Syllabus Part 1 of 2: SYLLABUS COURSE INFORMATION
THEORY OF ETHICS
Phil 2310, section 116: TT 12:30-1:45 pm, LL296
Phil 2310, section 117: TT 2:00-3:15 pm, LL296
INSTRUCTOR: Prof. Richard C. Taylor
OFFICE: 437, Marquette Hall, fourth floor
MAILBOX: Marquette Hall, first floor
TELEPHONE: 414-288-5649; FAX: 288-3010
EMAIL: Richard.Taylor@Marquette.edu
OFFICE HOURS: Regular Office Hours:
Tuesdays 11:05 am -12:05 pm at MH 437; and 5:15-6:15 pm at the AMU Cafeteria,
Thursdays 3:30-5:00 pm at MH 437 and 5:15-6:15 pm at the AMU Cafeteria.
And by appointment at other times.
APPOINTMENTS WEBSITE: https://academic.mu.edu/taylorr/Theory_of_Ethics_Spring_2019/Appointments.html
COURSE WEBSITE: https://academic.mu.edu/taylorr/Theory_of_Ethics_Spring_2019/Welcome.html
The broad goals of this course are for me to assist you (1) as you come to understand how several important ethical systems attempt to deal with moral problems and (2) as you take from them the insights which you come to deem most valuable for the formation of your own moral thought here and now. The starting point of our work in this course will be your own reflections on language, meaning, ethics and morality as representatives of or participants in contemporary American culture and society. Although the title of this course is “Theory of Ethics,” the study of ethical or moral systems of thought involves more than theory. Individual and group human experiences of life as lived play a significant role in the critical judgments we will need to bring to bear upon the theories. What is at issue here is the judgment of what constitutes right, correct, proper, or good human behavior and action and what constitutes behavior for which human beings should be admonished or condemned. And, insofar as we take this seriously, the study of ethics is not just theoretical but also practical. That is, ethical studies bear on human life and concern what we should or should not do with our lives. To that extent, the study of ethics provides us with a special opportunity to reflect critically on our own actions, motives and goals and to work toward the creation of a moral self or person who is rationally sophisticated and critically aware of the complexity of the human person, that is, toward the creation of a morally mature person who acts with purpose and takes responsibility for those actions. And it is our actions and the purposes behind them which constitute or create the moral persons we become.
In this course we will consider the philosophical views of the following:
(1) Moral Relativism; (2) Ethical Egoism; (3) Aristotle in his NICOMACHEAN ETHICS; (4) the Feminist critique of Aristotle and the methodology employed by Feminist thought; (5) Immanuel Kant in his GROUNDING FOR THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS; and (6) John Stuart Mill in his UTILITARIANISM. We will then turn our attention to (7) ethical thought as found in the Abrahamic traditions of Judaism, Islam and Christianty. Finally, (8) we will conclude the course with consideration of Chinese ethics today.
Our class discussions will be aimed at critical understanding of these with the purpose of taking from each what we find after reflection to be of value for your own efforts at moral thought. The purpose of the course is not to study history, ideas or culture for their own sake but rather to use these as important opportunities for formulating your own sophisticated ethical views and principles.
Intellectual reflection and dialogue to stimulate thoughtful understanding and deeper thinking are essential in philosophy as well as in other sciences. To further these in the course, students are required to submit on D2L one written question on the readings for each class session. Selections from these will be discussed in class.
COURSE LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES
University and Department Learning Outcomes
As a course in the University Core of Common Studies, Phil 2310 Theory of Ethics is required to meet two of the three Core Knowledge Area Learning Outcomes. (Note: Outcome 1 is addressed in Phil 1001 Philosophy of Human Nature and as background for Phil 2310 Theory of Ethics is not directly assessed in this course.) The Outcomes are as follows:
1. Assess views of human nature in various philosophical traditions, including classic Greek and Catholic philosophical traditions.
2. Argue for one of the major ethical theories over another in terms of philosophical cogency and practical outcome.
3. Use philosophical reasoning to develop the student’s own position on central issues in human nature and ethics, for example, the relation between mind and body, the problem of freedom and determinism, the spiritual and affective dimensions of human life, the extent of human knowledge, the justification of moral judgments, and the elucidation of moral norms.
Philosophy Department approved
“General Learning Objectives for Philosophy 104 [now 2310]”
By the end of the course,
1) The student will be able to state and provide reasons for the basic positions of the major philosophical theories of Western ethics, including virtue theory, natural law theory, deontology, and consequentialism / utilitarianism. Method of Assessment: This will be assessed in daily assignments, in the exams and also in classroom discussion.
2) The student will be able to state and provide reasons for principal objections to major Western ethical theories, including ethical egoism and various forms of moral relativism. Method of Assessment: This will be assessed in classroom discussion.
3) The student will be able to discuss a significant alternative to traditional Western ethics as it relates to Western ethics. Method of Assessment: This will be assessed in Exam 1 and also in classroom discussion concerning Feminist thought.
