University of Kansas, Fall 2004
Philosophy 160: Introduction to Ethics
Ben Eggleston—eggleston@ku.edu

Introduction to Ethics

Description: This course provides an introduction to those problems of philosophy that are problems of moral philosophy, or ethics. We will begin by examining certain problems that arise when we try to make moral judgments: problems such as cultural relativism (“What’s right for us is not necessarily right for them”), subjectivism (“What’s right for me is not necessarily right for you”), and the role of religion in morality (e.g., “What’s right is just what God says is right”). Second, we will consider several historically important and still-prominent theoretical approaches to ethics that purport (most of them, anyway) to provide systematic procedures for answering questions about right and wrong. In the third and final part of the course we will consider more concretely a variety of important moral issues such as famine relief, euthanasia, abortion, and genetic engineering. Throughout, we will seek not so much to form judgments about specific moral issues—most of us do that on our own anyway, albeit with varying degrees of certitude—but to improve our thinking about the considerations that may count as reasons for and against the moral judgments we are tempted to make.

Class schedule: lectures on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 8:30–9:20, in 3140 Wescoe Hall (enrollment code 21430); plus a discussion section once a week, with your teaching assistant

Teaching assistants: There are three teaching assistants for this course; here is their contact information:

My office is in 3070 Wescoe Hall, and I have office hours on Tuesdays from 9:30 to 10:20 and on Thursdays from 10:30 to 11:20. You are also entirely welcome to contact me by e-mail to make an appointment to talk to me at another time.

Requirements/grading:

Here are the factors that will determine your overall grade, and their weights (in percentages):

Further information about these assignments will be provided as the semester progresses.

Work will be graded in accordance with the university’s grading system, as stated in article 2, section 2 of the of the University Senate Rules and Regulations.

In addition, I should note here that I take academic misconduct, especially cheating on tests and plagiarizing papers, extremely seriously, and am generally disposed to impose the harshest permissible penalties when it occurs. To enable you to meet my expectations in this regard and to do so without fear of inadvertently falling short of them, I will provide clear and specific guidance as to what does and does not constitute academic misconduct in advance of tests and when papers are assigned. Meanwhile, you may consult article 2, section 6 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations for university policy in regard to this matter.

If you have a disability for which you may be requesting special services or accommodations for this course, be sure to contact Disability Resources (22 Strong Hall / 864-2620 (V/TTY)), if you have not already done so, and have that office send me a letter documenting the accommodations to which you are entitled. Please also see me privately, at your earliest convenience, so that I can be aware of your situation and can begin to prepare the appropriate accommodations in advance of receiving the letter from Disability Resources.

Book to buy:

• , (McGraw-Hill, 2003)
  • Rachels died on September 5, 2003. Here is his obituary from The New York Times (in PDF format).

Course materials on the web:

Almost all course documents, including this syllabus, will be available on the web site for the course, the URL of which is

http://www.ku.edu/~utile/courses/ethics10

(If you don’t want to type in this whole thing, you can stop after ‘utile’—at which point you’ll be at my personal web site—and then follow the links to the web site for this particular course.)

Quizzes, class notes, paper assignments, information about tests, and other useful materials will be posted at this site. The syllabus is also one of the pages at the above site, and since it will probably be revised and elaborated as the course progresses, I encourage you to check it online from time to time, instead of relying on a hard copy.

There are two things for which you will have to use the Blackboard site for this course instead of the web site I’ve set up. The first is checking your grades for this course, since I don’t know how to make a web page that will allow each student to view only his or her own grades. So, to allow you to have online access to your grades, your teaching assistant will be entering your grades into the “online gradebook” at the Blackboard site for this course (if you’re not already logged in, then log in here; once you get to the Blackboard site for the course, click on ‘Tools’, then ‘View Grades’).

The other thing for which you’ll have to use the Blackboard site for this course instead of the web site I’ve set up is entering your answers to thirteen short quizzes in order to supplement and to reinforce your reading of The Elements of Moral Philosophy. I’m using Blackboard for this so that you can take the quizzes online and have your scores automatically entered into the online gradebook. Note, then, that although Blackboard provides a shell for all sorts of course-related documents, I am using it only to provide you with access to your grades and to administer these thirteen quizzes. All other course-related documents, such as this syllabus, notes, and other assignments, will be at the non-Blackboard web site mentioned above.

