PHI 3601 Ethics Dr. Hauptli Spring 2007 First Paper Topics
Copyright 2007 Bruce W. Hauptli
You are to critically respond to one of the following topics:
(a) Do you believe ethical egoism is a viable moral theory?
(b) Do you believe that Mill\rquote s utilitarianism is a viable moral theory?
(c) Given the extent of our obligation according to Peter Singer in his "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (pp. 242-249 of our text), can you accept the "sacrifices" utilitarianism seems to demand of us according to him, or is there something wrong with his argument (and/or utilitarianism)?
In addressing your chosen topic, you are free to adopt (in whole or in part) any of the arguments and critical discussions we have reviewed in class and our readings. You may, of course, consult other sources. When you find yourself adopting the critical position advanced by another writer, however, you need to put this position in your own words, develop your own examples, and assess its strengths and weaknesses as you see it. Your job it not to find an "authority," and then simply "parrot back" her or his view; instead you need to show how this view applies against the theory you are considering, and you need to adopt and adap the authority's views" to your own understanding and circumstances. Where you are quoting or closely following someone, of course, you should provide references (whether footnotes, endnotes, or in another appropriate format). Where you are only "influenced," but have largely wholly adapted the other's theory and arguments (so that they are deeply in the background), it is only necessary (and appropriate) to include a "bibliographic reference." If the only things in a bibliography are items which you note in the footnotes, endnotes, or other references, however, then a bibliography is not necessary.
Your critical examination should: (1) indicate the nature of the position being examined; (2) clarify the argument for and/or against the position; (3) examine the strength of the argument by considering possible responses, counter-arguments, or counter-examples; and (4) offer your own critical assessment of where the arguments for and against the position being considered leave us\emdash should we accept, reject, or remain neutral regarding this orientation, view, or position?
One of my purposes in having you write these papers is to offer you the opportunity to perfect your ability to describe carefully a complex position and argument to others. Toward that end, I require that you consider your intended audience for these papers to be other philosophy students who have not read exactly the material you have read or heard exactly the lectures which you have heard. They can not be expected to immediately know the intricacies of the positions you are discussing, and must first have the central aspects of the position which are relevant to your paper clarified to them. They must also be presented with carefu lly elaborated arguments for and against the position if they are to be able to follow your critical assessment of it. \par \par Another of my purposes here is to provide you with the opportunity to push beyond the level of reading and mastering the required material for the course. Here my goal is to provide you with an opportunity to engage in critical reflection upon the readings (or upon related readings and issues), and to provide you with feedback on your critical scrutinies. This goal can not be met if you confine yourself to a neutral exposition of the views under consideration. In my supplement “Writing Philosophy Papers”, I describe a number of different sorts of papers which might be submitted to fulfill this requirement (as well as a number of other points regarding composition and grader\rquote s marks. The detailed characterization of such papers in that supplement should help you understand my expectations (those desiring high grades will endeavor to approach the highes t ideal, while those who are not so motivated may choose to set their sights somewhat lower).
Your papers should be approximately 2000 words long (the equivalent of eight double-spaced typewritten pages of 250 words per page). This indication of length is meant as a guide to the student\emdash papers much shorter than the indicated length are unlikely to have adequately addressed one of the assigned topics. Papers may, of course, be longer than the indicated length. The papers should be typed and are due in my office by 4:15 P.M. on Monday, March 12. I am giving you the paper topics now so that you have at least three weekends to work on the paper. If you plan to wait till the last moment to write your paper, I recommend you review the Course Syllabus regarding penalties for late papers. Please review my policy on extensions, late papers and plagiarism (contained in the course syllabus).
I will be happy to read a rough draft of your paper, and/or to discuss your ideas for your paper with you (of course I can not be much help to you in this manner if you don't allow sufficient time, and so I will not read any rough drafts submitted after 3:30 on Friday, March 9).
You may find some of the following additional resource materials helpful (although the material in the text should provide sufficient resources for your papers):
(A) Selected additional criticisms of egoism which you may find helpful in addressing Topic (A):
James Rachels; Elements of Moral Philosophy (N.Y.: Random House, 1986), and Fred Feldman, Introductory Ethics (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1978)--they are both are on reserve in the library for this course\emdash contain discussions and critiques of both egoism and utilitarianism.
Alasdair MacIntyre, "Egoism and Altruism," in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (N.Y.: Macmillan, 1969)--it is available in both the circulation and reference sections of the Library.
Bernard Williams, "Egoism and Altruism" in his The Problems of the Self (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1973), pp. 250-265.
Ayn Rand, "The Virtue of Selfishness," in The Right Thing To Do, ed. James Rachels (N.Y.: Random House, 1989). The full treatment is her book by the same title (1962).
Selected additional criticisms and defenses of utilitarianism which you may find helpful in addressing Topic (B): \
James Rachels; Elements of Moral Philosophy (N.Y.: Random House, 1986), and Fred Feldman, Introductory Ethics (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1978)--they are both are on reserve in the library for this course--contain discussions and critiques of both utilitarianism and egoism.
Consider whether Kai Nielsen's defense of "negative responsibility" is sufficient to overcome the objections that Bernard Williams raises in his critique of utilitarianism (Nielsen defends negative responsibility in his "Against Moral Conservatism" in our text on pp. 211-219).
Consider whether John Hospers overcomes Bernard Williams\rquote objections to utilitarianism in his "Rule-Utilitarianism" (pp. 201-210 of our text).
"Side Constraints," by Robert Nozick offers a critique of utilitarianism from a libertarian perspective (pp. 211-214 of our text).
Last revised: 02/20/07.