4) The student will be able to compare and contrast positions of the ethical theories studied in the course. Method of Assessment: This will be assessed in Exam 4 and also in classroom discussion.
5) The student will be able to take and defend a position in ethics that addresses significant objections to the position. Method of Assessment: The exam essay requires the student state and defend her own position and raise and respond to one or more significant objections to that position.
These five Philosophy Department approved “General Learning Objectives for Philosophy 104 [2310]” as well as the required University Core Knowledge Area Learning Outcomes ## 2 and 3 are met by these sections of Phil 2310 Theory of Ethics through the specific learning outcomes for this course.
The specific learning outcomes for this course include the following:
Students will:
• define key terms central to the philosophical study of ethics, such as good, virtue, justice, incontinence, intemperance, prudence, wisdom, pleasure, happiness, end, teleology, practical anthropology, metaphysics of morals, good will, free will, duty, autonomy, categorical imperative, freedom, natural necessity, consequentialism, utility, hedonism, utilitarianism, right, first order questions, second order questions, intuitionism, double effect, corrupt consciousness, culpably corrupt consciousness, intension, extension and more. (University Outcomes ## 2 & 3, Philosophy Department Objectives #1-5)
• Identify, construct and evaluate ethical arguments (University Outcomes ## 2 & 3, Philosophy Department Objectives ##1, 4, 5)
• State reasons for basic tenets and themes of a number of major theories of Western Ethics, such as virtue theory, deontological theory, natural law theory, consequentialism / utilitarianism, and divine command theory, indicating also the conceptions of human nature underlying these (University Outcomes ## 2 & 3, Philosophy Department Objectives ##1, 4, 5)
• State principal objections to traditional Western theories from the standpoints of ethical egoism and moral relativism (University Outcome # 2, Philosophy Department Objective #2)
• Discuss Western theories in relation to significant alternative theories, specifically feminist theory (Philosophy Department Objective # 3)
• Compare and contrast the views of various theories identifying similarities and differences among terms and arguments, with explication by way of reasoned analysis (University Outcomes ## 2 & 3, Philosophy Department Objectives ##1-4)
• Use terms and theories discussed and logical skills for analysis and assessment of moral decisions and processes (University Outcome # 3, Philosophy Department Objectives ##1-5)
• Develop and defend her own ethical positions on the basis of her studies against significant objections (University Outcome # 3, Philosophy Department Objective # 5)
COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND POLICIES
Students are required to use the following texts and to bring the relevant texts to each class meeting.
TEXTS:
(1) Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, translated by
Terence Irwin. *2nd ed.* Indianapolis, Hackett Publ. Co.
(2) Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by
James W. Ellington Indianapolis, Hackett Publ. Co.
(3) John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, edited by George Sher, Indianapolis,
Hackett Publ. Co.
(4) Other readings: All are available online or through D2L.
(i) “Aristotle: Women, Deliberation, and Nature” by Deborah K. W. Modrak in Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle, Bat-Ami bar On, ed. (Albany: SUNY
Press, 1994) pp. 207-222.
(ii) Eve Browning Cole, “Women, Slaves and ‘Love of Toil’ in Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle, Bat-Ami bar On, ed. (Albany: SUNY
Press, 1994) pp. 127-144.
(iii) “Moral Relativism” by Chris Gowans, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
(iv) “Egoism,” by Robert Shaver, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/
(v) “Egoism and Altruism” by Richard Kraut in The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy available via D2L.
(5) Readings on Religious Ethics: See the Detailed course syllabus for precise readings.
Jewish Religious Ethics: readings TBA
Islamic Religious Ethics: readings TBA
Christian Religious Ethics: readings TBA
Chinese Ethics Today:
Study Expectations and Class Participation Expectations
Students are expected to prepare for class in advance of classroom discussions by reading and studying assigned materials before class. Students are also required to submit questions in advance of class as explained below. At class students must be prepared for written work on important questions and for oral discussion of readings and philosophical issues at every class meeting. Class participation is an essential part of this course.
Policy for Students with Disabilities or Special Needs
Please see me privately if you have any documented disabilities or special needs. I will be glad to work with you has necessary to make this a valuable learning experience.
For University policy see: http://www.marquette.edu/disability-services/procedure.shtml
For the implementation accommodations, students must normally identify themselves to the instructor within the first week of classes as students with documented disability as certified by the Office of Disability Services (ODS). I will work closely with the staff of the ODS in establishing reasonable accommodations as defined by University policy. Students seeking accommodations must register with ODS and receive appropriate certification.
ASSESSMENT AND GRADING METHODS
Grades will be based on (1) :
20% Exam #1 Aristotle & Feminist critique
20% Exam #2 Kant
20% Exam #3 Mill
20% Exam #4 (final)
10% Participation : In-class writing exercise and questions (graded 0, 1, 2)
10% Participation : Class discussions and essay on PHRONESIS, “Prudence”.
