Harper PHI115 All Week Discussions latest 2019 March Question # 00601566 Subject: Education Due on: 05/23/2019 Posted On: 05/23/2019 06:24 AM Tutorials: 1 Rating: 4.9/5

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 1 Discussion

Forums will
be very important for us. We’ll exchange ideas, work with the ideas of others
and we will be doing so often. To help with that. I’ve made forum posts worth
part of your grade. In most weeks, I will grade your posts, looking for rigor,
depth and constructiveness. I will say more about that as we proceed and as I
introduce topics. This week I will only grade for completeness.

The main thing to think about is whether
you’re advancing or starting a good conversation. Easy questions don’t start
conversations. Vague comments don’t start conversations. Genuine questions that
show depth or comments that show some thought can start conversations. That
will be our goal: to have good conversations about philosophy. This week, I
want us all to say hello and to begin learning how this course is to be
arranged. So, post a ‘hello’ and a bit about yourself or why you’re taking this
course. If you have any special pronoun preferences, this would be the time to
let me and everyone else know (see below). If you have any questions about this
or anything else, bring them to the forum! That is the best place for public
questions. If you have any confidential questions, email me privately, please.
Good luck and I can’t wait to get to know you all! Also, don’t forget to do the
reading and post comments questions here, as well. We’re going to learn a lot
together and it starts this week.

On pronouns:
not everyone uses the pronouns we might assume they would. In my case, I
present as male, so I use ‘he/him/his’ as my pronouns. You would say, “Dr.
Horton, he teaches my philosophy class” or “I’m taking his
course.” If someone is a female, they might prefer ‘she/her/hers’. These
are not the only pronouns, however. Someone might prefer ‘they/them/their’, as
their singular pronouns, as in “Bobby wants their coffee black” or
“I know them (said of Bobby).” Or, alternatively, someone might
prefer ‘xe/xem/xyr’, as in “Jem wants xyr coffee black” or “I
know xem very well.”

In this class, I respect each of you. I’m
happy to help make sure we respect each other. Please let me know via email or
in whatever way you prefer what pronouns we should use and we will respect you
by doing so.

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 2 Discussion

Regan and
Rachels

So many
things to discuss this week! What did you think? Some things you might consider
posting about or in answer to:

(a) Was
there a specific passage that stood out to you? Provide it (and page number)
and provide why you think it’s interesting/challenging/etc.?

(b) Did you
have a question from the reading? What passage (and page number) and what is
your question? How do you think the philosopher you read might answer it?

(c) Do you
have a real world example that is relevant? Might you have seen someone
adopting a position like described this week? How so?

You can
also create a constructive post of your own topic, related to this week’s
material, but these are just to get you thinking. I’m looking forward to your
posts!

Note: you
do not need to address all of (a) – (c) in your posts. Take one and do a
thorough job on it. There is lots to discuss!

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 3 Discussion

Plato’s
Euthyphro!

What did
you think? Have any questions? Have any answers?

Let me help
us a bit here to get started. First, let’s look at some essay questions that a
textbook provides:

1. What is
the Euthyphro question? What is the answer, according to Socrates? Can you reconstruct
his reasoning for why?

2. What is
involved in service to the gods, according to Euthyphro and Socrates? Do you
agree? Explain.

3. What
does Socrates want in asking for a definition of piety? Is this what one should
be looking for in a definition? Explain.

In
formulating a post, we might think about these questions. We might try to come
up with an answer to them, or at least the beginning of an answer. How might you
try to answer one of these?

Another way to proceed is to find a
passage in the text you think is interesting. Share that passage and share why
you think it’s interesting. Why do you think it worth sharing, in other words?
Does it convey an important message about morality? Does it make a nice point
about why we should act in a certain way or about reasons for moral behavior in
general?

There are lots of ways to go, especially
since the reading is longer than some of the others. It’s a dialogue, so in
that since doesn’t read as long as it is. It is, though, philosophy, which
takes a careful read. After your careful read, what stood out to you? Why?

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 4 Discussion

I’ll start
with an example to help:

(1) Example
of categorical imperative: Do not lie.

(2) Example
of a hypothetical imperative: If you want to be trusted by your friends, do not
lie.

Why should
I follow the first but not the second even though they both say I shouldn’t
lie?

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 5 Discussion

Did you see
my handout? What do you think of the two cases? When we’re finished discussing
those, we may create our own. So many interesting things to say about this
week. I can’t wait to hear what you can offer!

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 6 Discussion

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism
is a theory about options. For everything we think about doing, we have
choices: we can do (a) or (b) or (c)…and so on. The question for a
utilitarian is the following: which of our options either produces the most
pleasure or reduces the most pain? Or, in short, which causes the most
happiness? Now, Mill defines happiness precisely, so we must be sure we’re
talking about the same thing. Mill also talks about different kinds of
pleasures. Taking all of that in, what might some examples be of what a
utilitarian would do in a specific situation?

(a)
Question: My Aunt Agatha gets a horrible, bee hive hairdo. I dislike it. Most
people will dislike it. It is ugly. Question: do I tell her what I think if she
asks me? Options: (a) lie to her or (b) tell the truth (tactfully). Only you
may know your Aunt, but what would a good utilitarian do?

(b) Should
I give money, say, $5, to charity or buy a Venti latte from Starbucks with that
money? What would a good utilitarian do?

(c) Should
we have an amendment guaranteeing free speech for all citizens or should we
not? What would a good utilitarian do?

We can
multiply examples endlessly. These are just to get us started.

