Contemporary Ethical Theory

Syllabus

PHIL 137gm (49650R)

THH 301

3:30 MW

NB: Multimedia assignments with URL links for WRIT 140

will be made available on Blackboard.

Professor

John Dreher

Office: MHP 211

x05173

Hours: Mon Aug 23 – Wed Dec 1

Mon 10:30 - 11:30

Wed 9:30 – 10:30

Hours: Dec 5 – Dec 10

Review for Final Examination

TBA

Last Minute Review for Final Examination:

TBA

Final Examination

TBA

Discussion Leaders

Aness Webster

Monday 10 (49562R)

Monday 11 (49561R)

Office: MHP B5C

Hours: Mon 12:00 (tentative), by appointment

Kenny Pearce

Wed 10 (49564R)

Wed 11 (49565R)

Office: B5C

Hours: Mon 2:30 (tentative), by appointment

Sam Shpall

Thu 2 (49563R)

Fri 11 (49566R)

Office:

Hours:

MATERIALS: PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS:

Reeve, trans, Plato, Republic, Hackett

Irwin, trans, Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Hackett

Wooton, ed, John Locke, The Political Writings, Hackett

Warner & Livingstonn, editors, David Hume: Political Writings,

Hackett

Ellington, trans, Immanuel Kant: Grounding for the Metaphysics of

Morals

Gray, John Stuart Mill, On Liberty and Other Essays, Oxford

LITERARY WORKS:

Woodruff, Paul, trans, Antigone, Sophocles, Hackett

Shakespeare, The Oxford Shakespeare: The Tragedy of King

Richard III

Dozois, editor, The Best of the Best, St. Martin’s Griffin

Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale, Anchor, Random House

DESCRIPTION: This course deals with selected topics in contemporary social ethics through classical philosophical and literary texts as well as contemporary literature, including science fiction.

The course takes up two central issues in social ethics. The first issue concerns the origin and nature of justice. The theory of justice deals with the principles that define what people owe each other and what individuals and their societies owe each other. Obvious questions about the nature of individuality and the role of free choice and expression are relevant to the theory of justice.

The second issue concerns the tendency throughout history of governments to rely upon authoritarian and elitist schemes of justice. By an authoritarian and elitist scheme I mean a system of government which reposes authority in “elite” groups on the theory that the elite know what is good and are therefore best equipped to order the conditions, values and hence lives of the governed.

The course begins by considering the origin of justice in Western thought and its relation to the conception of the good. Sophocles’ Antigone examines the ancient conflict between the requirements of the state and moral requirements that transcend the state. In this great drama, Sophocles tells the eternal story of how inconsistent moral demands inevitably lead to conflict and tragedy.

The requirements of conventional justice may deviate from what is genuinely good, which in fact is the main problem addressed by Plato in the Republic. We shall find that Plato endorses a solution to the problem that is authoritarian and elitist, the view that society is best governed by the wise on the theory that they know what is genuinely good. Plato’s theory therefore depends in part upon the possibility of actually knowing what is good. Yet Plato’s discussion of the good was criticized by Aristotle for being intractably abstract and therefore virtually useless. Although Aristotle attempts to ground his own theory of the good for human beings in his conception of human nature, he also finds it necessary to rely upon conventional wisdom to fully articulate his vision of the good for human beings. For Aristotle, like Plato, conventional wisdom will be best represented by those in a position to know, that is an elite group who in effect define the good for the governed.

Authoritarianism as a social and political theory took a turn away from the teachings of secular philosophers with the emergence of rulers who claimed to govern by Divine right. The idea that special people are empowered by God to rule others and that their rule is justified because it is the fulfillment of God’s will is perhaps the most blatant form of authoritarianism in Western history, with the possible exceptions of the totalitarian schemes of the twentieth century. This part of the course details the consequences of authoritarian rule for society by focusing on the English civil wars. In his drama, The Tragedy of Richard III, Shakespeare analyzes the psychology of the lust for power.

