Ethics Course Outline- Lakeland College Shinjuku Fall 2006
Ethics Course: Fall Semester 2006
Lakeland College, Shinjuku
Tuesday and Thursday, 11:30-1:00pm
Instructor: Dr. Geoffrey Roche
Office Hours: Thursday 9-11 am. Also by appointment.
Course Description
This course will provide an introduction to some key ethical concepts and approaches, and will negotiate questions such as the following: what makes an action the right, or the ethical, thing to do? what principles of justice should a community adopt? Is there even a universally applicable moral standard, or is ethics merely subjective? And, finally, how should one live, and what does it mean to be a good person? We will consider these central debates, with an eye to the real- world implications of what answers we give.
Course Objectives
Subject specific outcomes
The student will demonstrate the ability to utilize and evaluate key concepts in ethical theory.
Transferable skills (key skills such as communication, thinking skills, computer skills, learning skills)
The student will demonstrate the ability to debate (ethical topics) in a clear and structured manner.
The student will demonstrate the ability to assess the ethical arguments, viewpoints and doctrines of others.
Course Methodology and Format
The course will be comprised of twenty- five one- and – a half hour classes, roughly grouped into two – class units. The first class of the week will be a lecture, whereas the second class of the week will be either a tutorial or (in the case of coursework presentations) a guided discussion or debate. The first half of the course will be theoretical, with an eye to the real- world implications of the ideas under discussion. The second half of the course will address real world problems that are regularly addressed in politics, policy analysis and in daily life. The two halves of the course will be integrated, in the sense that students are expected to see the connections between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ theory.
Required Reading
James Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: Random House, 1999.
James Rachels The Right Thing to Do: Readings in Moral Philosophy. New
York: Random House, 1999.
Recommended Reading
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online http://www.plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
Victor Grassian Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and some Contemporary Moral Problems New York: Prentice Hall, 1992.
Schedule of Topics and Core Readings
Week I. Introduction
9/5 What is philosophy? What is ethics?
9/7 Moral Dilemmas.
Reading: James Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy (hereafter EMP) pp.1-14; James Rachels The Right Thing to Do (hereafter RTD) pp.1-20.
Discussion: The Lifeboat Case: Were you the captain of a lifeboat, and you had to make some tough decisions as to who should live, what decisions would you make, and what explanation would you give to justify those decisions?
Week II. Ethical Subjectivism
The first task of the course will be to clarify what we mean by `morality,' the three main branches of ethical inquiry ( practical, normative, and meta-ethics) and what purpose its study serves. Secondly, we will discuss the view that ethics is merely subjective, or relative to a particular culture. Two distinct arguments have been offered as to why one should adopt this view, which is termed Moral Relativism; a). the view that a relativist view best serves tolerance, and b). the view that all cultures have, ultimately, different moral frameworks, implying that a universal morality does not exist. The nuts and bolts- the specific premises- of these arguments will be discussed. Of central concern is the possibility that certain practices simply cannot be tolerated.
9/12 The Cultural Differences Argument
9/14 The Argument from Tolerance
Reading: RTD: 31-36; EMP:16-44
Discussion topic: Is being a cultural relativist really justifiable on the grounds that it promotes tolerance?
Week III. The Utilitarian Approach.
Here we will discuss the Utilitarian approach to ethics (The ‘principle of Utility’ is simply the doctrine that we should act so as to maximize happiness). This approach forces us to consider whether all `good' can be reduced to a single principle that should be maximized- in the case of the Utilitarians- to happiness. Is it really the case that happiness is all that matters? Further, is it simply the consequences of our actions that matter in our decision- making?
9/19 Utilitarianism Explained
9/21 Problems with Utilitarianism.
Reading: EMP: 91-111; RTD: 64-75.
Discussion: Are you a Utilitarian? We will discuss the case of a doctor who has the opportunity to `harvest' the organs of someone- without explicit consent- for the benefit of others. Even if the doctor can `maximize happiness,' is it truly the morally best thing to do?
Week IV. Deontology
Are there absolute, universal moral rules and principles to ethics, and if so, what are they? Does the famous ‘Golden Rule,’ which appears in Christian, Jewish, Chinese and Buddhist thought, provide a complete ethical theory? We will consider the approach of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who considered human freedom, and its protection, as being fundamental to ethics.
9/26 Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative.
