Are you relativist or objectivist?

Ethics

Reaction Paper #1

I cannot accept any assignment after the due date. I’m sorry that I cannot compromise on

this, but I have worked to give the longest possible time to work on them. You can, of course,

turn it in early, or give me an early copy to read (and comment on).

Your paper should be from 5-7 pages long, and a lot of original work. I don’t want you to

spend time summarizing the articles, arguments at all! I’ve read it, and I know you’ve worked

through it before (how else could you write it)! I want you to start from that point in your work,

and try to write about what the author(s) are trying to prove and what you think about their work.

The rest depends on what type of paper you’d like to do, but try to take the two (or more)

arguments/articles and show very clearly how they’re related, and why they work together so

well. Take a hard stand and come down strong – if they’re things that keep you from doing that,

then that’s o.k. just be sure to say exactly what they are. While they’re larger papers, they do not

have to be super formal (remember, it is still me reading/grading them) but this is your last stand

of sorts – make sure that the grammar and spelling all works out well (it is a serious paper, so I

can’t let you get away with silly mistakes everywhere) and that you take the time to be crystal

clear. You do not have to take the time to go over every argument someone makes (that would

take a book, even for the short articles) but do tell me exactly why you think certain things are

important, what they mean, and what you think they are doing to help your case.

If none of this helps, makes sense, or scares you, let me know. I’ll be happy to help with

any part of your paper (even picking something to write on) or going over one of the articles.

Option #1:

Are you relativist or objectivist?

If you are relativist, how do we create moral rules? Pojman suggests that any form of

relativism requires us to accept the diversity and dependency thesis – but is the dependency

thesis really true? Are things right and wrong because we believe them to be? What do you

think of the other objections to the theory?

If you are an objectivist, how do you know you’re right? Both Heroditus and Benedict

note that there is a large diversity of moral rules… and those people and cultures believe they are

correct. How can we attest there is only one correct set of moral codes in the face of such

disagreement? How can we know we are correct?

Remember, the focus of your paper is to answer 2 questions: 1) where do moral rules

come from, 2) an explanation of your answer. You do not need to review the assignments we

covered in class, unless you share the same thoughts as one of our authors. You are not graded

on your ability to summarize what others have said, but rather your ability to present a solid,

thoroughly explained philosophical argument.

Option #2:

Which view of selfishness do you think is correct?

Is it possible to prove that psychological egoism is really wrong? Is there a way to

demonstrate that all human action and motivations don’t really come from selfish intentions?

Is it really possible to prove that ethical egoism is really wrong? Is there some way to

show that we ought to value others’ interests over our own?

Is it really possible to prove that altruism is really wrong? Is there some way to show that

we can disregard others and not become totally immoral?

Remember, the focus of your paper is to answer 2 questions: 1) why do things gain their

meaning and value, 2) an explanation of your answer. You do not need to review the

assignments we covered in class, unless you share the same thoughts as one of our authors. You

are not graded on your ability to summarize what others have said, but rather your ability to

present a solid, thoroughly explained philosophical argument.