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).
  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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).
  4. 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?
  5. 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.)
  6. 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).
  7. 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?
  8. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.