Here are some possible topics for papers. You aren't obligated to use these, you can come up with your own if you like, so long as you check with me first. Also, if you have a specific area of interest (e.g., your career, your major) that might be content for a paper, let me know and I'll help you find a way to write a philosophy paper about it. The best papers are the ones that are about something you're interested in and since philosophy applies to just about everything, there's a good chance we can find a way to turn one of your interests into a paper.
Topic 1: Kant vs Mill in Applied Ethics
You are a surgeon in the emergency burn unit. A patient comes in with burns on 90% of their body. The only way to save them is to amputate all four limbs. The patient is unconscious so you can't know what they'd want and they have no next of kin to make the decision. You must make a decision immediately or the patient will die. What is the right thing to do and why? (a) Briefly outline both Kantian and Utilitarian ethics. (b) For each, what makes an action 'right'? (c) Apply each theory to the case--what does each say you should do and why? (Be sure to distinguish between act and rule utilitarianism). (d) Which decision do you agree with and why? (e) How might the opposing view reply? (f) How might you counter-reply?
Topic 2: Standards of Rightness
Kant thinks what makes an action right is the motive behind it because we can't be responsible for whether things actually end up having good or bad consequences. Mill thinks an action is right in so far as it produces the greatest net good relative to other possible actions and that the motive of the action is irrelevant to its goodness; the motive only tells us about the moral worth of the agent. (a) Explain both views regarding what we morally ought to do and why; (b) who's right about what is right? Support your position with arguments and cases that pull our intuitions.
Topic 3: Kant and Mill in Applied Ethics
In using both the injured hiker and drowning child case, Peter Singer argues, via analogy, that we are morally obligated to help others in so far as we are able. (a) outline the argument, (b) if you agree, show how possible objections fail OR if you disagree show how possible objections succeed.
Topic 4: Meta-Ethics: Moral Realism vs Moral Anti-Realism
Mackie makes two main arguments against moral realism: the argument from relativity (aka disagreement) and the argument(s) from queerness. Smith responds to both arguments. (a) Outline one or both of Mackie's arguments. (b) Explain Smith's response. (c) Does his response succeed? Why or why not? (d) (optional) provide your own arguments in favor of or against one of the two positions.
Topic 5: Free will vs Determinism Regarding Moral Responsibility
Is moral responsibility possible? Under what conditions? Is it just to punish people for their actions? Consider the case of brain tumors and their effect on behavior. Is he blameworthy? If so, in what respects? If not, why not? What are the implications for future discoveries about the relationship between neurology, moral responsibility, blame, and punishment? What would Strawson say and why? What would Frankfurt say and why? Who's right and why? Use both arguments and cases to support your position.
Topic 6: Why Be Moral?
Glaucon and Adeimantus give several arguments against the intrinsic value of being moral. [E.g., 1. Being just is a compromise between acting on all our desires--the greatest good--and having others do what they want to us (the greatest bad); 2. The ring of Gyges shows that we only act morally for instrumental reasons because if we were invisible we'd do things we don't do now; 3. If we imagine the most unjust person but he is perceived as being the most just and the most just persons yet he is perceived as being the most unjust, we will all say that the former had a better life. Pick either one or two of the arguments, carefully explain then evaluate them. Does it succeed in justifying its conclusion? Why or why not? What are some objections? How can Glaucon and Adeimantus reply to the objections? How can you counter-reply? Do we have non-instrumental reasons
Topic 7: The Good Person or the Right Action?
James and Jessica, are training to be nurses. James has wanted to be a nurse for as long as he can remember. He has always wanted to help others and it gives him deep satisfaction to connect emotionally with and care for those who are in pain or discomfort. Jessica looked at various career options and decided on nursing because it seemed like there were good employment prospects, the possibility of a high salary if she specializes later on in her career, and she would be well-suited to it due to her aptitude for science. She prides herself on her ability to detach herself emotionally from her work, perform her duties and follow procedures to the letter. In their coursework and their clinical training, both perform equally well on all tasks assigned to them. Both have applied for the same nursing job at Kalamazoo General Hospital. Which of them should be hired?
What would a virtue ethicist say and why? What would a Kantian say and why? Which theory do you agree with and why?
Note: In answering this question, you need to describe in detail what each moral theory consists of, what it says about objective moral standards and why, and why one of its proponents would take the view that you think they would on this case. In deciding which of the theories you agree with most, you need to compare the arguments for and against each of the theories and attempt to show why one theory is preferable to the others.
Topic 8: Disposal of the Dead (adapted from a Fall 2011 Regional Ethics Bowl case)
The Briggs family is confronted by the choices involved with burial when beloved Grandpa Joe passes away. Joe left three children, now adults, who each have two children of their own. Joe has appointed his eldest daughter, Judith, as executor of his estate. Grandpa Joe was a traditional man with a modest life insurance policy and moderate estate. His wife, Ellen, died several years ago and opted for cremation. But, in conversation he had made it clear that he wanted to be buried in a local plot where several of his ancestors had been buried. In fact, once Joe had mentioned that he wanted a fine mahogany metal-lined casket, a large marble gravestone, and to be buried with a few of his cherished baseball cards and other prized valuables. He became very agitated about it at the time, and to calm him, Judith said that she would do as he wished. While Judith loves Grandpa Joe, she is also a pragmatic woman and isn’t sure that the requests of the dead should come first. Comparing the costs, she notes that a fairly simple cremation costs around $1500, whereas the kind of burial Grandpa Joe has requested would cost around $10,000. As she works on his estate, she notices that Grandpa Joe had not included any instructions in his last will and testament to govern his burial. He did state that any of his remaining financial resources should be divided equally among the three siblings. None of the siblings is very well-off and could all use a few thousand extra dollars. After meeting with family it becomes clear to Judith that her siblings would be comfortable with whatever arrangements she makes and have left the decision in her hands. Judith will meet with the funeral director soon, but is still contemplating what she should do for dear Grandpa Joe. What should she do?
What would a Kantian say? What would an Act Utilitarian say? What would a Rule Utilitarian say? Which theory do you agree with and why?
Note: In answering this question, you need to describe in detail what each moral theory consists of, what it says about objective moral standards and why, and why one of its proponents would take the view that you think they would on this case. In deciding which of the theories you agree with most, you need to compare the arguments for and against each of the theories and attempt to show why one theory is preferable to the others.
No comments:
Post a Comment