PHIL107 Values, Self & Knowledge Autumn 2013
Essay topics and essay planning exercise
(A) Guidelines for essay planning exercise (10% of final score)
Due: Monday 11 March, 9am. Length: approx. 500 words.
1. Choose an essay question from the list, and state which question you
have chosen. (1 mark)
2. Choose two relevant readings from the list of supplementary readings
for the topic. List those readings using the Harvard referencing style. (The
readings below are in Chicago style – not Harvard.) (4 marks)
A guide to the Harvard referencing style can be found on the Library web
site, at this address:
http://www.library.uow.edu.au/referencing/
3. Note briefly two points from the readings that you think will be
important for your essay, and say why they are important. (Both points can
be from the same reading.) (5 marks)
4. Write an introductory paragraph, of about 200 words, for your essay. In
this paragraph, make a clear statement of the conclusion of your essay;
that is – them main claim that your essay will argue for. (5 marks)
5. Give a dot point plan of the structure of your essay. This plan must
show the argument of your essay – that is, you must make it clear how the
points in the essay support your conclusion. (5 marks)
(B) Essay (40% of final score)
Due: Monday 8 April, 9am. Length: 1500 words max.
In writing your essay you should try to take into account your tutor’s
advice on your original essay plan. You must attach your original essay
plan with your tutor’s comments at the back of your essay. Failure to do so
will lead to a 5% deduction. Your essay should focus on the relevant
reading from the course reader, and one or two of the additional readings
from the suggestions below. Electronic copies of the readings are available
from WebCT. Note that this is not a research essay, so do not use sources
other than those listed here. The main criterion for a good essay is that it
presents a succinct and accurate exposition of an argument from the
readings, and a well argued critical response.
Topic 1:
In the Republic (357a-367e), Glaucon relates the story of the Ring of Gyges
– a ring that gives its bearer the power to be invisible. He then argues:
“Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just
put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be
imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in
justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own
when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go
into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release
from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God
among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of
the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point.
And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just,
not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him
individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he
can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their
hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than
justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that
they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of
becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what
was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most
wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's
faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that
they too might suffer injustice.” (360b-d)
Do you think it is irrational for anyone to have the ring and yet not use
it to act immorally?
Required reading:

Plato. The Republic 357a-367e, trans. A. Bloom (2nd edition), Basic
Books, 1991: USA. Course Blog
Additional reading:

Singer, P. 1995, ‘Tit for Tat’, in How are We to Live?, Prometheus
Books, New York, pp. 129 – 53. Course Blog
Topic 2:
Do you think meta-ethical relativism is a convincing moral theory? Give
reasons for your view.
Required readings:

Shaw, W. H. 1986, ‘Relativism and objectivity in ethics” in Morality
and Moral Controversies (2nd edition), ed. J. Arthur, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 16 – 22. Reader

Williams, B. 1972, “Interlude: relativism’, in Morality, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 20 – 25. Reader
Additional readings:

Mosteller, Timothy. "Ethical Relativism." In Relativism: A Guide for
the
Perplexed, 43 - 57. London: Continuum, 2008. eReadings

Levy, Neil. "The Moral Implications of Relativism." In Moral
Relativism, 55 - 86. Oxford: Oneworld, 2002. eReadings

Lukes, Stephen. "The Universal and the Relative." In Moral Relativism,
129 - 59. New York: Picador, 2008. eReadings

Gensler, Harry. "Cultural Relativism." In Ethics: A Contemporary
Introduction, 11 - 19. London: Routledge, 1998. eReadings
Topic 3:
Some critics argue that utilitarianism fails to protect individual rights.
Others argue that it is an overly demanding moral theory based on a
flawed understanding of moral motivation. Explain and critically
evaluate ONE of these charges. Can utilitarianism (or some form of the
theory) be defended against such charges?
Required reading:

Hinman, L. 2003, ‘The ethics of consequences’ in Ethics: A Pluralistic
Approach to Moral Theory (3rd edition), Thomson/Wadsworth,
Belmont, pp. 135 - 144, 149-156. Reader
Additional reading:

Driver, Julia. "Contemporary Consequentialism." In Ethics: The
Fundamentals, 61 - 80. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007. eReadings
Topic 4:
Explain why Kant thinks that the moral law is grounded in practical
reason. Do you agree with him about the role of reason in morality?
Required reading:

Sandel, M. “What matters is the motive / Immanuel Kant” In Justice:
What’s the Right Thing To Do, 103 – 139. London: Allen Lane, 2009.
Reader
Additional reading:

Onora O’Neill, “Kantian Ethics” in A Companion to Ethics, P. Singer
(ed), Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. E-Readings

Sebastian Gardner, “The Primacy of Practical Reason” in A
Companion to Kant, G. Bird (ed), Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell, 2010. EReadings

Philip Stratton-Lake, “Moral Motivation in Kant” in A Companion to
Kant, G. Bird (ed), Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell, 2010. E-Readings
Topic 5:
It is sometimes thought that while lying is generally wrong, some lies
(for example, white lies, and benevolent lies) can be justified. Explain
how they might be justified, and how they might be condemned in
spite of their intended harmlessness or benevolence. What is your
evaluation of the protagonist’s lie in ‘The Wall’? Give your reasons.
Required reading:

Bok, Sisella., ‘”White Lies” from her Lying: Moral Choice in Public and
Private Life 57-72. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978. Reader

Sartre, Jean-Paul., “The Wall.” From his The Wall and other Stories 117., New York: New Directions Publishing 1948/1975. Reader
Additional reading:

Sandel, M. “What matters is the motive / Immanuel Kant” In Justice:
What’s the Right Thing To Do, 103 – 139. London: Allen Lane, 2009.
Reader
Topic 6:
Explain and critically assess the claim that the interests of non-human
animals are as equally deserving of our consideration as the interests
of human beings. Do you think there is a morally significant difference
between the interests of human and non-human animals? Explain the
implications of your answer to this question for the treatment of
animals.
Required reading:

Singer, P. 1993, ‘Taking life: Animals’, in Practical Ethics, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 110-134. Reader
Additional readings:

DeGrazia, David. "On the Question of Personhood Beyond Homo
Sapiens." In In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, edited by
Peter Singer, 40 - 53. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. eReadings

Garner, Robert. "Why Shouldn't Animals Be Equal?" In Animal Ethics,
44 - 65. Cambridge: Polity, 2005. eReadings

McMahan, Jeff. "Animals." In A Companion to Applied Ethics, edited
by R. G. Frey and C. H. Wellman, 525 - 36. Malden, MA: Blackwell,
2003. eReadings

Nagel, Thomas. "The Problem of Autonomy." In Agents, Causes,
Events, edited by T. O'Connor, 33 - 42. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1995. eReadings