PHI 3601 Ethics
Dr. Hauptli Fall Semester 2013
First Paper Topics
Copyright ©
2013 Bruce W. Hauptli
You are to critically respond to one of the following
topics:
(a) Do you believe ethical egoism is a viable moral
theory?
Selected criticisms which you
may find helpful in addressing this topic:
James Rachels;
Elements of Moral Philosophy (N.Y.:
Random House, 1986), and Fred Feldman,
Introductory Ethics (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1978)—they are both
are on reserve in the Green Library for this course—contain discussions and
critiques of egoism. You may also
develop and pursue any of the criticisms offered in the lecture supplements.
Alasdair MacIntyre, “Egoism and
Altruism,” in The Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (N.Y.: Macmillan, 1969)—it is available in both
the circulation and reference sections of the Green Library.
Bernard Williams, “Egoism and
Altruism” in his The Problems of the Self
(Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1973), pp. 250-265.
Ayn Rand, “The Virtue of
Selfishness,” in The Right Thing To Do,
ed. James Rachels (N.Y.: Random House, 1989).
The full treatment is her book by the same title (1962).
(b) Critically compare and contrast the contract theories
of Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls (the latter is available in his “Liberal
Contractualism: Justice As Fairness” on pp. 390-398 of our text.
(c) Do you believe that Mill’s utilitarianism is a viable
moral theory?
Selected criticisms which you
may find helpful in addressing this topic
James Rachels;
Elements of Moral Philosophy (N.Y.:
Random House, 1986), and Fred Feldman,
Introductory Ethics (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1978)—they are both
are on reserve in the Green Lbrary for this course—contain discussions and
critiques of utilitarianism. You
may also develop and pursue any of the criticisms offered in the lecture
supplements.
(d) Given the extent of
our obligation according to Peter Singer in his “Famine, Affluence, and
Morality” (pp. 269-276 of our text), can you accept the “sacrifices”
utilitarianism seems to demand of us according to him, or is there something
wrong with his argument (and/or utilitarianism)?
(e) Clarify the criticisms
of utilitarianism offered by Robert Nozick in his “The Experience Machine” and
“Side Constraints” (in our text on pp. 111-112 and 264-268 of our text).
(f) Consider whether Kai Nielsen’s defense of “negative
responsibility” is sufficient to overcome the objections that Bernard Williams
raises in his critique of utilitarianism (Nielsen defends negative
responsibility in his “Against Moral Conservatism” in our text on pp. 255-264).
(g) Consider whether John Hospers overcomes Bernard
Williams’ objections to utilitarianism in his “Rule-Utilitarianism” (pp. 255-264
of our text).
(h) Consider whether David Gauthier offers a criticism of
Mill’s utilitarianism with his argument in “Morality and Advantage” (pp. 98-106
of our text).
(i) In his “Persons, Character, and Morality” Bernard
Williams develops a critique of Kantian and utilitarian moral theories which
contends that they each emphasize a feature of moral life which the other
excludes. Clarify his concern and
indicate whether you believe it would be possible to combine these views without
great difficulty.
Directions:
You are to write a critical analytical paper on one of the
above topics. Such a critical
examination and analysis should: (1) clarify the position being examined; (2)
elaborate the argument(s) for or against the position in question; (3) carefully
assess the adequacy and strength of the argument(s) by considering possible
responses, counter-arguments, or counter-examples; and (4) offer your own
overall assessment of where the arguments for and against the position being
considered leave us—should we accept, reject, or remain neutral regarding this
orientation, view, or position?
One of my purposes in having you write these papers is to
offer you the opportunity to perfect your ability to describe carefully a
complex position and argument to others.
Toward that end, I require that you consider
your intended audience for these papers
to be other philosophy students who have not read exactly the material you have
read or heard exactly the lectures which you have heard.
They can not be expected to immediately know the intricacies of the
positions you are discussing, and must first have the central aspects of the
position which are relevant to your paper clarified to them.
They must also be presented with carefully elaborated arguments for and
against the position if they are to be able to follow your critical assessment
of it.
Another of my purposes here is to provide you with the opportunity to
push beyond the level of reading and mastering the required material for the
course. Here my goal is to provide
you with an opportunity to engage in critical reflection upon the readings (or
upon related readings and issues), and to provide you with feed-back on your
critical scrutinies. This goal can
not be met if you confine yourself to a neutral exposition of the views under
consideration. In my supplement
Writing Philosophy Papers (available
on the course web-site), I describe a number of different sorts of papers which
might be submitted to fulfill this requirement (as well as a number of other
points regarding composition and grader’s marks.
The detailed characterization of such papers in that supplement should
help you understand my expectations (those desiring high grades will endeavor to
approach the highest ideal, while those who are not so motivated may choose to
set their sights somewhat lower).
Your papers should
address an assigned topic in a manner that clearly displays its purpose, thesis,
or controlling idea,
clarify the relevant elements of the philosopher’s theory so that they can be
understood by other students taking such philosophy courses,
support the thesis with adequate reasons and evidence,
show
sustained analysis and critical thought,
be
organized clearly and logically, and
show
knowledge of conventions of standard written English.
They should be approximately 2000 words long (equivalent to
eight double-spaced typewritten pages of 250 words per page).
This indication of length is meant as a guide to the student—papers much
shorter than the indicated length are unlikely to have adequately addressed one
of the assigned topics (see syllabus, however, for explanation of the need for
students to fulfill the Gordon Rule requirement in their papers).
Papers may, of course, be longer than the indicated length.
The papers are due by 4:15 on
Monday, October 14. I am giving
you the paper topics now so that you have at least two weekends to work on the
paper. If you plan to wait till the
last moment to write your paper, I recommend you review the Course Syllabus
regarding penalties for late papers.
Please review my policy on extensions, late papers and plagiarism
(contained in the course syllabus).
I will be happy to read a rough draft of your paper, and/or to discuss
your ideas for your paper with you.
Of course I can not be much help to you in this manner if you don’t allow
sufficient time, and so I will not read any rough drafts submitted after
3:30 on
Thursday, October 10.).
If you plan to wait till the last moment to write your paper, I recommend
you review the Course Syllabus regarding penalties for late papers.
Please review my policy on extensions, late papers, and plagiarism
(contained in the course syllabus).
Please also review my Guide to Writing
Philosophy Papers—see the course web-site.
Revised on 09/30/2013.