Charlie Kurth
Email: ckurth [at] wustl [dot] edu Office Hours: Tuesdays, 4-5:30 pm, and by appointment
Office phone: 314-935-4753 Office Location: Wilson 112
Course Overview
Ethical theory is the study of the moral domain. It seeks to understand and explain what—if anything—our moral discourse is about. It does this by investigating questions like:
Is morality objective in the sense of being something that exists independently of our thoughts and (cultural) practices? Does making sense of morality require us to believe in God or is it something that can be understood from within a naturalistic/scientific worldview?
What does the good life consist in? Is it a life of contemplation, a pleasurable life, doing one's duty? How does being moral or virtuous contribute to (or detract from) the good life?
Is there a single rule or criterion that tells us what the right thing to do is? If so, what is it and why should we believe it is the correct one? Is morality best understood as a set of rules to follow, the project of developing a particular kind of character or set of feelings, acting in ways that will bring about the best consequences, or something else all together?
How do we figure out what the correct thing to do on a particular occasion is? What does developing as a moral person involve? Is it even possible?
Why should we be moral? If morality conflicts with our self-interests, which should we follow—and why?
Particular ethical theories—e.g., virtue theory, Kantian/deontological views, utilitarianism—can be seen as efforts to articulate unified answers to (some of) these questions.
In Part 1 of the course, we will investigate skeptical challenges to the common thought that morality is objective. In Parts 2-4, we look to three highly influential ethical theories: Aristotle's virtue theory, Immanuel Kant's deontological account, and John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism. Each of these proposals provides us with a way of thinking about the aims, content, and justification of morality. In Part 5, we look to two important challenges to the basic assumptions of the views of Aristotle, Kant, and Mill. The first questions whether morality should be understood in terms of rules/principles; the second brings a set of feminist challenges to traditional ethical theorizing. The final part of the course takes up the question of the demandingness of morality. Here we will wrestle with questions about what must we do in order to be a moral person and what consequences this has for our ability to pursue our own personal projects and our relationships with family and friends.
Texts (all books are available at the campus bookstore)
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford. [abbreviated below as NE]
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism. Hackett. [abbreviated below as U]
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. Hackett. [abbreviated below as OL]
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge. [abbreviated below as G]
Assorted readings available below
Assignments
This course will have three graded components.
Class participation (10%). In this course, we will make significant use of group work and discussions. To facilitate this, there is a set of reading question for each of our meetings. These questions will be the launching off point for our class discussions. So you should come prepared to discuss them in groups and with the class as a whole.
Reading responses (50%). You will write six response papers (~8% each); one is assigned for each part of the course. The aim of these papers is three-fold: (i) to give you the opportunity to raise issues/objections to some of our readings, (ii) to allow you to get feedback on your writing in advance of the final paper, and (iii) to provide a chance to explore potential topics for the final paper.
In your reading responses, you should do two things: first, summarize an argument from the selected reading, then second, raise a question about or, better, an objection to the argument you've presented. You should aim to develop a question or objection that can generate a substantive class discussion. The papers should be 2 pages long (double spaced, standard formatting). To turn your paper in, email it to me before 1:00pm on the day it is due.
Some suggestions:
Don't summarize the whole paper/reading. Rather, focus on a particular argument within the paper—one that you think would make for an interesting discussion.
Do not rely on lengthy quotes from the text; rather, present the relevant material in your own words. When you do use quotes, be sure to put them into context and to explain their relevance.
In general, you should focus on thoroughly developing a single objection rather that giving a cursory presentation of a several issues.
Some questions to think about as you're formulating you objection: What specific claim or inference does your objection/question target? What reasons support your worry or concern? Why does this matter—why should the author you're discussing be concerned?
Final paper (40%). The final paper is designed to give you the opportunity to further explore a topic and a set of readings that we have looked at. The paper should be 10-12 pages (double spaced, standard formatting) and will be due it two stages: (i) A draft will be due on the final day of class; we will spend that class period work-shopping your papers. (ii) A final, revised version of the paper will be due at 1:00pm on Sunday, December 17. (Please turn it in by email). I will provide suggestions on possible paper topics and more details on the assignment at the beginning of November.
The following links my be useful:
Jim Pryor, How to read a philosophy paper
Jim Pryor, How to write a philosophy paper
Policies
In order to help ensure a successful class, please heed the following rules and policies:
Due Dates. Baring unusual circumstances, the due dates on the syllabus are non-negotiable. If you think you have reason to miss an assignment, it is best to inform me well in advance. Late papers may be subject to a grade penalty.
