Assignment: Write an argumentative essay on one of the topics below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 300-600 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word & WordPerfect have automatic word counts.)
Paper Topics:
1. Out of the eight ethical theories that we have studied—cultural relativism, God ethics (divine command), happy ethics (utilitarianism), Kant, Aquinas’s natural law, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Kohlberg’s moral development, and Gilligan’s ethics of care—which do you think is best? Why? What are some (at least two) seemingly good objections that someone might make to that theory? How would you reply to those objections? Explain & defend your position.
2. Provide a detailed criticism of one of the ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. First, explain the theory, and present a charitable argument (what you take to be the best argument) in its favor. Then critically evaluate the argument. What are good objections to the argument? Consider how a proponent of the theory might respond to your objections, and explain why these responses are unsuccessful.
3. Which do you think is more important in determining whether an action is morally right or wrong: the consequences of the action (what happens as a result of the action), or the motivations behind the action (the reasons why someone chooses that action over other actions)? Why?
-Describe an ethical theory that we have studied that care more about the consequences of an action.[NOTE: I’m not looking for one right choice here. You can choose either side, as long as you defend it with a well-reasoned argument.]
-Then describe an ethical theory that we have studied that care more about the motivations of actions.
-In arguing for one side over the other, describe a specific moral dilemma in which these theories would give different decisions based on the action’s consequences vs. its motivations. Be sure to fully explain and defend your position.
4. In class, we’ve discussed the “Hitler Intuition”: Hitler’s actions don’t just seem wrong for you or me; they seem objectively wrong. Many have used this intuition to support the claim that there must be an objective morality of some kind. Examine this intuition.
-If you agree that it is solid evidence for objective morality, explain exactly how this intuition works. What makes it objectively true that Hitler was immoral? What is the basis of your judgment? In other words, what grounds objective morality? Which ethical theory we’ve discussed do you think this supports? Explain and defend all your answers.5. Within the parameters of ethical theories discussed in class, write on a topic of your choosing. (Sean must approve your topic by Friday, October 10th.)
-If you do not believe that this intuition is solid evidence for objective morality, you are probably a relativist. Explain why this intuition doesn’t provide enough evidence for the existence of an objective morality. Why is it OK to say that Hitler’s actions weren’t universally bad? How is it that Hitler is simply bad to me, but not objectively bad?
Posts
