Introduction to Ethics Course Syllabus Spring 2006
PHIL 2120 TR 9:30-10:45 Human 312
Dr. Jeremiah Alberg Office TLC 2254
Office Hours: MWF 10:00-12:00; TR 11:00-12:30, 2:00-3:00 jalberg@westga.edu
Robert Spaemann, Happiness and Benevolence, (South Bend: U of Notre Dame P, 2000)
This course attempts to accomplish two things. First, it will provide an overview of the history of ethical thought by examining the theories of Aristotle, Kant, and Mill. Secondly, it gives one ethical system from which it views these other theories. This system attempts to go incorporate both the development of the individual that Aristotle emphasized and the notion of duty from Kant. There also discussions of responsibility and forgiveness.
At the conclusion of the course the student will be able to:
1) identify and discuss the similarities and differences between Aristotle and Kants approach to ethics
2) think both with and against Spaemann in his various ethical and meta-ethical positions
3) use what he or she has learned to come to some of their own ethical conclusions
This course plays a central role in realizing the Programs goals of (1) grasping the general historical development of the overall discipline by showing how ethical thought developed, and of (2) being able to discuss three major historical figures in philosophy. It will also allow them to develop in their ability to differentiate types of philosophical questions.
|
Date |
Reading |
Assignment due |
|
January 10 |
|
|
|
January 12 |
Chapter 1 |
1 |
|
January 17 |
Chapter 1 |
2 |
|
January 19 |
Chapter 2 |
1 |
|
January 24 |
Chapter 2 |
2 |
|
January 26 |
Chapter 3 |
1 |
|
January 31 |
Chapter 3 |
2 |
|
February 2 |
Chapter 4 |
1 |
|
February 7 |
Chapter 4 |
2 |
|
February 9 |
Chapter 5 |
1 |
|
February 14 |
Chapter 5 |
2 |
|
February 16 |
Chapter 6 |
1 |
|
February 21 |
Chapter 6 |
2 |
|
February 23 |
Chapter 7 |
1 |
|
February 28 |
Chapter 7 |
2 |
|
March 2 |
Chapter 8 |
1 |
|
March 7 |
Chapter 8 |
2 |
|
March 9 |
Chapter 9 |
1 |
|
March 14 |
Chapter 9 |
2 |
|
March 16 |
Chapter 10 |
1 |
|
March 21 |
Spring Break |
|
|
March 23 |
Spring Break |
|
|
March 28 |
Chapter 11 |
2 |
|
March 30 |
Chapter 12 |
1 |
|
April 4 |
Chapter 13 |
2 |
|
April 6 |
Chapter 13 |
1 |
|
April 11 |
Chapter 14 |
2 |
|
April 13 |
Chapter 14 |
1 |
|
April 18 |
Chapter 15 |
2 |
|
April 20 |
Chapter 15 |
1 |
|
April 25 |
Chapter 16 |
2 |
|
April 27 |
Chapter 16 |
|
|
May 4 8:00 -11:00 |
Final Exam |
|
A position paper represents a genre of writing that is distinct from other types of assignments, including book reports, research essays, and personal reflection papers. While some reporting will inevitably be included in your paper, position papers go beyond mere reporting and analyze the material at hand. Your paper should concentrate on the issues addressed and the logic at work in the readings, focus question, and thesis statement. Likewise, position papers should exhibit a simple style of writing. You should write in complete sentences and paragraphs (do not resort to an outline or a series of bullets). However, you should also avoid excessive rhetorical flourishes, repetitive formulations, and complex sentences. In addition, the final draft of the position paper should meet the following guidelines:
* quotations from readings should be few and page references given within the text
* do not use footnotes, endnotes; do not provide a bibliography
* do not give your paper a title or a title page; at the top of the first page, simply provide (1) your name, (2) the due date of your paper, (3) the question that you are addressing
* your paper should be no more than one page (300 words), written in Standard Written English with 12-point font and one inch margins
* it should begin with a thesis sentence which directly answers the focus question; the thesis sentence should be 20 words or less, and italicized, underlined, or capitalize
* the remainder of the paper should develop the basic logic behind the thesis statement
* the paper is due at class time; late position papers will not be accepted.
January 12th
What is the difference between a technical sense of being right or wrong and an ethical sense of being right or wrong?
January 17th
Spaemann is claiming that the ultimate goal of life is a life that turns out well. Still, this turning out well is not simply achieving all of our other lesser goals. In other words, our other actions in pursuit of lesser goals are not mere means to the end of a life that turns out well. But how can these other goals not be means, if indeed the turning out well of life is our ultimate goal?
January 19th
If everyone wants to be happy, why do so many people end up unhappy?
January 24th
How is it that the failure to attain happiness actually teaches us that happiness is what we desire?
January 26th
Is choosing the way of living which holds the greatest enjoyment, a superficial way of life, or one of the most profound?
January 31st
How does hedonism cancel itself?
February 2nd
The Stoics teach us to consciously strive after self-preservation in order for our lives to turn out well. For the Stoics this meant a conscious awareness and acceptance of their place or role in the process of nature. This position ends in the famous stoical attitude, i.e. an unconditional identification with that which occurs. This is a form of self-sufficiency and, at the same time, a kind of distancing of oneself from the immediacy of life. Is living ones life at this kind of distance (like an actor in a play) acceptable? Is it avoidable?