Using J-Stor:

Some of the hyperlinks in the schedule below are to articles that are available electronically from the J-Stor online journal archive. J-Stor’s home page—www.jstor.org—can be accessed by anyone, but the contents of its archives cannot be legitimately accessed without a subscription. KU has a subscription, and you can use this subscription to access the J-Stor archive in either of two ways:

1. While using a computer with a KU IP address (which I imagine would be any of the on-campus computers—e.g., in the computer labs, in the libraries, etc.), just click on the link for the article you’re interested in. It should appear with no problem.
2. While using a non-KU computer, follow these steps:
   1. Go to http://www2.lib.ku.edu:2065/.
   2. Unless you are already logged into the KU libraries’ server, you will be confronted with a log-in screen. Log in with your KU username and password.
   3. When the J-Stor screen appears, use “Search” or “Browse” to find the article, based on the bibliographic information supplied below.

Once you have the article on the screen, you will probably want to print it. Look for the gray “PRINT” link at the top of the page you’re viewing, and click on it. You’ll then be given further instructions and links. In order to print J-Stor articles, the computer you’re using needs to have installed on it either (1) the Adobe Acrobat Reader (installed on most or all campus computers, and downloadable free from Adobe; see the link on my home page) or (2) J-Stor’s own printing application (details available with J-Stor’s instructions for printing; click on “Set your printing preferences” after clicking on the “PRINT” link).

Schedule:

August 19 (H):

• in class
  • the subject matter of the course
    • applied ethics
    • normative ethics
    • meta-ethics
  • the mechanics of the course
    • syllabus
    • lectures
    • quizzes
  • preview of The Elements of Moral Philosophy, chapter 1

Part 1: Meta-ethics

August 24 (T):

• before class
  • familiarize yourself with the course syllabus
  • read The Elements of Moral Philosophy, preface (pp. xi–xii)
  • read EMP, chapter 1: “What Is Morality?” (pp. 1–15)
  • read the page called “Quizzes,” including its ”General Information” section, on the course web site
  • take quiz on EMP, preface and chapter 1 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
  • (optional:) take survey following quiz (on Blackboard)
• in class
  • review of preface and chapter 1
  • introduction to concept of implication
  • preview of chapter 2

August 26 (H):

• before class
  • read EMP, chapter 2: “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” (pp. 16–31)
  • take quiz on EMP, chapter 2 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
  • (optional:) take survey following quiz (on Blackboard)
• in class
  • review of chapter 2

August 31 (T):

• before class
  • read cultural relativism writing assignment and two accompanying sample papers
  • no quiz to take
• in class
  • review of chapter 2 (continued)
  • review of papers on cultural relativism
  • introduction to concept of compatibility
  • preview of chapter 3

September 2 (H):

• before class
  • read EMP, chapter 3: “Subjectivism in Ethics,” through section 3.6 (pp. 32–44)
  • take quiz on EMP, chapter 3 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
• in class
  • review of chapter 3
  • preview of Stevenson

September 7 (T):

• before class
  • Read Charles Leslie Stevenson, “The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms” (Mind vol. 46, no. 181 [January 1937], pp. 14–31)—this is from J-Stor; see the “Using J-Stor” section above.
  • Read all of this paper, and don’t be discouraged if you don’t understand all of it the first time you read it. It’s hard. I’ll say some things to help you understand it better in class—things that you will understand better if you have worked your way through the paper once—and then you’ll be ready for a second reading, to be done before the next class, when I’ll say some more things about the paper.
  • There is no quiz to take.
• in class
  • lecture on emotivism
  • Stevenson writing assignment handed out

September 9 (H):

• before class
  • Read the Stevenson paper again. (You will see and understand things you missed the first time through.)
  • Read the writing assignment on Stevenson and the sample paper.
  • There is no quiz to take.
• in class
  • lecture on emotivism
  • lecture on writing assignment on Stevenson
  • lecture on Stevenson paper
• further (optional) reading
  • If you liked the paper by Stevenson and are interested in more reading on this topic, there is a series of papers (also in J-Stor) in which Stevenson and Richard Brandt debate the merits of Stevenson’s view:
    • Charles L. Stevenson, “The Emotive Conception of Ethics and Its Cognitive Implications” (Philosophical Review vol. 59, no. 3 [July 1950], pp. 291–304)
    • Richard B. Brandt, “The Emotive Theory of Ethics” (Philosophical Review vol. 59, no. 3 [July 1950], pp. 305–318)
    • Charles L. Stevenson, “Brandt’s Questions about Emotive Ethics” (Philosophical Review vol. 59, no. 4 [October 1950], pp. 528–534)
    • Richard B. Brandt, “Stevenson’s Defense of the Emotive Theory” (Philosophical Review vol. 59, no. 4 [October 1950], pp. 535–540)
  • You might also consider ’s paper “How to Derive “Ought” from “Is”” (Philosophical Review vol. 73, no. 1 [January 1964], pp. 43–58), which (as its title suggests) attempts to refute the Humean-emotivist claim of the fact–value divide.

