University of Kansas, Spring 2003
Philosophy 161: Introduction to Ethics, Honors
Ben Eggleston—eggleston@ku.edu
Introduction to Ethics, Honors
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
important moral issues such as animals rights, abortion, euthanasia, and famine
relief by considering the work of the controversial contemporary philosopher
Peter Singer. 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: M, W, F, 9:30–10:20, in 102 Nunemaker Center
Requirements/grading:
Here are the factors that will determine your overall grade, and their
weights:
- two tests: 15 percent each
- two papers: 15 percent each
- a final exam: 20 percent
- attendance: 10 percent
- class participation: 10 percent
The two tests 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 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.
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.
Finally, you should feel free to come by my office (3070 Wescoe Hall) at any
time. I have office hours on Fridays from 1:30 to
2:20, but you are also welcome to stop by at other times, either with an
appointment or without. I spend most of the work week in and around my office,
so your chances of finding me should be reasonably high; and although in rare
cases I may have to ask you to come back at another time, in general I will be
happy to speak to you at your convenience.
Books to buy:
-
, (McGraw-Hill, 2003)
- Peter Singer, (Cambridge University Press, 1993)
Course materials on the web:
Course documents, including this syllabus, will be available on the web site
for the course, the URL of which is
http://people.ku.edu/~be75/courses/ethics7
(If you don’t want to type in this whole thing, you can stop after “be75”—at
which point you’ll be at my personal web site—and then follow the links to the
web site for this particular course.)
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.
One thing that will not be posted on the web site is your record of 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, I’ll be entering your grades into the “online gradebook” at the
Blackboard site for this course (log-in required; 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, notes, and assignments, will be
at the site mentioned above.
E-mail distribution list:
I’ve had the KU computer folks set up an e-mail distribution list for the
course, and its address is
phil161_44692sp03_dl@mail.ku.edu
I’ve asked that it be set up so that not only I, but also you, can use it,
so that you can communicate with everyone in the class (including me) whenever
you are so inclined.
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:
- 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.
- While using a non-KU computer, follow these steps:
- Go to http://www2.lib.ku.edu:2065/.
- 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.
- 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:
January 17:
-
Introduction (no assigned reading)
Part 1: Meta-ethics
Week 1 (January 20–24):
- January 20: no class (Martin Luther King, Jr. Day)
- The Elements of Moral Philosophy, preface (pp. xi–xii)
- EMP, chapter 1: “What Is Morality?” (pp. 1–15)
Week 2 (January 27–31):
- EMP, chapter 2:
“The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” (pp. 16–31)
- EMP, chapter 3:
“Subjectivism in Ethics,” through section 3.6 (pp. 32–47)
Week 3 (February 3–7):
- deriving morality from nature
- EMP, section 3.7 through the first full paragraph on p. 46
- EMP, section 4.3: “The Theory of Natural Law” (pp. 53–57)
- David Hume,
A
Treatise of Human Nature, book III, part I, section II, first four of
the last five paragraphs
- To find the four-paragraph stretch you have to read, use the above link,
then search for the phrase ‘But in the’. This is the beginning of the passage
you have to read, and its occurrence in this passage is its first occurrence
on the page linked above (though it does occur several times later on that
page, so be sure to search from the top).
- To print the passage you have to read, highlight the four paragraphs
beginning with ‘But in the’ and then use your browser’s print capability, with
the “Print Selection” option. If your browser does not offer this option, you
could copy the paragraphs into a blank file in another application (e.g., a
word processor) and then print that file.
- As you start reading, you may find the first sentence to be a bit unclear,
since it contains the phrase ‘these principles’, and it’s not clear (from that
sentence alone, at least) what the referent is ‘these’ is. It refers to
principles distinguishing virtue from vice, or moral principles.
- deriving ‘ought’ from ‘is’
- David Hume,
A
Treatise of Human Nature, book III, part I, section I, last four
paragraphs
- To find the four-paragraph stretch you have to read, use the above link,
then search for the phrase ‘But to make’. This is the beginning of the passage
you have to read, and it occurs only once in book III.
- To print, follow instructions similar to those above.
- As you start reading, you may wonder what the phrase ‘these general
reflections’ refers to. Basically, it refers to Hume’s claims that morality is
essentially a matter of sentiment, not reason. (Think of emotivism, and you’ll
have the basic idea.)
