Schedule Spring 98

SCHEDULE - SPRING 1998

This is the place where you can find out what the class plans to work on from week to week. I have provided links you may want to follow to help you with reading and analysis of the assigned texts and/or with the writing assignments.

WEEK 1: Jan. 12

Read Introductory Course Materials; follow links

Review the material on moral scepticism in the Dictionary

Visit John Dorbolo's Interquest website and read his tips on Writing email and his pages on the Dynamics of Discussion.

Reading Assignment: Plato's Crito, pps. 8-14; Text Outline for the Crito; for background and context for Socrates' imprisonment, see Plato's Apology and the Text Outline for the Apology.

Study Questions for the Crito:

1. What arguments do Crito and Socrates consider in order to persuade one another that Socrates will be justified if he chooses to escape?
2. What are the main reasons guiding Socrates' decision not to escape but to remain in prison and accept capital punishment and thus his death?

3. How do those reasons differ from one another?

4. Are any of those reasons good reasons? Explain.

from what you find in the Crito?

Reading Assignment: Pojman's Critique of Ethical Relativism, pps. 38-51; Dictionary entry on Relativism in Ethics.
Study Questions for Pojman's Critique of Ethical Relativism
1. What is Pojman's analyis of ethical relativism?
2. What does Pojman mean by subjectivism and conventionalism?
3. What is Pojman's criticism of ethical relativism?
4. What does Pojman mean by moral objectivism and what is his argument in support of it?

WEEK 2: Jan. 21

Reading Assignment: Feinberg, Psychological Egoism, pps. 80-91.
Study Questions for Psychological Egoism:

1. What is psychological egoism?

2. What is motivation and why is it important for the discussion of psychological egoism?

3. What reasons support the theory?

4. What are Feinberg's main arguments against the theory?

Reading Assignment: Dictionary on the concept of Moral Agency

WEEK 3: Jan. 26

Reading Assignment: Continue Feinberg on Psychological Egoism; Read Bulletin Board 1 on Pojman's Ethical Relativism; Kalin, In Defense of Egoism
Study Questions for In Defense of Egoism:

1. What is the difference between psychological and ethical egoism?

2. How does Kalin distinguish selfishness from self-interest?

3. What is universal egoism?

4. What are the main objections to universal egoism?

5. What is Kalin's main argument in defense of universal egoism?

WEEK 4: Feb. 2

Reading Assignment: Read Bulletin Board 2 on Feinberg's Criticisms of Psychological Egoism; Review Kalin's In Defense of Egoism; Read Michael Ruse, Evolution and Ethics: The Sociobiological Approach
Study Questions For Evolution and Ethics:

1. What is social darwinism?

2. What is the main point Ruse is trying to establish in his discussion of the history of social darwinism?

3. What is the naturalistic fallacy?

4. What does Ruse conclude about traditional evolutionary ethics?

5. What, according to Ruse, is the advance sociobiology makes over traditional evolutionary ethics?

6. In what sense are humans altruistic?

7. What is the connection, for Ruse, between natural facts about humans and morality?

8. Ruse claims that normative ethics is false. What the distinction between normative and metaethics? In what sense is normative ethics false?

Writing Assignment:
1. Post to the EthRel BB an answer to the following question:

Do you agree or disagree with Pojman's view of the relation between ethical relativism and tolerance? Explain your answer.

2. Post to the EthRel BB your response to a posting of one of your colleagues in class. Do not respond to anyone who has already received a response. When responding, type into the subject box, Re: respondent's Name so others will know who has yet to receive a response.

Although it is not necessary for you to respond to reponses during this first round, feel free to do so.

Please post by Wednesday, 2/4 by 5:00 P.M.

In addition to using Pojman's essay, I invite you to use Bulletin Board 1 or any other web materials as you construct of your argument.

WEEK 5: Feb. 9

Reading Assignment: Sober, Prospects for an Evolutionary Ethics

Study Questions for Prospects for an Evolutionary Ethics:

1. How does Sober understand the difference between explanation and justification?

2. Does Sober argue that all evolutionary explanation is genetic?

3. What are the three metaethical theories which Sober discusses?

4. What is the genetic fallacy(p. 137)? Why does Sober think it is important to consider?

5. Would Sober classify Ruse's metaethics as subjectivist? Explain.

6. What are Sober's main objections to subjectivism?

Writing Assignment:
Post to the EvEth BB, by Monday, 10:00 A.M., your thoughts about evolutionary ethics. It is up to you to decide, on the basis of your reading and class discussion, what aspect or aspects of evolutionary ethics you want to address. Be sure to base what you write on the two pieces we have read by Ruse and Sober. Address your message to: +BB/stu(EvEth)

