University of Kansas, Spring 2004
Philosophy 160: Introduction to Ethics
Ben Eggleston—eggleston@ku.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 variety of
important moral issues such as famine relief, animal rights, euthanasia, and
abortion. 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: lectures on Mondays and Wednesdays,
2:30–3:20, in 110 Budig Hall; plus a discussion section once a week, with
your teaching assistant
Teaching assistants: There are three teaching assistants for
this course; here is their contact information:
name |
e-mail address |
discussion sections |
office information |
|
|
times |
rooms |
hours |
location |
phone number |
Dusan Galic |
galicd@ku.edu |
M, 9:30 |
119 Fraser |
M, 11–12;
and T,
11:45–12:45 |
1007 Wescoe |
864-2338 |
W, 3:30 |
4063 Wescoe |
R, 2:30 |
158 Strong |
R, 3:30 |
4046 Wescoe |
Jennifer Kittlaus |
kittlaus@ku.edu |
M, 8:30 |
4047 Wescoe |
M, 9:30–10:20;
T, 11:45–12:45;
W, 1:15–2:15;
R, 11:45–12:45;
and by appt. |
1011 Wescoe |
864-2336 |
M, 10:30 |
3097 Wescoe |
W, 3:30 |
4066 Wescoe |
R, 8:30 |
4022 Wescoe |
Bill Simkulet |
s_i_bill@yahoo.com |
F, 8:30
|
119 Fraser |
M and W,
1:30–2:30 |
3048 Wescoe |
864-2340 |
F, 9:30 |
2025 Haworth |
F, 10:30 |
4022 Wescoe |
F, 11:30 |
3097 Wescoe |
My office is in 3070
Wescoe Hall, and I have office hours on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, from
1:30 to 2:20. You are also entirely welcome to contact me by e-mail to make an
appointment to talk to me at another time.
Requirements/grading:
Here are the factors that will determine your overall grade, and their
weights (in percentages):
part of course |
quizzes |
papers |
tests |
total |
meta-ethics |
6 |
8 |
9 |
23 |
normative ethics |
7 |
9 |
9 |
25 |
applied ethics |
– |
10 |
9 |
19 |
highest paper and test grades |
– |
4 |
4 |
8 |
total |
13 |
31 |
31 |
75 |
assignments |
weight (percent) |
quizzes, papers, and tests |
75 |
discussion section |
10 |
final exam |
15 |
total |
100 |
Further information about these
assignments will be provided as needed, as well as upon request.
Work will be graded in accordance with the university’s grading system, as
stated in article 2,
section 2 of the of the University Senate Rules and Regulations.
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.
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.
Book to buy:
Course materials on the web:
Almost all 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/ethics9
(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.)
Quizzes, 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.
There are two things for which you will have to use the Blackboard site for
this course instead of the web site I’ve set up. The first is checking your
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, your teaching assistant will be entering your
grades into the “online gradebook” at the Blackboard site for this course
(if you’re not already logged in, then log in
here; once you
get to the Blackboard site for the course, click on ‘Tools’, then ‘View
Grades’).
The other thing for which you’ll have to use the Blackboard site for this
course instead of the web site I’ve set up is entering your answers to thirteen short quizzes in
order to supplement and to reinforce your reading of The Elements of Moral
Philosophy. I’m using Blackboard for this so that you can take the quizzes
online and have your scores automatically entered into the online gradebook.
Note, then, 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 and to administer these thirteen quizzes. All other course-related
documents, such as this syllabus, notes, and other assignments, will be at the
non-Blackboard web site mentioned above.
