Spring Term 2004/05
The aim of this module is to provide an overview of moral philosophy over the past century, as practised in the English-speaking world, and to involve you in some of its central arguments and debates. We shall deal with, among other things, the analysis of moral language, the possibility of moral knowledge, and forms of moral realism and anti-realism. We shall consider moral theories and concepts such as consequentialism, duties, rights, integrity, and the virtues.
TEACHING
will take the form of a weekly lecture and a weekly seminar. The lectures are on Wednesdays 12.00-1.00 in Darwin Lecture Theatre 1. You will be allotted to a seminar group. The details of where and when it will meet are below.
Although formally only seminars are compulsory, it is important that you come to both lectures and seminars, as the former will be preparation for the latter.
Please note that as there are only ten University weeks between Christmas and Easter this year, the course will continue for two weeks after Easter, with the final lecture and the final in-class assignment (see below).
The teachers will be
Richard Norman (Convenor - email R.J.Norman@kent.ac.uk),
Simon Kirchin (email S.T.Kirchin@kent.ac.uk),
Alan Thomas (email A.P.Thomas@kent.ac.uk),
Seminar Group 1: Thursday 10 - 11, KS14
Seminar Group 2 Thursday 11 - 12, KS14
Seminar Group 3 Thursday 3 - 4, CNWSem5
Seminar Group 4 Thursday 4 - 5, CNWLib
(Please check the glossary in your Part II Handbook for the key to these abbreviated room names.)
LECTURE OVERHEADS
will be made available on the internet after each lecture is given from the link here.
OFFICE HOURS
Richard Norman will have a weekly office hour on Wednesdays 4.00-5.00, in Dr Harcourtıs office in SECL, Cornwallis N.03b. You are very welcome to make use of this if you have any questions, either philosophical or administrative, about the course.
Alan Thomas's office hours are 11 on Tuesday, 12 on Thursday in N.04c George Allen Wing, Cornwallis.
BULLETIN BOARD
There is a web based on-line discussion forum for this course at:
http://www.logical-operator.com/discuss/index.html
Click on "Open Discussion for Kent Students" and then "Modern Moral Philosophy Spring 2005". Post any queries or observations and hope for an answer, maybe from tutors or other students! Anything you post is not assessed for this course so feel free to ask questions if you are unsure of anything on this course.
ASSESSMENT
will take the form of
(a) an essay to be written on one of the topics in the first half of the course and submitted in Week 19, counting for 45%,
(b) an in-class assignment on one of the topics in the second half of the course, to be done in the seminar time in the final week (after Easter), counting for 45%, and
(c) seminar performance, counting for 10%.
The essay should be written on one of the questions listed below for the first five weeks of the course (questions 1-9). It should be approximately 2500 words in length. You should submit two copies of the essay, together with a cover-sheet. If a second copy is not handed in, you will get back only the cover sheet with marks and comments (if any), as one copy must be kept for the departmentıs records. Please check with your seminar leader the precise deadline for submission of the essay, and where it should be submitted.
There is a cover sheet here. (To access this page, if you are off campus, you will need your usual UKC log-in to be taken to the Kent intranet.)
For the in-class assignment you will need to write on one of the questions listed below for the topics in the second half of the course (questions 10-17). You should plan the essay in advance, but you will not be allowed to consult books or notes when writing the assignment.
Anonymity. Essays and in-class assignments must be handed in anonymously. For in-class assignments, write your examination number (not your name and not your student number) on the front of the booklet in which you write your answer. For essays, write your examination number on the cover sheet. Your work will be marked anonymously and numbers matched up with names only after you have been informed of your marks.
Late submission of essays: Essays submitted after the deadline (in Week 19) without permission will be marked but may not receive comments. Marks will also be deducted at the rate of 5 marks for every week or part of a week after the deadline that the essay is received. Essays received after Friday of Week 22 will receive a mark of 0. PERMISSION WILL NOT BE GIVEN FOR EXTENSIONS BEYOND THIS DATE.