Student Groups
After the submission of the in-class writing exercise including one question from each student, questions for group discussion will be distributed to the groups.
Five (5) groups of four (4-5) students will be formed for discussion of the question assigned to each group. The groups will report their discussion of the question to the class for discussion by the whole class.
Student in-class writing exercises and questions
After the first 5=10 minutes of class, students will write a reflection on the assigned readings and will append one question based on the readings. These will then be collected and the student group discussion questions will be selected from these.
This activity will be graded on D2L to make up 10% of the course grade.
Grading:
While grades will be recorded on D2L for student access, only my own version of the grade sheets is official.
Normally no make-up exams will be permitted and no late papers will be accepted.
Note the following:
Grading will be with a 100 point system. A 93, A-90-92, B+ 87-89, B 83-86, B-80-82, C+ 77-79, C 73-76, C- 70-72, D+ 67-69, D 63-66, D-60-62, F less than 60.
TAKE SPECIAL NOTE: EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES
A very limited number of regular extra credit opportunities in the form of classroom presentations on the Feminist Critique of Aristotle will be available on a ‘first come, first serve’ basis for two groups of three volunteers. Students who complete these assignments successfully may receive up to 3 points added to their final exam grade.
OTHER EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES may arise depending on current events and on-campus special events and speakers. Good work will result in the dropping of a low quiz grade.
The maximum number of Extra Credit Opportunities for each student is two (2). For each extra credit exercise completed in a satisfactory way, 3 points will be added to the final exam grade. These Extra Credit Opportunities will be available only until 15 April 2019.
——————————————————
FACULTY OFFICE HOURS AND CONTACT INFORMATION: See above at the top of this document.
——————————————————
STATEMENT ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
Academic Dishonesty Policy
Dishonesty in academic matters undermines student intellectual development and the goal of Marquette University to develop the whole person. Further, dishonesty undermines the foundations of the search for the true and the right in ethical matters. Cheating in such forms as copying, sharing answers or questions, plagiarism and the like certainly cannot be tolerated in any university course, and all the more so in this course on the Theory of Ethics. The Marquette University Academic Honest Policy is spelled out on at http://bulletin.marquette.edu/undergrad/academicregulations/.
Students who have any questions about just what constitutes academic dishonesty should study the Academic Honesty Policy and bring any questions to me to forestall any problems.
——————————————————
ATTENDANCE POLICY
Class Attendance and Absence Policy
For this course students are expected to attend each and every class meeting. Attendance will be taken at the start of class. Students arriving later will be marked absent. For this course attendance is included as a measure of academic performance, in accord with the policies of the Helen Way Klinger College of Arts and Sciences. Regarding attendance and grading, see http://bulletin.marquette.edu/undergrad/academicregulations/
GRADE REPORTING
Unofficial grades will be recorded on D2L for student access. My personal copy of grading sheets will contain official grades for the course.
REGULAR 75 MIN. CLASS ROUTINE
Attendance
Ethical issues in the news
Writing exercise and questions
Groups and class discussion
Selected student questions presented and discussed in groups.
Review lecture of key issues in the assigned readings
Preview of next class
Definitions
Syllabus Part 2 of 2: SYLLABUS COURSE SCHEDULE
Syllabus
Course Schedule
Spring 2019
Phil 2310 sections 116 & 117 meeting in LL296
* marks study questions you should be able to answer from your reading
#1: 15Jan19 TU Introduction to the course and its objectives.
(i) Information Sheet; (ii) Student thoughts on ethics;
(iii) Goals of the Course; (iv) Details of the Syllabus;
(v) Introduction to Aristotle on science and ethics.
#2: 17Jan19 TH Virtue Ethics. Aristotle’s NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, Book I.
Book I, 1094a1-1103a11, but skip ch. 6. Introduction to the study of the science of ethics in Aristotle.
Preview: After a discussion of where the science of ethics fits in the Aristotelian division of the sciences, we will begin to follow the assigned readings with a discussion of the notion of the Good. In ethics we seek what is good for us and so this is a ‘good’ starting place. This is a conceptual analysis of the good and involves consideration of ends in the two senses of purposes and as goals to be achieved. The good in the sciences of human action is found most fully in the science of Politics and then in a more individual way in Ethics. That hierarch established, we must consider what are the common starting points of the study of the human good and its attainment. But not all starting points are sound so we must critique common ideas and try to figure out which actions are good insofar as they yield or produce what is good for human beings. Aristotle is playing with ideas here but also setting aside common notions still alive today (e.g., Money & wealth necessarily will make us happy, you can always count on it!) to see what is really good.
Another approach to the notion of good is through the function argument. (What is that and how does that ‘function’?) Since we are after the human good which seems to be happiness, how do we acquire happiness? Further, is it only in the mind or does it have an external objective reality in the world? Can we make mistakes about what we think happiness is? (If I think or believe I am happy, does it necessarily follow that I am happy?) Note how Aristotle closes out Book 1 by explaining his conception of the human soul or life principle and its parts. Here he explains the foundations for how he will proceed in the discussion of moral virtue and later in the discussion of intellectual virtue. (What does virtue mean? Excellence.)
