[can't get enough Kant?]
[want tips on reading these articles?]
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Kant, You Ignorant Slut
I thought it might help us all if I opened up a post dedicated solely to complaining about how tough the Immanuel Kant reading was. Leave your best Kant insults in the comments of this post.
[can't get enough Kant?]
[want tips on reading these articles?]
[can't get enough Kant?]
[want tips on reading these articles?]
Friday, February 22, 2008
Snow Day!
Our class is cancelled today, Friday, February 22nd, because of the snow. In fact, all classes at Camden County College are cancelled today.
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Monday, February 18, 2008
Links Worthy of a Swine
Here are some links that are loosely related to the stuff on Utilitarianism that we are studying. Most of these deal with psychology. There's a lot of psychological research on happiness popping up lately. The first link is an overview of the psychology of happiness:
The second is a slightly optimistic take on our ability to change our baseline level of happiness. This is important to know for an ethical theory that values maximizing happiness:
The next link deals with a famous moral thought experiment, the trolley problem. This gets brought up a lot when evaluating Utilitarianism:
The last link is an advanced overview of consequentialist ethical theories. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, since it only looks at the consequences of an action to figure out whether an action is morally good or bad:
So what makes you happy? WaWa? Ping pong? Cookies?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Paper #1 Guidelines
The first paper is due at the beginning of class on Friday, March 7th. It's worth 5% of your final grade. Here's the assignment:
Assignment: Write an argumentative essay on one of the topics below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 300-600 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word & WordPerfect have automatic word counts.)
1. Out of the eight ethical theories that we have studied (cultural relativism, divine command, J.S. Mill’s utilitarianism, Kant, Aquinas’s natural law, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Kohlberg’s moral development, and Gilligan’s ethics of care) which do you think is best? Why? What are some (at least two) seemingly good objections that someone might make to that theory? How would you reply to those objections? Explain & defend your position.
2. Provide a detailed criticism of one of the ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. First, explain the theory, and present a charitable argument (what you take to be the best argument) in its favor. Then critically evaluate the argument. What are good objections to the argument? Consider how a proponent of the theory might respond to your objections, and explain why these responses are unsuccessful.
3. Which do you think is more important in determining whether an action is morally right or wrong: the consequences of the action (what happens as a result of the action), or the motivations behind the action (the reasons why someone chooses that action over other actions)? Why? [NOTE: I’m not looking for one right choice here. You can choose either side, as long as you defend it with a well-reasoned argument.] Name two ethical theories that we have studied that care more about the consequences of an action. Then name two ethical theories that we have studied that care more about the motivations behind actions. In arguing for one side over the other, describe a specific moral dilemma in which these theories would give different decisions based on the action’s consequences vs. its motivations. Be sure to fully explain and defend your position.
4. In class, we’ve discussed the “Hitler Intuition”: Hitler’s actions don’t just seem wrong for you or me; they seem objectively wrong. Many have used this intuition to support the claim that there must be an objective morality of some kind. Examine this intuition.
-If you agree that it is solid evidence for objective morality, explain
exactly how this intuition works. What makes it objectively true that Hitler was immoral? What is the basis of your judgment? In other words, what grounds objective morality? Which ethical theory we’ve discussed do you think this supports? Explain and defend all your answers.
-If you do not believe that this intuition is solid evidence for objective morality, you are probably a relativist. Explain why this intuition doesn’t provide enough evidence for the existence of an objective morality. Why is it OK to say that Hitler’s actions weren’t universally bad? How is it that Hitler is simply bad to me, but not objectively bad?
5. Within the parameters of ethical theories discussed in class, write on a topic of your choosing. (Sean must approve your topic by Friday, February 29th.)
Assignment: Write an argumentative essay on one of the topics below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 300-600 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word & WordPerfect have automatic word counts.)
1. Out of the eight ethical theories that we have studied (cultural relativism, divine command, J.S. Mill’s utilitarianism, Kant, Aquinas’s natural law, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Kohlberg’s moral development, and Gilligan’s ethics of care) which do you think is best? Why? What are some (at least two) seemingly good objections that someone might make to that theory? How would you reply to those objections? Explain & defend your position.
2. Provide a detailed criticism of one of the ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. First, explain the theory, and present a charitable argument (what you take to be the best argument) in its favor. Then critically evaluate the argument. What are good objections to the argument? Consider how a proponent of the theory might respond to your objections, and explain why these responses are unsuccessful.
3. Which do you think is more important in determining whether an action is morally right or wrong: the consequences of the action (what happens as a result of the action), or the motivations behind the action (the reasons why someone chooses that action over other actions)? Why? [NOTE: I’m not looking for one right choice here. You can choose either side, as long as you defend it with a well-reasoned argument.] Name two ethical theories that we have studied that care more about the consequences of an action. Then name two ethical theories that we have studied that care more about the motivations behind actions. In arguing for one side over the other, describe a specific moral dilemma in which these theories would give different decisions based on the action’s consequences vs. its motivations. Be sure to fully explain and defend your position.
4. In class, we’ve discussed the “Hitler Intuition”: Hitler’s actions don’t just seem wrong for you or me; they seem objectively wrong. Many have used this intuition to support the claim that there must be an objective morality of some kind. Examine this intuition.
-If you agree that it is solid evidence for objective morality, explain
exactly how this intuition works. What makes it objectively true that Hitler was immoral? What is the basis of your judgment? In other words, what grounds objective morality? Which ethical theory we’ve discussed do you think this supports? Explain and defend all your answers.
-If you do not believe that this intuition is solid evidence for objective morality, you are probably a relativist. Explain why this intuition doesn’t provide enough evidence for the existence of an objective morality. Why is it OK to say that Hitler’s actions weren’t universally bad? How is it that Hitler is simply bad to me, but not objectively bad?
5. Within the parameters of ethical theories discussed in class, write on a topic of your choosing. (Sean must approve your topic by Friday, February 29th.)
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Quiz of God
A quick reminder: we decided to move the quiz back. We're now taking it at the beginning of class on Wednesday, February 13th.
Also, here are two links on God Ethics (divine command theory). The first is a transcript of the entire debate excerpted in our John Arthur reading on the existence of God.
The second link is an advanced overview of god ethics, again from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia:
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Legalize Adultery!
As we discussed in class, there are a few states with adultery laws on the books: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Maryland. Of course, the laws are rarely enforced.
My favorite punishment is Maryland: a $10 fine. Actually, the $10 fine is fitting, given Alexander Hamilton's messy personal life.
My favorite punishment is Maryland: a $10 fine. Actually, the $10 fine is fitting, given Alexander Hamilton's messy personal life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)