September 14 (T):

• before class
  • complete writing assignment on Stevenson
  • read EMP, section 3.7 through the first full paragraph on p. 46
  • read EMP, section 4.3: “The Theory of Natural Law” (pp. 53–57)
  • take quiz on EMP, sections 3.7 and 4.3 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
• in class
  • writing assignment on Stevenson due
  • review of deriving morality from nature

September 16 (H):

• before class
  • read EMP, chapter 4: “Does Morality Depend on Religion?” (pp. 48–62), except section 4.3
  • read EMP, section 3.7, from the second full paragraph on p. 46
  • take quiz on EMP, chapter 4 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
• in class
  • lecture on chapter 4
  • preview of chapter 5

September 21 (T):

• before class
  • read EMP, chapter 5: “Psychological Egoism” (pp. 63–75)
  • take quiz on EMP, chapter 5 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
• in class
  • lecture on chapter 5
  • preview of chapter 6

September 23 (H):

• before class
  • review meta-ethics notes
  • study for test on meta-ethics
• in class
  • review for test on meta-ethics

September 28 (T): test on meta-ethics

Part 2: Normative Ethics

September 30 (H):

• before class
  • read EMP, chapter 6: “Ethical Egoism” (pp. 76–90)
  • take quiz on EMP, chapter 6 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
• in class
  • review of chapter 6

October 5 (T):

• before class
  • read EMP, chapter 7: “The Utilitarian Approach” (pp. 91–101)
  • take quiz on EMP, chapter 7 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
• in class
  • review of chapter 7

October 7 (H):

• before class
  • read EMP, chapter 8: “The Debate Over Utilitarianism” (pp. 102–116)
  • take quiz on EMP, chapter 8 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
• in class
  • review of chapter 8
• further (optional) reading
  • In “What Is Wrong with Slavery” (Philosophy & Public Affairs vol. 8, no. 2 [Winter 1979], pp. 103–121), R. M. Hare replies to the objection—often lodged against utilitarianism—that utilitarianism is liable to condone slavery in certain circumstances (i.e., if the circumstances are such that the harm that the slaves suffer, as a result of slavery, is outweighed by the benefits to others that result from the availability of slave labor). On the contrary, Hare claims, utilitarianism provides a better account of why slavery is wrong than do the traditional arguments against it that rest content with invoking concepts such as freedom or rights without providing any deeper account of why such things as freedom and rights are morally important.
  • In “Utilitarianism and Welfarism” (The Journal of Philosophy vol. 76, no. 9 [September 1979], pp. 463–489), Amartya Sen argues against the welfarist component of utilitarianism: that is, utilitarianism’s commitment to the thesis that, when consequences (or states of affairs) are being judged good or bad, what matters is the amount of welfare (or well-being) in them. Sen argues, that is, that in order to judge properly the goodness or badness of a state of affairs, you need to know more than just what level of well-being each person in it is experiencing. (He does not, in this paper, take issue with utilitarianism’s commitment to consequentialism—only its commitment to welfarism.) Although this paper takes some work to get through, it is a model of organizational clarity, as Sen argues for a series of increasingly ambitious theses, culminating in the rejection of welfarism itself.
  • In “Utilitarianism and the Virtues” (Mind vol. 94, no. 374 [April 1985], pp. 196–209), Philippa Foot argues against utilitarianism’s consequentialist component. She does not just claim that it is not always right to do what will have the best consequences (although she seems to hold this position); she also claims that it does not always make sense to say that one set of consequences, or state of affairs, is better than another. That is, she questions the very idea of ranking states of affairs in terms of their goodness, as well as the claim that—once states of affairs have been ranked in this way—one must always act in whatever way will bring about the best one.

October 12 (T):

• before class
  • nothing
• in class (evening)
  • movie raising issues illustrating utilitarianism: Extreme Measures
  • one showing at 5 p.m., in our usual room
  • another showing at 7 p.m., also in our usual room
  • no class that morning

October 14 (H): no class (Fall Break)

October 19 (T):

• before class
  • Read EMP, chapter 9: “Are There Absolute Moral Rules?” (pp. 117–129).
  • Take quiz on EMP, chapter 9 (using the course web site and Blackboard).
  • The distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives is fundamental to Kant’s way of thinking about morality. If you want a clearer account of this distinction than Rachels provides (though I think his account is pretty clear), you could (if you want to) look at the first three pages or so of Philippa Foot’s landmark paper “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives” (The Philosophical Review vol. 81, no. 3 [July 1972], pp. 305–316). Although (as the title suggests) Foot argues against the Kantian (and very common) notion that the requirements of morality are categorical, she begins her paper with a wonderfully clear account of the distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. See, in particular, paragraphs 2–5 of this paper—that is, from p. 305, line 12, through p. 308, line 4.
• in class
  • review of chapter 9
  • writing assignment on normative ethics handed out

October 21 (H):

• before class
  • read writing assignment on normative ethics
• in class
  • review of chapter 9, continued
  • lecture on writing assignment on normative ethics

October 26 (T):

• before class
  • read EMP, chapter 10: “Kant and Respect for Persons,” section 10.1: “The Idea of Human Dignity” (pp. 130–133)
  • take quiz on EMP, chapter 10 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
• in class
  • review of chapter 10
  • preview of chapter 11
• further (optional) reading: If you feel, after reading Rachels’s account of Kantian ethics, that you would like another take on it, you might look at (about 13,000 words), by .

