Reading Prompts:
Week 1
Editor’s Introduction (pp. viii-xiii) and Book I of Republic (pp. 1-12, 327a-335e).
a. What definition(s) of justice does Polemarchus propose?
b. What objections does Socrates (i.e. Plato) raise against this definition?
c. How do you think Plato’s witnessing of Socrates’ death may have shaped his critique of this
definition?
d. Present your own argument for or against Polemarchus’ conception of justice
Week 2
Book I, 336a-end
a. What does Thrasymachus say justice is?
b. What evidence does he present in support of this definition?
c. Ethical relativism has been defined as the view that “there are no universally valid moral principles, but
that all moral principles are relative to cultural or individual choice.” (Pojman, 399) Would you classify
Thrasymachus as an ethical relativist? Why or why not?
d. Present your own argument for or against Thrasymachus’ conception of justice
Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech
a. On my interpretation of the speech, Malcolm X is arguing that American justice is merely a form of
social conventionalism in the jaded Thrasymachus sense, what evidence does Malcolm X present to
show that American ‘justice’ is, in actuality, simply whatever serves the interests of the white majority?
b. Do you find Malcolm X argument convincing? Why or why not?
c. What does Malcolm X mean by the economic and political philosophy of Black Nationalism? Do you
agree that this is a just or reasonable response to the how African-Americans were being treated in
1964? What about now?
Week 3
Book II, focusing on 357a-367e
a. Briefly describe Glaucon’s story about the two rings of Gyges.
b. How does Glaucon use this story to “renew” Thrasymachus’ argument that acting justly is almost never
in one’s own best interest? (358b-d)
c. Do you agree with the conclusion that Glaucon and Adeimantus draw from this story, namely, that any
rational person would act unjustly if there were no human or divine penalties for doing so? Defend your
answer
Week 4
Books II-IV, by the end of this week, you should be able to answer the following questions on The
Republic
A. After having finished Book IV, you should be in a position to answer the following questions:
1. What is Plato’s definition of the just city?
2. What is Plato’s definition of the just person?
3. Explain how these definitions can be used to respond to Glaucon’s challenge. That is, how
could one argue that Plato’s conceptions of the just city and just person would qualify as highest
goods
4.
Present your own assessment as to whether Plato’s definitions do adequately meet Glaucon’s
challenge
B. In Bk III, pp. 91-92, 415a- d, Socrates tells what has become known as ‘The Myth of the Metals.’
Address the following:
1. Briefly describe the myth of the metals
2. What is the telling of this myth supposed to accomplish?
3. Before telling this myth, Plato has Socrates argue that are such things as “noble” and “useful”
falsehoods (see p. 91, 414c, and pp. 57-58, 382a-e). Explain what Plato means by a noble
falsehood.
4. Would you concede to Plato that there are circumstances where the just ruler must perpetuate
noble falsehoods for the overall good of society?
C. Having read through Book V and the details concerning life in Plato’s just city, which aspects do you
think really would encourage people to live more virtuously and which do you think may be harmful to
their moral development? Make sure and defend your answer.
D. Beginning in Books II and III, one starts to get an idea of Plato’s own views on a properly functioning
society and human nature(s). Focus on the following questions and answer them based on what you
read in the text:
1. In Socrates’ account of how a city emerges, are people characterized as naturally self-sufficient or
mutually dependent?
2. Is war inevitable in the development of a city? What is the cause of war? What must be done to
stop the conflict?
3. What do citizens owe to one another? What does it mean to act justly?
4. On a scale of 1-10, how much freedom do citizens enjoy?
5. On a scale of 1-10, how secure is the city from internal and/or external conflict, once it has been
fully established?
6. What motivates citizens to fulfill their societal obligations?
7. Under what circumstances, can a individual or group of individuals legitimately opt out of the
society?
Kant ‘The Moral Law’ in Pojman
By the time you reach 367e in the Republic, Glaucon and Adeimantus have presented Socrates with a challenge-prove that being a just person is something that any rational person should desire even if this fact remained
“hidden from gods and human beings” (367e). In other words, they are challenging Socrates to show that
justice/righteousness is something to be desired for its own sake and not simply because it enables us to obtain
divine or human favor and avoid punishment.