February 7th
What you find pleasurable will depend on the kind of person you are. A virtuous person enjoys acting virtuously. Even if we grant that, how can we claim that that pleasure is better or higher than the pleasure of acting viciously?
February 9th
Are external goods or an experience of satisfaction necessary for happiness?
February 14th
What does Spaemann mean when he says that Aristotle gives a theory of life turning out well which orients itself on normality, and partakes of its ambiguity (53).
It seems to me that very few people today would regard a life of theoria, of contemplation of the truth, as the best life. Is the life of theoria the best (if you could sustain it)? If you answer no, give a brief summary of why it was held to be the best and how you would argue against it.
February 16th
How do you or would you overcome the antinomy of contentment and happiness?
February 21st
Same as above
February 23rd
Is all virtuous action ultimately egotistical? Especially if I am Christian and am doing the morally right thing because I am hoping to gain heaven and avoid hell, isnt this a form of selfishness?
February 28th
Please explain the difference between the beneficial and the good.
March 2nd
According to Spaemann human beings are so constituted that their biological life and their reason stand in some sort of opposition to one another. If we are so constituted, then we are not responsible for this opposition, nor for the problems that it causes. And yet Spaemann does want to hold the human responsible, responsible even for our lack of responsibility. Are we rational beings dragged down by our bodies, or are we animals made unhappy by self-consciousness?
March 7th
What is the relationship between self-realization as the fulfillment of our drives and self-realization as the relativizing of oneself within the horizon of rational universality?
March 9th
Spaemann defines the ethical as acting out of benevolence, that is, helping humans who require this help. This would seem to imply that I know what the other truly wants, otherwise what I intend to be help, could, in fact, be harmful. But am I able to judge for another what that person truly wants?
March 14th
How does benevolence resolve the tension between reason and life that we read about in the last chapter?
March 16th
Spaemann holds that other humans are real in a strong sense. At the same time, the universality of benevolence that is directed primarily to other humans is contemplative, rather than active. Doesnt that mean that it is without effect? Isnt Spaemann ultimately arguing that we Americans can let Africans starve, because they are far away?
March 28th
Spaemann argues strenuously against consequentialism. In order to accept Spaemanns version of ethics, one would have to also accept his metaphysics and perhaps even his theology. In short, one has to accept his world view. Consequentialism seem to give us a way of reasoning about ethics that does not entail making the other accept our world view. Which is better and why?
March 30th
Spaemann also argues strenuously against discourse ethics. In order to accept Spaemanns version of ethics, one would have to also accept his metaphysics and perhaps even his theology. In short, one has to accept his world view. Discourse ethics seem to give us a way of reasoning about ethics that does not entail making the other accept our world view. Which is better and why?
April 4th
What is the relationship between wakefulness and benevolence?
April 6th
Is there anything that is like unconditionedness in morality
April 11th
Spaemann speaks about eating and sexuality as human acts that are rooted in our human nature and should not be uncoupled from the natural function they are meant to fulfill. But in this world where people are dying both from obesity and starvation and the whole eco-system is threatened by overpopulation, it seems that these human drives are leading us towards extinction rather than preservation of the self or the species. In this context doesnt it make sense to uncouple these drives so that first-world people could eat good tasting substances but not take in any calories, and third-world people could receive their daily nutrients in a simple injection? Isnt it better when sexuality is divorced from the function of reproduction so that people can fulfill their sexual needs without contributing to overpopulation?
April 13th
How could nature have a spiritual dimension and the spirit have a natural one?
April 18th
Spaemann claims that one cannot use torture under any circumstances. Thus, even to save many lives from a terrorist attack, we could not torture someone whom we believed had information about that attack. His reasoning is that: Things which one can prevent only by this means [i.e. torture] are things that one cannot prevent, and no one has to answer for the consequences of his not being able to prevent something. Is this true?
April 20th
Do we have a responsibility to ourselves?
April 25th
Spaemann claims that thought of punishment as expiation is mythological. At the same time he says that we have to hold fast to it. Is this correct? How could holding fast to a falsehood help us?
Plagiarism (adapted from the English Department website)
Although there are many forms and variations of plagiarism and academic dishonesty, in general, the English Department, in agreement with the State University of West Georgia's policy on academic dishonesty , defines plagiarism as using the words and/or ideas of another without properly giving credit to the source(s).
It should be noted that unintentional plagiarism is plagiarism nonetheless.
In addition to obvious methods of plagiarism such as intentionally representing someone else's words as one's own, other acts such as "making up" sources, turning in work done in fulfillment of another course, or receiving excessive assistance are all forms of academic dishonesty, and subject to the penalties for plagiarism .
The University policies for handling Academic Dishonesty are found in the following document: <http://www.westga.edu/~engdept/writing/general_policies.html>
Special Needs:
If you have a registered disability that will require accommodation, please see me at the beginning of the semester. If you have a disability that you have not yet registered through the Disabled Student Services Office, please contact Dr. Ann Phillips in 137 Parker Hall at (770) 836-6428.