9/28 Problems with Deontology
Reading: EMP: 117-140; RTD:76-81
Discussion: a). What do you think of the claim “let justice be done though the heavens fall” ? (in less poetic language- “When justice and utility conflict, as they may, always choose justice over utility”). b). Consider the case of a captain in command of a lifeboat, who is forced to abandon some in order to ensure the survival of others. Firstly, what possible decisions may he make? Secondly, what (moral) reasons would he offer to explain why he made his decision? Of central importance here is the issue of individual rights, and the duties that the captain must (assumedly) fulfil.
Week V. Morality’s Detractors
Since the beginning of moral philosophy, there have been those who have rejected the most basic tenets of moral thought. Two such counter-morality figures will be discussed here; Glaucon, the semi- fictional figure in Plato’s Republic, and Friedrich Nietzsche, who infamously declared all normative ethics as a trap for the strong, set by the spiritually weak.
10/10 Ethical Egoism: Glaucon and Thrasymachus in The Republic
10/12 Friedrich Nietzsche on ‘slave’ morality.
Reading: readings from Nietzsche The Genealogy of Morals and Plato The Republic (to be distributed in class).
Discussion: Do you agree with Nietzsche’s assessment of Jewish- Christian morality? Does it commit any fallacies? What are the implications of taking Nietzsche’s theory seriously?
Week VI. Test I
10/17 Review Tutorial
10/19 Test I.
VII. Virtue Ethics
For thinkers such as Aristotle, ethical thought was not so much concerned with establishing moral principles and acting in accordance to them. Rather, ethics was thought of as the practice of cultivating the virtues in oneself, and the attainment of an ideal of human life. This approach, known as virtue ethics, is discussed here.
10/24 Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
10/26 Discussion: can the wicked flourish?
Reading: RTD: 37-43, EMP: 173-187
Discussion: Can virtue be grounded in the notion of flourishing? Can wicked people flourish, in a deep sense? (Could they really have true friends, for example?) If so, is this a problem for virtue ethics? Further, how are the virtues to be defined (bravery, for example)? Can cultures disagree about right and wrong acts whilst agreeing about the virtues? Does being virtuous require that one follow ethical rules? And what virtues would a Utilitarian emphasise?
Week VIII: The Social Contract
Here we consider the ‘Social Contract’ theory of ethics- that is, the view that ethics is to be understood as a social contract between rational agents. Other moral theories, as we have seen, attempt to ground a framework in morality in some absolute moral principle or value. Social Contract theory, by contrast, defines morality in terms of an agreement reached between rational individuals. Here we assess this notion of morality, in particular its description of morality as a mutually beneficial behavioral strategy.
10/31 Social Contract Theory.
11/2 No Class
Reading: RTD:8-10,50-59; EMP141-155.
Discussion: Does social contract theory successfully deal with the ‘why be moral’ problem?
Further, does it matter that the Social Contract is based on an historical fiction?
Part II: Applied Ethics
Week IX. The Euthanasia Debate
Here we grapple with one of the most difficult, and relevant, moral issues, that of euthanasia. In particular, we will focus on voluntary active euthanasia (VAE), better known as doctor- assisted suicide. Those who oppose VAE typically argue that 1). VAE is contrary to the professional principles of medical practice, and 2). That allowing VAE will lead to grave social consequences. Those in favour of VAE frequently argue that it is not human life that is intrinsically valuable per se, but the quality of that life. Hence, for the terminally ill in great pain, they should have the freedom (if and only if they so choose) and the choice, to end their lives.
11/7 Euthanasia: Introduction
11/9 Euthanasia: Discussion
Reading: RTD:175-189
Discussion: Euthanasia in Japan is illegal. Should it be? If not, under what circumstances should it be allowed?
Week X. Justice and Punishment
There are two schools of thought on this question. Firstly, there are those who take the death penalty as the only fitting punishment for murder or treason, on the grounds that the ‘punishment must fit the crime.’ Ernest van den Haag, for one, adds that execution acts as a deterrent; Kant held that executing murderers actually pays the criminal the respect befitting a rational agent. On the other hand, it has been argued that capital punishment is unfair, , inhumane and grotesque. The two sides of the debate will be addressed.
11/14 The Death Penalty
11/16 The Death Penalty (discussion)
Reading: RTD: 240.
Discussion: Should Japan retain the death penalty?