October 28 (H):

• before class
  • complete writing assignment on normative ethics
  • read EMP, chapter 11: “The Idea of a Social Contract” (pp. 141–159)
  • take quiz on EMP, chapter 11 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
  • For more information on the prisoner’s dilemma, you can
    • visit the web site used to illustrate the game in class: http://www.gametheory.net/Web/PDilemma/ (may not work on all computers)
    • play the game in a different format at http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/pd.html
    • read about real-world interactions that are similar to the prisoner’s dilemma at
      • http://www.magnolia.net/~leonf/sd/sd-exam.html
      • http://iserver.saddleback.cc.ca.us/div/la/neh/prisoner.htm
• in class
  • writing assignment on normative ethics due (in class)
  • review of chapter 11
  • preview of chapter 12

November 2 (T):

• before class
  • read EMP, chapter 12: “Feminism and the Ethics of Care” (pp. 160–172)
  • take quiz on EMP, chapter 12 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
• in class
  • review of chapter 12

November 4 (H):

• before class
  • review normative-ethics notes
  • study for test on normative ethics
• in class
  • review for test on normative ethics

November 9 (T): test on normative ethics

Part 3: Applied Ethics

November 11 (H):

• before class
  • (optional:) for more background on Peter Singer, see
    • Singer’s c.v. and a site of Singer-related links, which Singer recommends but does not control.
    • a magazine article: Mark Oppenheimer, “Who Lives? Who Dies? The Utility of Peter Singer” (The Christian Century, July 3–10, 2002, pp. 24–29; this article has been posted online by LookSmart, at http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1058/14_119/89580866/p1/article.jhtml, and on the Religion Online site, at http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=2659)
    • a magazine article: Michael Specter, “The Dangerous Philosopher” (The New Yorker, September 6, 1999, pp. 46–55)
  • read Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (Philosophy & Public Affairs vol. 1, no. 3 [Spring 1972], pp. 229–243)
  • read Peter Singer, “Who Deserves the 9/11 Cash Pile?” (Slate, December 12, 2001)
    • (optional:) Singer’s paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is mentioned in a magazine article about a person who donated a kidney to a stranger simply because she (the recipient) needed it more than he (the donor) did. See pp. 59–61 of Ian Parker, “The Gift,” in the August 2, 2004, issue of The New Yorker. (The article appears on pp. 54–63.)
• in class
  • videotape on Peter Singer: “Unconventional Wisdom”
  • review of Singer on redistribution
  • preview of euthanasia issue

November 16 (T):

• before class
  • nothing
• in class
  • videotape on euthanasia: “On Our Own Terms: Moyers on Dying (Part 1: A Death of One’s Own)”
  • writing assignment on applied ethics handed out

November 18 (H):

• before class
  • read writing assignment on applied ethics
  • read Harriet McBryde Johnson, “Unspeakable Conversations” (The New York Times, February 16, 2003)
• in class
  • review of Johnson
  • lecture on writing assignment on applied ethics
  • preview of abortion issue

November 23 (T):

• before class
  • read , “Why Abortion Is Immoral” (The Journal of Philosophy vol. 86, no. 4 [April 1989], pp. 183–202)
  • read , “Sensationalized Philosophy: A Reply to Marquis’s “Why Abortion Is Immoral”” (The Journal of Philosophy vol. 87, no. 5 [May 1990], pp. 262–264)
• in class
  • guest lecture by Don Marquis

November 25 (H):

• no class (Thanksgiving Break)

November 30 (T):

• before class
  • nothing
• in class (evening)
  • movie raising issues in applied ethics: Gattaca
  • one showing at 5 p.m., in our usual room
  • another showing at 7 p.m., also in our usual room
  • no class that morning

December 2 (H):

• before class
  • complete writing assignment on applied ethics
• in class
  • writing assignment on applied ethics due (in class)
  • lecture on Gattaca
  • preview of test on applied ethics

December 7 (T): test on applied ethics

December 9 (H):

• before class
  • nothing
• in class
  • review for final exam

Tuesday, December 14: final exam (8:30–9:30 a.m.)

(The final-exam period is from 7:30 to 10 a.m., but we will start at 8:30 and finish at 9:30. See http://www.registrar.ku.edu/timetable/049finals.shtml for KU’s final-exam schedule.)