Nozick On Love

Reading: The whole Nozick article

1. What do you think it means to say “I love you”. What is the difference between liking someone and loving them? What does Nozick say on pg 231 is common to all love?

2. What does he say about infatuation? Do you think its right?

3. What is the importance of the ‘we’ to Nozick? Do you/have you ever think/thought of yourself as part of a ‘we’? Who with? What two features on pg 232 does Nozick describe as features of the we? Do they apply to ALL loving romantic relationships?

4. Nozick makes several claims around the bottom of pg 232 and the top of pg 233 re: how we act when in a romantic relationship. How convincing do you find these points?

5. What two ways does he suggest (bottom of pg 233) we can relate to the we? What are the implications (if any) to the view that most men have one way whilst most women have another?

6. Nozick says “each person in a romantic we wants to possess the other completely”. What does this mean? Do you agree?

7. What does it mean to be loved for yourself? If you aren’t loved for any features/characteristics of yourself, what are you loved for?

8. Consider, ‘love does not alter when it alteration finds' - often quoted good old shakespeare. Is this right? Nozick says love is “not unalterable”, when does he think it can alter?

Why, and when, do we fall out of love?

9. Is Nozick too idealistic? Look at pages 236-7 when consdiering your answer

10. Nozick says that “the desire to form a we … includes a desire for that person to form one with you yourself and with no other”. Does this mean only monogamous relationships are loving? What do you think?

11. On pg 238 Nozick says “non romantic friends do not share an identity”. Why does he say this? What characterises friendship? Is he right?

12. Society, and Nozick, prizes romantic love. Why? Should we?

May 5th - Singer and Greater Moral Evil

Reading: The whole Singer article

Questions:
1. Whats Singer's main thesis?
2. What principle (often called the greater moral evil principle) does he set out (on pg 231) in order to aruge for his thesis? How does he think it supports his conclusion?
3. What other assumptions does he make? Can they be defended?
4. What is the objection considered on pg 236? How does Singer respond?
5. What is Sidgwick and Urmson's objection? How does Singer respond?
6. According to Singer on pg 239 we should not assume that giving to private charities will discourage goverment aid. Why does he make this claim? What conclusions does it allow him to draw? Is it a valid claim to be making?
7. What is the strong version and moderate version of the Greater Moral Evil Principle (look at pg 241)? Which version does Singer need to make his arugment valid?
8. Does Singer think philosophy has a role to play in public affairs? Do you?
9. To what extent are we morally required to help others?

31st March - Just War and Terrorism

Reading; Boyle Just War Doctrine and the Military Response to Terrorism

First, take some time to think about war and terrorism. What is war? Which (if any) wars do you think were/are just? What links them? What is terrorism? Is it possible to have a ‘war on terrorism’? Is terrorism ever the right thing?

1. What is Boyle’s main thesis (idea). Try and set it out as simply as you can as follows;

Premise A

Premise B

Premise C

Which all together lead to

Conclusion

Think about how the premises lead to the conclusion.

2. What kind of actions does Boyle take JWT (Just War Theory) to be evaluating? Is this too wide/narrow?

3. What is terrorism? What is its intent, and who does it harm, according to Boyle? Can you think of actions we call terrorism which don’t fit this bill?

4. What are Aquinas’ 3 conditions for just war? What are the reasons for each?

5. Why doesn’t the UN count as proper authority? What do you make of this claim?

6. Does Aquinas see just war as punitive? Why? What do you make of this? What does modern Catholic thought say? Why?

7. Why, according to Aquinas, does just war and proper authority alone not make a just war? Can you think of any cases like this?

8. Why/how does a just war aim at peace?

9. Do we have authority to make war on terrorists? What if such a war would involve border crossings?

10. Would a war against terrorism have to be to punitive, or could it be defensive?

11. What would be a just war aim against terrorism? What wouldn’t?

12. Does a just war have to be a last resort? What do you think?

References

Bristol's online tutorial for referencing;
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/referencing/referencing%20skills/index.htm

In particular look at either;
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/referencing/referencing%20skills/page_06.htm

or

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/referencing/referencing%20skills/page_24.htm
It doesnt matter in philosophy which you choose.

