Here's the full film that we watched a section of last class. The parts we missed tell the story of the development of suburban living in the US and are a fascinating history of how we became so reliant on cheap oil. Below the film is a link to a recent article of a WikiLeaks cable regarding Saudi Oil.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Ethics 111 Take-home quiz on deontology
• Due: Friday, April 1st by 6 PM via email.
• To be emailed to vood@cummings-good.com.
• You may turn in a hard copy of your quiz at Thursday’s class on 3/31.
Note: You must put these answers in your own words. In the age of Google, Plaigarism is very easy to detect and if you simply cut and paste sections of text you find to answer these questions, I will discover this and you will not receive credit.
Shorter answer questions (15 points each = 60 points total)
(1) Deontology: Define and explain why Kant focuses on motives rather than consequences
(2) Describe two ways that Kantianism is similar to, and two ways it is different from utilitarianism.
(3) Explain the difference between a hypothetical and categorical imperative, and the significance it has for Kant’s theory of ethics.
(4) Explain John Rawls’ concept of an ‘original position’ as a thought experiment for elucidating rational principles of justice.
Longer answer question (40 points)
(5) Is lying ever ethically justifiable? Use what you know about Kant and utilitarianism to discuss how this question might be answered.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Class on Tues. March 29th
Dear class: I decided on a change of plans regarding the ethics exam originally scheduled for Tuesday. I am going to give you a take-home exam on March 29th, to be due on Thurs., March 31st. For the class itself, we're gonna do something completely different!
Sunday, March 27, 2011
John Rawls: Theory of Justice as Fairness
The ‘original position’
The original position is a hypothetical situation developed by American philosopher John Rawls as a thought experiment to replace the imagery of a savage state of nature of prior political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes. In it, the parties select principles that will determine the basic structure of the society they will live in. This choice is made from behind a veil of ignorance, which would deprive participants of information about their particular characteristics: his or her ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially, Conception of the Good (an individual's idea of how to lead a good life). This forces participants to select principles impartially and rationally. In social contract theory, persons in the state of nature agree to the provisions of a contract that defines the basic rights and duties of citizens in a civil society. In Rawls's theory, Justice as Fairness, the original position plays the role that the state of nature does in the classical social contract tradition of Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke.
As a thought experiment, the original position is a hypothetical position designed accurately to reflect what principles of justice would be manifest in a society premised on free and fair cooperation between citizens, including respect for liberty, and an interest in reciprocity.
The ‘veil of ignorance’
In the state of nature, it might be argued that certain persons (the strong and talented) would be able to coerce others (the weak and disabled) by virtue of the fact that the stronger and more talented would fare better in the state of nature. This coercion is sometimes thought to invalidate any contractual arrangement occurring in the state of nature. In the original position, however, representatives of citizens are placed behind a "veil of ignorance", depriving the representatives of information about the individuating characteristics of the citizens they represent. Thus, the representative parties would be unaware of the talents and abilities, ethnicity and gender, religion or belief system of the citizens they represent. As a result, they lack the information with which to threaten their fellows and thus invalidate the social contract they are attempting to agree to.
Two Principles of Justice
In the social contract, citizens in a state of nature contract with each other to establish a state of civil society. For example, in the Lockean state of nature, the parties agree to establish a civil society in which the government has limited powers and the duty to protect the persons and property of citizens. In the original position, the representative parties select principles of justice that are to govern the basic structure of society. Rawls argues that the representative parties in the original position would select two principles of justice:
1. Each citizen is guaranteed a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties, which is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all others;
2. Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:
(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (maximin rule);
(b) attached to positions and offices open to all. The reason that the least well off member gets benefited is that it is assumed that under the veil of ignorance, under original position, people will be risk averse. This implies that everyone is afraid of being part of the poor members of society, so the social contract is constructed to help the least well off members.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Student Presentation schedule
Hi friends -
Here is the tentative schedule for your presentations. Let me know if there are any conflicts or major objections to the order.
Presentations should be at least 20 min. long. You should be able to explain the issue clearly, present the relevant viewpoints on the issue in a compelling manner, and be able to express your own perspective.
If you would like any help in organizing your presentation, please let me know!
Additional resources are available on the TRCC website at the Points of View Reference Center (Found by logging into http://my.commnet.edu/ , click the “Library” tab, then scroll down to until you see “Opposing Viewpoints” and click on “Points of View Reference Center.” Use any sources you find helpful.
