1. provide a clear and careful execs of two distinct approaches to the foundations of normative ethics.
2. Evaluate each of those approaches.
3. Defend one of the two positions (explaining why the other should be rejected) or present grounds for rejecting both accounts of morality.
Readings:
W.D. Ross “what makes right acts right?
Donagan “fundamental principle” & ” first order precepts”
Richard B. Brandt “some merits of one form of rule-utilitarianism”
In the film, “the last supper”, a group of graduate students consider the following hypothetical situation:
You are a time traveller. It is 1909 in Austria. You are sitting in a pub, at a table with a young man named Adolf Hitler. It is 1909, so the person you encounter is neither bitter nor angry. He has not committed any crime, he doe not bring weapons to the dinner table, he has not started a world war and he has not (yet) slaughtered millions of people. Should you poison Adolf’s drink?
in order to help you to develop a focus for your paper i invite you to consider the above situation and reflect upon the following sorts of questions:
Assume you are an act-utilitarian, what would your answer to this question be? Describe the appropriate act-utilitarian analysis to justify your claim.
How, if at all, would a rule-utilitarian’s analysis (such as Brandt’s) differ from that of the act-utilitarian? What answer would a rule-utilitarian give in the end?
How would deontologists such as Ross or Donangan reach a decision. To what principles would they appeal? How, if at all, would their analysis differ from that of an act-utilitarian or a rule-utilitarian?
Assume you are yourself. What would you do? Explain the principles which inform your decision. Either way, would you or should you feel guilty?
How might Bernard William’s notion of negative responsibility figure into an assessment of the above situation? What other considerations might william’s bring to bear?
Your assignment is to write a carefully constructed essay which addresses the relevant issues based on a detailed exploration of textual arguments. This exploration requires that you compare and contrast the structure of consequentialism with that of a morality containing deontological constraints. Your paper MUST REFER TO SPECIFIC AUTHORS AND THEIR ARGUMENTS rather than speak generally about consequentialism or deontology. You are expected to explore foundational issues from an informed, analytical point of view and to provide a solid analysis of key arguments. DO NOT MERELY PRESENT AN ‘OPINION PIECE’.
Having set out an account of the contrasting moral visions, you are required to evaluate each and to adjudicate between the two. You should draw explicit criticisms and objections from the readings & class discussions, consider the merits/faults of these objections and present your reasons for your supporting or rejecting such objections. How do deontology and consequentialism measure up, at the end of the day, according to your analysis.
The final paper assignment is intended to encourage you to emerge with an overview of where things stand in the debate between consequentialists and non-consequentialists. It is also intended to allow for some flexibility in focus. (You are not expected to make insightful selections.) Therefore, as part of the assignment, you will have t define a more specific focus for your paper, within the broad areas described above. Be sure to start with a clear, well-organized first paragraph which outline the structure and content of your essay and its arguments.
Your essay should be 1800 words double-spaced. essays substantially longer than 2000 words may be penalized
