PHIL 3100 -- Ethical Theory
Fall 2016
Prof. Chris Heathwood
T.A. Jules Guidry
University of Colorado Boulder

Second Paper

due Thursday, December 1st in class

Philosophy Paper FAQ.  Read this again!

Instructions: Write a 900-1,800 word (roughly 3-6 page) paper in which you defend, by means of rational argument, a thesis of your choosing on one of the topics from our class. Here are a bunch of those topics:

Formulate your own thesis on one of these topics and to come up with your own reasons for thinking it is true.

Whatever topic you choose, please write the name of the topic in the upper right margin of the first paper of your paper.

Below are some paper prompts that you could use to help you get going, if you are having trouble getting going, or just to see how a paper might look.  I include both some rather specific and spelled-out paper prompts and some less detailed and open-ended prompts.  The answer to the italicized question would be your thesis.

  1. The Arbitrariness Problem.  One of the most important problems for constructivism (or what Huemer calls 'subjectivism') in metaethics is the arbitrariness problem.  Is this a serious problem for this theory?
    Your paper should do all of these things:
    (i) clearly explain constructivism in metaethics (this is part of the background);
    (ii) clearly explain what you take the arbitrariness problem to be (you can use our discussion in class, Huemer's discussion, Antony's discussion, discussions you have found in other sources, or some or all of the above) (this is also part of the background);
    (iii) Say what you think of the arbitrariness problem (this would be your thesis), and why (this would be your argument).  More specifically, if you think that the arbitrariness problem does not succeed in refuting all forms of constructivism (this would be your thesis), then explain why (this would be your argument).  If you think it does succeed (this would be your thesis), then present the best objection that you can think of to the arbitrariness problem, and say why you think that objection is unsuccessful (this would be your argument).

  2. The Open-Question Argument.  One of the most important problems for analytic reductionism in metaethics is the open-question argument.  This argument is presented in different forms by G.E. Moore, A.J. Ayer, Michael Huemer, and others.  Is this a genuine problem for this theory?
    Your paper should do all of these things:
    (i) clearly explain analytic reductionism in metaethics (this is part of the background);
    (ii) pick one version of the open question argument (you can use our discussion in class, Huemer's discussion, or the passages in Moore or Ayer) and clearly explain what you take that version of the open-question argument to be (this is also part of the background);
    (iii) Say whether or not you believe this to be a sound argument (this would be your thesis), and why (this would be your argument).  More specifically, if you think it is not a sound argument (this would be your thesis), say which part of the argument you reject, and why (this would be your argument).  If you think it is a sound argument (this would be your thesis), present the best objection that you can think of to the argument, and say why you think it is unsuccessful (this would be your argument).

  3. The Argument from Queerness.  One argument against Non-Naturalism in metaethics that we didn't study in class is J.L. Mackie's "argument from queerness" (Mackie, pp. 38-42).  Mackie seems to make several distinct arguments in these passages.  Explain just one of them as best you can, as well as the theory it is targeting.  Is the argument any good?
    Your paper should do all of these things:
    (i) clearly explain non-naturalism in metaethics (this is part of the background);
    (ii) pick one of Mackie's arguments in sec. 9 of his chapter, and explain the argument; put it in a valid* line-by-line format; supply quotations from the text to support your interpretation of the argument (this is also part of the background);
    (iii) issue a clear verdict as to whether Mackie's argument succeeds in casting serious doubt on non-naturalism (this would be your thesis), and back this verdict up (this would be your argument);
    (iv) if you have space, you can consider a response that your opponent -- either Mackie or the non-naturalist, depending on what you say in (iii) -- might make, and explain why you think this response does not succeed.

  4. Is Rule Utilitarianism the answer to the utilitarian's problems?  Your paper should do all of these things:
    (i) explain the doctrine of rule utilitarianism;
    (ii) explain one reason for preferring rule utilitarianism over act utilitarianism (this might come in the form of showing that a case that is a counterexample to act utilitarianism is not a counterexample to rule utilitarianism);
    (iii) present an objection to rule utilitarianism (some examples include Feldman's "extensional equivalence" or "collapse" objection and Smart's "rule worship" objection, but it could be an objection of your own devising);
    (iv) evaluate that objection.

