18 Jan What topic most interested

PHI115 ETHICS

Homework 1

Do not write or type in the comment field. Either attach a file or click “Write Submission” and type in the box that reveals. I will ask you to resubmit in submissions. Ask me if you have questions.

Instructions: Write a short essay (about two solid paragraphs) in answer to the following:

What is cultural relativism and what are the consequences of taking it seriously, according to Rachels, in his essay “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”?

Note: by “consequences of taking it seriously,” I am referring to a specific section from the article.

Note Two: Your task is summary. You are not to evaluate the definition of relativism Rachels offers or the consequences of taking it seriously. Try to summarize in a way faithful to the text but in your own words.

Your answer will be typed and submitted via Blackboard. Do not write or type in the comment field. Either attach a file or click “Write Submission” and type there.

Your short essay should be a solid paragraph that addresses the two parts to the question as faithfully to the text as is possible. Please quote or cite, where appropriate, and put page numbers in parentheses. For example: (p. 8).

Submissions will be analyzed using SafeAssign.

Grades will be determined using the general rubric.

PHI115 ETHICS

Homework 2

Note the change in due date from the Syllabus. I’m giving you until the end of the day 3/10 to do this one. That is also the same time your weekly quiz is due. Both are due by the end of the day Sunday–this week.

For this assignment, you’re going to work on putting in your own words a statement that is supported by the theory of Kant. Here is your question, which is just a question from the end of this week’s reading:

Why is it wrong to deceive others?

Your task is to do two things: first, summarize the parts of Kant’s view that you think are most relevant to answering this question. Second, your task is to show why those parts of Kant’s theory you think are most relevant say that it is wrong to deceive others. In brief outline, your short essay will look like this:

Paragraph 1: Kant’s theory is the theory that rightness/wrongness work in the following way…[to be spelled out by you. Make sure you include parts that are relevant to answering the question.]

Paragraph 2: According to Kant’s theory, as I’ve summarized it, it is wrong to deceive others because…[to be spelled out by you.]

No need to argue that Kant is . You’re simply summarizing this theory in your own words, but using appropriate technical terms where appropriate, and showing why this theory says deception of other people is immoral.

Length: two, solid paragraphs (about 150 words or more)

Grades will be assigned using the general grading rubric.

Submissions will be analyzed using SafeAssign anti-plagiarism software.

PHI115 ETHICS

Homework 3

Your work will be submitted via Blackboard. Do not write in the “Comment” field. Submissions should be attachmens in the appropriate format or written in the “Type Submission” field, which opens when you click it. Submission not in the appropriate place will be considered incomplete.

Note: this is due later than the syllabus says, since it involves writing about 250 words. It is due 3/17 by end of the day (the same time as your quiz).

In our text, we read the following formulation of the categorical imperative:

Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will to become universal law.

We worked on using that categorical imperative to work through some real life decisions, including whether or not to lie and whether or not to help others in times of need. But, that version is not the only version of the categorical imperative. There are two others, one of which is known as the “formular of the end in itself” or the “means/ends version.” Your task for this assignment concerns that version.

You are to read the attached work by Onora O’Neill, “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics,” which discusses the means/ends version. After you read it—it’s short—you are to answer the following question in your own words, but from a Kantian perspective:

What do you think is the right thing to do in the following situation, using as your moral position only the formula of the end in itself, plus whatever relevant facts you have good reasons to add?

Situation: Suppose you are a student at Harper College, which you are. You are enrolled in a class about ethics. On the day before the test, Professor Horton is discussing study preparation for an upcoming exam. He is using an actual copy of your upcoming exam to help him in addressing issues you might face. Class is dismissed, but he leaves behind the copy of your upcoming exam. Question: do you or do you not look at it? I assume not looking at it involves picking it up and returning it to Professor Horton. I assuming looking at the exam may or may not involve returning it. So, what do you do as a good Kantian moral reasoner? Your position will involve making a moral argument, including both making a moral claim about what you would do and backing it up with reasons like Kant would give, using relevant facts and the formula of the end in itself. Specifics below:

Your submission will be approximately 250 words, which is about a page. You should write in clear, effective prose, using complete, grammatically sentences. You should explain your reasoning, laying it out as if you were explaining it to a peer who hasn’t had Introduction to Ethics. What is the right thing to do? Why are you doing it? Are there other options? Why not do those? And so on. You should also explain the formula of the end in itself, as it will figure in your reasoning. Make sure you have a topic sentence that explains your view, with the rest of your short essay elaborating on and supporting what you take to be the right thing to do as a Kantian.

Your work will be submitted via Blackboard. Do not write in the “Comment” field. Submissions should be attachmens in the appropriate format or written in the “Type Submission” field, which opens when you click it. Submission not in the appropriate place will be considered incomplete.