Should the tutorial prove tiresome, some info;

http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/tutorials/citing/harvard.html

http://iskillzone.uwe.ac.uk/RenderPages/RenderConstellation.aspx?Context=10&Area=8&Room=25&Constellation=40

http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/publications/oscola.php
*Open the link to 'quick reference guide'*

24th March - Rousseau

Reading – Book One and Book Two of the Rousseau

Questions;

Book One

1. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”. What does R mean here? How are we in chains?

2. What is the general will?

3. What are R’s views on property? How do they compare to Locke’s?

Book Two

4. Under what circumstances can the general will appear to go bad? What do you think of this argument?

5. How does the sovereign entail equality?

6. Why do we need laws of justice?

7. Who makes the laws? (The answer is in the middle of pg 303 – but what does R mean by this?)

Can laws be unjust?

8. What qualities should the legislator have? Is this realistic?

9. What methods can the legislator use? (See pg 304) Why?

10. What should be the goals of every system of legislation? What do you make of this claim?

17th March - Aristotle

Reading:

Please read Book Two of the Aristotle, and read the Louden. You dont need to read the Nussbaum.

Questions;

Aristotle
1. In chaphter one he says moral good is the child of what? Why?
2. In chaphter two (esp pg 148) he first offers the doctrine of the mean. What is the arugment here? What do you think of it?
3. In chaphter 4 he defends himself against a circularity charge. What is the arugment put against Aristotle here? How does he think he can avoid it? Can you see the realtion between this arugment and some found in the Louden?
4. In chaphter 7 he talks more about the doctrine of the mean. What are his examples? Can you think of any counterexamples?


Louden
1. According to Louden (pg 227), how would a utilitarian define virtue? How about a denontological theorist?
2. What notion does Anscombe say we can do without in ethics? What do yoiu think of this claim? Does it make sense?
3. "The concept of the moral ought... seems now to be explicated in terms of what the good person would do". Read the arugment surronding this passage (pg 228). Should ought be defined in terms of virtues or virtues in terms of ought?
4. At the top of page 229, what does L claim is the central question for viertue ethics? Why is this supposed to be a problem for virtue ethics?
5. What is the 'tragic humans' objection? Do we punish otherwise good people who make mistakes? Why? Should we?
6. What is the charachter change objection? Can you think of any counterarugments? (Can a person change so much in their morals that they become a completely serprate person to who they were before? Would this line help the virtue ethicist?)
7. Wht claim it is sometimes "acts rather than agents which ought to be the primary focus of moral evaluation"? Is this right?
8. Look at the arugment in the middle of the first coloum on og 232. What is the externalist claim? Do our actions define us?
9. What is the 'direct internalist route' on pg 232? Why (according to L) wont it work? If niether the externalist or internalist route works, what does this mean for virtue ethics?
10. Why does L claim that virtue ethics is concerned with "style over substance'? What does he mean? Is it what you do or how you do it that matters?
11. At the bottom of page 11 he claims "things have gotten more complex". What rests on this claim? Do you agree?

10th March - Locke

Reading;
2nd Treatise, Book II, Chaphters 1 - 5

Questions;

1. In section 6 Locke give us the law which governs the state of nature. What is that law?
What is the arugment for it?

2. In that state of nature, who has the right to punish people who break this law? What do you think of this claim?

3. According to the arugments found on page 11, can we punish an alien for breaking the laws of a country he/she visits? Why?

4. What is the state of war? According to pg 16, how do we avoid it?
What do you have the right to do to a man who "makes war upon [you]"? Why?

5. According to page 15, section 19, what can I do to a theif? Why? Are you convinced by this arugment?

6. God gives "the world to men in common" yet we have individual property which "does not depend on the express consent of all commoners". What is Locke's arugment for this? What do you think of the arugment?

7. According to arugments around the bottome of page 20, when does our claim to property end? Do you think is right? Can you think of any counterexamples?