Classroom Environment. Please arrive to class on time. All cell phones must be turned off during class. Texting, emailing, etc. is not permitted. Most importantly, treat your classmates with respect. Abuse of these courtesies may lead to penalties.
Statement of Academic Integrity. Upon arrival at Washington University, you signed a statement indicating that you understand that you will abide by the University's Academic Integrity Policy (available here). In this class, you will be expected to honor that commitment. This means that all work presented as original must, in fact, be original; the ideas and contributions of others (be they quotes, summaries, or paraphrases) must be appropriately acknowledged. You are responsible for (re)familiarizing yourself with these policies. If you have any questions, feel free to talk to me.
Resources
Accommodations based upon sexual assault: The University is committed to offering reasonable academic accommodations to students who are victims of sexual assault. Students are eligible for accommodation regardless of whether they seek criminal or disciplinary action. If you need to request such accommodations, please direct your request to Kim Webb (kim_webb@wustl.edu), Director of the Office of Sexual Assault and Community Health Services. Ms. Webb is a confidential resource; however, requests for accommodations will be shared with the appropriate University administration and faculty. The University will maintain as confidential any accommodations or protective measures provided to an individual student so long as it does not impair the ability to provide such measures.
Bias Reporting: The University has a process through which students, faculty, staff, and community members who have experienced or witnessed incidents of bias, prejudice or discrimination against a student can report their experiences to the University’s Bias Report and Support System (BRSS) team. See: brss.wustl.edu
Mental Health: Mental Health Services’ professional staff members work with students to resolve personal and interpersonal difficulties, many of which can affect the academic experience. These include conflicts with or worry about friends or family, concerns about eating or drinking patterns, and feelings of anxiety and depression. See: shs.wustl.edu/MentalHealth
Tentative Schedule of Readings & Assignments
PART 1: Moral Skepticism and Ethical Foundations
Aug 28: Introduction to Moral Skepticism
Read syllabus
Aug 30: A Theistic Solution
C.S. Lewis, Excerpts from Mere Christianity (Chaps 1-4)
Q: What, in a sentence or two, is Lewis’s core point in these chapters? What is the Law of Human Nature and what evidence does Lewis give for its existence? Why does he think the Law’s existence is important? Do you agree?
Sept 4: NO CLASS, Labor Day
Sept 6: A Naturalistic Solution
David Brink, "The Autonomy of Ethics"
Q: What features of morality do Brink and C.S. Lewis agree on? What is Brink’s argument against theistic accounts of moral objectivity (e.g., the Euthyphro Problem)? What is his naturalistic alternative and why does he think it’s plausible?
Reading Response 1
Sept 11: Skepticism Redoux: Moral Error Theory
J.L. Mackie, "The Subjectivity of Values" (Sections 3, 4, and 6 can be skimmed)
Q: Mackie claims there are “no objective values” and that objective values “are not part of the fabric of the world. What does he mean by this? Mackie maintains that claims about moral value are claims about things that are both “objective” and “prescriptive”: what’s he mean by this? In Sections 8-9, Mackie gives several arguments against the existence of values—how do these arguments work?
PART 2: Aristotle's Virtue Theory
Sept 13: Final Goods and Eudaimonia
NE: I.1-6
Recommended SEP articles: Aristotle's Ethics, Virtue Ethics
Q: What does it mean to say that happiness is the “highest human good”? Aristotle considers several ways of understanding “happiness”: what are they and what does he have to say about them? Do you agree with his critical comments? Finally, what does it mean to say that something is “good in itself”?
Sept 18: Teleology & Human Function
NE: I.7-12 (I.10-11 can be skimmed)
Q: What is a “final good” and how is the notion of a final good used to make case for happiness as the final good for humans? Why should we think humans have a function? What does Aristotle take that function to be and what is his argument for this? What is the difference between being praised and being prized? Why does this distinction matter?
Sept 20: Aristotelian Virtue
NE: I.13; II.1-9
Recommended: NE III.6-12
Q: What are the different parts of the soul and how does Aristotle characterize each? What are virtues and how do we come to have them (give an example)? What does Aristotle mean in saying that virtuous acts are act done in accordance with the right rule and that right action is a mean between two extremes? More generally, what is the core account of the nature of moral virtue that comes out of II.5-8?