- Also as you start reading, you may be puzzled by the phrase (in the first
sentence) ‘dear and convincing’. The phrase should read ’clear and
convincing’. (Apparently this online version of the Treatise was made
by scanning a print copy of the Treatise, and the character-recognition
software misread the ‘cl‘ in ‘clear’ as a ‘d’ and rendered the word as
‘dear’.)
- first paper assignment
handed out
Week 4 (February 10–14):
- emotivism revisited
- 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
- For further (and optional) reading, 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)
- Also for further (and optional) reading, you might 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.
- EMP, chapter 4: “Does
Morality Depend on Religion?” (pp. 48–62), except section 4.3
- EMP, section 3.7, from the second full paragraph on p. 46
- EMP, chapter 5:
“Psychological Egoism” (pp. 63–75)
- in-class readings of first paper: bring two copies of your paper to class
on Friday, February 14
Part 2: Normative Ethics
Week 5 (February 17–21):
- first paper due on Wednesday, February 19
- EMP, chapter 6:
“Ethical Egoism” (pp. 76–90)
Week 6 (February 24–28):
- utilitarianism
- EMP, chapter 7: “The Utilitarian Approach” (pp. 91–101)
- EMP, chapter 8: “The Debate Over Utilitarianism” (pp. 102–116)
- 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.
- first test on Wednesday, February 26
Week 7 (March 3–7):
- Kantian ethics
- EMP, chapter 9: “Are There Absolute Moral Rules?” (pp. 117–129)
- 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. 130–140)
- 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.)
Week 8 (March 10–14):
- Kantian ethics, continued
- EMP, chapter 11: “The
Idea of a Social Contract” (pp. 141–159)
Week of March 17–21:
Week 9 (March 24–28):
- EMP, chapter 12: “Feminism and the Ethics of Care” (pp. 160–172)
- EMP, chapter 13: “The Ethics of Virtue” (pp. 173–190)
- EMP, chapter 14: “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?”
(pp. 191–202)
Part 3: Applied Ethics
Week 10 (March 31–April 4):
- background on Peter Singer
- Practical Ethics, preface (pp. vii–xiii)
- PE, chapter 1: “About Ethics” (pp. 1–15)
- PE, chapter 2: “Equality and Its Implications” (pp. 16–54)
Week 11 (April 7–11):
- PE, chapter 3: “Equality for Animals?” (pp. 55–82)
- Peter Singer and Richard
Posner, “Animal
Rights” (Slate, June 11–15, 2001)
- Be sure to read all five days’ entries of the dialogue, not just Monday’s
entry.
- instructions for printing:
- Follow the above link to the document. The document should open in a new
window.
- When the Slate page appears, click on the “Print” link just above the
text of the article. This will open a new window containing all five days’
entries (and may also trigger your browser’s “Print” dialogue box to open).
- Use your browser to print the page.
- second test on Wednesday, April 9
- no class on Friday, April 11
Week 12 (April 14–18):
- PE, chapter 4: “What’s Wrong with Killing?” (pp. 83–109)
- PE, chapter 5: “Taking Life: Animals” (pp. 110–134)
- PE, chapter 6: “Taking Life: The Embyro and the Fetus” (pp.
135–174)
Week 13 (April 21–25):
- second paper assignment handed out
- PE, chapter 7: “Taking Life: Humans” (pp. 175–217)
- Harriet McBryde Johnson, “Unspeakable
Conversations,” The New York Times, February 16, 2003
- videotape on euthanasia: “On Our Own Terms: Moyers on Dying (Part 1: A
Death of One’s Own)”
- PE, chapter 8: “Rich and Poor” (pp. 218–246)
Week 14 (April 28–May 2):
- PE, chapter 9: “Insiders and Outsiders” (pp. 247–263)
- PE, chapter 10: “The Environment” (pp. 264–288)
- in-class readings of second paper: bring two copies of your paper to class
on Wednesday, April 30
- PE, chapter 11: “Ends and Means” (pp. 289–313)
Week 15 (May 5–9):
- second paper due on Monday, May 5
- PE, chapter 12: “Why Act Morally?” (pp. 314–335)
- PE, appendix: “On Being Silenced in Germany” (pp. 337–359)
- May 9: no class (Stop Day)
Wednesday, May 14: final exam (7:30–10 a.m.)