Ethics

Ethical Competency Writing Assignment Description PHI 108 Spring 2019

Dr. David M. DiQuattro

March 5, 2019

1 Basic Assignment Description

For your ethical competency writing assignment, you will write analyze a disagreement between two authors/viewpoints that we discussed this semester. I am calling the assignment a critical disagreement analysis. Below I will provide a number of examples of disagreements between the authors we discuss this semester. Your paper will have the following components

1. Hone the disagreement

• I want you to start by taking my general statement of disagreement and providing your own clear specifics that focus on particular claims or passages. Here you are taking my starting point, but providing your own framing of the disagreement that will provide focus for your paper.

• You will hone your statement of the disagreement in a way that sets things up for the next parts of the paper.

• For example: – In number 2 below, you will identify a specific critique of Rawls from either Kittay or Noddings.

You need to explain where the disagreement is and set the stage for a fruitful dialogue to follow in the paper.

• This part of the paper should be focused. You should discuss the two views in a way that sets the stage for your objection and response.

• In the opening part of the paper you need to preview what is ahead - you may only write this part late in the writing process, but you need to provide a clear preview of where the rest of the paper goes.

2. Provide the best objection from one point of view to another

• I want you to do more than just state the two sides of the issue in this paper. I want you to bring the authors into dialogue. You will do this by articulating an objection to one position from the point of view of the other, then responding to the objection.

– You want your objection to be more than just restating a point where the authors diagree. Here’s what I mean by just restating, as an example:

1

Kant believes that there are absolute rules that should be followed without regard to conse- quences. The strongest utilitarian objection to this is that Kant disregards the importance of how an action affects overall happiness.

– The above is an example of what not to do. That way of stating things won’t get you far because it is just a re-stating of a key difference between Kant and utilitarianism.

• You should look for an objection that raises a new question for the other point of view, or points out an unforeseen implication of the view. In some way it should move discussion forward. I am not asking you to discover something that has never been said about these issues. I just want you to deepen your understanding of the two views by raising a serious objection to one position, then responding to it.

– In some way the objection should force you to think in new ways about the position objected to.

• In this section you should explain as clearly as you can how the objection presents a problem for the opposing view, and why the opposing view needs to take the objection seriously.

3. Provide the best response to the objection

• See rubric below for more criteria • Make sure the response takes the objection “seriously” - it should demonstrate understanding of why it

is a problem. It should allow deeper thinking about the implications of the view objected to, and lead to a creative response that is true to this viewpoint, but addresses the concerns of the objection.

Key Pointers

• You want the dialogue to raise questions worth taking seriously - both for you and for the positions involved.

• So avoid objections you think are easy to answer.

• Also avoid making it too easy to refute a position. The paper won’t achieve depth if you think a position is obviously wrong, dumb, misguided and so you can easily raise an irrefutable objection.

2 Examples of disagreements

1. Aristotle disagrees with the Stoics on whether virtue is sufficient for happiness. Aristotle disagrees with the idea, and Stoicism is really based on that core idea. So raise an objection to Aristotle’s position that external goods are needed for eudaimonia and respond on Aristotle’s behalf. Or raise an objection to the Stoic way of articulating how virtue is sufficient for happiness. You can cast doubt on any of the ways Stoics connect happiness, apatheia about what is outside our control, desire, judgment, etc.

• It might help to focus on a more specific disagreement between Aristotle and the Stoics, like the nature of friendship and human relationships from their differing points of view.

2

2. Nel Noddings and Eva Kittay raise objections to how political liberalism/contract theory (i.e., Rawls) thinks of agency, identity and our responsibilities toward others. Identify and state a strong objection they raise to Rawls and provide a response on behalf of Rawls. Noddings and Kittay share some of the concerns of political liberalism and contract theory, so try to identify ways that they try to be “truer” to the basic values of a free, tolerant society, where each person has agency and the power of self-governance.

