PHIL 3100 -- Ethical Theory
Fall 2019
Prof. Chris Heathwood
T.A. Megan Kitts
University of Colorado Boulder

Second Paper

due Wednesday, December 4th at Noon

Philosophy Paper FAQ.  Read this first.

Submit your paper by noon on Wednesday, December 4th to Megan.Kitts@colorado.edu either by email (in which case it should be in Microsoft Word format) or by sharing a Google Doc.  Do not submit your paper as a pdf.  Late papers lose 1/3 of a letter grade each day they are late (see #15 on the Philosophy Paper FAQ) for more details on the late-paper policy).

We aim to make grading as anonymous as possible.  Consequently, please do not put your name on your paper; use your Student ID instead.

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 come up with your own reasons for thinking it is true.  The purpose of your paper will be to state and explain and defend that thesis and those reasons.

It is ok for your thesis to about someone else's view or argument.  In fact, this has the benefit of making your thesis more narrow.  A common problem is people trying to defend theses that are too big, or that would requires dozens of pages to defend properly.

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

Below are some paper prompts (and I may add even more) 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.  In the prompts with italicized questions, the answer to the italicized question would be your thesis.

(1) The Arbitrariness Problem.  One interesting problem 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 interesting problem 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 much 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.  (But only if you have space.)
(4) Defend Your Favorite Metaethical Theory.  Say what your favorite metaethical theory is and why, explain what you think the best objection to it, and defend it against that objection.
(5) Precious Metal Rules.  Which is better, the Golden Rule or the Platinum Rule?  Or are both clearly false?  In answering this question, be sure that your paper states and explains clearly and explicitly just how you understand each rule.  Be sure to state each rule as a statement of the necessary and sufficient conditions for an act token's being morally right.  Be sure to illustrate each theory with examples.  Make your counterexamples as convincing as possible.

(6) Act Utilitarianism and the Trolley Problem.  In class, we alluded to a line of reasoning in support of act utilitarianism based on the idea that we cannot find a morally relevant difference between Footbridge and Switch that would explain why it is ok to kill one and save five in Switch but not in Footbridge.  Is this a good argument in support of act utilitarianism?  Your paper should do all of these things:
(i) explain the doctrine of act utilitarianism [background]
(ii) explain the Trolley Problem [background]
(iii) explain the argument alluded to above [background]
(iv) say whether or not you believe this to be a good argument [thesis], and why [this would be your argument]. 
More specifically, if you think it is not a good argument [thesis], say which part of the argument you reject, and why [argument].  If you think it is a good argument [thesis], present the best objection that you can think of to the argument, and say why you think it is unsuccessful [argument].

(7) Utilitarianism vs. Rights.  According to utilitarianism, happiness is what is ultimately important, and morality is all about promoting happiness.  According to the traditional rights approach, rationality or personhood is what is ultimately important, and morality is all about respecting rational beings.  Which approach is better?

(8) Nozickian Rights Theory and Underdemandingness.  Our Nozickian Rights Theory seems underdemanding.  Can the theory be fixed by incorporating positive rights?  Or does this lead to new problems that have no clear solution?

(9) Nozickian Rights Theory and Punishing the Innocent.  Recall the Punish-the-Innocent case.  Suppose (what is realistic) that the police have made an agreement with the townspeople to protect them from murderers, and also to be honest in their investigations of crimes.  What then would NRT imply the police should do in this case?  And is this a problem?  If so, is there a way to revise NRT to avoid the problem? 

(10) 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?

(11) 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 Act 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.

(12) Rossian Pluralism and Demandingness.  It seems that Ross's Theory faces the demandingness objection.  What is this objection and why is it a problem for Ross's theory?  How does Hurka propose it be solved?  (Explain this in detail.)  Is modifying Ross's theory in the way Hurka proposes a good idea?  If not, explain why not (this would be your thesis).  If yes (this would be your thesis), then defend Hurka's proposal by raising an objection for it and responding to that objection. 

(13) Defend Your Favorite Theory in the Normative Ethics of Behavior.  Say what your favorite theory is in the Normative Ethics of Behavior, explain the theory and why it is your favorite and why, explain what you think the best objection to it is, and defend it against that objection.