Viva voce examinations: As a consequence of the emphasis on coursework in the Philosophy programme, module teachers may on occasion wish to call a student for a viva voce examination of an essay which he/she has submitted. The purpose of the viva will be to determine to what extent the student has understood and assimilated the material which he/she has used in the essay, and the mark for that piece of work will be awarded in the light of the performance in the viva.
Missing the In-class Assignment: Missing an in-class assignment is the equivalent of missing an exam or failing to submit an essay. Consequently, if you do miss an in-class assignment you will normally receive a mark of 0 for that component of the assessment, unless you have been given prior permission to miss it. Reasons for which such permission may be given must be serious ones such as accident or illness. Permission will be dependent on arranging an alternative time to do the assignment. If you do obtain a mark of 0 under the above rules, you of course still have the right to submit a concessions case, which would need to be supported by evidence in the normal way.
Assessment of seminar performance: The mark for seminar performance will reflect both your attendance and the quality of your contributions to seminars. In order to obtain a mark for seminar performance you must attend a minimum of 50% of the seminars for the course. If you attend less than 50% of the seminars you will be given a seminar mark of 0. If you attend at least 50% of seminars, your mark for seminar performance will take account of
If you are unsure of what is required of you or are nervous or hesitant about your capacity to contribute to seminars, please ask for advice from your course teacher.
Disability/Requiring Extra Time for Examinations
If you have any special requirements to enable you to participate fully in this course, such as web based materials, font sizes of handouts, anything - ask your seminar leader in complete confidence and arrangements will be made for you. Please note in particular that IF YOU NEED EXTRA TIME FOR THE IN-CLASS ASSIGNMENT INFORM YOUR SEMINAR LEADER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. We only have one room booked for two hours and any students who need extra time will need to attend for that slot (obviously).
READING
Basic reading for the course will be made available in a pack of photo-copied extracts. It is essential that you obtain a pack. Suggestions for further reading are listed for each topic below. The photocopied reading from G.E.Moore for the first topic will be available separately from the Philosophy Office before Christmas. Please pick up a copy and read it in preparation for the first lecture and seminar.
SYLLABUS: WEEKLY TOPICS AND READING
The course is divided into two parts: (a) metaethics and (b) normative ethics. Dr. Kirchin will spend some time in the first lecture explaining the difference between the two branches.
Part I: Meta-ethics
The following are good books to have to hand during the metaethics part of the course. The Miller is particularly good and a few copies have been ordered at Blackwellıs. At least one copy of each of these books will be available in the short loan collection.
Phillipa Foot (ed.) Theories of Ethics (OUP)
David McNaughton Moral Vision (Blackwell)
Alex Miller An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics (Polity)
James Rachels (ed.) Ethical Theory 1 (OUP)
Peter Singer (ed.) Ethics (OUP)
Items marked with a * are essential reading for the seminars and are included in your seminar packs. You should also try to read at least one other thing for the seminar (normally the relevant part from the Miller).
Items marked with an E are journal articles that are electronically available from JStor. (Go to the Online resources pages of the Library for further details.)
Possible essay questions are listed at the end of each topic.
(Week 13)
G. E. Moore Principia Ethica, ch. 1 secs. 1-17 *
Alex Miller An Introduction chs. 1, 2 and 8. Chapter 8 is particularly useful in
answer to the question (2) below. Please make sure to follow up Millerıs suggested reading on p. 177 if you are answering it.
W. Frankena (1938) 'The Naturalistic Fallacy' Mind pp. 464-477 and also in
Foot (ed.) E
C. L. Stevenson 'Mooreıs Arguments against Certain forms of Naturalism' in
Foot (ed).
C. Rosati (1995) 'Naturalism, Normativity and the Open Question Argument',
Nous pp. 46-70. E
Questions:
(1) What is the naturalistic fallacy? Is there really a fallacy here?
(2) How successful are modern day naturalists in answering Mooreıs
challenge?