XI. Paternalism and Autonomy
We can speak of roughly two basic principles in public policy- the principles of paternalism and autonomy. Broadly speaking, a paternalistic approach to policy treats the populace as a father treats his children; the people are considered too uninformed or irrational to decide for themselves, and the State must decide for them what is acceptable or safe conduct. Legislation that respects autonomy, on the other hand, allows people to make their own decisions. Legislation concerning drugs (that is, substances that alter consciousness), in most countries, are a strange mixture of the two approaches. Here we will consider the debate on drugs, which is largely intelligible in terms of paternalism vs. autonomy. In particular, we will consider Milton Friedman’s view that all drugs should be legalized, and William J. Bennet’s view that illegal drugs (note that he does not suggest banning tobacco or alcohol) should remain illegal.
11/21 The Drugs Debate
11/23 No Class
Reading: RTD: 248-254
Discussion: What could a Utilitarian consistently say about the drugs issue? (Note that Utilitarian arguments are typically cited in the ‘War- on Drugs’). What does Kant’s Categorical Imperative have to say on this issue? Could lifting the ban on illegal drugs be morally justifiable? If so, which ones, and why? Or, conversely, should some legal drugs (i.e. tobacco) be banned?
Week XII. The Drugs Debate
11/27 The Drugs Debate
11/30 Exam Preparation Tutorial
XIII.
12/5 Exam
11/7 Exam
Coursework Essay Questions
Essay 1
Question 1: Cultural Relativism.
Either a: Choose one of the arguments for cultural relativism. Describe and offer a critical evaluation of that argument.
Or: Relativism is associated with the idea that we should show tolerance towards the values and norms of other cultures. Explain what the connection is and, if there is one, whether it provides a reason to accept relativism. Discuss also what room there is for the idea of tolerance within an objectivist approach. Does objectivism in any way exclude tolerance?
Question 2: Utilitarianism.
It is sometimes suggested that Utilitarians cannot explain the obligation to keep promises. Why might someone think this? How might a Utilitarian respond?
Essay 2
Question 1. Kant
Kant thinks that you must have ‘good will’ to be a good person. What does he mean by this? Do you agree with him? In your answer, discuss at least one of the possible counterexamples to Kant’s claim that the good will is necessary for being a good person ( i.e. the virtuous person, the self interested person, the person who always brings about good consequences or the naturally kind- hearted person).
Question 2. Virtue Ethics.
In what ways is virtue ethics different from Kantianism or Utilitarianism? In your view, are these distinctive features advantages or disadvantages for a moral theory? In your answer, focus on no more than two features, and include a critical discussion of at least one objection to virtue ethics.
Lakeland College, Shinjuku
Tuesday and Thursday, 11:30-1:00pm
Instructor: Dr. Geoffrey Roche
Office Hours: Thursday 9-11 am. Also by appointment.
Course Description
This course will provide an introduction to some key ethical concepts and approaches, and will negotiate questions such as the following: what makes an action the right, or the ethical, thing to do? what principles of justice should a community adopt? Is there even a universally applicable moral standard, or is ethics merely subjective? And, finally, how should one live, and what does it mean to be a good person? We will consider these central debates, with an eye to the real- world implications of what answers we give.
Course Objectives
Subject specific outcomes
The student will demonstrate the ability to utilize and evaluate key concepts in ethical theory.
Transferable skills (key skills such as communication, thinking skills, computer skills, learning skills)
The student will demonstrate the ability to debate (ethical topics) in a clear and structured manner.
The student will demonstrate the ability to assess the ethical arguments, viewpoints and doctrines of others.
Course Methodology and Format
The course will be comprised of twenty- five one- and – a half hour classes, roughly grouped into two – class units. The first class of the week will be a lecture, whereas the second class of the week will be either a tutorial or (in the case of coursework presentations) a guided discussion or debate. The first half of the course will be theoretical, with an eye to the real- world implications of the ideas under discussion. The second half of the course will address real world problems that are regularly addressed in politics, policy analysis and in daily life. The two halves of the course will be integrated, in the sense that students are expected to see the connections between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ theory.
Required Reading
James Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: Random House, 1999.
James Rachels The Right Thing to Do: Readings in Moral Philosophy. New
York: Random House, 1999.
Recommended Reading
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online http://www.plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
Victor Grassian Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and some Contemporary Moral Problems New York: Prentice Hall, 1992.
Schedule of Topics and Core Readings
Week I. Introduction
9/5 What is philosophy? What is ethics?
9/7 Moral Dilemmas.
Reading: James Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy (hereafter EMP) pp.1-14; James Rachels The Right Thing to Do (hereafter RTD) pp.1-20.
Discussion: The Lifeboat Case: Were you the captain of a lifeboat, and you had to make some tough decisions as to who should live, what decisions would you make, and what explanation would you give to justify those decisions?