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 7 Discussion

Let’s try a
few things in our posts this week:

(1) No very
general comments. Let’s be specific. If the text was hard, then where, what
passages? If something was unclear, then what passage or paragraph? What might
Rawls be saying? Why do you think that? No simply saying a passage was
challenging. Take a stab at interpreting it. What could Rawls be saying or
trying to convey?

(2) Let’s
help each other, too. Post an original comment and then use your second posting
to help a classmate or to constructively comment on their post. Again, be
constructive. Read the context around their quoted passage and ask whether
their interpretation is consistent with the text as you read it. Have another
interpretation? Politely offer it and ask what we think.

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 8 Discussion

The Racial
Contract

I hope you
enjoyed this week’s reading. It is a contemporary classic, if you will, and a
valuable lens through which to look at our society. Consider the following
question: suppose I had a policy at a company I ran that said the following: we
will not hire women. You’d think that was discriminatory, right? Obviously.
But, what if I had a policy in place that did exactly that (more or less), but
which didn’t mention women by name? I could do the following: “Any absence
of work for any reason for more than five business days will result in automatic
termination.” How does this policy do the same thing? Surely men, too,
might have an accidenct or need leave? Some will, no doubt. But this policy
impacts women particularly because they are the most likely to need leave,
specifically, parental leave. I might as well say “no maternity leave
here!”

Okay, what lesson can we draw from this?
First, a policy can be discriminatory in all of the following cases:

(1) without
mentioning a vulnerable group by name or description.

(2)
accidentally or unintentionally

(3) by
mentioning a vulnerable group by name or description

(4)
deliberately or intentionally

Intentions
have little to do with it, in fact, at the policy level or the level of law. A
policy or law can be discriminatory and just as immoral if it achieves the same
thing as a law that discriminates by name or description.

Okay, then, how does this relate to Mills?
In a sense, he’s asking a question: what if we can design a racist contract
that gives us the exact same results we might see out in the world? If we can,
doesn’t that mean the world is flawed?

Consider an example: suppose I’m of pure
heart and have only good intentions. Suppose also that I get a diversity of
applicants for job after job at my company. Suppose, lastly, that my company
hires men, predominantly. I don’t have a policy that says hire only men. I
don’t try only to hire men. It’s just the way it worked out. However, if I had
a policy that said “Hire only men,” I’d get the same results, more or
less, then that should give us a reason to think somethings going on. It
doesn’t mean I’m a sexist. It doesn’t mean other employees are sexist. But it
might mean that somehow we have a system in place that is sexist, despite the
best intentions of the people who are a part of that system.

Anytime we see something like that, anytime
we see something that COULD be achieved by purely immoral means, we ought to
want to dig deeper and try to see what’s going on. In a sense, that’s what
Mills is up to. Since we can get almost the exact same results as we see in our
very own world by use of a racist contract, doesn’t that mean that somehow in
our world exists racism at a structural or systemic level? At the very least,
shouldn’t it mean we ought to look deeper?

Here are
further things to think about, as you’re reading the Mills:

Evidence of
exploitation? Evidence of Mills’ claim that the Racial Contract has a political
dimension, an epistemological dimension or a moral dimension? What does he mean
by those terms? Other interesting tidbits?

Please
provide a page number with each post so that we can know what part of the
reading you’re commenting on, elaborating on, challenging, connecting to, etc.
Each post should connect to the reading, whether it is an original post or a
comment on a classmate’s post.

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 9 Discussion

Aristotle:
what is a good person?

What
character traits are virtues that Aristotle may not have mentioned? Do they fit
his pattern of “excess” and “deficiency?” If they are moral
virtues, they should! What do you think of virtue ethics? Do we care about the
kind of person you are on the inside or do we only care that you do the right
thing? Is there a place for virtue ethics? Let’s have a great discussion this
week!

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 10 Discussion

Thoughts
about Gilligan

How is it
claimed that boys think about ethics? What evidence is there?

How is it
claimed that girls think about ethics? What evidence is there?

What does
this mean for ethics?

Each post,
whether an initial post or a reply, should include page references to the part
of the reading that informed your post.

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 11 Discussion

Of
particular note to Held’s theory is the fact that care is both a practice and a
value. What does she mean by this? And, for someone else or many people, what
are examples?

Second, how
does the ethic of care help is in the real world? What examples fit or don’t
fit the theory?

Last, What
do you think about the Lorde?

PHI115 ETHICS

Week 12 Discussion

Peter
Singer is trying to convince us that we ought–morally–to be doing a lot more
to help other people in the world. There is no moral difference between a
person living in our borders and a person living somewhere else. There might be
a cultural difference or a linguistic difference between them, but a person is
a person. Morally, there is no difference. There is also a lot of need in the
world. There is need here and there is need there. Need is need. Part of
thinking about altruism is thinking about how to get the most bang for our
bucks. We have to be thinking about that, too. Peter Singer takes facts like
this, adds a few moral premises, and concludes that we–individually, sure, but
also as a nation, should be doing a lot more to help those in poverty. Do you
agree?

Or, do you think about it like Hardin does?
His paper is less rigorous than Singer’s (he’s not a professional philosopher,
after all), but he does present a case that suggests we don’t have a moral
obligation to help those in poverty. Is he ? Do you agree? Why or why not?

Note: each
post should include either a quoted passage from the reading (along with page
number where it can be found) or a paraphrase/summary/statement of a thought
contained in the reading (along with a page number where it can be found). You
can disagree with the thought expressed in the reading. You can agree with it.
You can use it as a jumping off point for your own thoughts. Great! But, make
sure you give a page number.