Washington and Lee University, Spring 2002
Philosophy 101: Problems of Philosophy
Ben Eggleston—EgglestonB@wlu.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 wide variety of controversial moral issues such as abortion, famine, euthanasia, and animal rights. 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, as well as possible objections to, moral judgments.

Logistics: I am teaching two sections of this course:

• One meets M-W-F, AB (8–9:55), in Newcomb 9.
• The other meets T-Th, GHI (2–4:55), in Williams 324.

Grading:

Here are the factors that will determine your overall grade, and their weights:

• first paper: 25%
• mid-term test: 12%
• second paper: 30%
• final exam: 18%
• attendance: 7%
• participation: 8%

The mid-term test and the final exam will mainly test your knowledge of what you’ve read, while the two papers will manifest your ability to articulate, and to present arguments for, your own views. Further information about these assignments will be provided as needed, as well as upon request.

If you have a learning disability on the basis on which you may or will be requesting any special accommodation (extra time for tests, etc.), please let me know as soon as possible.

This semester I am experimenting with the Blackboard course-management software, which (unlike any Web pages I’m capable of creating) is supposed to enable me to enter your grades into the system and to enable you to view them, confidentially. To see the grades I have for you at any point, select the link corresponding to your section of this class (sorry, these links no longer work, because the class is over):

• section 01 (M-W-F, AB)
• section 03 (T-Th, GHI)

You will be prompted to log in. If I understand correctly how the system has been set up, your username is your Novell log-in name, and your password is your I.D. number (from your W&L I.D. card), omitting any leading zeros. (Once you get there, click on “Tools,” then “Check Grade.”) Note 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; all course-related documents, such as this syllabus and assignments, will be here on my Web site.

Books to buy:

• James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, 1999). (This is a link to McGraw-Hill’s page for the 4th edition of this book. But our bookstore is selling the 3rd edition, so that’s what we’ll be using.)
• James Rachels (ed.), The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy, 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill, 1999). (This is a link to McGraw-Hill’s page for the 3rd edition of this book. But our bookstore is selling the 2nd edition, so that’s what we’ll be using.)

Schedule:

Part 1: Meta-ethics

Week 1:

• EMP, preface (pp. xi–xii)
• EMP, chapter 1: “What Is Morality?” (pp. 1–19)
• EMP, chapter 2: “Cultural Relativism” (pp. 20–36)
• EMP, chapter 3: “Subjectivism in Ethics” (pp. 37–52)
• first paper assignment handed out

Week 2:

• EMP, chapter 4: “Does Morality Depend on Religion?” (pp. 53–69)
• EMP, chapter 5: “Psychological Egoism” (pp. 70–81)

Part 2: Normative Ethics

Week 2, continued:

• EMP, chapter 6: “Ethical Egoism” (pp. 82–95)
• in-class readings of first paper: Bring two copies of your paper to class on Thursday, May 2, or Friday, May 3.

Week 3:

• first paper due at 8 a.m. on Monday, May 6
• EMP, chapter 6: “Ethical Egoism” (pp. 82–95), continued
• Utilitarianism
  • EMP, chapter 7: “The Utilitarian Approach” (pp. 96–106)
  • EMP, chapter 8: “The Debate over Utilitarianism” (pp. 107–121)
  • For further (and 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.

Week 4:

• mid-term test
• Kantian ethics
  • EMP, chapter 9: “Are There Absolute Moral Rules?” (pp. 122–131)
    • The distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives is fundamental in Kant’s thought. If you want a clearer account of this distinction than Rachels provides (though I think his account is pretty clear), you could (this is optional) 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.
  • EMP, chapter 10: “Kant and Respect for Persons” (pp. 132–142)
  • 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 David Velleman. (This, too, is optional.)
• EMP, chapter 11: “The Idea of a Social Contract” (pp. 143–161)
  • prisoner’s dilemma game
• second paper assignment provided

Part 3: Applied Ethics

Week 5:

• Cloning
  • Gregory E. Pence, “Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning?” (RTD, pp. 129–140)
  • I’ll provide this: Leon Kass, “The Wisdom of Repugnance” (New Republic article, June 2, 1997)
  • Print this yourself: “The Great Cloning Debate” (Economist article, May 9, 2002)
  • Print this yourself: “President Bush Calls on Senate to Back Human Cloning Ban” (White House press release, April 10, 2002)
  • Print this yourself: “Statement by 40 Nobel Laureates Regarding Cloning” (American Society for Cell Biology press release, April 10, 2002)
  • I’ll provide this: “The President’s Narrow Morality,” (New York Times editorial, April 11, 2002—sign-in required)
  • Print this yourself: “Open Letter to U.S. Senators on Human Cloning and Eugenic Engineering,” (Center for Genetics and Society, March 19, 2002)
  • Print this yourself: Michael Kinsley, “My Life for Poetry” (Washington Post column, April 8, 2002)
• Birth
  • Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse, “Letting Handicapped Babies Die” (RTD, pp. 116–128)
    • Here are Singer’s c.v. and a site of Singer-related links, which Singer recommends but does not control.
  • videotape on Peter Singer
• Famine
  • Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (RTD, pp. 167–176)
  • Jan Narveson, “Feeding the Hungry” (RTD, pp. 177–189)
• in-class readings of second paper: bring two copies

Week 6:

• second paper due
• Euthanasia
  • James Rachels, “The Morality of Euthanasia” (RTD, pp. 190–194)
  • Richard Doerflinger, “Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life?” (RTD, pp. 195–204)
  • videotape: “Choosing Death”
• Animal Rights
  • Immanuel Kant, “Why We Have No Obligations to Animals” (RTD, pp. 205–206)
  • Peter Singer, “All Animals are Equal” (RTD, pp. 207–218)
  • Print this yourself: Peter Singer and Richard Posner, “Animal Rights” (all five days of their dialogue, not just the first day)
• Exam envelopes are due to me (handed to me personally, slid under my door, or left in my mailbox) by 9 a.m. on Thursday, May 30. (Envelopes turned in late may not be ready for pick-up by the time you want to take your exam.) On your envelope, you do not need to indicate when you will take the exam, but please do fill in the other blanks (the four blanks at the top and the two blanks along the right side).
• If you want to take the exam early, you may do so on Friday, May 31, from 2 to 4. In order to do this,
  1. Let me know by 9 a.m. on Thursday, May 30, so that I can separate your exam envelope from those that I turn in to the secretary for distribution during the regular exam period.
  2. Come to my office on Friday at 2. I’ll give you the exam, and you’ll have 2 hours to go take it somewhere else. You’ll return it to me at my office by 4.

Final Exam:

• The final exam will have two parts and, as indicated above, will determine 18 percent of your final grade.
  • The first part will be like the mid-term: 25 multiple-choice questions. These will be on the material covered in the second half of the course (Kantian ethics to the end). This part of the exam will determine 12 percent of your course grade.
  • The second part of the exam will consist of a list of sentences or quotations and an “answer bank” including the names of philosophical theories (e.g., cultural relativism) and specific philosophers (e.g., Peter Singer). Your job will be to identify, for each sentence or quotation, the theory it is characteristic of, or the philosopher who said it. There will be considerably more answers in the “answer bank” than questions. (So, it won’t just be a matter of matching; thus, process of elimination is not likely to help much.)  The sentences and quotations will come from the whole course (so this part of the final exam will be cumulative), and this part of the exam will determine 6 percent of your course grade.
• Exams for philosophy (and several other departments) can be picked up in the hallway on the second floor of Newcomb Hall (right outside my office, coincidentally). You can then take the exam anywhere in the building.
• There will be a time limit of 2 hours, but due to the exam-distribution procedure we follow in the philosophy department, you must pick up your exam at the beginning of whatever exam period you are taking your exam in. (So, if you’re taking it during the 9–12 period, don’t come at 10, planning to take it between 10 and 12. Come at 9.)