Some additional study questions:
*(a) What is the good?
(b) How are ethics and political science related?
(c) What are internal and external goods and
how do they relate to moral virtue?
(d) Do the actions of the living affect the happiness of the dead?
(e) What are the parts of the soul and how are they related?
Video lecture on Nicomachean Ethics 1 is available. Click HERE. This video will be available for review after midnight.
Music: from Maxwell, “Take a Drunk Girl Home”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ8FAujbWNY
#3: 22Jan19 TU NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, II (complete. Virtue, character, action and decision.
Preview: Book 2 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics begins his detailed account of virtue of character. (At the end of Book 1 he explained that virtue of intellect would be treated later. Virtue of character is about the rational part of the soul controlling the part of the soul that is non-rational but is able to listen to reason. To some extent this maps onto human emotions and actions done out of emotion without much guidance by reason.) He begins by emphasizing the importance of habituation. But this presents puzzles. How can we become good without already knowing what it is and even already being good? Isn’t it the case that in order to do just actions we should already be just people? (There is an issue of language and concepts here.) Later he focuses on the formal definition of virtue in terms of genus, species and difference. (What is his notion of the mean and why does it not apply to adultery or murder?) He completes Book 2 with a discussion of kinds of virtue (or excellence of character) and a reminder of the definition of virtue.
Some additional study questions:
*(a) What kinds of virtue are there?
(b) How does character differ from natural disposition?
(c) What is Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean?
#4: 24Jan19 TH NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, III (complete) and IV ch. 8
Preview: Book 3 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics focuses on the Preconditions of virtue, that is, on the conditions that must be present for their to be virtue and virtuous action. These include (i) voluntary action which is not forced; (ii) the notion that extreme duress does not excuse us from responsibility even in difficult situations of certain sorts; (iii) recognition that voluntary action is done willingly and has its origin in the agent or person doing the action; (iv) the recognition that emotions, appetites, desires and hyper attractive options (winning the lottery, beauty, and the like) do not make our actions involuntary thanks to what we today call negative freedom; (v) recognition that ignorance does not always excuse us from responsibility; (vi) the importance of knowledge of particulars of a situation; (vii) how decision (proaireis) is not appetite, emotion, wish or belief but rather is something requiring deliberation by reason and thought; (viii) deliberation as involving only things that are up to us or in our control, not unchangeable facts; (ix) that decision involves rational wish; (x) that it is hard sometimes to distinguish what appears good from what is really good for us; and more. How does Aristotle handle that last issue? (x) Could it be that because we did not choose our parents or the society into which we were born, then we are not really responsible in a moral for our own actions?
Some additional study questions:
*(a) What is decision (PROAIRESIS) and what role does
it play in the constitution of character?
(b) Precisely what is bravery?
(c) What sort of virtue is wit and what are its extremes?
Video lecture on Nicomachean Ethics 2-4 is available HERE. This video will be available for review after midnight.
]#5: 29Jan19 TU Continued discussion of Nicomachean Ethics books II, III and IV ch.8.
Discussion of Nicomachean Ethics book VI and the Short Essay assignment.
Short Essay on PHRONESIS.
Explain what “prudence” (PHRONESIS) is and how it is related to virtue of character. This is an essay of exposition and explanation.
Be sure to explain how prudence differs from scientific knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and craft knowledge.
Short Essay on PHRONESIS.
You will need to study NICOMACHEAN ETHICS VI on your own for this assignment.
This exercise should not exceed 1250 / 1400 words maximum.
Explain what “prudence” (PHRONESIS) is and how it is related to virtue of character. Be sure to explain how prudence differs from scientific knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and craft knowledge. This is an essay of exposition and explanation, not critique.
This essay assignment has several requirements of special note:
you must write the paper in APA Style.
and
and
You must make a reservation at the Writing Center, present your draft paper there for a tutorial session, and provide a receipt for your session at the writing center.
You must provide at the front of your essay a one-page outline of the essay.
Essays with outline and receipt from the Writing Center are to be submitted => as a single file <= at Turnitin.com.
DUE DATE: 12 noon SUNDAY 10 Feb 2019. (changed from Saturday)
TURNITIN.COM class IDs:
Phil 2310-116: 19947430
Phil 2310-117: 19947434
The passwords for these different course sections have been sent to you via email.