E-mail distribution list:
I’ve had the KU computer folks set up an e-mail distribution list for the
course. In general, I’ll try to mention everything important (whether substantive or procedural) in class. But at times, I may use the e-mail distribution
list to send you information that you will be responsible for having or acting
on, so it is your responsibility to make sure that you read mail that I send to
this list. You can do this by making sure that you (1) have an e-mail address,
(2) are registered for the course (because this list is updated every night to
reflect current enrollment, taking account of drops and adds), and (3) read your
e-mail. There is one complication that you should be aware of: if you have both an
Exchange e-mail address (e.g., so-and-so@ku.edu) and a non-Exchange e-mail
address (e.g., so-and-so@yahoo.com), and you prefer to receive e-mail at the
latter address, then mail sent to the e-mail distribution
list for the course will not necessarily go to it, even
if you have registered it with KU as your primary e-mail address. (This is a
known problem with the KU distribution-list system.) To deal with this problem,
either check your Exchange account as often as your check your non-Exchange
account, or arrange for mail sent to your Exchange account to be forwarded to
your non-Exchange account. For more information on this problem and how to solve
it, see the
Exchange Distribution
List Primer and look at the answer to question 2: “Some of the people on my list say they’re not
getting my list mail. Why?”
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 26 (M):
-
in class
- the subject matter of the course
- applied ethics
- normative ethics
- meta-ethics
- the mechanics of the course
- syllabus
- lectures
- quizzes
- preview of The Elements of Moral Philosophy, chapter 1
Part 1: Meta-ethics
January 28 (W):
- before class
- familiarize yourself with the course syllabus
- read The Elements of Moral Philosophy, preface (pp. xi–xii)
- read EMP, chapter 1: “What Is Morality?” (pp. 1–15)
- read the page called “Quizzes,” including its ”General Information”
section, on the course web site
- take quiz on EMP, preface and chapter 1 (using the course web site
and Blackboard)
- (optional:) take survey following quiz (on Blackboard)
- in class
- review of preface and chapter 1
- introduction to concept of implication
- preview of chapter 2
February 2 (M):
- before class
- read EMP, chapter 2:
“The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” (pp. 16–31)
- take quiz on EMP, chapter 2 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
- (optional:) take survey following quiz (on Blackboard)
- in class
February 4 (W):
- before class
- read cultural relativism writing assignment and two accompanying sample
papers
- no quiz to take
- in class
- review of chapter 2 (continued)
- review of papers on cultural relativism
- introduction to concept of compatibility
- preview of chapter 3
February 9 (M):
- before class
- read EMP, chapter 3:
“Subjectivism in Ethics,” through section 3.6 (pp. 32–44)
- take quiz on EMP, chapter 3 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
- in class
- review of chapter 3
- preview of deriving morality from nature
February 11 (W):
- before class
- read EMP, section 3.7 through the first full paragraph on p. 46
- read EMP, section 4.3: “The Theory of Natural Law” (pp. 53–57)
- take quiz on EMP, sections 3.7 and 4.3 (using the course web site
and Blackboard)
- in class
- review of deriving morality from nature
February 16 (M):
- before class
- Read 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.
- Read all of this paper, and don’t be discouraged if you don’t understand
all of it the first time you read it. It’s hard. I’ll say some things to help
you understand it better in class—things that you will understand better if
you have worked your way through the paper once—and then you’ll be ready for a
second reading, to be done before the next class, when I’ll say some more
things about the paper.
- There is no quiz to take.
- in class
- lecture on emotivism
- Stevenson writing assignment handed out
February 18 (W):
- before class
- Read the Stevenson paper again. (You will see and understand things you
missed the first time through.)
- Read the writing assignment on Stevenson and the sample paper.
- There is no quiz to take.
- in class
- lecture on emotivism
- lecture on writing assignment on Stevenson
- lecture on Stevenson paper
- further (optional) reading
- If you liked the paper by Stevenson and are interested in more reading on
this topic, 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)
- You might also 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.
February 23 (M):
- before class
- read EMP, chapter 4: “Does Morality Depend on Religion?” (pp.
48–62), except section 4.3
- read EMP, section 3.7, from the second full paragraph on p. 46
- take quiz on EMP, chapter 4 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
- in class
- lecture on chapter 4
- preview of chapter 5
February 25 (W):
- before class
- complete writing assignment on Stevenson
- read EMP, chapter 5:
“Psychological Egoism” (pp. 63–75)
- take quiz on EMP, chapter 5 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
- in class
- writing assignment on Stevenson due
- lecture on chapter 5
- preview of chapter 6
Part 2: Normative Ethics
March 1 (M):
- before class
- read EMP, chapter 6:
“Ethical Egoism” (pp. 76–90)
- take quiz on EMP, chapter 6 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
- in class
March 3 (W):
- before class
- in class
- review of chapter 6, continued
March 8 (M):
- before class
- read EMP, chapter 7: “The Utilitarian Approach” (pp. 91–101)
- take quiz on EMP, chapter 7 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
- in class
- review of chapter 7
- review for test: writing essay answers
March 10 (W): test on meta-ethics
March 15 (M):
- before class
- read EMP, chapter 8: “The Debate Over Utilitarianism” (pp. 102–116)
- take quiz on EMP, chapter 8 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
- in class
- further (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.
