Course Syllabus Detailed
 
 
DETAILED COURSE SYLLABUS Phil 2310 section 116 Wehr Physics 138 Phil 2310 section 117 LOCATION * marks study questions you should be able to answer from your reading #1: 17Jan17 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: 19Jan17 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. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 18 Jan. 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. #3: 24Jan17 TU NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, II (complete. Virtue, character, action and decision. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 23 Jan. 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? Video lecture on Nicomachean Ethics 2-4 is available HERE. #4: 26Jan17 TH NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, III (complete) and IV ch. 8 Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 25 Jan. 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 Books 2-4 is available HERE. Essay Exercise. This is not a test but an exercise. You will receive a grade but it will be recorded as pass or fail. A grade of fail will affect the participation grade negatively. You will need to study NICOMACHEAN ETHICS VI on your own for this assignment. This exercise should not exceed 600-700 words maximum. Explain what “prudence” (PHRONESIS) is and how it is related to virtue of character. This is an essay of exposition and explanation, not critique. Be sure to explain how prudence differs from scientific knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and craft knowledge. This essay assignment has one requirement of special note: you must provide at the front of your essay a one-page outline of the essay. Essays with outline are to be submitted as a single file at Turnitin.com. DUE DATE: 7 pm Saturday 28 January 2017. TURNITIN.COM class IDs: Phil 2310-116: 14347716 Phil 2310-117: 14347733 Password will be provided at class. #5: 31Jan17 TU Essays returned and discussed in class. No reflection assignment on 30 Jan. #6: 2Feb17 TH NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, V, 1129a1-1138b14. Justice Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 1 Feb. 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. #7: 7Feb17 TU NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, VII 1-10, 1145a15-1152b1. Continence and incontinence. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 6 Feb. Preview, Books 7 & 10: Book 7 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.) 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 an activity in accord with virtue. Just what that means will explore in detail. 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? Video lecture on Nicomachean Ethics 7 & 10 is available. Click HERE. #8: 9Feb17 TH NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, Book X, ch.1-8, Happiness Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 8 Feb. Preview, Books 7 & 10: Book 7 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.) 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 an activity in accord with virtue. Just what that means will explore in detail. 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. #9: 14Feb17 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 ARES) & “Topics in Feminism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 13 Feb. 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. NOTE: Students accessing the ARES Reserve system from off campus should do so using VPN Client. For information on VPN, see https://www.marquette.edu/its/help/vpn/vpn.shtml. 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 16Feb17 TH 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/. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 15 Feb. 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. (▷BY) #11: 21 Feb17 TU Exam #1 (20% of course grade) on Aristotle and the Feminist critique of his thought. (▷BY) #12: 23Feb17In-class movie: “Islam: Empire of Faith.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHhbSvOcz4g For your homework assignment, complete watching the video online before our next class. No written assignment. #13: 28Feb17 TU Immanuel Kant, GROUNDING FOR THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS (GMM), Ellington translation, preface, pp. 1-5, and First Section, Ellington tr., pp. 7-17. Human reasoning and practical philosophy. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 27 Feb. 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. 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. I have made two videos, one for the Preface and one for Section One. Since this is new material, you may have to view these twice. And, surely, if you are to understand them, you must have already done a first reading of the text itself. 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? Video lecture on the Preface of Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is available HERE. The video lecture for Section One of Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is available HERE. #14: 2Mar17 TH Immanuel Kant, GROUNDING OF THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS, Second Section, Ellington tr., pp. 19-48.A metaphysics of morals. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 1Mar. 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 One of Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is available HERE. #15: 7Mar17 TU Immanuel Kant, GROUNDING OF THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS, Third Section, Ellington tr., pp. 49-61 Freedom and will. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 6 Mar. 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? Video lectures on Section Three of Kant’s GMM are available: Part 1 of 2 and Part 2 of 2. #16: 9Mar17 TH Catch up or review of Kant. No written assignment due. Midterm Break: No class 14 & 16 March. #17 21Mar17 TU Mill, UTILITARIANISM, George Sher, ed., chapters 1-2. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 20 Mar. Preview: Mill’s Utilitarianism sets out a hedonistic and consequentialist account of morality very different from what we saw in Kant. In the video I discuss justice by nature in Plato’s Republic and three of Mill’s predecessors in the English tradition of moral philosophy. 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. #18 23Mar17 TH Mill, UTILITARIANISM, George Sher, ed., chapters 3-4. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 22 Mar. 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 in Utilitarian 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. #19: 28Mar17 TH Today our class will meet in AMU Ballroom E. This is the place of the “Christian-Muslim Relations in America Today” symposium. After your attendance at the Symposium, submit to D2L two questions or comments related to the symposium talk attended. We will discuss some of your questions before completing discussion of Mill on 30 March. For information on the Symposium, see https://academic.mu.edu/taylorr/Symposium/Christian-Muslim_Relations_in_America_Today.html. #20 30Mar17 TH UTILITARIANISM, Sher, ed., Chapter 5. The proof of utilitarianism; motive and morality; justice, rights and utility. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 27 Mar. 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: http://youtu.be/GV274-Jxv8M #21: 4Apr17 TU Exam #2 (20% of course grade) on Kant and Mill #22: 6Apr17 TH Discussion of Moral Relativism and Ethical Egoism readings. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 5 Apr. Preview: This class will concern three modern issues that are often raised in ethical contexts. 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. 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. 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: on the Reserve ARES System (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 (iii) “Moral Relativism” by Chris Gowans, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ Reminder: Off campus students accessing ARES or on-campus resources fmay need to use VPN client. For information on this, contact ITS or the Raynor Library Information Desk. Guidelines for the essay on “The Island” Due Date: Essays must be uploaded to www.turnitin.com by 12 noon 30 April 2017. Be sure to follow the Guidelines precisely in preparing the essay assignment! Essay Assignment on the movie, THE ISLAND. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/ NOTE: MU used to allow access to this movie free via D2L. But this year policies have changed and that is not permitted. So you have to access the movie in another way. Here are some: the MU library has two copies you can borrow; both Amazon (rent for 48 hrs $3.99) and iTunes (rent for 24 hrs $3.99) have the movie available. Maybe other services also have it but I leave that to you to explore. A suggestion: I suggest you see it once for fun and to have an overview of the whole movie and then you see it a second time to study it for your essay assignment. You must make use of the assigned readings: on the Reserve ARES System (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 also available via an MU link at https://www.marquette.edu/library/research/mulib/public_html/search_results.php?disciplineID=50&subDisciplineID=&matTypeID= Also available at https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/egoism-and-altruism. (iii) “Moral Relativism” by Chris Gowans, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ In your essay, (a) explain the key teachings of the following ethical theories: (i) Ethical Egoism, (ii) Moral Relativism, (iii) aspects of Aristotelian Virtue or Eudaimonistic Ethics, (iv) aspects of Kantian Deontological Ethics and (v) aspects of Mill’s Utilitarianism; (Be sure your essay demonstrates that you have studied the assigned readings listed immediately above.) (b) identify aspects of the movie which exemplify each of those ethical theories; and offer your view on what ethical approach is best used in determining what is right and what is wrong overall in regard to the central issues of the movie. Be sure to give reasons for your view in a reasoned and argued account. Turnitin.com class IDs: Phil 2310-116: 14347716 Phil 2310-117: 14347733 Note