They must also be able
to answer questions in a reasonable amount of time. Stalling tactics are not allowed.

Delivery Students must be able to express their thoughts in a clear, organized, and
formal manner. Students should avoid mumbling, extended pauses, ranting, and
rambling. There is no need to use complicated words or particularly academic language,
however students must also show that they can appreciate and grasp the proper use of
technical terms discussed in class and relevant to their topics should it be called for.
 Responsiveness Students must be responsive to the questions propounded to them, and
should not make use of the shot-gun method, wherein they pour out everything in hopes
that one thing will be correct. They must show that they understand the question and can
respond directly to it, instead of haphazardly trying to redirect the professor to topics they
are more comfortable with (but are not relevant to the question).