#6: 31Jan17 TH NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, V, 1129a1-1138b14. Justice
Preview: Aristotle discussed the various virtues or states of character such as bravery, temperance and even wit indicating that these are means or middle points between excess and deficiency. He declined to give the same analysis to justice and indicated it would be treated elsewhere. Here in Book 5 he gives his fullest account of justice in the Nicomachean Ethics. He provides definitions of justice and breaks it down into four forms of special justices or kinds of justice since the term can involve different sorts of actions in different situations. Take note of the following issues for discussion: Who is excluded from political justice? Justice concerns rightness in human social conduct. But is it better to do or to suffer injustice? (What distinctions are required here to deal with this question?) Is justice something found naturally in human societies? What is the difference between justice as a state of character and just actions? (If you do a just action once, does that make you a just person? What is the definitional problem here?) Speaking of actions, what is the self that acts in Aristotle’s conception of justice action? For Aristotle, decency is higher and better than justice? What could he mean by that?
Some additional study questions:
*(a) What are the four forms justice can take?
(b) Is justice natural to all human societies?
(c) Is it better to do or to suffer injustice?
(d) What is decency in relation to justice?
Video lecture on Nicomachean Ethics Book V is available HERE. This video will be available for review after midnight.
#7: 5Feb19 TU NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, VII 1-10, 1145a15-1152b1. Continence and incontinence.
Preview, Books VII & X : Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics concerns incontinence. Recall that this is weakness of character, an inability to maintain one’s position or views, with the result that one slips up or fails to do what is right (or fails and thereby does what is wrong). This is very important because we want to know just how people who are otherwise mostly good sometimes fail to do what is right or fail by doing something they should not do. (What is the Christian view of human failings? Does Aristotle hold the same thing regarding incontinence?) You will see here that Aristotle considers this psychological phenomenon and proceeds to explain it with a model derived from his study of logic with its notion of syllogistic argument. It is as if we are making a mistake in reasoning. As you read, take note of the different character traits that he indicates for the virtuous, continent, incontinent, simply incontinent and vicious. And, of course, pleasure is involved here. Note that Aristotle starts the discussion of pleasure at the end of Book 7 and then returns to it at the start of Book 10. (He took a break to discuss the nature of friendship in Books 8-9.)
Some additional study questions:
*(a) What is incontinence? (b) What is intemperance?
(c) How is intemperance in a sense better than incontinence?
(d) How is incontinence in fact morally better than intemperance?
#8: 7Feb19 TH NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, Book X, ch.1-8, Happiness
Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 11:30 pm 6 Feb.
Preview, Book X: Book X concerns pleasure but distinguishes it from happiness. He also goes on to distinguish two levels of happiness and to emphasize that happiness is not pleasure or a resting contentment, but rather it is an activity in accord with virtue. Just what that means we will explore in detail. One kind of happiness is that of the good citizen, while the other is that of the contemplative philosopher. Does this really make sense to us today? That is something we will discuss.
Some additional study questions:
*(a) What is pleasure? What makes it good or bad?
(b) How does Aristotle use the function argument in Bk X?
(c) What are the two forms or kinds of happiness?
(d) How important is moral education to the human good?
Video lecture on Nicomachean Ethics 7 & 10 is available. Click HERE. This video will be available for review after midnight.
EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES: These will vary depending on what is announced at MU but the following are on the MU calendar:
5 Feb at 4 pm Keynote address by Chaplain Rabia Terri Harris, founder of the Muslim Peace Fellowship.
6 Feb 12 noon Keynote address by Fr. Cedric Prakash, S.J., a well-known human rights activist and peacemaker from India who recently completed a three-year stint with the Jesuit Refugee Service (MENA
#9: 12Feb19 TU “Aristotle: Women, Deliberation, and Nature” by Deborah K. W. Modrak in Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle, Bat-Ami bar On, ed. (Albany: SUNY Press, 1994), pp.207-222 (see D2L) & “Topics in Feminism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/.
Preview: As we have seen in Book 5 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, it is in the discussion of political justice that the sexism of Aristotle becomes more evident. Modrak and Browning Cole both indict Aristotle for his inadequate view understanding of women. Modrak points out key contradictory statements by Aristotle and shows that his views were not coherent. He seems to hold that women are inferior but has difficulty explaining why clearly. Why did such a brilliant thinker make such a mistake? His teacher Plato said women should go to war with men and promoted some degree of equal treatment. What in the end is suggested by Modrak as the controlling factor? “Aristotle: Women, Deliberation, and Nature” by Deborah Modrak in Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle, Bat-Ami bar On, ed. (Albany: SUNY Press, 1994) pp. 207-222. SPECIAL EXTRA CREDIT OPTION
for a volunteer team of three students: Presentation of the Modrak article and its reasoning at class. Reward: 3 points added to final exam grade.
#10 14Feb19 TH (i) 45 min.: Eve Browning Cole, “Women, Slaves and ‘Love of Toil’ in Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy,” in Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle, Bat-Ami bar On, ed. (Albany: SUNY Press, 1994), pp.127-144 (see ARES) & “Topics in Feminism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/.
Browning Cole takes a different approach and focuses on the labor of women. What does she think is the primary motivation for the repression of women in Greek society?
SPECIAL EXTRA CREDIT OPTION for a volunteer team of three students: Presentation of the Modrak article and its reasoning at class. Reward: 3 points added to final exam grade.
