18 Jan Peter Singer is trying

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 1 Discussion

Forums will be very important for us. We’ll exchange ideas, work with the ideas of others and we will be doing so often. To help with that. I’ve made forum posts worth part of your grade. In most weeks, I will grade your posts, looking for rigor, depth and constructiveness. I will say more about that as we proceed and as I introduce topics. This week I will only grade for completeness.

The main thing to think about is whether you’re advancing or starting a good conversation. Easy questions don’t start conversations. Vague comments don’t start conversations. Genuine questions that show depth or comments that show some thought can start conversations. That will be our goal: to have good conversations about philosophy. This week, I want us all to say hello and to begin learning how this course is to be arranged. So, post a ‘hello’ and a bit about yourself or why you’re taking this course. If you have any special pronoun preferences, this would be the time to let me and everyone else know (see below). If you have any questions about this or anything else, bring them to the forum! That is the best place for public questions. If you have any confidential questions, email me privately, please. Good luck and I can’t wait to get to know you all! Also, don’t forget to do the reading and post comments questions here, as well. We’re going to learn a lot together and it starts this week.

On pronouns: not everyone uses the pronouns we might assume they would. In my case, I present as male, so I use ‘he/him/his’ as my pronouns. You would say, “Dr. Horton, he teaches my philosophy class” or “I’m taking his course.” If someone is a female, they might prefer ‘she/her/hers’. These are not the only pronouns, however. Someone might prefer ‘they/them/their’, as their singular pronouns, as in “Bobby wants their coffee black” or “I know them (said of Bobby).” Or, alternatively, someone might prefer ‘xe/xem/xyr’, as in “Jem wants xyr coffee black” or “I know xem very well.”

In this class, I respect each of you. I’m happy to help make sure we respect each other. Please let me know via email or in whatever way you prefer what pronouns we should use and we will respect you by doing so.

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 2 Discussion

Regan and Rachels

So many things to discuss this week! What did you think? Some things you might consider posting about or in answer to:

(a) Was there a specific passage that stood out to you? Provide it (and page number) and provide why you think it’s interesting/challenging/etc.?

(b) Did you have a question from the reading? What passage (and page number) and what is your question? How do you think the philosopher you read might answer it?

(c) Do you have a real world example that is relevant? Might you have seen someone adopting a position like described this week? How so?

You can also create a constructive post of your own topic, related to this week’s material, but these are just to get you thinking. I’m looking forward to your posts!

Note: you do not need to address all of (a) – (c) in your posts. Take one and do a thorough job on it. There is lots to discuss!

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 3 Discussion

Plato’s Euthyphro!

What did you think? Have any questions? Have any answers?

Let me help us a bit here to get started. First, let’s look at some essay questions that a textbook provides:

1. What is the Euthyphro question? What is the answer, according to Socrates? Can you reconstruct his reasoning for why?

2. What is involved in service to the gods, according to Euthyphro and Socrates? Do you agree? Explain.

3. What does Socrates want in asking for a definition of piety? Is this what one should be looking for in a definition? Explain.

In formulating a post, we might think about these questions. We might try to come up with an answer to them, or at least the beginning of an answer. How might you try to answer one of these?

Another way to proceed is to find a passage in the text you think is interesting. Share that passage and share why you think it’s interesting. Why do you think it worth sharing, in other words? Does it convey an important message about morality? Does it make a nice point about why we should act in a certain way or about reasons for moral behavior in general?

There are lots of ways to go, especially since the reading is longer than some of the others. It’s a dialogue, so in that since doesn’t read as long as it is. It is, though, philosophy, which takes a careful read. After your careful read, what stood out to you? Why?

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 4 Discussion

I’ll start with an example to help:

(1) Example of categorical imperative: Do not lie.

(2) Example of a hypothetical imperative: If you want to be trusted by your friends, do not lie.

Why should I follow the first but not the second even though they both say I shouldn’t lie?

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 5 Discussion

Did you see my handout? What do you think of the two cases? When we’re finished discussing those, we may create our own. So many interesting things to say about this week. I can’t wait to hear what you can offer!

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 6 Discussion

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a theory about options. For everything we think about doing, we have choices: we can do (a) or (b) or (c)…and so on. The question for a utilitarian is the following: which of our options either produces the most pleasure or reduces the most pain? Or, in short, which causes the most happiness? Now, Mill defines happiness precisely, so we must be sure we’re talking about the same thing. Mill also talks about different kinds of pleasures. Taking all of that in, what might some examples be of what a utilitarian would do in a specific situation?

(a) Question: My Aunt Agatha gets a horrible, bee hive hairdo. I dislike it. Most people will dislike it. It is ugly. Question: do I tell her what I think if she asks me? Options: (a) lie to her or (b) tell the truth (tactfully). Only you may know your Aunt, but what would a good utilitarian do?

(b) Should I give money, say, $5, to charity or buy a Venti latte from Starbucks with that money? What would a good utilitarian do?

(c) Should we have an amendment guaranteeing free speech for all citizens or should we not? What would a good utilitarian do?

We can multiply examples endlessly. These are just to get us started.