(Week 15)
J. L. Mackie (1977) Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong pp. 15-42 *
Alex Miller An Introduction ch. 6
David Brink (1984) 'Moral Realism and the Sceptical Arguments from
Disagreement and Queerness', Australasian Journal of Philosophy vol.
62, no. 2. (1984), pp. 112-125.
Richard T. Garner 'On the Genuine Queerness of Moral Facts', Australasian
Journal of Philosophy vol. 68, no. 2 (1990), pp. 137-146.
R. Joyce (2001) The Myth of Morality (CUP) chs. 1 and 2 (and beyond)
Gilbert Harman 'Ethics and Observation' in Rachels (ed.)
Bernard Williams 'Ethics and the Fabric of the World' in Rachels (ed.)
Crispin Wright 'Truth in Ethics' in Hooker (ed.) Truth in Ethics ((Blackwell,
1996).
Questions:
(5) What is error theory? Does Mackieıs argument from queerness
provide enough justification for the claim that moral properties do not exist?
(6) Outline and critically assess Wrightıs argument against error
theory.
(See works by Wright and Miller cited above.)
(Week 14)
Simon Blackburn (1984) Spreading the Word ch. 5, excerpts *
C. L. Stevenson (1937)'The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms'Mind * E
P. T. Geach 'Assertion' in his Logic Matters, pp. 250-54 *
A. J. Ayer Language, Truth and Logic ch. 6, also in Singer (ed.) pp. 147-52 *
Alex Miller An Introduction chs. 3 and 4.
David McNaughton Moral Vision chs. 1-4 (and beyond)
B. Russell 'Science and Ethics' in Rachels (ed.)
Michael Smith The Moral Problem ch. 2 (and 1 for help).
David McNaughton Moral Vision ch. 1
J. E. J. Altham (1996) 'The Legacy of Emotivism' in G. Macdonald and C.
Wright (eds.) Fact, Science and Morality.
F. Jackson and P. Pettit (1998), 'A Problem for Expressivism', Analysis pp.
239-51 E
M. Smith and D. Stoljar (2003) 'Is There a Lockean Argument against
Expressivism?'Analysis vol. 63 (2003), pp. 76-86. E
F. Jackson and P. Pettit (2003) 'Locke, expressivism, conditionals', Analysis
vol. 63 pp. 86-92.
Question:
(3) What is expressivism? In what ways does it improve on
³naturalism²? Is it successful overall?
(4) Outline and critically assess Jackson and Pettitıs argument against
expressivism.
(See their articles and the response by Smith and Stoljar.)
(Week 16)
John McDowell 'Values and Secondary Qualities' in Morality and Objectivity
(ed.) Ted Honderich (London: Routledge, 1985), pp. 110-129. *
Elijah Millgram 'Moral Values and Secondary Qualities'American
Philosophical Quarterly vol. 36, 1999, pp. 253-255. *
Alex Miller An Introduction ch. 10 (and 4 and 7 are useful too).
David McNaughton Moral Vision chs. 1-5 (and beyond)
Simon Blackburn Ruling Passions ch. 4 (OUP)
David Wiggins 'Objective and Subjective in Ethics' in Hooker (ed) Truth
in Ethics (Blackwell, 1996).
Questions:
(7) Outline and critically assess McDowellıs discussion of the concepts
of moral subjectivity and moral objectivity. To what extent does McDowell successfully answer Mackieıs challenge that there are no objective moral values?
(8) To what extent are values and colours analogous?
(Week 17)
M. Smith (1994) The Moral Problem ch. 3 (excerpt) (Blackwell) *
Hallvard Lillehammer (1997) 'Smith on Moral Fetishism'Analysis vol. 57,
pp. 187-195. * E
David Brink (1997) 'Moral Motivation', Ethics, pp. 4-32. E
James Dreier (2000) 'Dispositions and Fetishes: Externalist Models of Moral
Motivation', Phil. and Phenomenological Research, vol. 61, pp. 618-
638.
Alex Miller An Introduction pp. 217-227.
Question:
(9) Describe the distinction between internalism and externalism
about moral motivation. Does Smithıs argument against
externalism work?