8. Locke claims re: land that there is "more than the yet unprovided could use'? Is this true? Is it true of all natural resources, eg/fossil fuels? How does this affect Locke's arugment?

9. Locke claims that "it is labour indeed that puts the difference of vaule on everything'. Why does he think this? Can you think of anything which we place great vaule on which takes relatively little labour to produce?

10. If labour puts the difference of vaule on things, then why, according to the arugments on pg 28 and 29, do we place high vaule on diamonds/gold/money? What do you think of these arugments?

Thursday 3rd March

The main reading is the whole Baron article, please also skim the Kant. You do not have to read the Williams.

As always, questions below. Please have a think about them before the seminar, and if you can't answer them re do the reading, email me, or come to the seminar with specific issues I can help you with.

KANT QUESTIONS

1. What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative? What does it mean to 'will a maxim as a universal law'? Can you think of any good maxims that you wouldn't will as universal?

2. What is the 2nd formulation? What is the difference between an ends and a means? Does the 2nd formulation apply to animals? Should it?

BARON QUESTIONS

1. What is consequentialism? Is Mill a consequentialist? Is Kant?

2. What is the difference between focusing on goals and focusing on principles? Which do consequentialists focus on? Which do you focus on?

3. According to Baron (pg 10) and Kant, why do we adhere to certain principles? What do you think of this claim?

4. We are, according to Baron/Kant, obliged to have which two ends? (pg 13)

Suppose we are obliged to have certain ends, which ends do you think these should be?

5. What qualifications does Kant (according to Baron) build into his claims re:ends (pages 13 - 17)? Do you think there are any counterexamples here? I.e. Things which we think are wrong which would be following these ends?

6. What is the distinction between promoting and honouring a value? Which does the Kantian put emphasis on? Is this a problem?

7. What is the excessive demands problem? How does the Kantian avoid it? Is there any reply if you are not a Kantian?

8. What is a 'moral saint'? Do you know anyone like this? Are they good friends/lovers/fun people? What would a world of moral saints look like? Is this a problem for the consequentialist?

Thursday 24th Feb

Reading;
Hobbes Leviathan
Sections 13, 14, 17, 21

Questions;

Chaphter 13
1. Does Hobbes say there can be right and wrong in war? Do you agree?
2. What stops man from being at war with one another according to Hobbes? Do you agree?

Chaphter 14
1. What is a law of nature?
2. What is the fundamental law of nature, according to Hobbes?
3. What is the 2nd law of nature?
4. What is it to "lay down a right"? Do you think there are any rights we cannot give up in this way? Does Hobbes?

Chaphter 17
1. Hobbes explains why some animals live socialbly even though they cannot speak. What are his explanations? Do you find them convincing?

Chaphter 21
1. What is a free man? Do you think you would qualify as a free man?
2. Hobbes aruges, around pg 148, that the liberty of the subject is consistent with the unlimited power of the soverign. What is the arugment? Are you convinced by it?

Essays

My advice on *this* essay;
1. Please use double spacing, and 12 point font so I have room to comment

2. Dont worry about referencing in the correct way for *this* essay. If you know how to use Havard/any other system please do, but dont worry if you dont. The Author, Title and pages is enough for this time. (***But wont be in future!)

3. What I really care about is ARUGMENTS.

The only thing relevant in your philosophy essay is the following:

• A statment of your thesis (main idea), or an important thesis you reject.

• An argument for your thesis which you accept

• An important/influential argument for your thesis which you reject because you accept some counter-arguments against it.
• An important/influential argument against your thesis which you reject because you accept a counter-argument against it.

• The counter-arguments I’ve just mentioned.