March 17 (W):
- before class
- Read EMP, chapter 9: “Are There Absolute Moral Rules?” (pp. 117–129).
- Take quiz on EMP, chapter 9 (using the course web site and Blackboard).
- The distinction between
hypothetical and categorical imperatives is fundamental to Kant’s
way of thinking about morality. If you want a clearer account of this distinction than
Rachels provides (though I think his account is pretty clear), you
could (if you want to) 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.
- in class
- review of chapter 9
- writing assignment on normative ethics handed out
March 22–26
March 29 (M):
- before class
- read writing assignment on normative ethics
- in class
- review of chapter 9, continued
- lecture on writing assignment on normative ethics
March 31 (W):
- before class
- read EMP, chapter 10:
“Kant and Respect for Persons,” section 10.1: “The Idea of Human
Dignity” (pp. 130–133)
- take quiz on EMP, chapter 10 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
- in class
- review of chapter 10
- preview of chapter 11
- further (optional) reading: 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 .
April 5 (M):
- before class
- read EMP, chapter 11: “The Idea of a Social Contract” (pp. 141–159)
- take quiz on EMP, chapter 11 (using the course web site and Blackboard)
- For more information on the prisoner’s dilemma, you can
- in class
April 7 (W):
- before class
- complete writing assignment on normative ethics
- in class
- writing assignment on normative ethics due (in class)
- review of chapter 11, continued
April 12 (M):
- before class
- study for test on normative ethics
- in class
- review for test on normative ethics
April 14 (W): test on normative ethics
Part 3: Applied Ethics
April 19 (M):
- before class
- (optional:) for more background on Peter Singer, see
- Singer’s c.v.
and a
site of Singer-related links, which Singer recommends but does
not control.
- a magazine article: Mark Oppenheimer, “Who Lives? Who Dies? The Utility of
Peter Singer” (The Christian Century, July 3–10, 2002, pp. 24–29; this
article has been posted online by LookSmart, at
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1058/14_119/89580866/p1/article.jhtml,
and on the Religion Online site, at
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=2659)
- a magazine article: Michael Specter, “The Dangerous
Philosopher” (The New Yorker, September 6, 1999, pp. 46–55)
- read Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
(Philosophy & Public Affairs vol. 1, no. 3 [Spring 1972], pp. 229–243)
- read Peter Singer, “Who Deserves the
9/11 Cash Pile?” (Slate, December 12, 2001)
- in class
- videotape on Peter Singer: “Unconventional Wisdom”
- review of Singer on redistribution
- preview of euthanasia issue
April 21 (W)
- before class
- in class
- videotape on euthanasia: “On Our Own Terms: Moyers on Dying (Part 1: A
Death of One’s Own)”
- writing assignment on applied ethics handed out
April 26 (M):
- before class
- read writing assignment on applied ethics
- read Harriet McBryde Johnson, “Unspeakable
Conversations” (The New York Times, February 16, 2003)
- in class
- review of McBryde
- lecture on writing assignment on applied ethics
- preview of abortion
April 28 (W):
- before class
- in class
- guest lecture by Don Marquis
May 3 (M):
- before class
- complete writing assignment on applied ethics
- in class
- turn in writing assignment
- movie: Tape
May 5 (W):
- before class
- in class
- lecture on Tape
- preview of test on applied ethics
May 10 (M): test on applied ethics
May 12 (W):
Wednesday, May 19: final exam (1:30–4 p.m.)
(see
http://www.registrar.ku.edu/timetable/042finals.shtml for KU’s final-exam
schedule)