WEEK 6: Feb. 16

Reading Assignment: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics; also use the Text Outlines, Book I and Book II, for the Nicomachean Ethics
Study Questions for Nicomachean Ethics, Book I:
1. What do the variety of human activities Aristotle mentions in the first sentence of the Nicomachean Ethics share in common and what does this tell us about his more general conception of human activity?
2. What distinction does Aristotle draw, in Ch. 1, between different kinds of ends? Can you think of examples which illustrate this distinction?
3. What is the Aristotelian concept of a final end?
4. Is there a final end of human activity? If so, according to Aristotle, what is it?
5. Why is happiness such a central theme in Bk. I of the Nicomachean Ethics? In what sense is Aristotle framing a eudaimonistic normative ethical theory?
6. What are the contending opinions of happiness Aristotle critically examines? What objections does Aristotle raise to these differing conceptions?
7. What is Aristotle's claim about the nature of the human function? What arguments does he offer to support his claim?
8. How does Aristotle understand the distinction and relation between virtue and the human function?
9. How does Aristotle understand the relation between happiness, virtue, and the human function?
10. What is Aristotle's view of the relation between virtue, luck or good fortune, and happiness?
11. Why does Aristotle sketch a psychological theory in the final chapters of Bk. I?
12. What are the main claims comprising the theory?
13. In what sense does the psychology provide a basis for the theory of virtue which occupies Aristotle in Bk. II of the Nicomachean Ethics?

Study Questions for Book II, Nicomachean Ethics:
1. Given Bk. I of the Nicomachean Ethics, what are Aristotle's reasons for discussing virtue?
2. Is virtue, according to Bk. II, an innate characteristic which human beings possess by nature?
3. How does Aristotle understand the distinction between moral or ethical and intellectual virtue?
4. What do technical skill (techne) and moral virtue share in common? How do they differ?
5. What role does concept of habituation play in Aristotle's account of moral virtue?
6. Why is the discussion of pleasure, pain, and other feelings, emotions, or passions (pathe) so central to Aristotle's account of moral virtue?
7. What is the mean and what role does it play in Aristotle's acount of virtue?
8. Where in the text does Aristotle state his final definition of virtue? What are the main parts of the definition and how do they fit together to make a unitary definition?

Writing Assignment:
Answer the following questions:

1. Would you classify Aristotle as a psychological or ethical egoist?
2. Would you classify Aristotle as an ethical relativist?
3. Using Sober's metaethical classification (p. 135), how would you classify Aristotle's metaethical view?

Please make sure that you post your answers by Friday, Feb. 20, 3:00 P.M. Use the following address:
+BB/stu(Aristotle)

WEEK 7: Feb. 27: Reading Assignment: Continue with your reading of the selection from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.
Study Questions: Continue to work with the study questions which were posted in Week 6.

Writing Assignment: As I discussed with you on Friday, a week ago, the first of your two longer writing assignments for the semester is due on Wednesday, March 5 at 1:00 P.M.

Your assignment is to write a paper on Louden's essay, "Some Vices of Virtue Ethics", (Part VII, essay #5, which begins on p. 395). The paper should be about 800 words or five pages long, typed, and double-spaced.

Louden is critical of virtue ethics: he offers some objections to virtue ethics and provides reasons to support his objections. Your task:

The core of your paper should be an analysis and critical evaluation of one of Louden's arguments. So identify one of the arguments he gives in support of his critical stance towards virtue ethics, analyse and explain it, and finally evaluate it.

Below is a checklist of some essential items your paper should include:
1. brief account of the main purpose(s) of Louden's essay
2. brief account of his strategy for achieving his purpose(s)
3. an explanation of Louden's understanding of what virtue ethics is
4. brief account of the most important conclusions of the essay
5. a statement of the specific objection you've chosen
How you incorporate these elements into your essay will depend on how you choose to organize it. Therefore, the order in which I listed these elements is not necessarily the order in which you must or should introduce them.

REMEMBER: the due date is March 4, 1:00 P.M. I will not accept any late papers.

I look forward to reading your paper. Although I will not devote class time to the Louden essay, I am more than willing to discuss it outside of class. If you have questions about it, or about the writing assignment, please feel free to contact me either by phone, by email, or in my office. Don't hesitate to communicate if you feel the need!

