PHIL 3100 -- Ethical Theory
Spring 2015
Prof. Chris Heathwood
University of Colorado Boulder

First Paper

due Tuesday, February 24 in class

Option 1: Open Topic:  Write a 1,000-1,500 word (roughly 3-5 page) paper in which you defend, by means of rational argument, a thesis of your choosing on one of the following topics:

Indicate at the top of your paper that you have chosen the "Open Topic" option, and indicate what topic you are writing on.  Before you begin, you are required read the Philosophy Paper FAQ.  Read it more than once.

Option 2: Pre-Assigned Topic: Write a 1,000-1,500 word (roughly 3-5 page) paper on one of the topics below.  Indicate at the top of your paper, by number and name, which topic you have chosen.  Before you begin, you are required read the Philosophy Paper FAQ.  Read it more than once.

  1. The Arbitrariness Problem.  One of the most important problems for constructivism is the arbitrariness problem.  What is constructivism in metaethics?  What is the arbitrariness problem for this approach.  Is this a genuine problem for this theory?

    Your paper should do all of these things:
    (i) clearly explain constructivism in metaethics;
    (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);
    (iii) explain whether or not you believe this to be a serious problem for constructivism (if you think it is a serious problem, you should consider what an advocate of constructivism might say in response to it, and why you think this response does not succeed).

  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, and others.  What is analytic reductionism in metaethics?  What is one version of the open-question argument against it.  Is this a genuine problem for this theory?

    Your paper should do all of these things:
    (i) clearly explain analytic reductionism in metaethics;
    (ii) clearly explain what you take the version of the open-question argument that you picked to be (you can use our discussion in class, Huemer's discussion, and the discussions in Moore and Ayer);
    (iii) explain whether or not you believe this to be a serious problem for analytic reductionism (if you think it is a serious problem, you should consider what an advocate of analytic reductionism might say in response to it, and why you think this response does not succeed).

  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;
    (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
    (iii) issue a clear verdict as to whether Mackie's argument succeeds in casting serious doubt on non-naturalism, and back this verdict up
    (iv) if you have space, you can consider a response that your opponent (either Mackie or the non-naturalist, depending of what you say in (iii)) might make, and explain why you think this response does not succeed.

  4. The True Metaethic. The main theories in metaethics that we have studied are non-cognitivism, constructivism, reductionism, non-naturalism, and nihilism.  Which of these approaches do you think is most likely to be true.  Why?

    Your paper should do all these things:
    (i) clearly explain and fill in the details of the theory you support;
    (ii) explain your main reason or reasons for thinking this theory to be the right one (this might involve explaining problems with other theories);
    (iii) identify and clearly explain what you take to be the strongest problem or objection to your theory;
    (iv) defend your theory against this objection.


* If you need a review of validity and other logical concepts, this set of slides contains an explanation of validity and related notions; see especially the slide with "Some common valid argument forms."