3. Rawls thinks that we can think about justice and construct a just social order without settling questions about the good life. Plato seems to disagree in the Gorgias. Articulate a point of disagreement, raise an objection from one position to the other, and provide a response

4. Nietzsche provides a very general “diagnosis” of the other moral thinking we’ve encountered this semester. Nietzsche’s notion that our moral judgments are rooted in “resentment” can be applied to Plato’s notion of justice and happiness, Aristotelian and especially Stoic notions of the virtues and happiness; it can be applied to Kant’s notion of universal duty or to the concept of utility and happiness in utilitarianism. Pick one of these views and try to articulate Nietzsche’s critique of how the views’ moral concepts are life-denying. Articulate a response that takes the critique seriously. (There are certain affinities between what Nietzsche does and Callicles’ “natural history of justice”).

5. Nel Noddings and Eva Kittay provide a standpoint that seems at odds with utilitarianism. Their focus on the demands of care for this individual in all their vulnerability seems to entail disagreement with the exclusive utilitarian concern for overall happiness. Articulate a critique of utilitarianism from these points of view and formulate a utilitarian response that takes the concerns seriously - i.e., try to see how utilitarianism might consider specific claims of care and vulnerability (rather than just dismissing those concerns in favor of promoting overall utility).

• This topic invites you to consider whether utilitarianism has questionable implications about human vulnerability and handicap and what flourishing human relationships in light of such vulnerability look like.

6. Martin Luther King, Jr. seems to draw from Platonic-inspired ideas about justice (as developed in the “natural law” tradition) and his views of justice and equality also have some affinity with Rawls’ political liberalism. Articulate a shortcoming King might find in one of these accounts of justice, and articulate a reply that takes King’s concerns seriously.

7. Utilitarian thinks that our specific duties are rooted in and justified the one duty to maximize happiness (or act in the way that most tends to maxmize happiness). Kant certainly disagrees with utilitarianism on the nature and “source” of our duties. So also, I would argue, do Plato and Aristotle. Raise an objection to utilitarianism from one of these points of view, or vice-versa; provide a reply.

8. Alasdair MacIntyre’s concept of justice is very much at odds with Rawls and contract theory. Articulate an objection from one of these writers to the other, and articulate a response. [I will make available chapter 17 of After Virtue for those interested in this topic].

3

9. Kant is skeptical about connecting human duty to our desire to be happy. This puts his view at odds with Aristotle (and the other Greek thinkers we read). Articulate on objection from one side or the other dealing with this issue, and formulate a response.

10. Aldo Leopold’s land ethic seems to be at odds with utilitarianism. Articulate a problem Leopold would have with utilitarianism, and articulate a utilitarian reply that takes Leopold’s concern seriously.

3 Comments on Criteria and Evaluation

The college-wide ethical competency criteria look for your ability to identify the ethical dimensions of an issue, articulate and identify different moral theories/views regarding the issue and defend a position while understanding objections to it. I have tried to tailor the assignment to meet these criteria, and my rubric reflects these criteria, as well as the specifics of this assignment

Grading rubric

General Category

Criterion Points

Honing the Disagreement

Clarity and focus in defining disagreement 10 Understanding of texts and philosophers discussed 10

Clarity of preview of rest of paper 5

Statement of objection

Clarity of objection and depth of understanding 15 Cogency: does it bring the views into real dialogue? 10 Arguability: the objection raises a real problem and

neither view is dismissed as obviously wrong 5

Formulation of Response

Achievement of dialogue: the response takes the issues in objection seriously

5

Clarity and depth of response 20 Arguability: again, neither view is dismissed nor “let off

the hook” too easily 5

Miscellaneous Overall Clarity of Organization 5

Quality of writing/communication 5 General Style, formatting and polish of the paper 5

4 Stages of the assignment

• Prior to submitting the final assignment, which is due in our final exam slot, you will submit a paper precis/summary. In thumbnail fashion you should tell me what your topic is, and give me a summary of the different components of the paper:

– You should summarize how you plan to focus the disagreement

4

– You should do what you can to offer summaries of the objection you plan to raise and the basics of the response.

– This assignment does not need paragraph transitions, etc. I want you to summarize where the paper is going as directly as possible.

• This assignment is due at midnight on April 11.

5