WEEK 8: Mar. 2

Reading Assignment: Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, pps. 289-296; Text Outlines for the Preface and for Section I of the Foundations
Study Questions for Section I:
Kant's Prefatory Comments, pps. 289-290

1. What is Kant's understanding of the place of ethics in the division of philosophy?

2. What is Kant's argument for the claim that ethics must be different from anthropology?

Section I: pps. 290-296

1. What is the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic goodness?

2. Why is Kant an anti-eudaimonist?

3. What is the difference between motivating and justifying reasons?

4. Why is the motivating/justifying reason distinction important for Kant?

5. What is the difference between actions which are:

a) contrary to duty

b) in accordance with duty

i) motivated by inclination

ii) motivated by prudence

iii) motivated by duty or for sake of duty

6. How do Kant's four leading examples illustrate these distinctions?

7. What is his main point in the examples?

WEEK 9: Mar. 9: Reading Assignment: Complete your reading of Sect. I of the Groundwork
Study Questions: Continue answering last week's questions
Writing Assignment:
We have discussed the honest(prudent) merchant and the suicidal man. Now I would like you to write and send to the Kant BB your analysis of the third of Kant's examples, that of the non-philanthropic man. Kant's account and discussion of the example begins at the bottom of the second column on p. 292, and ends on p. 293, column one, where the first full paragraph in the column begins with the new, fourth example. State what you think Kant is trying to show by means of that example, and explain the reasons supporting your statement. Feel free, of course, to consult the web materials- text outline for Section I- or me or your colleagues in preparing to write to do your assignment.
Please make certain that you have posted your assignment by 10:00 AM on Friday, 3/13. Remember that the address is as follows:
+BB/stu(Kant)
WEEK 10: Mar. 16: Reading Assignment: Groundwork, Sect. II, pps. 296-309; Text Outline for Section II; Foot, "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives", pps. 346-351.
Further Study Questions for Section I:
1. What is Kant's understanding of the moral worth of an action?
2. What is a maxim?
3. What is Kant's interpretation of the command to "love thy neighbor"?
4. What is Kant's distinction between pathological and practical love on p. 293?
5. What are the two diffeerent meanings of the question Kant poses in his discussion of the promising example on p. 294?
Study Questions for Section II:
1. What sort of scepticism does Kant consider at the beginning of Section II?
2. What is Kant's understanding of will in Section II?
3. What is Kant's understanding of a command and an imperative?
4. What is Kant's distinction between a hypothetical and categorical imperative?
5. How does Kant differentiate rules of skill, counsels of prudence, and commands of morality?
6. What is the point of the four examples Kant discusses in Section II?
7. What is the difference among the three different formulations of the categorical imperative?
8. What is Kant's distinction between heteronomy and autonomy?

WEEK 11: Mar. 23: Reading Assignment: Complete your reading of Section II of Kant's Groundwork; review the Text Outline for Section II; Re-Read Foot's essay, "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives", pps. 346-351; Study Questions: Review the Study Questions for Kant, Section II.; Writing Assignment:; In lieu of our class meetings on Wednesday and Friday, you have two short writing assignments, one concerning Section II of Kant's Groundwork, the other on Foot's essay. Your posting deadline is Sunday, March 29.; 1. We have now nearly finished our study of Sections I and II of Kant’s Groundwork. Starting from what you now know of Kant’s moral philosophy, what is(are) your most serious objection(s) to his theory? Be clear and specific in stating your objection(s), and be sure to explain in detail your supporting reasons.

Please send your answer to the Kant BB. Use the following address:
+BB/stu(Kant); 2. In her essay, "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives", which you have read for this week, Foot expresses a worry in the last two paragraphs, on p. 350. She is concerned that her conclusion that Kant’s theory relies on "an illusion" will give rise to the objection that her conclusion will "appear dangerous and subversive of morality". She offers the example of the people of Leningrad in response to this objection. What is the illusion? Why does her conclusion appear to undermine morality? What does her example illustrate?

Please send your answer to the Foot BB. Use the following address:
+BB/stu(Foot)

