University of Kansas, Spring 2003
Philosophy 161: Introduction to Ethics, Honors
Ben Eggleston—eggleston@ku.edu
Paper Assignment no. 1
Your assignment is to write a paper
of about 5 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).
-
At the end of section 3.5, and
in sections 3.6 and 3.7, Rachels describes and provides an extended example
of an approach to moral judgment that, he says, has the great virtue of
showing how there can be proofs of ethical truths. He offers this approach as a
response to the emotivist view of ethics, and to subjectivist views
generally; but he does not indicate how an emotivist would reply to this
approach. Write a paper in which you (1) explain the approach to moral
judgment that Rachels proposes and (2) reply to it on behalf of an
emotivist. In replying to it from the perspective of the emotivist position,
you should make clear both (a) what the view of emotivism is and (b) how a
proponent of that view would react to, and criticize, the approach to moral
judgment that Rachels proposes.
-
In “The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms,” Charles Stevenson provides an
extended statement of the emotivist position. Write a paper in which you
critically evaluate this view. To get started on such a project, you might
want to reflect on how the emotivist understanding of moral judgment is not
compatible, or seems somehow to clash, with your own intuitive understanding
of what is going on when people (1) make moral judgments, (2) have moral
disagreements, (3) try to change others’ minds about moral matters, and/or
(4) try to make up their own minds about moral matters. (I say ‘and/or’
because just some of these may be sufficient to make you concerned about the
adequacy of emotivism.) And once certain aspects of the emotivist account of
moral judgment strike you are problematic, you should try to write about
these, explaining how, in your view, there is something in the phenomenon of
moral judgment that emotivism leaves out, or gets wrong. Emotivism, although
very influential, still strikes most people as very counter-intuitive, so
there is a lot to work with here.
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 (including the optional readings mentioned on the
syllabus), 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.
(As I said on the syllabus, while the tests will mainly test your knowledge of what
you’ve read, the two papers will manifest your ability to articulate,
and to present arguments for, your own views.) For additional suggestions about writing philosophy papers generally, see my “Guidelines
for Writing a Philosophy Paper.”
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
Friday, February 14, 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 papers
will be due in class on Wednesday, February 19.