Reading Response 2
Sept 25: Life of Study
NE: VI.1, 5-6, 12-13; X.6-9
Q: What is practical wisdom; in particular, how does practical wisdom differ from other forms of knowledge and what is practical wisdom’s relation to virtue? What does it mean to say that happiness is a life of contemplation and why does Aristotle think this is the highest good? Do you find his reasoning plausible—explain?
Sept 27: Moral Development as Skill
Julia Annas, "Being Virtuous and Doing the Right Thing"
Q: What are the challenges to virtue theory that Annas is concerned to address in this paper? Why are these challenge significant (e.g., what’s the cost to virtue theory if the objections are correct)? How does Annas think the core worries can be addressed? Do you find her proposal plausible? How might one object to it?
PART 3: Kant's Deontological Theory
Oct 2: The Good Will, Duty, and Moral Worth
G: pp. 7-18
Q: On pp. 7-8 Kant contrasts the good will with various motivations, capacities, and states of affairs. What do these contrasts suggest he takes the good will to be? What does Kant think makes the good will good (how, say, does this goodness contrast with what a utilitarian might say)? What is the distinction between action done in conformity with duty and action done from duty? Why does this difference matter and how is it illustrated through the shopkeeper and subsequent examples? Do you find Kant’s examples compelling? Can you come up with a counterexample (e.g., how might Aristotle respond)?
Recommended: Christine Korsgaard's "Introduction" in G: pp. vii-xv
Recommended SEP article: Kant's Moral Philosophy
Oct 4: The Good Will
G: pp. 7-18
Q: Kant sees moral worth as residing not in the purpose for which we do an act, but the maxim from which one acts (13). What is this contrast and why is it significant? What is the connection Kant sees between action from duty and respect for the moral law? Kant illustrates the Categorical Imperative by way of the example of someone thinking about telling a false promise (15). Explain the example and the lessons Kant draws from it.
Recommended: Christine Korsgaard's "Introduction" in G: pp.vii-xv
Oct 9: Categorical Imperative: Universal Law Formulation
G: pp. 25m-36m
Q: What is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives (give examples of each)? Does Kant see his investigation of the existence and nature of the categorical imperative (CI) as an empirical project—explain (the recommended Korsgaard reading may be helpful here)? What is a maxim and how does it factor into Kant’s discussion of the CI? What is the Universal Law formulation of the CI and what examples does Kant use to illustrate it (and are they convincing)? The idea that certain maxims cannot be universalized without contradiction plays a crucial role in Kant’s examples. What does he mean by “contradiction” and what role do such contradictions play in his account?
Recommended: Christine Korsgaard's "Introduction" in G: pp. xv-xxi
Oct 11: Categorical Imperative: Humanity Formulation
G: pp. 36m-44b
Q: What does Kant mean when he says humans exists as ends in themselves (p 37t)? What does Kant take to follow from that fact that humans exists as ends in themselves and how is this idea related to the categorical imperative? What is the Humanity formulation of the CI (38t) and what examples does Kant use to illustrate it (and are they convincing)? What does Kant’s discussion of the lying promise case suggests about his account of why telling a lying promise is morally wrong? What is the Kingdom of Ends and how is it related to morality?
Recommended: Christine Korsgaard's "Introduction" in G: pp. xxi-xxiii
Reading Response 3
Oct 16: NO CLASS, Fall Break
Oct 18: Kantian Moral Development
Barbara Herman, "The Practice of Moral Judgment"
Q: What does Herman see as three most significant complaints about Kant(ians)’s reliance on moral rules (too course (74-5), conflicting duties (79), moral perception (81))? What does the discussion of the principle/rule distinction suggest about what the purpose of the CI is and when it should be used? What are “rules of moral salience” (RMS) and why are they significant (given an example)? Explain the final paragraph of Sec. II. More generally, how does Herman’s account of RMS help address the problems she’s noted in Kant’s moral theory? Are you convinced?
PART 4: Mill's Consequentialist Theory
Oct 23: The GHP and Higher Pleasures
U: Chapters 1-2
Q: At the end of Chap 1, Mill suggests he will be giving a distinctive form of “proof” for the truth of utilitarianism—what do his examples suggest his mode of proof will consist in? Explain, in some detail, what you take the Greatest Happiness Principle to be (e.g., what does happiness amount to?) Mill distinguishes between “higher” and “lower,” “mental” and “bodily” pleasures. What are these differences and why are they important? What determines if one form of pleasure is better than another? Do you find Mill’s answer plausible?
Oct 25: Objections to Utilitarianism
U: Chapters 1-2
Q: What do you see as the most compelling objection to utilitarianism (be it from the text or elsewhere)? What response does (or could) Mill provide? Do you think such a response is adequate? Explain.
