Honors Ethics 76-106
Dr. Alice Kyburg
Fall 2010
kyburg@uwosh.edu
Office: Polk 65
Office Hours:
Office Phone: 424-7310 (only during office hours), or Cell Phone: 410-4577
This course addresses age-old questions in ethics: What makes something right or wrong? Does morality
vary from culture to culture? Is it just a matter of personal opinion or is there an objective morality that
applies to all people? Is it morally permissible to consider your own interests or the interests of your loved
ones as more valuable than the interests of others? Why or why not?! You will learn some of the different
ways philosophers have answered these questions. The course also addresses ethical questions related to
such topics as the treatment of animals, love and marriage, cloning, and the environment. Emphasis is
placed on developing the skills required to evaluate different moral points of view -- not on teaching you a
particular point of view. This course is run as a seminar and requires significant class participation and many
shorter papers.
Ethics is part of the general education curriculum. As such, it is intended to expose you to a sort of critical
thinking and inquiry, perhaps different from what you experience in courses outside of philosophy. This way
of thinking encourages identifying the assumptions and the logic of an argument, and carefully scrutinizing
both. One aims to uncover weak arguments, to rid oneself of the unwarranted beliefs they foster, and, if not
to get a better grip on the truth, at least to become less entrenched in falsehoods. The overall impact of
achieving these aims, as Socrates saw it 2400 years ago, was that one could live a better, more content life.
One certainly becomes a better problem solver. Because the philosophical way of studying forces one to
see things from many different points of view, another benefit of philosophy is that one gets better at
understanding and articulating points of view that are not one’s own -- one becomes a better listener and a
more flexible thinker. In addition to the development of these skills, by the end of the Ethics course, you
should have an appreciation for the complexity of ethical issues and the tools philosophers have developed
to better understand them. You should also have learned how to use some of these tools. For instance, you
should be better equipped to examine a moral position and to identify the theoretical framework it supposes.
You should also be more able to identify the morally relevant elements of a particular situation, given a
particular moral framework. You are also likely to further develop your own view of right and wrong and
recognize both philosophical strengths and weakness of this view. I hope you will come to be more
respectful of some of the carefully considered ethical views that differ from your own and less accepting of
views founded on contradiction and unwarranted assumptions.
Coursework and Grade
Reaction papers (40%) You shall be assigned readings, many of which are very challenging, for most
classes. If ever you are uncertain what reading has been assigned, feel free to call the professor. You will
be required to write a reaction paper for 4 of the readings, with no more than one paper per section of the
course. (A section of the course is defined by bold print on the reading list below.) These papers are
informal, approx. 2 -- 3 pages long (double-spaced and typed) and will consist of (1) a brief summary of the
part of the reading(s) you are addressing (2) your response to that part of the reading(s) and (3) the
strongest (most intelligent) response you can think of by the author or someone else who might disagree
with you and (4) what you have to say in response to (3) along with your final thoughts. At least two thirds
of the paper should consist of 2 – 4 above. Be sure that the paper shows that you've done the reading and
have understood it. A reaction paper can be turned in anytime during the section of the course it addresses,
but by the class following the last class that addresses that section.
Final Paper (20%): The last paper must address the assigned reading on Sustainability. This paper should
be 3-4 pages and must be an analysis of the paper from the point of view of a favored ethical theory (one
we have studied or a your own variation). The emphasis of the paper should not be a defense of the moral
theory, but an evaluation of the sustainability thesis presented in the reading. This analysis need not follow
the strict format of the reaction papers, though you may use this format if it suits you. On the last class, you
shall present your paper. Following all the presentations, we shall conclude with a discussion of the
sustainability thesis.
Quizzes, Small Assignments, Class Participation, and Attendance (20%) You will have "surprise"
quizzes on the readings as well as an occasional assignment. All students are expected to attend class and
to participate in class discussion. While some small assignments may be able to be turned in late, no
quizzes can ever be made up. The professor will drop the two lowest of these quiz/hw grades to ensure
fairness to people on sports teams and other who have unavoidable absences. Students are expected to be
fully engaged in class discussion and to attend class regularly. You attendance and class participation will
be reflected in this grade.
Exams (20%) You will have two exams, with essay, short answer, and multiple choice questions.
Extra Credit: None. Please do not ask.
Readings: Your main text is The Moral Life, 3rd Edition, by Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn. Other
readings will be put on E-reserve. The syllabus is approximate and the professor reserves the right to adjust
it as we go along. Normally, the assignments will be in the order listed below, with about two readings per
week.