30 min.: In class review of Aristotle & Feminist critique based on student questions.
#11: 19Feb19 TU Exam #1 (20% of course grade) on Aristotle and the Feminist critique of his thought.
#12: 21Feb19 TH
(i) Exams returned and discussed.
Immanuel Kant, GROUNDING FOR THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS (GMM), Ellington translation, preface, pp. 1-5.
Preview: Kant’s Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals (GMM) is one of the most important ethical treatises in the history of philosophy. For us it is a turn to a very different methodology and conceptualization of the nature of ethics and moral responsibility from what we studied in Aristotle, though there are some points of commonality. The Preface of the GMM outlines the foundations and terminology for the treatise that follows.
Video lecture on the Preface of Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is available HERE. This video will be available for review after midnight.
#13: 26Feb19 TU Immanuel Kant, GROUNDING FOR THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS (GMM) First Section, Ellington tr., pp. 7-17. Human reasoning and practical philosophy.
Preview: This treatise is a multilayered work that begins with matters of common human belief and experience regarding moral matters. The First Section has the title, “Transition from the Ordinary Rational Knowledge of Morality to the Philosophical.” This is a good description of its contents since it sets out ordinary understandings of morality and then begins to unveil the deep philosophical contents inside ordinary moral thinking and beliefs.
Some additional study questions:
*(a) How does Immanuel Kant explain his understanding of
happiness in relation to the end of human beings?
(b) For what is reason properly intended in people?
The video lecture for Section One of Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is available HERE. This video will be available for review after midnight.
#14: 28Feb19 TH Immanuel Kant, GROUNDING OF THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS,
Second Section, Ellington tr., pp. 19-48. A metaphysics of morals.
Preview: As the title (“Transition from Popular Moral Philosophy to a Metaphysics of Morals”) indicates, Kant is transitioning here to a formal account of the structure of moral thought, that is, the rules that guide it. Here he emphasizes that the moral law is universal and binding for all rational beings, as I indicated in class. And it is not because we are human that it is binding and required for us but because we are rational. He further illustrates the way in which the moral law is a priori by using the life and preaching of Jesus as an example. There he explains that the moral law of Respect was and is always in us as rational beings. It is not something new but something discovered or uncovered by our reflection on morality. This moral law expressed in the Categorical Imperative is a universal command to be followed without exception. In that it is different from other imperatives since those are “principles of the will but not laws.” This Synthetic A Priori Practical Proposition is, he writes, “The supreme limiting condition of every man’s freedom of action.” What does that mean? Through this in the exercise of our autonomy we can realize our true selves as members of the Kingdom of Ends.
Some additional study questions:
*(a) What is a categorical imperative and how does it differ from an hypothetical imperative?
(b) What is autonomy of the will?
(c) Kant says, “Any system of morals based on” the “concept of God’s will”
would be directly opposed to morality. Why?
(d) What does Kant mean when he says, “In every case where an object of the will must be laid down as the foundation for prescribing a rule to determine the will, there the rule is nothing but heteronomy”?
The video lecture for Section Two of Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is available https://youtu.be/loVucL7Y_TM This video will be available for review after midnight.
#15: 5Mar19 TU Immanuel Kant, GROUNDING OF THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS, Third Section, Ellington tr., pp. 49-61 Freedom and will.
Preview: Kant, Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals (GMM), Section Three has the title, “Transition from a Metaphysics of Morals to a Critique of Pure Practical Reason.” This means that he will now show the assumptions and weak points of the reasoning that he used to establish the Metaphysics of Morals (= his fundamental ethical theory of duty and respect.) His stating point is freedom and the autonomy of the rational being’s will. Freedom allows us not to be controlled in any necessary or determinative way by things outside of us. That is, we do not have to be slaves to our desires or anything outside our real selves because we have in our selves autonomy as a moral law inside ourselves that have have a priori. The reasoning, then, is that the very notion of morality and moral responsibility includes as a pre-condition the notion that we are autonomous. So we must be free. The problem is that every time we try to analyze any event or action we seek out the causes that brought it about. But if everything is caused by determinate causes, then there is no freedom. The other side of the problem is this: if there is no cause for an action, then no one should be held responsible for the action. Hmm. Think about it. If things are all caused, it seems there is no freedom; but if things are not caused, there is no morality and no moral responsibility.
As a result Kant asserts that the world we see around us is only one of appearances, a world we can see fully in its own real nature. We see it, rather, through notions in our minds such as causality. But we hold that morality and moral responsibility exists. And so we also hold as a consequence that we must be free. How can we resolve this? Kant asserts that we live in two worlds, one of governed by laws of causality and another governed by laws of freedom. We have, so to speak, one foot in each world. The world of sense is the world of practical anthropology (what actually happens in the world) but the intelligible works is the world of metaphysics of morals, that is, of moral responsibility. As for freedom, in the world of sense it cannot be proven to exist; but in the intelligible world it is held to exist and to be an essential part of morality. But what is this freedom? What is its nature? How shall we study it? In studying that or anything else, we study by seeking out the causes of things. But freedom as freedom cannot have a cause. It is like a black box we cannot break into. If we were to find the cause of freedom, then freedom would no longer be freedom. Pretty complicated but this is what Kant is doing. As a result, we must presuppose freedom for the sake of morality and we must assert we are members of two worlds. Without these, there is no morality.