Assignments will be graded using the general rubric.

PHI115 ETHICS

Homework 4

Answer the following two questions completely. Your answers will be about a paragraph or so each (word count will be near 150 – 200). Proofread your writing for clarity and ness. Submissions will be analyzed using SafeAssign. Do not write in the comment field.

For each answer, please provide one or more quotes from our reading in support of your answer. No works cited page is necessary, but please include page numbers in parentheses at the end of the sentence in which your quote occurs, and before final punctuation of the sentence.

(1) According to Mill, is the agent’s own happiness the standard of right conduct? Why or why not?

(2) Are some types of pleasures more worthwhile than others? Why?

Do not type your submissions in the “comment” box. Click “Write Submission” and type it there, or attach a Word or Adobe (.doc/.docx, .pdf) file only.

PHI115 ETHICS

Homework 5

Do not write in the “Comment” field. Click “Write Submission” or attach a file of the appropriate type.

Your homework will take approximately one solid paragraph (at least five or more sentences). Answer the following question:

What is a law from the past of the United States that would not pass Rawls’s test? In other words, find an example of an unjust law from U.S. history. Tips below:

(1) Know Rawls’s theory of justice. When is a law just and when is a law unjust. There are two principle of justice. A law will fail to be just if it violates one or the other (but won’t violate both).

(2) Find a law from U.S. history that is unjust. You might look at Jim Crow laws. You might look for examples of laws that violated our constitution. Your only caveat: not every law with ‘unjust’ beside it will be unjust according to Rawls’s theory. You’ll need to understand his theory and apply it in order to figure out whether it violates either of the Principles of Justice.

Assignments will be checked using SafeAssign.

PHI115 ETHICS

Homework 7

Your reading for this week is a selection from Gilligan’s “In A Different Voice.” Part of what she is up to there is getting us to question what was then, and to a large extent still is, a dominant hierarchy of moral thought. That hierarchy was theorized by Lawrence Kohlberg. I reproduce it below (as it appears in Wikipedia’s entry on Lawrence):

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)

1. Obedience and punishment orientation

( How can I avoid punishment?)

2. Self-interest orientation

( What’s in it for me?)

( Paying for a benefit)

Level 2 (Conventional)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity

( Social norms)

( The good boy/girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation

( Law and order morality)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)

5. Social contract orientation

6. Universal ethical principles

( Principled conscience)

This way of rank-ordering different strategies for handling moral questions doesn’t appear all that problematic at first glance. It doesn’t even mention women, people of color, different socioeconomic classes, nothing. It’s simply saying what kinds of reasoning are more sophisticated and developed that others.

But…

When combined with sexist attitudes about women (or people of color, or…), then we run into problems. Why? Because women’s answers to questions about moral dilemmas, seemed to suggest that they were inferior to men in terms of moral reasoning (assuming the evidence was gathered well and the interpretation of the data was solid, both of which are big assumptions). At similar levels of physical/social development, females seem to be lagging behind males, so the data suggested.

Enter Gilligan. Instead of questioning the data, as many have, she questions the very structure used to interpret it. What if Kohlberg is wrong? What if the ways females think is not inferior to the ways males think about morality. What if they are different, but equal, approaches, emphasizing different things?

Your task for this assignment is to answer the Heinz dilemma from our own text in your own words. What would you do? Second, where do you think your answer would rank on Kohlberg’s scale? Last, do you agree? Why or why not?

I’m imagining these questions as a fun way to apply the theory. I’m not worried so much about whether you answer the Heinz dilemma ly or inly. That is beside the point. The idea is to try to evaluate your own answer to it. So, be honest, but focus your efforts on applying the scale and determining whether and why you agree or disagree with where you ended up on it.

Specifics:

Write about two to three solid paragraphs in standard written English.

Proofread for typos, obvious grammatical errors (sentence fragments, etc.).

Do NOT write in the comment field. Attach a file of the appropriate type or click “Write Submission” and type there.

Submissions will be analyzed using SafeAssign. No outside sources are allowed, beyond your own reading and the Wiki entry on Kohlberg, if you so choose to look at it (link below).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

PHI115 ETHICS

Homework 8

So, this is our last homework assignment. Here is all I’d like to see:

What topic most interested you and why? The ‘why’ is pretty open ended. It could interest you because you disagree with a particular author. Say what and where and who. It could be because you hadn’t thought about a particular issue before. What issue and what do you think about it? Any which way you go, tell me an author and topic you found most interesting and why. This will take two paragraphs.

Grading: there is no objectively answer for this. I have no way of knowing what you really did or didn’t find interesting. I’ll be grading, therefore, purely on completeness. Write in complete sentences and let me know what topic interested you the most and why!