Week II. Ethical Subjectivism
The first task of the course will be to clarify what we mean by `morality,' the three main branches of ethical inquiry ( practical, normative, and meta-ethics) and what purpose its study serves. Secondly, we will discuss the view that ethics is merely subjective, or relative to a particular culture. Two distinct arguments have been offered as to why one should adopt this view, which is termed Moral Relativism; a). the view that a relativist view best serves tolerance, and b). the view that all cultures have, ultimately, different moral frameworks, implying that a universal morality does not exist. The nuts and bolts- the specific premises- of these arguments will be discussed. Of central concern is the possibility that certain practices simply cannot be tolerated.
9/12 The Cultural Differences Argument
9/14 The Argument from Tolerance
Reading: RTD: 31-36; EMP:16-44
Discussion topic: Is being a cultural relativist really justifiable on the grounds that it promotes tolerance?
Week III. The Utilitarian Approach.
Here we will discuss the Utilitarian approach to ethics (The ‘principle of Utility’ is simply the doctrine that we should act so as to maximize happiness). This approach forces us to consider whether all `good' can be reduced to a single principle that should be maximized- in the case of the Utilitarians- to happiness. Is it really the case that happiness is all that matters? Further, is it simply the consequences of our actions that matter in our decision- making?
9/19 Utilitarianism Explained
9/21 Problems with Utilitarianism.
Reading: EMP: 91-111; RTD: 64-75.
Discussion: Are you a Utilitarian? We will discuss the case of a doctor who has the opportunity to `harvest' the organs of someone- without explicit consent- for the benefit of others. Even if the doctor can `maximize happiness,' is it truly the morally best thing to do?
Week IV. Deontology
Are there absolute, universal moral rules and principles to ethics, and if so, what are they? Does the famous ‘Golden Rule,’ which appears in Christian, Jewish, Chinese and Buddhist thought, provide a complete ethical theory? We will consider the approach of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who considered human freedom, and its protection, as being fundamental to ethics.
9/26 Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative.
9/28 Problems with Deontology
Reading: EMP: 117-140; RTD:76-81
Discussion: a). What do you think of the claim “let justice be done though the heavens fall” ? (in less poetic language- “When justice and utility conflict, as they may, always choose justice over utility”). b). Consider the case of a captain in command of a lifeboat, who is forced to abandon some in order to ensure the survival of others. Firstly, what possible decisions may he make? Secondly, what (moral) reasons would he offer to explain why he made his decision? Of central importance here is the issue of individual rights, and the duties that the captain must (assumedly) fulfil.
Week V. Morality’s Detractors
Since the beginning of moral philosophy, there have been those who have rejected the most basic tenets of moral thought. Two such counter-morality figures will be discussed here; Glaucon, the semi- fictional figure in Plato’s Republic, and Friedrich Nietzsche, who infamously declared all normative ethics as a trap for the strong, set by the spiritually weak.
10/10 Ethical Egoism: Glaucon and Thrasymachus in The Republic
10/12 Friedrich Nietzsche on ‘slave’ morality.
Reading: readings from Nietzsche The Genealogy of Morals and Plato The Republic (to be distributed in class).
Discussion: Do you agree with Nietzsche’s assessment of Jewish- Christian morality? Does it commit any fallacies? What are the implications of taking Nietzsche’s theory seriously?
Week VI. Test I
10/17 Review Tutorial
10/19 Test I.
VII. Virtue Ethics
For thinkers such as Aristotle, ethical thought was not so much concerned with establishing moral principles and acting in accordance to them. Rather, ethics was thought of as the practice of cultivating the virtues in oneself, and the attainment of an ideal of human life. This approach, known as virtue ethics, is discussed here.
10/24 Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
10/26 Discussion: can the wicked flourish?
Reading: RTD: 37-43, EMP: 173-187
Discussion: Can virtue be grounded in the notion of flourishing? Can wicked people flourish, in a deep sense? (Could they really have true friends, for example?) If so, is this a problem for virtue ethics? Further, how are the virtues to be defined (bravery, for example)? Can cultures disagree about right and wrong acts whilst agreeing about the virtues? Does being virtuous require that one follow ethical rules? And what virtues would a Utilitarian emphasise?
Week VIII: The Social Contract
Here we consider the ‘Social Contract’ theory of ethics- that is, the view that ethics is to be understood as a social contract between rational agents. Other moral theories, as we have seen, attempt to ground a framework in morality in some absolute moral principle or value. Social Contract theory, by contrast, defines morality in terms of an agreement reached between rational individuals. Here we assess this notion of morality, in particular its description of morality as a mutually beneficial behavioral strategy.