Now, here are some final questions: (i) How is a categorical imperative possible? How can there be an absolute command that we must absolutely always follow to be moral? And (ii) Why do we want to be moral? Read the text for an answer according to Kant.
Some additional study questions:
*(a) Why is freedom or free will necessary and how is it proven?
(b) Why does Kant argue for two worlds or realms?
(c)What is phenomenology?
Two video lectures on Section Three of Kant’s GMM are available: Part 1 of 2 and Part 2 of 2. These videos will be available for review after midnight.
++++++++++
SPECIAL REVIEW SESSION => 5-6 PM TUESDAY 5 MARCH. LOCATION TBA.
++++++++++
#16: 7Mar19 TH Exam #2 on Kant: 75 min. exam. (Exam #2: 20% of grade)
Midterm Break: No class 12 & 14 March.
#17: 19Mar19
Discussion of Moral Relativism readings.
Preview: Moral Relativism is usually divided into Descriptive Moral Relativism (DMR) and Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The first, DMR, makes an empirical claim that in fact significant and even very profound disagreements or diversities about moral matters are found within and across cultures and societies. Some might want to say that, since the differences or diversities are many, there must not be any morality that is universal. But that is premature and naive as a conclusion. Others might say (today) that there are some atrocities committed against innocents that all but the most perverse and inhumane would say are altogether impermissible and never acceptable, e.g., genocide, cannibalism, horrendous torture of innocents, slavery and the like. A descriptive account is not an ethical argument though empirical claims can be foundations for arguments. The second, MMR, holds that moral claims are not in themselves right or wrong but relative to a societal context and, further, perhaps even that there can be no justification for moral claims.
Assigned readings:
(i) Required: “Moral Relativism” by Chris Gowans,
in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
(ii) Recommended: “Moral Relativism” in the Internet Encyclopedia
of Philosophy at https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
# 18 21Mar19 TH Discussion of Ethical Egoism readings.
Preview: There are several sorts of Ethical Egoism. The first is Egoism which for our purposes concerns the empirical claim that the real aim of action by human beings is always directed toward his or her own good. This is Psychological Egoism. The second is Ethical Egoism which argues that it is right morally to look out for oneself’s own good or interests first and foremost. Rational Egoism argues that to look our for oneself’s own good is the rational thing to do.. Finally, Richard Kraut, a profound thinking expert in Plato and Aristotle holds for what he considers a morally acceptable form of egoism that also includes a form of altruism, based on his reading of Aristotle. Think about this option and raise questions in class.
Assigned readings:
(i) “Egoism,” by Robert Shaver, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/
(ii) “Egoism and Altruism.” by Richard Kraut in The Routledge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the D2L System
#19 26Mar18 TU Mill, UTILITARIANISM, George Sher, ed., chapters 1-2.
Preview: Mill’s Utilitarianism sets out a hedonistic and consequentialist account of morality very different from what we saw in Kant. In the first chapter of Utilitarianism Mill gives the rationale for his approach which I will repeatedly call “the proof is in the pudding,” using an old English maxim. This means that actions are good or bad depending on the consequences or outcomes of the actions. If the outcome is good, the action bringing it about was good. Pay close attention to Mill’s analysis of Kant which is in fact wrong as an analysis of Kant but valuable for what it tells us about Mill’s own views. Chapter two is focused on definitions and is repetitive in a valuable way. Take special note of the Creed of Utilitarianism, the notion of higher and lower pleasures (especially the notion that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied — what does that mean?), the Utilitarian Standard, the goal of utilitarianism, and the moral dignity of utilitarianism.
Some additional study questions:
*(a) How does Mill criticize Kant?
(b) What is the Utilitarian ‘mantra’?
(c) What makes something good or bad for the Utilitarian?
Video lecture on Mill, Utilitarianism ch. 1-2 is available. Click HERE. This video will be available for review after midnight.
#20 28Mar19 TH Mill, UTILITARIANISM, George Sher, ed., chapters 3-4.
Preview: The ultimate sanction of the principle of utility (ch.3) for Mill is the internal sanction of conscience but this is closely connected with our social context and our natural desire to be in social and intellectual accord with our fellow human beings. That ultimate sanction is conscience which is a powerful motivator. Here the role of sentiment or feelings is very great and important. The importance of sentiment or feelings comes from David Hume, an earlier philosopher in the English tradition. Mill takes much from him regarding feelings and their central role in human life and in utilitarianism. Take special note of the accounts of desire and will and the notion that when young our wills are controlled by our desires but when we are mature our wills control our desires thanks to habit and intellect.