The reason that England’s experience with authoritarian government is of special interest is that many of the great liberal, modern theories were developed as a response to civic violence in England during the late medieval and early modern periods. The course examines four great, liberal theories concerning the origin of justice and the role of the state in promoting and preserving it. The first of these, by John Locke, argues that the role of the state is to protect the rights of the governed, and not to define for the governed what is right for them. This presupposes that there are rights to be protected. But who is in a position to make authoritative judgments about claims to rights? And if those rights are God-given, mustn’t those in who are in a position to know about rights also be in a position to know God’s will? Thus, Locke’s view may be unstable as a secular account of the proper role of the state.

David Hume argues that standards of justice are purely conventional, and that they arise from practices and patterns of cooperation. In this way he proposes a purely naturalist conception of justice (viz. one that has no reference whatever to the Divine). Naturalist views have often been favored in modern social and political theory, but they presuppose that there are practices and patterns of cooperation that are widely shared. Hume’s own examples are drawn from relatively general descriptions of the conditions of primitive life. But it is hardly clear that the conventions that emerge in primitive conditions will be consistent (so as to avoid conflict) and it is even less clear that Hume’s theory is applicable to industrial much less technologically advanced societies.

This leads to two the two great theories of the nineteenth century, one by Mill; the other by Kant. Although these theories are in ways bitterly opposed they agree on a crucial point, which is that society and the state should respect the good that is located within the individual. The principal point of disagreement between the theories concerns exactly what that good is. Mill sees the good to be the satisfaction of desire; Kant locates the good in a rational scheme of life, which he believes will lead to societies in which rational agents act with respect for each other. Mill struggles with the obvious point that not all desires appear to be good and certainly many should not be cultivated. But who is to decide which desires should be encouraged or at least tolerated and which should be suppressed? Some argue that Mill’s own theory relies on the elite to discern the good. Kant’s solution, which relies upon the theory that the rational life derives from the proper use of unaided reason, attempts to define principles by which we should live. Kant vigorously rejects the criticism that only the intellectual elite are in a position to apply his theory, but the truth is that when it comes to application, even the intellectual elite find themselves in disagreement over problematic cases – for example when the duties commended by unaided reason appear to conflict. These tensions within the two great modern theories made it impossible to foreclose the re-emergence of authoritarian schemes in the twentieth century, particularly Fascism and Bolshevism.

Where are we today? Where will we be tomorrow? It is right to insist that we have been unable to reach agreement about how people should live together and hence upon the general principles by which their relations should be governed. On the other hand, it is obvious that human beings will arrange their lives somehow. The final part of the course deals with some of the challenges, as if there were a need for more challenges, posed by contemporary society and by modern advances in technology. These trends are examined and illustrated in contemporary works of fiction. Some, like Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, fear that frustration with current conditions could lead to dreadful authoritarian solutions. She warns us of the horrific consequences of authoritarian states that seek to justify themselves by crude and perverse appeals to religion and to social ideals, like feminism and environmentalism. Other stories, like those by Nancy Kress, Greg Bear, Bruce Sterling and William Gibson challenge the notion of a coherent individual that is presupposed by virtually every modern ethical theory. The challenges identified by Atwood and the other writers arguably are the very same problems that stirred Sophocles and Shakespeare.

Requirements: There will be two midterm examinations, which will test for knowledge of the reading assignments as well as the expository and supplementary information delivered during class. The examinations will emphasize the philosophical texts. There will also be a final examination. The first part of the final examination will test for knowledge of the reading assignments as well as expository and supplementary information delivered during class sessions following the second midterm examination. The second part of the final examination will be a comprehensive question dealing with the main theme of the course. The comprehensive question will be discussed towards the end of the semester. Class attendance, at both lectures and discussion sections, is very strongly recommended. If you must miss a class, please make arrangements to share notes with a classmate. Time simply will not allow busy sections leaders to rehearse lectures during office hours.

There will be two short papers, approximately five to seven pages (1500 – 2500 words) in length. All papers should be submitted as hard copies in lecture on the due date and electronically via Blackboard before lecture on the due date.