« September 2004 | Main | November 2004 »
October 31, 2004
More Questions about Kant
As we saw last Wednesday, Kant thinks that moral action should be guided by the Categorical Imperative. On Wednesday, I presented Kant's first version of the Categorical Imperative: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
The second version of the same Categorical Imperative sounds very different. It says, Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
Kant thinks he has provided two versions of the same principle. How are these two versions connected? How does the act of treating people as ends in themselves connect with universalizable laws? Try to think about how they are connected with a concrete example, say a lying promise and money lender.
Posted by seschmid at 10:28 AM | Comments (1)
October 29, 2004
Extra Credit Guidelines
Here are the guidelines for earning extra credit. Extra credit will count toward raising your lowest grade (not to include Attendance/Participation) by one full letter grade. So, a B becomes an A. In case you have two assignments with equal value, I will credit the one with the greatest weighting.
HERE'S THE DEAL
1) You must make 10 blog posts to receive extra credit.
2) At least 5 of the 10 blog posts must be direct responses to questions about a reading that I post on the class blog page.
3) Up to 5 of the 10 posts may be responses to a peer's blog post and question.
4) You can receive no more than 2 posting credits for any new reading (one to reading questions and one to a peer's questions).
5) You must have posted your answers to the reading questions or to your peer's question before the beginning of the class period in which the new reading is discussed.
6) Content: You are to provide substantive answers to the reading questions or to a peer's question. One word and even one line responses are not substantive. IN ADDITION, when you post a response to reading questions, you are to ask one additional question about the reading, the subject matter, or some current ethical issue directly related to the topic and reading. It is this additional question that your peers will use to generate a peer-directed response.
7) Honor System: This extra credit is conducted on the Honor System. If I detect cheating or copying of answers from a previous posting to your own posting, then you will not only not get credit you also will not be allowed to earn extra credit on this project. The same fate will befall the person from whom you beg, borrow, or steal. The point is for each of you seeking extra credit to engage the reading and the subject matter on your own and with the insights gained from your peers.
8) I reserve the right to modify these guidelines if I detect exploitation of the project. I also reserve the right to not count a posting if I feel the answer does not meet the guidelines or is insubstantive.
9) Use only your UWC email account to post to the blog page. Otherwise, I might not score your participation.
10) Credit is earned for postings after today.
Posted by seschmid at 05:11 PM
October 26, 2004
Questions about Kant
Kant starts off talking about the good will. What's so good about the good will?
To what extent does Kant think that consequences matter? Does one have to know the outcome of one's actions in order to act morally?
Link to Notes and Handouts page.
Posted by seschmid at 09:21 PM | Comments (0)
October 21, 2004
Monday's Class and Next Week's Schedule
For Monday, we will continue our discussion of euthanasia and Gay-Williams. I have made a copy of that paper available for download from the Notes and Handouts page or directly from here. This is not required reading, but you might enjoy it. We'll talk about these arguments more on Monday. We will also talk about Harris's "Survival Lottery."
On Wednesday, we will start on Kant.
A reminder: Papers are due on Monday. There are several resources available to help you write argumentative papers. The required Weston text has a few chapters on the subject. Also, there are a couple of good web sites dedicated to this topic linked on the Resources page.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Posted by seschmid at 03:48 PM | Comments (0)
October 19, 2004
Survival Lottery
Harris's "Survival Lottery" makes what seems a pretty outrageous claim. But, is it really that outrageous? If our moral behavior is guided by respect for human life and/or some principle of utility, then it appears the Survival Lottery is plausible.
What do you think about the Survival Lottery? What about the proposal doesn't sit well, even if you agree with the principles justifying the lottery?
Is there a similarity between Harris's refusal to see a difference between killing and letting die and Rachels's refusal to give the distinction any moral significance?
Posted by seschmid at 08:21 PM | Comments (0)
October 17, 2004
Questions about Rachels's "Active and Passive Euthanasia"
Rachels considers the case of Smith and Jones. Smith will inherit a lot of money if his cousin dies. Jones also will inherit lots of money if his cousin dies. Smith intentionally kills his cousin. Jones also intends to kill his cousin. But before Jones can act on his intention his cousin has an accident and Jones refuses to save his cousin's life. Rachels asks, should we consider Jones less morally culpable than Smith because the former merely let his cousin die? Is there a moral difference between Smith's and Jones's act?
Similar to Smith and Jones, Rachels argues that cases of passive and active euthanasia do not admit of any moral difference. Do you agree? Regardless of whether you agree with Rachels, what is the key principle to the Smith & Jones case?
Posted by seschmid at 04:57 PM | Comments (0)
October 13, 2004
Changes for the Upcoming Week
There are several changes to the syllabus for the upcoming week.
First, on Monday we will discuss Rachels's paper "Active and Passive Euthanasia." I handed out a copy of this paper in class on Wednesday. For those who did not attend class, I have additional copies in my office.
On Wednesday, we will talk a bit more about Utilitarianism and discuss Harris's paper "The Survival Lottery."
As we discussed in class on Wednesday, the due date for the paper is now Monday, October 25.
We should be back on the syllabus schedule on Monday, October 25, with discussion of Kant.
Posted by seschmid at 10:33 PM | Comments (0)
October 10, 2004
Paper Topic
The topic for the first paper is posted on the Ethics Notes and Handouts page.
Also, posted is an instruction sheet on essay writing. You should download this as well.
We will discuss the paper topic first thing on Wednesday.
Posted by seschmid at 02:58 PM
October 03, 2004
Questions about Ruse and Wilson
What are epigenetic rules? What is the connection between epigenetic rules and moral behavior?
It looks like Ruse and Wilson advocate ethical relativism. Do they? If so, to what extent?
If Ruse and Wilson are right about the "origins" of moral behavior, what ramifications does this have on traditional ethical principles?
Posted by seschmid at 04:44 PM | Comments (0)
October 01, 2004
An Interview with Peter Singer
Renowned ethicist Peter Singer was recently interviewed about his book, The President of Good and Evil. A PDF copy of that interview is here.
Posted by seschmid at 08:57 PM | Comments (0)