Washington and Lee University, Spring 2002
Philosophy 101: Problems of Philosophy
Ben Eggleston—EgglestonB@wlu.edu
Paper Assignment no. 2
Your assignment is to write a paper
of not more than 6 pages (double-spaced, 12-point type) on either (1) one of the
following topics or (2) some other topic that you would like to propose to me
(in which case, just let me know, and we can discuss it).
-
A standard objection to
utilitarianism is that, in certain circumstances, it may condone or even
require some practice that most people would regard as extreme injustice—such as slavery. In “What Is Wrong with Slavery” (see
syllabus for citation information and link), R. M. Hare gives a utilitarian
response to this objection. Write a paper in which you (1) summarize
Hare’s response and (2) evaluate it. Because of the work involved in step
1 of this assignment, step 2 can probably be adequately done very briefly
(e.g., in less than a page).
-
A controversial component of
utilitarianism is its commitment to welfarism. In “Utilitarianism and
Welfarism” (see syllabus for citation information and link), Amartya Sen
criticizes welfarism (and, as a consequence, all theories that include it as
a component, such as utilitarianism). Write a paper in which you (1)
summarize Sen’s argument and (2) evaluate it. Because of the work involved
in step 1 of this assignment, step 2 can probably be adequately done very
briefly (e.g., in less than a page).
-
Another controversial component
of utilitarianism is its commitment to consequentialism. In
“Utilitarianism and the Virtues” (see syllabus for citation information
and link), Philippa Foot criticizes consequentialism (and, as a consequence,
all theories that include it as a component, such as utilitarianism). Write
a paper in which you (1) summarize Foot’s argument and (2) evaluate it.
Because of the work involved in step 1 of this assignment, step 2 can
probably be adequately done very briefly (e.g., in less than a page).
-
Utilitarianism seems to imply
that one is morally permitted, indeed obliged, to kill one person in order
to save five people in the organ-transplant case, just as one is morally
obliged to kill one in order to save five in the trolley case. And yet,
intuitively, many people regard these cases as not morally alike. So, two
questions. First, does utilitarianism indeed judge them alike? Second, if
so, is there some morally relevant difference between them that
utilitarianism ignores? If not, what difference between them leads
utilitarianism not to judge them alike?
-
Many people say that there are
certain things that it can never be justified to do, such as torturing an
innocent child. Explain how, if this claim is true, it is a refutation of
utilitarianism. Then, argue against this claim by producing as compelling an
example as you can of a case in which it would be justified, for
consequentialist reasons, to do something
that most people would say can never be justified (such as torturing an
innocent child, or something else of your choosing). (If you write a
paper in this topic it will be judged, in part, on how compelling your
example is. To repeat: it should be an example of something that most people
would say can never be justified, but which you have situated in
circumstances that make it look as justified as it can be made to look.)
-
Kant claimed that the two statements of the categorical
imperative we considered are two formulations of the same principle. Either
(1) defend this claim by explaining how the two formulations are, in fact,
synonymous or (2) challenge this claim by formulating a case in which, you
argue, the two formulations yield contradictory prescriptions (e.g., one of
them approves of a certain act, while the other forbids that very same
act).
-
Sometimes utilitarians say to Kantians, “Look, your theory
is essentially consequentialist, just like mine, because the test for
applying the categorical imperative (in its first formulation) involves
considering the consequences of universalizing the maxim of the act
being evaluated.” To what extent is this a valid criticism of Kantianism?
(Actually, a consequentialist may mean it not so much as a criticism but as
a compliment!) That is, what aspects (if any) of consequentialism might a
Kantian acknowledge some commitment to, and in what ways should Kant’s
moral theory be regarded as a rejection of consequentialism?
-
Utilitarianism and social-contract theory have some
similarities. For example, they both regard morality as derived essentially
from considerations of well-being. Nevertheless, their differing views on
what it takes for a being to have moral standing, or to be entitled to moral
consideration, lead to very different implications in regard to how ordinary
people are obliged to treat certain individuals, such as the disabled and
non-human animals. Explain the content of this divergence and how it comes
about, and assess these theories’ incompatible positions: which one is
more plausible?
As you choose your topic and write
your paper, note that a large part of your grade will be determined by the
extent to which what you say in your paper goes beyond what’s in the book, and
does not merely repeat or rephrase what’s in the book. In doing this you are
welcome to use other resources, but you certainly do not need to do so, and you should
not feel any pressure or expectation to do so. You should, though, as I
said, feel obliged to write a paper that pursues whatever topic you choose to
write about further and in more depth than that topic is developed in the book.
For this paper there are two due
dates:
-
The first due date is for peer
reading of (and commenting on) papers. You are to bring to class on
Thursday, May 23, or Friday, May 24 (depending on which section you are in)
two copies of your paper. Then you and two of your classmates will form a
group of three and will read and comment on each other’s papers. You
should bring to class two copies of as final and polished a version
of your paper as you can manage, so that your peers will have the
opportunity to read and comment on your best work.
-
The second due date is for
turning in the final version of your paper to me. Final copies of all papers
will be due on Monday, May 27, at 8 a.m. If you’re in the M-W-F section of
the course, you can just bring it to class; if you’re in the T-Th section
of the course, you can bring it to my office (Newcomb 25) or leave it in my
mailbox. Late papers will be penalized 3 percentage points per day (or part
of a day, starting at the due date and time) late. As indicated on the
syllabus, your grade for this paper will determine 30 percent of your course
grade.