Some additional study questions:
*(a) What is sentiment? What role does it play in Utilitarianism?
(b) How are motive and morality related inUtilitarian ethics?
(c ) What makes an action moral? What makes a person moral?
Video lecture on Mill, Utilitarianism, ch. 3 & 4, are divided into two shorter videos of about 13 & 11 min. For Chapter 3 click HERE. For Chapter 4 click HERE.
These videos will be available for review after midnight.
#21: 2Apr19 TU
UTILITARIANISM, Sher, ed., Chapter 5. The proof of utilitarianism; motive and morality; justice, rights and utility.
Preview: Mill entitles Chapter 5 of Utilitarianism “On the Connection Between Justice and Utility.” As with Kant, so too with Mill we must pay careful attention to the titles of chapters. Mill’s first task is to explain what Justice is according to his account of utilitarianism. His first task is to determine whether moral legitimacy attaches to natural feelings and urges. If we have a nature desire or feeling are we morally obliged or permitted to act on it? No, there is nothing moral about desires or feelings unless they are linked to a moral commitment such as utilitarianism. (Recall that morality is a creation of human beings, the big brained animals.) But what about feelings related to justice and injustice? Before we consider that we have to figure out what justice is! He first does this by looking at the parts of it through consideration of the characteristics of injustice. Next Mill turns to etymology which proves to be very fruitful. Justice concerns law. He then goes on to say that matters of justice will be defined as what is so important in society that society makes laws involving legal constraints and sanctions about them. This means legal duties. But there are moral and legal duties, and it is the latter that are so important we say that there are legal rights attached to them. Duties of perfect obligation have rights attached to them by law. Duties of imperfect obligation are moral duties but they do not involve rights given by law. Much is involved with moral and legal duties but in the end what is most important for Mill is the realization of the mantra, “Greatest Good for Greatest Number” (GGFGN). Given that, it is possible that the rights of an individual or a group be set aside for the sake of the GGFGN. Notice, then, that for Mill right are given by law and society and there are no natural rights.
Some additional study questions:
*(a) What are duties of perfect obligation and duties of imperfect obligation?
(b)What is the nature of rights for Mill? Are they natural? Are they inalienable?
The last video on Mill reviews Chapter 4 and then goes on to Chapter 5. It is a bit long at 50 min. This is in part because it is on two chapters, not just one. Here it is:
https://youtu.be/PgqPIni9L1A These videos will be available for review after midnight.
++++++++++
Review Session: Tuesday 2 April 5:30-6:30 pm. Location LL288
++++++++++
#22: 4Apr19 Exam #3 on Mill: Exam #3: 20% of grade
#23 9 Apr19 TH Religious Ethics in the Abrahamic Traditions: Jewish Religious Ethics
Readings: Read the short accounts of aspects of Judaism at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/
Prof. Owen Goldin of the MU Philosophy Dept will share his knowledge of Jewish ethics today at two classes.
#24 11Apr19 TU Religious Ethics in the Abrahamic Traditions: Jewish Religious Ethics
Readings: Selections from Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud, chapters 1, 15, 24, 25, 34. These are available for you on D2L.
Assignment: At the start of class, student submission of one question based on assigned readings.
#25 16Apr19 TH Religious Ethics in the Abrahamic Traditions: Islamic Religious Ethics
Readings: Read the short accounts of aspects of Islam at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/
Prof. Ayse Oktay of Suleyman Demirel University in Isparta, Turkey, will present on Islamic ethics.
18 April no class due to Easter break
#26 23Apr19 TH Religious Ethics in the Abrahamic Traditions: Christian Religious Ethics: Natural Law
Readings: (i) “The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics” at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
(ii) Thomas Davit, “St Thomas and the Natural Law” available on D2L.
Assignment: At the start of class, student writing exercise of one paragraph plus a question on the readings.
resources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/
#27 25Apr19 TU Chinese Ethics Today
Readings: required
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/
Recommended: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-chinese/
Prof. Jianlu Wang, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, China, will present on traditional ethics today in China.
#28 30April19 Continued discussion of ethics and tradition in modern China. Discussion of ethics from an anthropological viewpoint with consideration of the human issue of filial piety in Chinese and American contexts.
#29 2May19 TH (i) Discussion of the format of the final exam; discussion of five ethical theories studied; discussion of the movie, The Island; (ii) final remarks; (iii) student evaluations.
Scheduled Final Exam Dates:
Phil 2310 Section 116 [TT 12:30-1:45] => Tuesday 7 May, 10:30-12:30
Phil 2310 Section 117 [TT 2-3:15] => Monday 6 May, 10:30-12:30
The final exam will have two parts both of which must be submitted to Turnitin.com.
The deadline for Section 117 is 12:30 pm Monday 6 May.
The deadline for Section 116 is 12:30 pm Tuesday 7 May
For information on the content of the final exam, click HERE.