The Purpose of Morality and its Relation to Individual Self-Interest
1. Pojman, “On the Nature and Purpose of Morality”, pp. 36-40. Q: What do you think of Hobbes’ account of
morality?
2. Plato, “The Ring of Gyges”, pp. 561-568. Q: p. 569,1 – 3.
3. Pojman, “Egoism and Altruism”, p. 580-587. Q: p. 587, 3 – 4.
Moral Relativism
4. Benedict, “The Case for Moral Relativism”, pp. 157-165, Q: p. 165, 1 – 3.
5. Rosenstand, p 124 – 134 (E-Reserve), Pojman, “The Case Against Moral Relativism”, p.170-173
(Subjectivism); Q: p. 191,4.
Utilitariamism
6. Mill, “Utilitarianism Refined”, pp. 245-249. Q: p. 249, 1 – 4.
7. Nielson, “A Defense of Utilitarianism”, 250-264. Q: p. 265, 3.
EXAM
Deontological Ethics
8. Rachels on Kant [E-Reserve]. Q: p. 328, 1.
9. Kant, “The Moral Law”, pp. 309-328; Q: p. 328, 4.; Kant on lying [E-Reserve] Q: Do you think one can lie
to oneself? If so, can you give an example?, Kant, “On the Place of Sex in Human Existence”, pp. 716-718,
Q: p. 718, 1 – 3.
10. Ross, pp. 333 – 347, Q: p. 347, 1 – 3.
11. Divine Command Theory (reread Kant, p. 320, para. 3); Plato, pp. 373-375; Q: p. 375, 1 – 4.
12 Natural Law Theory [E-Reserve], Q: Think of a moral dilemma you have encountered in your daily life –
it need not be a huge ordeal – and apply NLT to it. Does this theory work for you?
13. Small Group Project: Invent a better moral theory.
EXAM
Applied Topics (as time permits)
14. Negal, “Moral Luck”, Focus on 376 – 383. Q: 1. Give examples that illustrate the two types of moral
luck discussed in the assigned part of the reading. 2. Do you think Nagel correct in his view that we hold
people morally responsible in such cases, even though luck played a role?
15. Animals: Singer, “Animal Liberation: All Animals are Equal”, pp 879-895, Cohen, “The Case Against
Animal Rights”, pp. 896-901, Q: What is Singer’s argument? What is Cohen’s argument?
16.Cloning: Putnam on Cloning [E-Reserve]; Harris on Cloning [E-Reserve]
17. World Poverty: Singer, “Rich and Poor” [E-Reserve], Q: 1. What is Singer’s argument? 2. How much
do we have to do to help world poverty, according to Singer?; Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”,Q: p.
932, 5 – 6, Article to be determined on the modern Sustainability Movement.
Final Reading on Sustainability
18. ___ on Sustainability [E-Reserve]
Summary of Sustainability Project
Alice Kyburg
Dept of Philosophy
I have decided to modify my Honors Ethics class. This is a general education philosophy class for Honors
students. In the past, students would devote the first half to two thirds of the semester learning the different
moral theories. Then they would read articles on 4 or 5 applied topics toward the end of the course. They
would write their 5th short paper on one of these topics. In the revised course students would have the option
of writing one of four short papers on one of the applied topics. In addition, all students would read an
assigned paper on sustainability. They would be asked to evaluate the idea of sustainable living from the
theoretical perspective of their favorite moral theory. This paper would give them a chance to work with a
moral theory on a subject they may not have yet thought all that much about (in contrast to abortion, animal
rights, cloning, etc.) On the last day of class the students would briefly present their individual papers and
then engage in a discussion of sustainability. (The honor’s class is small enough that there would be plenty
of time for this activity.) Other than making clear what sustainability is and what the author of the reading
said, I would attempt to refrain from steering the discussion toward a particular conclusion. I have found
that in honors classes there are enough outspoken students with opposing points of view that very fruitful
discussions take place with little prompting by the professor.
My longer term plan is to consider a similar final assignment in my other sections of Ethics. While class size
will be an issue, I expect that the trial run with my Honors Ethics class will nonetheless help me move in this
direction.
You may note that I have not found a satisfactory paper on sustainability yet. This is difficult to do from
abroad. Given that I do not teach this course again until Fall of 2010 I have ample time to search for one
upon my return this fall. I will send you an updated syllabus with my decision for a sustainability reading as
soon as it is made.