10/31 Social Contract Theory.
11/2 No Class
Reading: RTD:8-10,50-59; EMP141-155.
Discussion: Does social contract theory successfully deal with the ‘why be moral’ problem?
Further, does it matter that the Social Contract is based on an historical fiction?
Part II: Applied Ethics
Week IX. The Euthanasia Debate
Here we grapple with one of the most difficult, and relevant, moral issues, that of euthanasia. In particular, we will focus on voluntary active euthanasia (VAE), better known as doctor- assisted suicide. Those who oppose VAE typically argue that 1). VAE is contrary to the professional principles of medical practice, and 2). That allowing VAE will lead to grave social consequences. Those in favour of VAE frequently argue that it is not human life that is intrinsically valuable per se, but the quality of that life. Hence, for the terminally ill in great pain, they should have the freedom (if and only if they so choose) and the choice, to end their lives.
11/7 Euthanasia: Introduction
11/9 Euthanasia: Discussion
Reading: RTD:175-189
Discussion: Euthanasia in Japan is illegal. Should it be? If not, under what circumstances should it be allowed?
Week X. Justice and Punishment
There are two schools of thought on this question. Firstly, there are those who take the death penalty as the only fitting punishment for murder or treason, on the grounds that the ‘punishment must fit the crime.’ Ernest van den Haag, for one, adds that execution acts as a deterrent; Kant held that executing murderers actually pays the criminal the respect befitting a rational agent. On the other hand, it has been argued that capital punishment is unfair, , inhumane and grotesque. The two sides of the debate will be addressed.
11/14 The Death Penalty
11/16 The Death Penalty (discussion)
Reading: RTD: 240.
Discussion: Should Japan retain the death penalty?
XI. Paternalism and Autonomy
We can speak of roughly two basic principles in public policy- the principles of paternalism and autonomy. Broadly speaking, a paternalistic approach to policy treats the populace as a father treats his children; the people are considered too uninformed or irrational to decide for themselves, and the State must decide for them what is acceptable or safe conduct. Legislation that respects autonomy, on the other hand, allows people to make their own decisions. Legislation concerning drugs (that is, substances that alter consciousness), in most countries, are a strange mixture of the two approaches. Here we will consider the debate on drugs, which is largely intelligible in terms of paternalism vs. autonomy. In particular, we will consider Milton Friedman’s view that all drugs should be legalized, and William J. Bennet’s view that illegal drugs (note that he does not suggest banning tobacco or alcohol) should remain illegal.
11/21 The Drugs Debate
11/23 No Class
Reading: RTD: 248-254
Discussion: What could a Utilitarian consistently say about the drugs issue? (Note that Utilitarian arguments are typically cited in the ‘War- on Drugs’). What does Kant’s Categorical Imperative have to say on this issue? Could lifting the ban on illegal drugs be morally justifiable? If so, which ones, and why? Or, conversely, should some legal drugs (i.e. tobacco) be banned?
Week XII. The Drugs Debate
11/27 The Drugs Debate
11/30 Exam Preparation Tutorial
XIII.
12/5 Exam
11/7 Exam
Coursework Essay Questions
Essay 1
Question 1: Cultural Relativism.
Either a: Choose one of the arguments for cultural relativism. Describe and offer a critical evaluation of that argument.
Or: Relativism is associated with the idea that we should show tolerance towards the values and norms of other cultures. Explain what the connection is and, if there is one, whether it provides a reason to accept relativism. Discuss also what room there is for the idea of tolerance within an objectivist approach. Does objectivism in any way exclude tolerance?
Question 2: Utilitarianism.
It is sometimes suggested that Utilitarians cannot explain the obligation to keep promises. Why might someone think this? How might a Utilitarian respond?
Essay 2
Question 1. Kant
Kant thinks that you must have ‘good will’ to be a good person. What does he mean by this? Do you agree with him? In your answer, discuss at least one of the possible counterexamples to Kant’s claim that the good will is necessary for being a good person ( i.e. the virtuous person, the self interested person, the person who always brings about good consequences or the naturally kind- hearted person).
Question 2. Virtue Ethics.
In what ways is virtue ethics different from Kantianism or Utilitarianism? In your view, are these distinctive features advantages or disadvantages for a moral theory? In your answer, focus on no more than two features, and include a critical discussion of at least one objection to virtue ethics.
posted by G. Roche at 3:25 PM
<< Home