4. Take a stand in your essay. All too often essays 'sit on the fence', spend time weighing up various views and conculde its all very complicated and theres no good answer. Its much better if you choose a thesis and do all you can to defend such a thesis - this is likely to provide much more evidence of philosophical skill in dealing with arugments (see point 3)

5. A brilliant essay will be;
Revelant to the question; see point 3. In addition make sure that the arugments in your essay are
A.for/against your thesis,
B.your thesis is relevant to the question

So in an essay with the thesis 'All war is unjust' and arugment that was is ILLEGAL is not revelant (unless you are aruging that being illegal entails being unjust)
Similarily, the above essay on war may be great, but wont attract good marks in response to a question about Kant. (Unless you can show that 1. Kant seems to hold that some wars are just 2. All war is unjust 3. Therefore Kant is wrong)

Show understanding
That is, it will be clear that the author understands their position, and the arugments offered for/against it

Have a clear structure
It will be clear where the essay is heading, and what each paragraph is supposed achieve. Feel free to use sub sections and/or numbered headings if this helps.
An introduction summing up what the essay is about and what you will be conculding and a conclusion showing how you did this.

Use clear and precise language

Have a clear thesis, which is aruged for. See point 4. It is often a good idea to start your essay with a statment of your thesis; 'In this essay I will aruge that X'...


6. Secondary reading is **great**, but I understand this is your first essay and you dont have much time. I wont be marking down for the lack of secondary reading, but if you run out of things to talk about then you should think about doing some. If you can write 2,500 good words on the readings in the course pack, no problem.

Here are some links from the philosophy department about how to write essays;

http://www.bris.ac.uk/philosophy/current/undergrad/essayadvice.html

http://www.bris.ac.uk/philosophy/current/undergrad/studyguide/essayguide1.html

http://www.bris.ac.uk/philosophy/current/undergrad/studyguide/essayguide2.html

And for what its worth, how you'll be assessed;

http://www.bris.ac.uk/philosophy/current/undergrad/guidelines.html

Thursday 17th Feb

Readings;

Mill, Utilitariansim, (concentrate on Chaphter 2)
Williams, 'Jim and The Indians'

Please consider the following;
MILL QUESTIONS
1. Mill talks about two conceptions of utilitarianism on pg 163 - that of Bentham and that of the "common herd". What are the two conceptions? Which does Mill think is the best?
2. What is the 'Greatest Happiness Principle'?
3. Would the epicureans agree that 'life has no higher end than pleasure'? Would Mill? Do you agree?
4. In the previous question, what did you count as pleasure? What would Mill count?
5. Can you think of a situtaion in which the "Greatest Happiness Principle' would tell you to do something which most people think is wrong?
Do you think that these types of situations can be explained by the utitilarians?

WILLLIAMS QUESTIONS
1. Is Williams aruguing for or against utilitarianism?
2. What is George's situation?
What do you think he should do?
What would the utilitarian say?
If there are different, what does that show?
3. What is Jim's situation?
What do you think he should do?
What would the utilitarian say?
If they are different, what does that show?
4. What is an example of a first order project?
What is an example of a second order project?
5. How does Williamson aruge with regards to utilitarianism?
What do you think of the arugment?

10th Feb 2010

10th Feb 2010 - 1st Seminar

Two readings;
M.Midgley, 'Trying Out One's New Sword'
Plato, The Repulic, pgs 43 - 55

Please consider the below questions. You do not need to write the answers down (though of course you can if that helps you) but please take some time to think about them. If you cant answer the below (especially the first few) then you probably havent understood the reading. It might be helpful to do it again slowly, focusing on the questions, email me, or turn up at the seminar with specific issues/questions can help you with.


MIDGLEY QUESTIONS

1. Does Midgley agree with moral isolationsim?
2. What would the moral isolationist say in response to the view that 'the chinese one child policy is morally wrong'?
3. What is moral isolationism? Do you think it is a good position?
4. What arugments does Midgley provide in regards to moral isolationism around page 72?
5. What do you think of these arugments?

PLATO QUESTIONS

1. Would you agree that 'morality is a convience'? Would Glaucon?
2. Who does Glaucon aruge will be happier - the (truly) just man, or the unjust man? What do you think?
3. Does Glaucon think that we should want to be just, or that we should want to seem just? What is the difference?
4. Would you commit a crime such as theft if you knew you would never be caught? Would it be the right thing to do?
5. Does being just ever bring its own rewards?