Phil 3100 - What We Did Each Day
(or plan to do)
- Study Guide for Exam 3 now up
- Review of Foot's Doctrine of Doing and Allowing, and how it explains one pair of cases (Magistrate vs. Driver)
- Thomson's criticism of this (Passenger)
- The Trolley Problem (Switch vs. Footbridge)
- Possible solutions:
- Radiolab, Greene, X-Phi
- REVIEW FOR EXAM #3
- Two Distinctions Common in Deontology: Intend/Foresee; Do/Allow.
- Intending as an end vs. intending as a means
- The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)
- Why believe the DDE?
- Hart's objection to the DDE
- Foot's Reply
- Pop Quiz #8
- Review of last time
- The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing (DDA)
- Foot's Formulation of the DDA: negative duties vs. positive duties
- DDA and the cases
- DDA and DDE
- Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, and the DDA
- NO CLASS
- Act Consequentialism
- Three Common Features of Deontology
- Duties of Special Relationship
- Moderate vs. Absolute
- The Paradox of Deontology
- The Case of Jim and the Indians
- The Concept of a Prima Facie Duty
- Ross' List of Seven Basic Prima Facie Duties
- Counterexample to the Duty of Fidelity??
- Ross' Theory
- Pop Quiz #7
- Ross' Theory
- An Illustration of Ross' Theory
- Ross' Argument from Promises against Utilitarianism
- Is Deontology Irrational?
- Returned and reviewed Exam 2, Paper 1, and quizzes
- Pop Quiz #6
- Kant's Categorical Imperative
- two requirements for universalizable maxims
- A Recipe for Applying KCI
- Problem for KCI
- The Problem of Innocent-but-Non-Universalizable Maxims
- The Problem of Subjectivism
- The Experience Machine Argument against Hedonism about welfare
- The Desire Theory of Welfare
- The Scope Problem
- The Objective List Theory of Welfare
- Internalism about welfare
- REVIEW FOR EXAM #2
- EXAM #2 -- BRING A BLUEBOOK! And a blue- or black-ink pen.
- Four uses of 'good' and 'bad' (and related notions)
- Our focus: welfare
- Intrinsic vs. instrumental value.
- A way to test for intrinsic value: the isolation test
- Whether being alive is intrinsically good for people
- Pop Quiz #5
- A Common Taxonomy of Theories of Welfare: Hedonism, Desire Theory, Objective List Theory
- Hedonism about Welfare
- The Argument from Psychological Hedonism (for Hedonism about Welfare)
- Psychological Hedonism
- Why the Argument from Psychological Hedonism backfires
- Clarifying hedonism
- Not a theory of right action
- Contrasts with 'Hedonism' of ordinary English
- Not a theory of the value of situations, but of the value of situations for people
- Three Versions of the Argument from Malicious Pleasures
- Version 1 confuses 'good' and 'good for'
- Version 2 claims that Bundy's malicious pleasuresdidn't make his life better
- Version 3 claims that malicious pleasures (e.g., from snuff films) aren't as good (intrinsically) as innocent pleasures
- Features of AU:
- Other possible additional intrinsic values: justice, excellence
- no absolute rules (cf. 10C)
- no moral dilemmas (cf. 10C, mistaken formulations of AU)
- "the ends justify the means" (?)
- An Epistemic Objection to AU, and two possible utilitarian replies: (1) distinguish the moral rightness and wrongness of actions from judgments of agential blame, judgments of intentions, etc.; and (2) move to expected utility.
- Esoteric Morality
- The Lack-of-Time Objection to AU
- The Organ Harvest Objection to AU
- A Reply to the Organ Harvest Objection
- A Map of Moral Philosophy: Normative Ethics: the Normative Ethics of Behavior, Axiology, Virtue/Vice Theory, the objects of evaluation for each, the terms of evaluation for each.
- The Fundamental Project of the Normative Ethics of Behavior, Statements of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for an Act's Rightness
- Fully General Moral Principles (vs. Not Fully General Principles), Theories of Rightness.
- Sample theories; how to evaluate a moral theory: come up with a counterexample; or expose an internal consistency.
- Mill passage.
- Had Pop Quiz #4
- Why there must be explanations for the moral status of particular actions
- Formulating Mill's theory
- Hedonic utility, maximization
- Our formulation of act utilitarianism (AU)
- Review of Non-Naturalism/Intuitionism and moral knowledge
- Problems for Intuitionism (Mackie)
- The Arguments from Queerness (supervenience, motivation, normativity, knowledge)
- The Argument from Relativity/Disagreement
- The Argument from Relativity/Disagreement (Mackie, Huemer)
- Review for Exam #1 (for Exam #1, bring a bluebook and blue or black ink).