THU 3/31 Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia/Killing & Letting Die
(Megan Davis/Ethan Reith)
TUE 4/5 Capitalism and Socialism
(Lourdy Alphonse-Saintil/Jenean Jourdan/Nathanial Rose)
THU 4/7 Property Rights/World Hunger/Poverty
(Justin Nieves/Nicolas Anderson/Jasmine Fuentes/Jesse Ward)
TUE 4/12 Capital Punishment/Torture
(Heavenly Duerson/Kayla Lane/Philip Landry/Tim Lynch)
THU 4/14 Media Ethics/Internet Ethics
(Rachel Gardiner/Moriah Jensen/)
TUE 4/19 Civil Disobedience/Nationalism & Secession (The Authority of Nations)
(Matthew Stedmans/Charley Shafer/Nathanial Rose
THU 4/21 Professional Ethics/Sexual Ethics/Bioethics
(Kyle Stevens/ Ken Judd/Kevin DiCarlo/Nick Brunelle)
TUE 4/26 Gun Control
(Nick Hartley/Dan Musser)
THU 4/28 Animals
(Frankie Pratts/Julius Nero/)
TUE 5/3 Environmental Ethics/Global Warming
(Ruth Mattison/Kyle Norton/Brian Jennings)
THU 5/5 Abortion/Surrogate Motherhood/Reproductive Tecnologies
(Nicholas Paprocki/Rebecca Friedman)
TUE 5/10 Review
THU 5/12 Final exam
Email contacts for classmates
Alphonse-Saintil, Lourdy daishkar@yahoo.com
Anderson, Nicholas nickthebrave@sbcglobal.net
Brunelle, Nicholas nickbrunelle18@yahoo.com
Davis, Megan meganne8067@yahoo.com
DiCarlo, Kevin Kvn109x@aol.com
Duerson, Heavenly heavenlyduerson@yahoo.com
Friedman, Rebecca RebeccaFriedman2468@gmail.com
Fuentes, Jazmine mimi112197@yahoo.com
Gardiner, Rachel rach.gardiner@yahoo.com
Hartley, Nicholas nthart610@yahoo.com
Jennings, Brian GSJenn@msn.com
Jensen, Moriah moriahxoxily@hotmail.com
Jourdan, Jenean jpjourdan06277@yahoo.com
Judd, Kenneth KenJ1090@gmail.com
Landry, Phillip plandry009@hotmail.com
Lane, Kayla kaylaelane@comcast.net
Lynch, Timothy LynchT10@gmail.com
Mattison, Ruth oneshortday8293@yahoo.com
Musser, Daniel gangsterdanmuzza81192@yahoo.com
Nero Jr, Julius stretchman517@yahoo.com
Nielsen, Nicole NikkiLN629@yahoo.com
Nieves, Justin Justgab@comcast.net
Norton, Kyle kylenorton1992@gmail.com
Ondusko, Joanna ms107girl@sbcglobal.net
Paprocki, Nicholas paprocki_nicholas@yahoo.com
Pratts Jr., Frankie frankieprattsjr@comcast.net
Reith, Ethan reith.ethan@gmail.com
Rose, Nathaniel nater8191@sbcglobal.net
Shafer, Charles redsoxcfs2002@aol.com
Stedman, Matthew Mattrstedman@yahoo.com
Stevens, Kyle kyle@trimakazi.com
Ward, Jesse patsfan@snet.net
Class Schedule for 3/22 - 3/29
TUE 3/22 Utilitarianism vs. Deontology
THU 3/24 Contract Theory and Exam Review
• Reading: Contract Ethics, pp. 362-387
TUE 3/29 Second Exam
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Notes on Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Ethics
What is right versus what is good
As we have been studying, ethical theories can be divided into those which understand ethical value in terms of the consequences of an act or policy (e.g. theories of happiness, utiliarianism) and those which define ethical value in terms of accordance with rules of right and wrong. Kant’s theory fits into latter category, defining ethical/moral value in terms of what is done from duty.
Deontological versus consequentialist theories
Kant’s approach is also known as deontological ethics, or a deontological theory (from the Greek deon which means ‘obligation’, or ‘duty.’) In contemporary language, this kind of theory is usually distinguished from consequentialist theories (e.g. Epicureanism) which look to the consequences of an action/policy to determine ethical value.
Self-interest versus duty
In Kant’s theory, the ethical worth of an action/policy is determined by its motive. A motive can be either (a) based on self-interest, or what you are inclined to want to do, or (b) based on duty, which is to say, motivated out of respect for moral law, done “for the sake of duty.” An action may be in accordance with duty, but not motivated by duty (e.g. not lying because of fear of getting caught), in which case it lacks ethical value according to Kant.
Reason versus personal desire/emotion
Similar to the natural law tradition (e.g. John Locke) which defines Christian ethics in the medieval/modern period, Kant believes that human beings are beings made of two distinctively separate and unmixable elements: (1) a physical-biological, self-interested and fundamentally selfish organism, and (2) a rational being capable of thinking and acting from a disinterested, impersonal, purely rational perspective (This is the perspective Thomas Nagel illustrates in his “Objective Basis of Morality,” the perspective which asks us to consider the objective reasons we have for not undermining the interests of other persons. For Kant, an action is motivated by respect for duty if it is the expression of a will which is determined purely by reason. On this view, to act ethically is to act out of respect for duty, which is to act in a purely rational manner unaffected by one’s own personal inclinations. This is what Kant understands to be the essence of freedom.
Categorical versus hypothetical imperatives
Reason usually determines human actions in a hypothetical manner. If you are thirsty, your reason tells you that you must drink water. Such commands of reason are hypothetical because they are conditioned by human needs and desires (i.e. if you are not thirsty, reason does not command you to drink). In contrast, the concept of duty carries with it the idea that duty must be done period, not simply because you wish it. This kind of rational command is what Kant calls a categorical imperative. An example of such an imperative is: “Don’t lie!”
The foundation of ethics in pure rationality
Whereas Christian thinkers ground duties in God’s Will (e.g. John Locke’s argument that human beings have rights because they are God’s property), Kant argues that pure reason supplies the fundamental principle upon which all ethical actions flow. He calls this principle the “Categorical Imperative” and offers several formulations of it:
(1) Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
(2) Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
(3) Act as though you were, through your maxims, a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.
Each formulation serves to illustrate the idea that an immoral intention (a motive not done for the sake of duty) is fundamentally an irrational intention and wrong due to its irrationality – in the sense that it is a will that aims to do X and Not-X. The contradiction is revealed in an unethical motive when you attempt to generalize your action to all of society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)