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 7 Discussion

Let’s try a few things in our posts this week:

(1) No very general comments. Let’s be specific. If the text was hard, then where, what passages? If something was unclear, then what passage or paragraph? What might Rawls be saying? Why do you think that? No simply saying a passage was challenging. Take a stab at interpreting it. What could Rawls be saying or trying to convey?

(2) Let’s help each other, too. Post an original comment and then use your second posting to help a classmate or to constructively comment on their post. Again, be constructive. Read the context around their quoted passage and ask whether their interpretation is consistent with the text as you read it. Have another interpretation? Politely offer it and ask what we think.

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 8 Discussion

The Racial Contract

I hope you enjoyed this week’s reading. It is a contemporary classic, if you will, and a valuable lens through which to look at our society. Consider the following question: suppose I had a policy at a company I ran that said the following: we will not hire women. You’d think that was discriminatory, right? Obviously. But, what if I had a policy in place that did exactly that (more or less), but which didn’t mention women by name? I could do the following: “Any absence of work for any reason for more than five business days will result in automatic termination.” How does this policy do the same thing? Surely men, too, might have an accidenct or need leave? Some will, no doubt. But this policy impacts women particularly because they are the most likely to need leave, specifically, parental leave. I might as well say “no maternity leave here!”

Okay, what lesson can we draw from this? First, a policy can be discriminatory in all of the following cases:

(1) without mentioning a vulnerable group by name or description.

(2) accidentally or unintentionally

(3) by mentioning a vulnerable group by name or description

(4) deliberately or intentionally

Intentions have little to do with it, in fact, at the policy level or the level of law. A policy or law can be discriminatory and just as immoral if it achieves the same thing as a law that discriminates by name or description.

Okay, then, how does this relate to Mills? In a sense, he’s asking a question: what if we can design a racist contract that gives us the exact same results we might see out in the world? If we can, doesn’t that mean the world is flawed?

Consider an example: suppose I’m of pure heart and have only good intentions. Suppose also that I get a diversity of applicants for job after job at my company. Suppose, lastly, that my company hires men, predominantly. I don’t have a policy that says hire only men. I don’t try only to hire men. It’s just the way it worked out. However, if I had a policy that said “Hire only men,” I’d get the same results, more or less, then that should give us a reason to think somethings going on. It doesn’t mean I’m a sexist. It doesn’t mean other employees are sexist. But it might mean that somehow we have a system in place that is sexist, despite the best intentions of the people who are a part of that system.

Anytime we see something like that, anytime we see something that COULD be achieved by purely immoral means, we ought to want to dig deeper and try to see what’s going on. In a sense, that’s what Mills is up to. Since we can get almost the exact same results as we see in our very own world by use of a racist contract, doesn’t that mean that somehow in our world exists racism at a structural or systemic level? At the very least, shouldn’t it mean we ought to look deeper?

Here are further things to think about, as you’re reading the Mills:

Evidence of exploitation? Evidence of Mills’ claim that the Racial Contract has a political dimension, an epistemological dimension or a moral dimension? What does he mean by those terms? Other interesting tidbits?

Please provide a page number with each post so that we can know what part of the reading you’re commenting on, elaborating on, challenging, connecting to, etc. Each post should connect to the reading, whether it is an original post or a comment on a classmate’s post.

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 9 Discussion

Aristotle: what is a good person?

What character traits are virtues that Aristotle may not have mentioned? Do they fit his pattern of “excess” and “deficiency?” If they are moral virtues, they should! What do you think of virtue ethics? Do we care about the kind of person you are on the inside or do we only care that you do the right thing? Is there a place for virtue ethics? Let’s have a great discussion this week!

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 10 Discussion

Thoughts about Gilligan

How is it claimed that boys think about ethics? What evidence is there?

How is it claimed that girls think about ethics? What evidence is there?

What does this mean for ethics?

Each post, whether an initial post or a reply, should include page references to the part of the reading that informed your post.

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 11 Discussion

Of particular note to Held’s theory is the fact that care is both a practice and a value. What does she mean by this? And, for someone else or many people, what are examples?

Second, how does the ethic of care help is in the real world? What examples fit or don’t fit the theory?

Last, What do you think about the Lorde?

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 12 Discussion

Peter Singer is trying to convince us that we ought–morally–to be doing a lot more to help other people in the world. There is no moral difference between a person living in our borders and a person living somewhere else. There might be a cultural difference or a linguistic difference between them, but a person is a person. Morally, there is no difference. There is also a lot of need in the world. There is need here and there is need there. Need is need. Part of thinking about altruism is thinking about how to get the most bang for our bucks. We have to be thinking about that, too. Peter Singer takes facts like this, adds a few moral premises, and concludes that we–individually, sure, but also as a nation, should be doing a lot more to help those in poverty. Do you agree?

Or, do you think about it like Hardin does? His paper is less rigorous than Singer’s (he’s not a professional philosopher, after all), but he does present a case that suggests we don’t have a moral obligation to help those in poverty. Is he ? Do you agree? Why or why not?

Note: each post should include either a quoted passage from the reading (along with page number where it can be found) or a paraphrase/summary/statement of a thought contained in the reading (along with a page number where it can be found). You can disagree with the thought expressed in the reading. You can agree with it. You can use it as a jumping off point for your own thoughts. Great! But, make sure you give a page number.