- Exam #1
- Collected homework.
- Two Kinds of Reductionism: Analytic and Synthetic
- A Simple Version of Analytic Reductionism
- How moral epistemology works on this theory
- Ayer's Argument as against this theory
- Hare's "Speech Act" Argument as against this theory
- Handed out and reviewed Metaethical Debate Handout
- Nihilism/The Error Theory
- Had Pop Quiz #3
- Epistemic justification
- The regress problem in epistemology
- The moral knowledge regress problem
- Non-inferential justification
- Putative examples of non-inferentially justified beliefs
- Intuition, and its possible role in non-inferential justification
- The Sidgwick/Moore Argument as applied to Simple Subjectivism, Cultural Relativism, Divine Command Theory, and Ideal Observer Theory.
- Divine Command Theory (as a set of metaphysical claims)
- DCT and Atheism
- The Euthyphro Problem for DCT
- The Arbitrariness Problem (what 'arbitrary' means, why it follows from Horn 1, why it's a problem)
- How Euthyphro applies to other forms of constructivism
- What is reductionism?
- What is naturalism?
- What is at stake
- Two versions of reductionism: analytic and synthetic
- A Simple Version of Realist Analytic Reductionism (SVR)
- Homework assignment:
- Everyone re-read four paragraphs of Ayer, from p. 104 top ("A question which is ... ") to p. 105 last full paragraph (" ... of any kind")
- Everyone re-read six paragraphs of Hare, §5.4 and the last paragraph of §5.7.
- If your last name is A-L, extract an argument from Ayer in the third paragraph of the four I've asked you to read.
- If your last name is M-Z, extract an argument from Hare contained in the last paragraph of §5.7, in particular the passage from "Now our attack ... " on p. 90 to "in order to commend A's which are C" on p. 91.
- To extract the argument:
- Start with the conclusion; figure out the view your argument is attacking; make your conclusion the claim that this view is false
- Figure out the main premises the author uses to reach this conclusion; put these premises together so that they logically entail the conclusion; you may have to "read between the lines" to some extant
- Be prepared to discuss your argument in class on Monday: to explain it, and to say whether you think it is a good argument.
- I plan to collect these.
- Problems for Non-Cognitivism
- Simple Subjectivism
- Homework assignment:
- read the Sidgwick and the Moore
- extract the main argument from one of these readings
- put it in this form: (P1) If Simple Subjectivism is true, then _______ ; (P2) But it's not the case that ________ ; (C) Therefore, Simple Subjectivism is not true.
- be prepared to give the rationale for each premise of your argument (this is the reason the author would give for thinking that the premise is true)
- be prepared to give your own evaluation of the argument.
- The metaphysical part of Simple Subjectivism
- Two interpretations of Sidgwick's argument
- My interpretation of Sidgwick's argument
- Two interpretations of Moore's argument
- NO CLASS -- SNOW DAY
- What is ethics?
- What is metaethics?
- Evaluative statements / moral statements.
- Three main kinds of question in metaethics.
- Subjective vs. Objective Properties
- Natural Properties
- The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
- The A Priori/Empirical Distinction
- Why Ayer is a Non-Cognitivist
W 1/18: First day stuff (introductions, roll, syllabus).
F 1/20: Our initial views in metaethics.
F 4/15: Started off Friday right. QUIZ #9.
M 4/18: Some possible solutions to the Trolley Problem (1) 1 in Switch assumes risk; (2) 1 in Footbridge would be treated as a mere means [but consider Loop]; (3) 1 in Footbridge would be physically touched [but consider Trapdoor]; (4) Thomson's answer.
W 4/20: Listened to first segment of Radiolab's program "Morality," on the trolley problem. Discussed how empirical evidence might yield results in moral philosophy.
F 4/22: NO CLASS
M 4/25: REVIEW FOR EXAM #3
W 4/27: EXAM #3. Bring a bluebook and blue or black ink. Don't write your name on the bluebook yet, since we'll be trading them.
F 2/29: SECOND PAPER DUE (see paper guidelines and prompts). FCQ's. Return and review Exam #3. Review course grades.
W 5/4: OPTIONAL TAKE-OVER EXAM, 7:30 p.m.