  5. Utilitarianism vs. Rights.  According to utilitarianism, happiness is what is ultimately important, and rightness is all about promoting happiness.  According to the rights approach, rationality or personhood is what is ultimately important, and rightness is all about respecting that.  Which approach is better?

  6. The Golden Rule.  Some believe that the "golden rule" is the fundamental principle of ethics.  Are they right?  (Be sure that your paper states and explains clearly and explicitly just how you understand the golden rule.  Be sure to illustrate it with examples.  Be sure to consider and respond to an objection or two to your view on the golden rule.)

  7. The Experience Machine Objection to Hedonism.  One interesting objection to hedonism about welfare is the experience machine objection.  What is hedonism about welfare?  What is the experience machine objection to hedonism about welfare?  Does the Experience Machine Objection refute hedonism about welfare?
    Your paper should do all of these things:
    (i) clearly explain hedonism about welfare;
    (ii) clearly explain the experience machine objection; there are different ways to put the objection, so you'll have to choose what you think is the most interesting or best way to put it (you might also briefly discuss other, less good ways to put it, if you have space)
    (iii) explain whether or not you believe this to refute hedonism about welfare.  If not, explain why not.  If you think it does refute hedonism about welfare, you should consider what a hedonist might say in response to the objection, and why you think this response does not succeed.

  8. Objectivism vs. Subjectivism about Welfare.  Which is the right approach to well-being, objectivism or subjectivism?  (Be sure that your paper explains what each of these approach is before explaining which one is right and why.)

  9. The Problem of Irrelevant Desires.  The philosopher Derek Parfit wrote,

    "Suppose that I meet a stranger who has what is believed to be a fatal disease. My sympathy is aroused, and I strongly want this stranger to be cured. We never meet again. Later, unknown to me, this stranger is cured. On the Unrestricted Desire-Fulfillment Theory, this event is good for me, and makes my life go better. This is not plausible. We should reject this theory."  (Parfit, Reasons and Persons (Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 494)

    Is Parfit right?  If not, defend the desire-fulfillment theory from his objection.  If he is right, is there a way to revise the desire theory so that it avoids this counterexample?  If so, what is the best way?  If not, what is wrong with some possible ways?  (Be sure that your paper provides the necessary background of what the desire theory of welfare is.)

  10. An Argument from Disagreement for Hedonism?  It seems like lots of people would agree that pleasure or enjoyment is intrinsically good for people and that pain and suffering is intrinsically bad for people.  Perhaps it's also true that for any other putative intrinsic good or bad, there would be considerable disagreement over whether it really is intrinsically good or bad for people.  Is this the makings of an argument for hedonism?  What would such an argument look like?  Is it a good argument?

  11. The Importance of Promising-Keeping.  According to W.D. Ross,

    "to make a promise is not merely to adapt an ingenious device for promoting the general well-being; it is to put oneself in a new relation to one person in particular, a relation which creates a specifically new prima facie duty to him, not reducible to the duty of promoting the general well-being of society."  (The Right and the Good, p. 38).

    Is Ross right?

  12. Is Deontology Irrational?  Here is an argument against Ross' deontological theory:

    P1. If we all successfully follow Rossian Pluralism, we'll be less well-off as a whole than if we all successfully follow Utilitarianism.
    P2. It would be irrational for us to follow a theory under which we would be less well-off as a whole.
    C1. Therefore, it would be irrational for us to follow Rossian Pluralism.
    P3. If it would be irrational for us to follow some moral theory, then that theory cannot be the correct moral theory.
    C2. Therefore, Rossian Pluralism cannot be the correct moral theory.

    Is this a good argument?  In discussing this question, give the rationale for each premise of the argument.  If you think it is a good argument, present and rebut one or two objections that a deontologist might give to it.