PLEASE TAKE NOTE - Week 18: Reading Week (NO LECTUREon 16 February and NO SEMINARS)
Part II: Normative Ethics
The following books will be useful for the normative ethics part of the course. There are copies both in the Main Library and in the Short Loan Collection.
James Rachels (ed.), Ethical Theory 2 (OUP)
Samuel Scheffler (ed.), Consequentialism and its Critics (OUP)
Roger Crisp and Michael Slote (eds.), Vurtue Ethics (OUP)
Philippa Foot (ed.), Theories of Ethics (OUP)
Jeremy Waldron (ed.), Theories of Rights (OUP)
Again, items marked * below are in your seminar packs and are essential reading for seminars.
Topic 6: Varieties of Utilitarianism
(Week 19)
R. M. Hare, 'The Structure of Ethics and Morals' (from Hare, Essays in Ethical Theory) *
J. J. C. Smart, 'Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism', in Foot (ed.) Theories of Ethics and in Rachels (ed.) Ethical Theory Vol. II *
J. J. C. Smart, 'Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics' in Smart and Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against
Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy ch.5
Questions:
10. Assess the claim that a defence of utilitarianism can be derived from an analysis of the logic of moral language.
11. What exactly is the difference between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism? Can rule-utilitarianism succeed where act-utilitarianism fails?
Topic 7: Objections to Utilitarianism: Duty and Integrity
(Week 20)
W. D. Ross, 'What Makes Right Acts Right?', from The Right and the Good, and in Rachels (ed.) Vol. II *
Bernard Williams, 'A Critique of Utilitarianism', in Smart and Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against and in Scheffler (ed.), Consequentialism and its Critics *
Bernard Williams, 'Persons, Character and Morality' in Williams, Moral Luck, and in Rachels (ed) Vol.II
Bernard Williams, 'Utilitarianism and Moral Self-indulgence', in Williams, Moral Luck
Peter Railton, 'Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality' in Scheffler (ed.)
Questions:
12. Assess the claim that utilitarianism 'simplifies unduly our relations to our fellows'. Does a morality of duties fare better in this respect?
13. How useful is the notion of 'integrity' as a weapon against the consequentialist? What kind of objection, if any, can it support?
Topic 8: Rights-based Ethics
(Week 21)
J. L. Mackie, 'Can there be a Right-based Moral Theory?', in Jeremy Waldron (ed.), Theories of Rights *
Robert Nozick, 'Moral Constraints and the State' in Anarchy, State and Utopia *
Alan Gewirth, 'The Basis and Content of Human Rights', in Gewirth, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications
T.M.Scanlon, 'Rights, Goals, and Fairness', in Waldron (ed.) and in Scheffler (ed.)
Joseph Raz, 'Right-based Moralities', in Waldron (ed.)
Questions:
14. 'Rights are something that we may well want to have; duties are irksome.' Can this observation generate an effective defence of a rights-based moral theory?
15. 'Utilitarianism fails to take seriously the separateness of persons.' Can a rights-based morality do better in this respect?
Topic 9: Virtue Ethics
(Week 22)
Philippa Foot, 'Utilitarianism and the Virtues' in Scheffler (ed.) Consequentialism and its Critics *
Rosalind Hursthouse, Beginning Lives ch.6 sections 1 and 2 *
Philippa Foot, 'Virtues and Vices', in Foot, Virtues and Vices
Philippa Foot, Natural Goodness
Rosalind Hursthouse, On Virtue Ethics
Robert Louden, 'On Some Vices of Virtue Ethics', in Crisp and Slote (ed.), Virtue Ethics (and other essays in the same collection)
Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy ch.3
Questions:
16. What is the relation (if any) between virtue and human flourishing?
17. Does a proper account of the virtues promise a naturalistic foundation for ethics?
Topic 10: Revision Lecture
(Week 23, 20th April)
This lecture will be in the first week after the Easter break and will review the material of the second (normative ethics) part of the course, prior to the in-class assignment the following week.
Week 24 (25-29 April): In-class Assignment