Cambridge Philosophy Interview Questions

Set out for me, as premises and a conclusion, the argument that if determinism is true then no one is ever morally responsible for anything.

Russell distinguishes appearance from reality using an ordinary table. Reconstruct his reasoning, then tell me which step you think a sceptic would attack first.

Someone argues: 'This statue and the lump of clay it is made of are in exactly the same place, so they must be the same thing.' Where, precisely, does that inference go wrong, if it does?

You said the argument is valid but unsound. Explain the difference to me as if I did not already know it, and then say which premise you are rejecting.

Take the claim 'you cannot step in the same river twice'. Give me the most charitable interpretation of it, and then the least charitable one. Which is the philosopher more likely to have meant?

Imagine a machine copies your brain atom for atom into a new body and then destroys the original. Does the person who wakes up count as you? Give me your first answer, and then defend it.

A runaway trolley will kill five people unless you divert it onto a track where it kills one. Now suppose instead you must push one large person off a bridge to stop it. Is there a real moral difference between the two cases, and if so what is it?

Suppose a teleporter dismantles you on Earth and reassembles an exact duplicate on Mars. If the Earth scanner failed to destroy the original, so now there are two of you, which one is the real you? What does your answer reveal about what you think personal identity consists in?

Consider Mary, a scientist who knows every physical fact about colour but has only ever seen black and white. The day she first sees red, does she learn something new? If she does, what follows for the claim that everything is physical?

I now change the trolley case so the five are strangers and the one is your sibling. Does that change what you ought to do? If your answer shifts, is that a flaw in your reasoning or a feature of it?

Is it ever wrong to do something that produces the best consequences for everyone involved? Try to give me a case where you would say yes.

You have just appealed to the idea that people have rights. What is a right, on your account, and where does it come from?

If morality were simply whatever a society happened to approve of, could we ever say that a society had made moral progress? Think about what 'progress' would have to mean.

Defend the claim that we have stronger obligations to our own children than to strangers. Now suppose I say that is just prejudice dressed up as principle. How do you answer?

You keep saying an action is 'unfair'. Can you give me a definition of fairness that does not simply restate that the action is wrong?

You mention a book that changed your view about free will. Tell me the single argument in it that did the work, and the premise in that argument you now find weakest.

In your statement you say philosophy taught you to 'question everything'. Is that actually possible? Could someone doubt everything at once and still reason at all?

You describe an essay you wrote defending a position. If I gave you your own essay now, what is the strongest objection you would raise against yourself?

You say you are drawn to logic. Show me you can use it: is the argument 'if it is raining the ground is wet; the ground is wet; so it is raining' a good one? Explain your verdict.

You cite an idea from a podcast or article. Set aside the presenter's framing for a moment and tell me what you think is the hardest problem that idea has to face.