Phil 350:
Ethical Theory (Fall 2011)
Paper #1 (on Shafer-Landau)
This paper asks you to select several of the
foundational problems discussed in S-L Part III (thus, our focus on Oct. 5) and apply them to two or more
theories in S-L Part II. More specifically,
you should identify one or more foundational challenges that you find particularly threatening
to morality as such (i.e., relativism, scepticism, nihilism, or some sub-category
thereof, such as error theory or expressivism), and explain why you regard (or not) these as (the
most) serious challenges to morality as a normative enterprise. Then select one or more normative moral
theories from Part II that seem to you to most able to deal with these
challenges, and one or more that seem most threatened by them. That is, if relativism is the problem, does consequentialism have the best defense against it, or proceduralism of some
sort, or natural law theory? In turn, which
theory seems weakest in terms of responding to or neutralizing those particular
challenges? The assignment rests on the
assumption that metaethical questions about moral foundations are not unrelated
to the type of normative theory being examined, and that different normative
theories may be more or less capable of responding to particular foundationalist
critics. Note that it is not assumed that your paper will come up with a
successful ‘save’ of morality. Even
though certain moral theories may present a better (or less bad)
response -- in the sense of
being able to deal with particular criticisms, by making fewer or
less arbitrary assumptions to metaethical challenges, for instance
-- they may
still be lacking (i.e., baseless, unjustified, presumptive,
fanciful,
wishful thinking, etc.). Of course, that,
too, will be a significant result.
It is hoped that at least several of the papers will
be good enough (after further revision) to submit as entries to the WKU Student
Research Conference in the Spring. Their
length will certainly be appropriate for this, and the topics compelling for a general
audience.
The papers are also conceived as a prelude to the
comparison of liberal internationalism and realism (Rawls and Geuss) later in the semester, which
will involve the same sort of intersection between normative and foundational
issues. This is
not because law is or should be moralistic (i.e., legislate
morality) or because it may be deduced from a particular (secular or
religious) moral theory, but because it too requires legitimation in the context of some broader approach to value. That is, the same metaethical questions that haunt
moral theory also confront law as an intellectual enterprise.
Accordingly, your papers at the end of the semester will
build on these earlier studies. And while
I hope to have the latter become the basis of a presentation next spring (which
you can add to your CV), the final papers for the course will hopefully become
candidates for submission to a student philosophy journal, or an off-campus
student philosophy conference. Their
topic (international law) is contemporary and important, and you will have done some of the
theoretical groundwork on which that legal dispute rests. The two papers are thus part of a larger
intellectual project over the course of the semester, and perhaps beyond.
Note, too, that the intervening material (i.e., the
interviews with various moral philosophers) will also support your final project. The
philosophical diversity of these interviews provide a further opportunity to
reflect on the issues encountered in S-L, and addressed in your first paper. If
you have read S-L carefully, been
physically and mentally present in class, and have allowed
yourself to develop a
personal interest in the topic, you will find yourself well prepared to
follow
and assess the various interviewees’ positions, and will
see them as a useful opportunities to continue lines of
questioning that you have already
pursued. Thus, the semester will
be a continuous process of inquiry – which is the point of doing all of this in
the first place.
More down to earth …
the paper should be 6-8 pages in length (1.5 spacing) and will be due in about
two weeks (around Oct. 17. I’m willing to be somewhat flexible in
this regard, within reason, in order to assure better quality work on your part.