WEEK 12: Mar. 30: Reading Assignment: Mill, Utilitarianism, pps. 189-99, 203-210. Mill Text Outlines for Chapter I, Chapter II, and Chapter V.; Study Questions:; Chapter I; 1. What is the central problem of ethics according to Mill?; 2. What is Mill's view of the difference between moral and scientific knowledge?; 3. What is Mill's criticism of Kant's ethical theory?; 4. How does Mill understand the moral sense theory of moral knowledge? Intuitionism, Inductivism? Which does he favor? Why?; Chapter II; 5. How does Mill define the principle of Utility (U) or the "greatest happiness" principle?; 6. Is Mill's theory a hedonistic eudaimonism? Explain.; 7. What are the two meanings of the term "right"?; 8. Does Mill understand pleasure as satisfaction of desire, as absence of pain, or as qualitatively different kinds of experience? Explain your answer.; 9. What is the theory of life? What role does it play in Mill's discussion?; 10. What is the swine objection to U? What is Mill's response to the objection?; 11. Explain Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. What role does that distinction play in Mill's response to the swine objection?; 12. What is the basis for the objection that U is too demanding? How does Mill respond? What is his understanding of the relation between virtue and happiness?; 13. Is Mill's conception of happiness and the relation between virtue and happiness the same as the Aristotlean? Explain.; 14. Does Mill's response the objection that U is too demanding imply that he is an internalist or an externalist?; 15. How would you compare Mill and Kant on the question of the relation between explanation and justification?; 16. What is the argument supporting the objection that U cannot serve as a principle of deliberation? What is Mill's view of the role of U in deliberation?; 17. What is the reason supporting the objection that U implies the impossibility of heroism or supererogatory action?; 18. Does U have the consequence that no action is morally neutral or without moral significance? Explain.; 19. Is U consistent with making false promises? What is Kant's view of false promises?; 20. Is U consistent with the punishment of the innocent?; 21. Is U consistent with unjust distributions?; 22. Is U consistent with the violation of an individual or group's rights?; Chapter V; 1. Mill discusses justice in Ch. V: what is his specific reason for doing so?; 2. What follows if U is the sole principle of morality?; 3. What is Mill's view of the relation between law, legal rights, and justice? What does Mill think about disobedience to unjust laws?; 4. How does Mill understand the difference between legal and moral rights?; 5. Explain Mill's view of the relation between justice and the following concepts: desert, fidelity, impartiality, and equality.; 6. What does Mill think we learn about justice by tracing the etymology, i.e. the origin of the meaning of the term, "justice"?; 7. What is Mill's view of the the similarities and differences between justice and morality? What are the unique characteristics of morality?; 8. How does Mill distinguish between perfect and imperfect duties? Explain the significance of this distinction for Mill.; 9. What is Mill's understanding of what a right is? What is the difference between a negative and a positive right?; 10. Given Mill's discussion of perfect and imperfect duty, what follows if all duties are perfect?; 11. How does Mill understand the relation between justice and benevolence?; 12. What is Mill's understanding of the relation between justice and utility?; 13. What is Mill's analysis of the sentiment of justice? Is it accurate to describe this feeling as a punitive one? Explain.; 14. On the basis of Mill's Ch. V clarification of his understanding of the relation between justice and utility, is he able to respond effectively to the three important objections, developed in part in Ch. II, concerning punishment, rights, and distributive justice? Explain.

WEEK 13: April 6: Reading Assignment: Continue reading Mill's Utilitarianism, Chapters I, II, V.; Continue to answer the Study Questions listed in Week 12 above.; Writing Assignment: second paper, on Philippa Foot's essay, "Utilitarianism and the Virtues", p. 258, due on Monday, April 20, 1:00 P.M. Papers must be five pages, typed, double-spaced, and in final form. Be sure to do the following in your paper:; 1. Foot announces at the outset- at the beginning of the second paragraph- that "what is most radically wrong with utilitarianism is its consequentialism, but... its consequentialist element is one of the main reasons why utilitarianism seems so compelling." Explain her reasons for this claim. Specifically, explain what she takes to be the single most compelling feature of the consequentialist element of utilitarianism.; 2. The title of the essay juxtaposes utilitarianism and the virtues. She uses the resources of virtue theory to counter utilitarianism. Explain how she uses the idea of virtue - she highlights especially the virtues of benevolence and justice- in her argument against utilitarianism.; 3. Towards the end of her essay, p. 266, she considers what she calls a "very important objection". Explain the objection and her response to it. Critically evaluate whether you think her response is successful in meeting the objection. Do you think that her admission in the last paragraph, that "we simply do not have a satisfactory theory of morality", weakens her stance against utilitarianism?; Remember: although we will not be discussing Foot's paper in class, you should feel free to do so with me, via email or in my office or by phone, as well as with your colleagues.

WEEK 14: April 13: Reading Assignment: Re-read chapters II and V of Mill's Utilitarianism; review the Study Questions and the Text Outlines for these chapters.; Reminder! Your papers are due on Monday, April 20, 1:00 P.M. at the latest.

WEEK 15: April 20: Reading Assignment: Final Review
Study Questions: Review questions for Final