Philosophy 151

Philosophy 152

Philosophy 311

Moral Choice
Philosophy 152
Sections A03 and A04

Winter/Spring 2009

3-5 pages

due date:

Wednesday, 8 April 2009

description of assignment:

Like the first one, this assignment involves giving a summary of an argument or viewpoint given by a philosopher in his text, turning a longer or more complex piece of philosophical writing or other reflection into a more concise or clearer expression of its meaning, doing so with both quotations and your own explanations.

The important additional component of this essay is that you must go on to interact critically with the viewpoint(s) you have explained, either agreeing or disagreeing. Whatever position you take, you must both [a] make your own position clear as well as [b] giving due consideration to the opposite view.

In other words, if you disagree with the philosopher, then you should consider how he would respond to your disagreements and you should then give your answer that response. On the other hand, if you agree with the philosopher, then you should consider how someone who disagrees might respond and then make a reply in defense of the philosopher. Of course, you might disagree in part and agree in part as well, though that makes for a more complex essay. Whatever the case, in terms of grading, more weight will be given to the effectiveness of the arguments against your own view. That is, you must attempt to be a convincing advocate for what you disagree with.

I would strongly suggest going back and reviewing the guidelines I gave for the first essay. Some further suggestions are implied by the evaluative criteria below.

criteria for evaluation:

The following kinds of criteria will be used in evaluating and grading your essay.

• Is it an accurate representation of the original argument, capturing what was argued and giving it a fair interpretation?


• Does it clearly state the essential content of the argument?


• Does it make proper use of citations, quoting material accurately, in a proper form, and only when helpful and relevant?


• Is there evidence that effort was put into writing the essay in terms of adequately meeting requirements, clarity, and technical care (e.g., avoiding spelling and grammatical errors)?


• Does the essay show that you understand what the author has argued?


• It is clear what position you are taking with regard to the philosopher’s viewpoint?


• Are any disagreements clearly presented and insightfully backed up with argumentation, examples, and evidence?


• Are agreements cogently justified by careful understanding and evaluation of the position?


• Are both sides given due consideration, providing a balanced and fair argument?


• Are your summary, arguments, and position organized clearly and in a logical way?

In order to get an "A" on this essay, you will have to do well in all of these areas.

possible topics:

The following is a list of the kinds of topics you might want to address, drawn from what we have been reading in Aristotle, Scruton, Epictetus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Thomas Hobbes. You are not limited to the topics listed here, but ask me first if you would like to write about a topic not on this list. A sign-up sheet will be sent around in class.

[1] Choose a specific virtue that Aristotle discusses in Nicomachean Ethics. Explain how Aristotle understands that virtue, the emotions and/or actions and/or feelings it involves, and the associated vices. Do you agree with Aristotle's exposition? How might you explain the virtue differently?

[2] In Book VII of Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle discusses akrasia, which is a state he finds very puzzling. How does he attempt to resolve the difficulties raised by incontinence? Do you find his discussion persausive? Is there anything you would explain differently?

[3] In Book X of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle returns to the question of happiness, suggesting that the life of study is the happiest (X.7-8, 1117a11-1179a34). What are his reasons for saying this? Can we fit what he says here with his account of happiness in the rest of the Ethics, Books I-IX, and, if so, how? What are some possibilities and their strengths and weaknesses? Do you agree or disagree with Aristotle’s assessment of theoretical study?

[4] Roger Scruton uses Aristotle’s ethics to construct an account of sexual virtue. On his view, what is the nature of sexual desire? What is required for sexual virtue? Do you agree with disagree with Scruton? Do you think his account is a legitimate application of Aristotle’s views?

[5] Consider Stoic ethics as exemplified by Epictetus' Encheiridion and how his views are similar and dissimilar from Plato and Aristotle. Pick a particular theme of Epictetus' outlook and explain it. What do you think of Epictetus' overall approach and advice?

[6] Explain Augustine's critique ancient Greek and Roman virtue as it appears in the selection from City of God? What does he see as the major weaknesses of pagan ethics? Why does he think that Greek and Roman notions of happiness are ultimately unsatisfying? Do you find his critique persuasive?

[7] Try to discern what Augustine's Christian alternative is to pagan virtues. Explain the central features of Augustine's Christian approach to ethics, virtue, happiness, and society. What do you think of his outlook?

[8] Explain Thomas Aquinas' view on the four kinds of law in his Summa Theologica. What are these four kinds of law and how are they distinguished and interrelated? Do you find Aquinas' overall perspective persuasive. You might want to look at his comments on natural law in particular.

[9] What is the role of synderesis and conscience for Aquinas? Is it ever permissible to violate one's conscience, even if it is in error? Is it right to follow one's conscience when it is in error due to vincible ignorance? What do you think about Aquinas' approach to these issues?

[10] Explain Aquinas' ethical outlook on killing, including the distinction between private persons and public authority, self-defense, and the doctrine of double effect. What do you think about his general approach? Would you apply any of his principles differently?

[11] What does Aquinas say about war? Place his evaluation on the permissibility of warfare within the large context of his comments on killing. How do you think Aquinas' criteria for justifiable war would apply to a specific situation? Do you agree with how Aquinas' would evaluate that situation?

[12] Examine Aquinas' views of property, private property, and theft. What are the implications of his view for care of the poor and for theft in cases of necessity? Do you agree with his approach?

[13] What does Aquinas say about obedience? When would it be permissible to disobey a legitimate authority on his view? What limits are there are authority? It is ever permissible for citizens to rise up against the government? Evaluate what he says on these issues.