the following: All students must submit a one-page outline of the essay to Turnitin.com by 11 pm 20 April 2017. Students must meet with me at my office to discuss the essay outline on Friday 21 April or Monday 24 April. This is required. A sign up sheet will be passed around in class on 20 April. Essays should not exceed ca. 1200 words or 7-8 typed, double spaced pages in 12 pt Times font, with a full bibliography on additional pages. NOTE: A ONE PAGE OUTLINE OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE ESSAY IS REQUIRED AND MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE FINAL ESSAY. Essays submitted without an outline will have the grade reduced by one letter grade. Electronic copies of final essays must be uploaded to www.turnitin.com by 12 noon 30 April 2017 . NOTE: PLACE THE OUTLINE OF YOUR ESSAY AT THE FRONT OF THE FILE YOU UPLOAD TO turninin.com. YOU MAY UPLOAD ONLY ONE FILE. - Essays will be graded on the basis of philosophical content as well as clarity, proper grammatical form, and spelling. Proofread your essay before submitting it! Spelling counts! Excessive errors (more than three) will result in a lowering of the grade by 1/2 grade, or more (1 full grade for more than six, and so forth). - Each essay must be accompanied by a one-page detailed outline of the structure of the essay. Late papers will not be accepted. Again, the DEADLINE: Electronic copies of course essays on The Island must be uploaded to www.turnitin.com by 12 noon Sunday 30 April 2017 . TURNITIN.COM class IDs: Phil 2310-116: 14347716 Phil 2310-117: 14347733 Password will be provided at class. *Take Special Note: I expect all students to take advantage of the MU Ott Writing Center for help with this essay. Students who provide evidence to me that they have consulted with the Writing Center on their essays in one or more appointments will have an additional 3 points added to their score before the final essay grade is determined. The Ott Memorial Writing Center offers free one-on-one consultations for all writers, working on any project, at any stage of the writing process. Marquette's writing center is a place for all writers who care about their writing, because every writer can benefit from conversation with an interested, knowledgeable peer. Writing center tutors can help you brainstorm ideas, revise a rough draft, or fine-tune a final draft. You can schedule a 30- or 60-minute appointment in advance (288-5542 or www.marquette.edu/writing-center), but walk-ins (in 240 Raynor or our other satellite locations) are also welcome. The Ott Memorial Writing Center also offers free workshops and hosts writing retreats. https://www.marquette.edu/writing-center/schedule-an-appointment.php #23 11Apr17 TU A contemporary approach to the theory of morality founded on insights from the Hebrew-Christian traditions. Donagan, THE THEORY OF MORALITY, ch.1, pp. 1-31. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 10 Apr. Preview: For Donagan a theory of morality is about the common mores and ways of acting in a culture or society. To explain his understanding he draws on Stoic thought which is foundational for the notion of natural law. They thought that the laws of nature should be conceptualized as the laws set out by Fire or God in nature as ‘readable’ or knowable by those beings that have a ‘spark’ of rationality in their own natures. Natural law, then, is the law of nature set out as God preferred nature to be. The Hebrew-Christian tradition also asserts an anthropomorphic sort of Deity who is the Lawgiver and it is through the moral force of this Lawgiver that the laws of nature are also moral laws. With that set out, Donagan proceeds to consider other approaches to morality different from his own. The first is morality as a disposition of affection and conduct founded on the thought of the German philosopher Hegel. Here truth is every changing and dependent on societal understandings at the chosen moment in history. Another rejects is intuitionism that holds for humans to have a certain sensibility or feeling about what is morally right. For himself Donagan explains he follows the Hebrew - Christian tradition because of its long history of engagement over moral issues, but not because he assumes the existence of God. Some additional study questions: *(a) What is moral intuitionism? (b) What are Sittlichkeit and Moralität? Video lecture on Donagan, chapter 1: https://youtu.be/Z3mEkxjLJSU 13-17 April Easter break #24: 18Apr17 TU Donagan ch.2: Presuppositions and Principles, pp. 32-36 and 52-74 Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 17 Apr. Preview: In Chapter 2 Donagan spells out his presuppositions without proof. First, Human beings are rational animals and so both aspects must be respected. The Parable of the Good Samaritan nicely illustrates the Hebrew-Christian view that human beings are soul AND body. Respecting rational beings means respecting humans as rational animals, including respecting the wants, needs, desires, that are natural to humans as animals. So (i) Human beings, considered as moral agents, are rational animals, and (ii) the world in which humans live is one of a natural system of rules and laws of nature which are morally neutral. Nature itself does not morally dispense rewards and punishments literally. Hence, superstitions, for example, are not a real part of nature. Also in this moral philosophy there are two sorts of questions: First Order questions about the rightness or wrongness of an action; and Second Order questions which concern intentions and culpability or responsibility for actions. In this context reason is presupposed to be valuable and right actions cannot be contrary to reason properly used. Actions here are (i) permissible; (ii) impermissible; or (iii) obligatory. As you can see in the text, Donagan then goes on to show how his Fundamental Principle (p.66) is derived in the context of the discussions of Scripture and proper human action in the Hebrew-Christian traditions and the conception of natural law in Moses Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas. Some additional study questions: *(a) What is the fundamental principle? How has the tradition expressed it? (b) How are First Order and Second Order moral questions distinguished? Video lecture on Donagan, chapter 2: https://youtu.be/vPNvuzsU_7E #25 : 20Apr17 TH Donagan ch.3: First-Order Precepts, pp. 75-111. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 19 Apr. ADD PREVIEW Some additional study questions: What are the principle of culture and the principle of beneficence? (b)What is "imaginative significance" or "imaginative awareness" according to Donagan? #26: 25 Apr17TU Donagan ch.4: Second-Order Precepts, pp. 112-142. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 24Apr. Some additional study questions: #27 27Apr17 TH Donagan ch.5: Consistency Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 26 Apr. ADD PREVIEW Some additional study questions: (a) What are intension and extension and how are descriptions related to these? (b) What is SYNDERESIS? #28 2May17 TU Continued discussion of Donagan ch.5: Consistency. No Written Assignment. ADD PREVIEW Some additional study questions: *(a) What is the Theory of Double Effect? (b) What is the stand of Donagan on abortion and how does he justify it? (c) What is SYNDERESIS? #29: 4May17 TH Donagan ch.7: The Foundation of Common Morality. Assignment: Student question on assigned readings submitted to D2L. Deadline 7:30 pm 3 May. ADD PREVIEW read pp. 239-243 only. Some additional study questions: *Can we create morality if it does not exist in its own right? Final Exams: Phil 2310 Section 116 [TT 9:30-10:45] => Wednesday 10 May 8-10 am in Wehr Physics 138 Phil 2310 Section 117 [TT 11-12:15] => Friday 13 May 3:30-5:30 in Wehr Physics 138 https://youtu.be/Ys3NcHAK0Qshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MtO3QOYtkM&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MtO3QOYtkM&feature=youtu.behttps://youtu.be/zKD3sZIAB3Uhttps://youtu.be/6q7quteImQ0https://youtu.be/6q7quteImQ0http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/https://www.marquette.edu/its/help/vpn/vpn.shtmlhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHhbSvOcz4ghttp://youtu.be/hSgzZFqMjqYhttps://youtu.be/LwHwey0o-TEhttps://youtu.be/h18le8w7Qx0http://youtu.be/NOPdBj4brH4http://youtu.be/fKGKN5Tej0Qhttps://youtu.be/qy-FnL81c4whttps://youtu.be/IhRTCQtHUbIhttps://youtu.be/lfgW9sAqWDshttps://academic.mu.edu/taylorr/Symposium/Christian-Muslim_Relations_in_America_Today.htmlhttps://academic.mu.edu/taylorr/Symposium/Christian-Muslim_Relations_in_America_Today.htmlhttp://youtu.be/GV274-Jxv8Mhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/http://www.turnitin.comhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/https://www.marquette.edu/library/research/mulib/public_html/search_results.php?disciplineID=50&subDisciplineID=&matTypeID=https://www.marquette.edu/library/research/mulib/public_html/search_results.php?disciplineID=50&subDisciplineID=&matTypeID=https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/egoism-and-altruismhttps://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/egoism-and-altruismhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/http://www.turnitin.comhttp://www.turnitin.comhttps://www.marquette.edu/writing-center/https://www.marquette.edu/writing-center/schedule-an-appointment.phphttps://youtu.be/Z3mEkxjLJSUhttps://youtu.be/vPNvuzsU_7Eshapeimage_2_link_0shapeimage_2_link_1shapeimage_2_link_2shapeimage_2_link_3shapeimage_2_link_4shapeimage_2_link_5shapeimage_2_link_6shapeimage_2_link_7shapeimage_2_link_8shapeimage_2_link_9shapeimage_2_link_10shapeimage_2_link_11shapeimage_2_link_12shapeimage_2_link_13shapeimage_2_link_14shapeimage_2_link_15shapeimage_2_link_16shapeimage_2_link_17shapeimage_2_link_18shapeimage_2_link_19shapeimage_2_link_20shapeimage_2_link_21shapeimage_2_link_22shapeimage_2_link_23shapeimage_2_link_24shapeimage_2_link_25shapeimage_2_link_26shapeimage_2_link_27shapeimage_2_link_28shapeimage_2_link_29shapeimage_2_link_30shapeimage_2_link_31shapeimage_2_link_32shapeimage_2_link_33shapeimage_2_link_34shapeimage_2_link_35shapeimage_2_link_36shapeimage_2_link_37shapeimage_2_link_38