In pages 451-453 of Pojman, the first three sections of the Kant reading, Kant argues that possessing a good will
is something to be valued for its own sake, something more valuable than the possession of certain talents,
power and riches and even happiness itself. He also goes on to argue that the primary purpose of reason is to
help us in developing a good will. For this reflection, consider the following:
a. Fully explain Kant’s argument that all “talents of the mind,” “gifts of fortune,” a moderate character and
even happiness itself are of little value unless accompanied by a good will.
b. Present your own defense or refutation of Kant’s argument
More on Kant’s ‘The Moral Law’
A. In pages 453-456, Kant goes further in explaining what it means to possess a good will and argues that a
good will is one that chooses to act in accordance with the moral law and fulfill one’s moral duties even
when this runs counter to all other inclinations or desires. In sum, Kant claims that an act has genuine
moral worth only if it is motivated by a sense of duty and respect for the moral law. On pages 454-455,
Kant presents some examples of those who may be acting in accordance with duty, but not for the sake
of duty. For this reflection, address the following
1. Fully explain why, according to Kant, neither the actions of “the prudent tradesmen” nor the
naturally sympathetic philanthropist have “true moral worth” (454)
2. Present your own critique of Kant’s argument that the genuine moral worth of someone’s character
becomes evident only when they act strictly for the sake of duty and not merely because it benefits
them or satisfies their natural inclinations.
B. In pages 456-461, Kant is identifying and describing the supreme moral principle. In other words, Kant
is an absolutist when it comes to ethics. He maintains that there is one and only one moral principle
from which all moral duties can be derived. Although there is only one moral principle, he claims that it
has several different formulations and our reading presents two of them: 1) Act only on those maxims
that you could reasonably will to become a universal law; and 2) Act so as to treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in another, as an end and never as a means (see 459 and 461). In pages 459-460,
Kant explains how the supreme moral principle can be applied to particular cases. The result is that
suicide, making false promises, wasting one’s talents and refusing to help those in wretched
circumstances are all violations of the moral law. For this reflection, address the following:
1. Pick one of the four illustrations presented on pages 459-460 and thoroughly explain how, according
to Kant, this particular duty follows from the moral law (the “categorical imperative”).
2. Present your own critique of this application. Would you agree with Kant that this case does
illustrate a universal moral duty? Are there other scenarios where suicide, lying or making false
promises would seem to be morally permissible? If so, are those other scenarios compatible with
Kant’s account of the moral law and how it ought to be applied in a particular case? Make sure to
fully explain and defend your answer.
Week 5
Kant ‘The Moral Law’ in Pojman
See the questions above
John Locke ‘Of Enthusiasm and the Quest for Truth, pp. 18-24 in Pojman
A. Answer any of the “Study questions” on p. 19 and at least one of the “Further Reflection” questions on
p. 24.
Week 6
Plantinga’s ‘Religious Belief Without Evidence,’ pp. 149-161 in Pojman
Reflect on any of the following:
1. What is Plantinga’s definition of a properly basic belief? Briefly explain Plantinga’s argument that an
evidentialist like Clifford must take some beliefs to be properly basic.
2. Does Plantinga agree with an evidentialist objector like Clifford that we do have duties and obligations
with respect to beliefs? Cite one example of a belief referring to God that Plantinga claims is properly
basic.
3. State one objection that Plantinga himself raises against his classification of certain religious beliefs as
properly basic. What is his response to that objection?
Week 7
Plantinga’s ‘Religious Belief Without Evidence,’ pp. 149-161 in Pojman
See the three questions listed for week 6.
Book II, 377a-end
Reflect on the following:
1. Attempt to present Plato’s/Socrates’ argument that God cannot change, including all the premises, subconclusions and main conclusion, namely that God cannot change
2. Raise one at least one objection to this argument.
3. Be able to defend your own position on the changelessness of God’s nature or character.
Hartshorne’s ‘Reconceiving God’
Reflect on both of the following:
1. Explain Hartshorne’s distinction between a tyrannical v. parental notion of power. How does Hartshorne
use this distinction to reconcile the two claims: 1) God is omnipotent; and 2) There is evil in the world?
2. Explain Hartshorne’s notion of divine perfection. According to Hartshorne, what is one divine attribute
that may change without compromising God’s perfection?
Or, consider the following:
Hartshorne’s thesis on the omniscience of God
1. State what kind of knowledge concerning the past and future Hartshorne attributes to God.
2. Explain how Hartshorne’s thesis concerning God’s omniscience can be used to resolve the problem of
evil (Make sure to explain what the problem is).
3. State one objection to Hartshorne’s thesis on God’s omniscience.
4. Defend your own position on the whether or not God has exhaustive foreknowledge.