PHIL 205-M03 Ethics
Course: PHIL 205-03 Ethics
Professor: Welch
Prerequisites: PHIL-105
Credits: 3
I. Course Objectives
There are many ways to solve problems, but only some of them are rational. How do you tell the difference? How do you solve problems in a rational way? The answer depends very much on the problem at hand, of course, but the striking thing about all these answers is that they have certain general features in common. Whether the problem is economic, architectural, medical, or ethical, you clarify the ends to be achieved, seek out the various possible means for achieving them, and try to choose the best means relative to criteria to be introduced in this course. The ability to do these things well in one field, I suggest, tends to carry over into others. For example, people who are good at solving engineering problems already have the general tools for finding good solutions to ethical problems (whether they use them or not is of course another matter). All this suggests two objectives for taking these problem solving procedures and applying them, as we will be doing in this course, to ethical problems. The primary objective is to improve our chances for coping rationally with the real world of ethical problems. Secondly, if greater rationality in one field can indeed be carried over into others, we can also hope to improve our chances for coping rationally with any problem whatsoever.
II. Course Description
In most fields, there are two mental mistakes that have to be avoided at the same time. The first, described in idiomatic English, is not being able to see the forest for the trees—that is, the loss of an overall point of view due to an obsession with detail. The second is not being able to see the trees for the forest—the loss of contact with reality as a result of a steady diet of generalities. To help us avoid the first mistake, we will be studying the ethical principles of seven well known philosophers, from Aristotle to Frankena, a contemporary American. To help us avoid the second, we will see how and how well the principles of each apply to specific cases.
In the course of talking about these philosophers, we will introduce some basic tools for decision making. Some of these tools are for ethical problems alone. But some are for any problem, ethical or not; logic, for example, provides us with a clear criterion for sound argumentation, and applied mathematics gives us decision theory. How useful these tools can be is not sufficiently known. While they are not panaceas, they can be of great help in solving our ethical and non-ethical problems alike.
The philosophers we will be studying, along with the ethical principles (P) and case studies (C) that we will focus on are:
| Aristotle |
P: the excellences of thought and desire
C: Cicero's corn merchant |
| Aquinas |
P: the natural law
C: Caesar's German thieves |
| Hobbes |
P: the road to peace
C: the prisoner's dilemma |
| Kant |
P: the categorical imperative
C: Kant's four cases |
| Bentham and Mill |
P: the principle of utility
C: the Milgram experiments |
| Frankena |
P: justice and beneficence
C: United States v. Holmes |
III. Text and Other Course Materials
The text is Moral Philosophy: A Reader, 3rd edition, edited by Louis Pojman. It is required and available in the bookstore.
Additional course materials can be found on SLU's intranet, which can be accessed via the WebCT server at http://webct.sluiberica.slu.edu:8900. Login instructions can be found below.
IV. Required Reading
The following readings are from Pojman:
Aristotle: pp. 249-259
MacIntyre: pp. 271-286
Aquinas: pp. 21-32
Pojman: pp. 38-52
Hobbes: pp. 62-71
Kant: pp. 194-213
Bentham: pp. 113-115
Mill: pp. 141-146
Williams: pp. 168-178
Frankena: pp. 239-246
V. Grading and Attendance
Final grades are calculated as an average of three exam scores. The exams must be taken on the dates assigned (see course calendar below).
Ten or more absences for any reason constitute an unrecoverable loss of course content and will result in an AF for the course.
|