Reading Response 4
Oct 30: The Harm Principle
OL: Chapter 1, Chapter 2 (pp. 21t-33b, 46m-50t can be skimmed)
Q: What is the "harm principle" and why does Mill think it is important? What do see as the best argument that Mill makes in support of this principle? How might someone object to Mill's defense?
Nov 1: Experiments in Living
OL: Chapter 3
Q: What, in a sentence or two, is the core project of Chapter 3? At the top of p 54, Mill introduces the idea of “experiments in living”. What are these and what role do they play in his moral theory—for instance, what is wrong with not developing one’s talents on Mill’s account? Do you think his proposal is plausible? Explain. Similarly, how does the account of Chapter 3 inform our understanding of Mill’s account of happiness (e.g., attitudinal hedonism vs. perfectionism)?
Nov 6: Millian Moral Development
Wendy Donner, excerpts from The Liberal Self (p. 92-97t, 112-140)
Q: Why is moral education and development important on Mill's account? What are the basic features of Mill's proposal (eg, what does one learn and how)? Is the proposal consistent with Mill's commitments to utilitarianism, the Higher Pleasures Doctrine, and the protection of liberty? Explain. More generally, do you find Mill's account of human nature and (moral) psychology plausible?
PART 5: A Flawed Foundation? Two Challenges to Classical Ethical Theories
Nov 8: Prima facie duties and moral particularism
W.D. Ross, "What Makes Right Acts Right?"
Margaret Olivia Little, "On Knowing the 'Why?': Particularism and Moral Theory"
Q: In a sentence, state Ross’s view of what makes an act right (e.g., what is his idea of a ‘prima facie’ duty and its contrast with actual duty)? How do we come to recognize the prima facie and actual duties we have? What does it mean to say lying is wrong, other things equal? How does the “particularism” of Ross and Little represent a challenge to standard ethical theories like those of Kant and Mill? What do you find most plausible in particularism?
Nov 13: Feminism I
Carol Gilligan, excepts from In a Different Voice
Q: What moral theory/theory of moral development does Gilligan contrast her discussion against? How is her proposal illustrated by the case studies of the two eleven year-olds and the cases of Ned and Diane? What differences does Gilligan see in how women make (moral) choices? In what ways do Gilligan’s observations challenge the moral theories we’ve been looking at?
Nov 15: Feminism II
Nel Noddings, excerpts from Caring (pp. 1-21, 79-90, 94-98)
Q: What does it mean to say an ethical view is “feminine” or of the “mother”? Why is this perspective significant: what’s the contrasting proposal? what happens if we give greater weight to the feminine view? what does it imply about ‘classical’ views of Mill and Kant or the particularism of Ross and Little? What is caring—both as a psychological state and as a normative foundation for ethics (see, eg, the Smith case and subsequent discussion on pp. 10-14)? What is the “caring relation” and the roles of the one-caring and cared-for? What is the relationship between caring and (moral) obligation (pp. 81ff)?
Reading Response 5
PART 6: The Demands of Morality
Nov 20: Does Morality Ask Too Much?
Peter Singer, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"
Bernard Williams, "Persons, Character & Morality"
Q: In distinctive ways, the Singer and Williams articles suggest that "classical" ethical theories (esp. utilitarian and Kantian proposals) can place significant demands on individuals--being moral can demand significant sacrifices. How do you see these articles as highlighting the "demandingness" of morality (or at least utilitarian and Kantian proposals)? Do you think the potentially extreme demands these view can require of us makes them less plausible as account of the nature of morality? Explain.
Nov 22: NO CLASS, Thanksgiving
Nov 27: Must One Be Perfectly Moral?
Susan Wolf, "Moral Saints"
Q: What is a moral saint? What's not to like about them? How do moral saints raise concerns about classical ethical theories? Is there an alternative?
Nov 29: The Wrong of Selfless Action
Jean Hampton, "Selflessness and the Loss of Self"
Q: Why does Hampton think that selflessness is a problem? What do her observation suggest about the plausibility of classical ethical theories? How might advocates of those theories respond to her concerns?
Reading Response 6
Dec 4: Accommodating Love and Friendship
Diane Jeske, "Friendship, Virtue, and Impartiality"
Q: Can Aristotelian ethical theory give a plausible account of the value of friendships? Why (not)? If Aristotelianism fails on this front, what alternatives are there?
Dec 6: Loose Ends and Final Paper
Bring draft of final paper for in class workshop