PL 211 Instructor: Cheshire Calhoun

Fall 2006 Office: 247 Lovejoy Annex

Phone: x4552

Email: calhoun@colby.edu

Hours: 5 min. drop in MTWR12-1; longer sessions by appt.

MORAL PHILOSOPHY

In this introductory course, you will learn about the three most important theoretical frameworks that have come to shape our moral thinking in everyday life: utilitarianism, Kantianism, and virtue ethics. You will also learn about different conceptions of the relation between morality and the law. We will look at the following sorts of questions: Is it ever the business of the legal system to enforce moral standards? What general moral principles should we use in deciding what we ought morally to do and in justifying our decisions to others? Do utilitarianism and Kantianism really give us an adequate picture of the moral life? If our concern is not just with what to do, but also with what kind of person to be, how should we think about the nature of moral virtue? Along the way, we will look at some issues in applied ethics such as censorship, famine relief, and the vice of snobbery.

My top priority in the course is to make sure that you master these different theoretical approaches and are able to present the main arguments both for and against them. I hope you will learn to think as a philosopher--to pay attention to conceptual distinctions, to ask what the argument is for particular claims, to use your critical eye to look for unacceptable implications of an argument or theory, and to use your imagination to ask "what isn't this author talking about that a full account of moral life needs to cover?" I also hope that you will remember that no matter how abstract these theories may seem, they are intended to tell us something interesting and helpful about what it means to live as a morally reflective person in everyday life.

Texts:

Ethical Theory: Classical & Contemporary Readings, 4th ed., edited by Louis P. Pojman

PL211 coursepak (available at the bookstore)

Discussion:

I expect everyone to be prepared to participate in the process of laying out each author's view. You will often be asked questions like "What does the author mean by this term?" and "What are his or her reasons for thinking that....?" I also expect everyone to approach reading the texts and listening to lectures as an activity--the activity of looking for what is puzzling, or unclear, or seemingly wrong-headed. Your job, as philosophers, is to bring up these puzzles, questions, and critiques in class. There may frequently be extended class discussions. If at any time you do not see the relevance of the discussion or understand the point, you should say so. Do not be afraid to ask seemingly basic questions. Sometimes these turn out to be the most interesting and helpful questions.

Attendance:

If you have more than three unexcused absences, your course grade will go down by half a letter. Five or more unexcused absences will result in a failing course grade.

Grading Scale :

All your work will be graded on a 4-point scale: 4=A, 3.7=minimum for A-, 3.3=minimum for B+, 3=minimum for B, 2.7=minimum for B-, etc.

Essay Exams (worth 28% each):

There will be three take-home essay exams (6-7 pages each). These exams are quite demanding. They are designed to test the depth of your comprehension of the theories and texts we will be discussing. You will receive exam questions about one week before exams are due. I am happy to look over rough drafts with you or simply talk with you about how you plan to approach the essays.

Posing a Question Exercize (worth %16 total):

Over the course of the semester you are to pose a minimum of 6 philosophical questions on the readings for the day. (You may do extra questions and I will average only your top 6 grades.) I would prefer to have these questions turned in to my mailbox or e-mailed to me before class; if this is not possible, you may submit your written question at the beginning of class. No more than one question may be submitted per day. YOU MUST POSE AT LEAST TWO QUESTIONS BEFORE FALL BREAK.

Your philosophical question should be posed in three clearly distinct parts: 1. a quote or summary of the textual passage that your question arises from, 2. your question, 3. a brief explanation of why your question is philosophically important (i.e., why the author needs to be able to address your question). Be prepared to pose your question in class.

Example:

(1) On p. 995, Mill appears to be recommending laws against public indecency when he says, "…there are many acts which, being directly injurious only to the agents themselves, ought not to be legally interdicted, but which if done publicly, are a violation of good manners and, coming thus within the category of offenses against others, may rightly be prohibited."

(2) Is Mill entitled to endorse regulations against public indecency?

(3) Mill has argued that the only justification for legally regulating any action is to prevent harm to others. However, he has explicitly claimed that mere offense is not a harm. Thus it would seem that Mill is violating his own view when he suggests that public violations of good manners can be outlawed.

I. LAW & MORALITY

9-7 Introduction

9-12 public v. private spheres; the harm principle

read: coursepak Selection #1: Mill, “Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual (also available on electronic reserve at Miller Library)

read: coursepak Selection #2: Mill, "Applications"

9-14 video: Skokie, Rights or Wrong

9-19 legal moralism

read: coursepak Selection #3: Devlin, “Morals & the Criminal Law”

9-21 refining legal moralism

read: coursepak Selection #4: Dworkin, “Liberty & Moralism”

II. UTILITARIANISM

9-26 Utilitarianism and its historical roots in Bentham; Mill on higher" & "lower" pleasures;

the proof of the utilitarian principle

read: ET 115-119 (Bentham & Nozick articles); ET 155-169 (Mill)

9-28 act vs. rule utilitarianism; can utilitarians value justice?

read: coursepak Selection #5: Rawls, “Two Concepts of Rules”

10-3 act vs. rule utilitarianism; the problem of deception; exam review

read: ET 177-183 (JJC Smart)

10-5 1^st EXAM DUE. contemporary utilitarian reasoning & the problem of demanding too much

read: ET 241-248 (Singer)

10-10 utilitarianism & negative responsibility

read: ET 192-201 (Williams)

10-12 can utilitarianism make room for special obligations? Introduction to Kantian ethics;

the concept of a good will

read: ET 233-240 (Jeske & Fumerton)

read: ET 255-263 (Kant)

10-17 OCTOBERBREAK

III. KANTIANISM

10-19 the concept of a good will cont’d; hypothetical vs. categorical imperatives

read: ET: 255-273

10-24 the contradiction in conception & contradiction in willing tests

read: Xeroxed handout from O’Neill’s Acting on Principle

10-26 Kant cont’d

10-31 treating persons as ends

read: ET 273-275 (Kant) and ET 284-294 (O’Neill)

11-2 treating oneself as an end; video clip from Ethics in America

read: coursepak Selection #6: Hill, “Servility and Self-Respect”

11-7 problems with Kantian theory: the phenomenon of moral luck

read: ET 294-302 (Nagel)

11-7 doing versus allowing; the doctrine of double effect

read: ET 302-309 (Foot)

IV. VIRTUE ETHICS

11-9 2^nd EXAM DUE. is moral sainthood a virtue?

read: ET 377-388 (Wolf)

11-14 intro to virtue ethics; Aristotle’s account of virtue

read: ET 333-346 (Aristotle)

11-16 the vice of snobbery; the relation between virtues and moral rules

read: coursepak Selection #8: Hill, “Social Snobbery and Human Dignity”

read: ET 356-363 (Schaller)

11-21 is there a core concept of “virtue”?

read: ET 363-378 (MacIntyre)

THANKSGIVING BREAK

11-28 the fragility of goodness

read: coursepak Selection #9: Nussbaum, “The Vulnerability of the Good Human Life”

11-30 fragility of goodness cont’d; video Applying the Lessons of Ancient Greece

12-5 supererogation v. obligation; ordinary vs. noteworthy virtue

video Weapons of the Spirit

read: coursepak Selection #7: Blum “Virtue and Community”

12-7 why be moral?

read: ET 559-571 (Kavka)

3^rd Exam due on Final Exam date (at beginning time) in my mailbox outside Lovejoy 247