PHIL 105 Introduction to Ethics
Essay Topics #1
Papers are due October 21, by midnight. Remember that all papers are to be submitted electronically. They should be between 1500 and 2000 words long, which works out to between four and five pages with a font this size and one inch margins. Extensions will only be granted if I am given advance notice and only with good reason. Please consult the class handouts and website for more information on writing the paper.
You may NOT answer a question from the second or third set of topics in writing the first paper.
1. "Everybody should be allowed to have their own opinion" and "people in different communities do different things" are two terrible arguments - or at least premises - for moral relativism. What is the best possible argument for moral relativism? Does it work?
2. Haugeland argues that human beings are "conformist" creatures, and that this underlies all of the spontaneity, intelligence and creativity they eventually show. Why does he think this and is he right?
3. Nussbaum offers a number of criteria that she would say are universally acknowledged as part of a notion of "human flourishing." Critics might say that this is irrelevant, since it is simply a case of the naturallistic fallacy to say that we should do something because all communities do in fact do things that way. What can Nussbaum say to this? Is she right?
4. Utilitarianism has been accused of not taking the notion of a person
seriously. That is, they do not see each one of us as something intrinsically
valuable and worthy in its own right. When the time comes, the utilitarian
can simply argue about the general good and ignore the status of individuals.
Hence, something like slavery might be permissible if it were economically
advantageous to society. How should a utilitarian respond to this? What
arguments can they make and do they work?
PHIL105 Introduction to Ethics
Essay Topics #2
Papers are due November 11, by midnight. Remember that all papers are to be submitted electronically. They should be between 1500 and 2000 words long, which works out to between four and five pages with a font this size and one inch margins. Extensions will only be granted if I am given advance notice and only with good reason. Please consult the class handouts and website for more information on writing the paper.
You may NOT answer a question from the first or third set of topics in writing the second paper.
1. Mill has accused Kant of being a "closet utilitarian." He says that Kant's idea that certain courses of action - suicide, lying, cold-blooded murder - are morally wrong because we could not consistenly sanction rules that allowed them is actually an assessment of the utility of those courses of action. We would be collectively worse off if cold-blooded murder were premissible, but that does not make it logically impossible to endorse such a rule, Mill would say. Kant would certainly hate this reading of his work. How would he argue that he was not a closet utilitarian?
2. Some have been critical of particularist moral theories because they say that they do not give adequate endorsement to some things while not giving adequate condemnation to others, e.g. even a particularist like Dancy will agree that rape or genocide is always wrong, but particularism says we cannot make generalizations of this sort. Proponents will say that this is a crude rendering of the particularist point and that they can explain such generalizations. How would they do so?
3. Critics of virtue theory have said that while virtue may be something we care about, it cannot be the basis of a moral theory since moral theories are for use in coordinating and guiding social action, which requires explicit rules of action. Since virtue theory eschews such rules (at least as a basis of theory), they say it is unsatisfactory as an account. What will the virtue theorist say?
4. We have looked at two very different approaches to giving an account
of ethics - one based in rules and principles, the other in character and
holistic judgment. Which of these approaches is the more correct
and more promising as we work to develop an understanding of moral reasoning.
PHIL 105 Introduction to Ethics
Essay Topic #3
Papers are due December 3, by midnight. Remember that all papers are to be submitted electronically. They should be between 1500 and 2000 words long, which works out to between four and five pages with a font this size and one inch margins. Extensions will only be granted if I am given advance notice and only with good reason. Please consult the class handouts and website for more information on writing the paper.
You may NOT answer a question from the second or third set of topics in writing the third paper.
1. Much of the work we have done on moral questions and moral theory
this semester has been very abstract. This is necessary when you are looking
for the broadest understanding possible, but it also allows a certain casualness
to work its way into the practice. "The Nazis were bad and it's good to
be good to others" seems true, but all of this should lead us to put our
money where our mouths are at some point. For your final paper, write about
a real contemporary problem where you see the status quo as lined up against
something that is just or in favor of something that is unjust. Make a
case for what you think would be just and argue for measures that should
be taken to counteract that injustice. The stronger your measures, the
greater your need to justify them. Feel free to use any of the theories
from earlier in the semester as part of your justification. If you can
make this assignment about your own experience or community, then all the
better.