Saturday 26 February 2011

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 17 February 2011

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?

Tuesday 15 February 2011

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?

Monday 7 February 2011

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?