Ethical Theory

Spring 2004

Group Assignments and Topics

 

The group chair is responsible for collecting all sections of the paper written by all members of the group, arranging discussions between group members and organizing writing of the introduction and conclusion by all members, and submitting the final paper.

 

 

Group 1: Aristotle on the Moral Value, Problems, and Implications of Friendship

Chair:  F. Phair

Members:  Anderson (explanatory, interpretive), Jones (critical), Mayer (explanatory, interpretive), Oppenheimer and Phair (critical)

Topic Explanation, Suggested Readings, Sources:

    Aristotle's ethical theory (Nicomachean Ethics, Books VIII and IX) includes heavy emphasis on the moral (and political) value of friendship.  Your paper needs to focus on interpretive explanation of Aristotle's position along with critical appraisal of it.  There are new books and articles on Aristotle's philosophy of friendship.  Check both The Philosopher's Index and the UCF Library and SUS catalog for sources.  Remember that the explanatory and interpretive sections can be combined into one, but it is also possible to have two parts to this section, including the unique elements of both interpreters' explanations.  

     

 

Group 2:  An Analysis of the Moral Status or Value of Supererogatory Actions

Chair:  J. Rose

Members:  Jaffe (critical), Key (explanatory, interpretive), Krones (critical), McIntosh (explanatory, intepretive), Rose (critical)

 

Topic Explanation, some suggested readings, sources:  Your primary source is Susan Wolf's article, "Moral Saints."  Those of you who are writing and combining the explanatory, interpretive section of the paper need to look not only at Wolf's article, but at least one published critical analysis of it to write your section(s).  Remember here that it is possible either to combine the two explanatory/interpretive sections, or to present two different ones.  There are many articles and book chapters on the moral status of supererogatory actions.  Those who are writing critical analyses (and explanatory/interpretive sections) should check The Philosopher's Index and the UCF/SUS Library for relevant works.  This paper should focus on the problems involved in the morality or acceptability of supererogatory (saintly/heroic) actions from the point of view of some specific ethical theory or from some particular work. 

 

 

Group 3: Thomas Hobbes on the Possibility of a Good Life

Chair: M. Sambat

Members:  Hensen (Critical), Lees (Explanatory), Manning (Critical), Sambat (Explanatory)

 

    Topic Explanation, Suggested Readings, Sources:  Most people who write on the work of Thomas Hobbes neglect the possibility that Hobbes's work includes not only relevance to the simple maintenance of life as the reason for the establishment of cooperative groups and government systems, but that it may in fact be an important element of his position.  All of you who are writing on this topic need to read sections of Hobbes's Leviathan and perhaps his Elements of Law to determine what Hobbes may have had to say on this issue.  Critical sections must include consideration of Annette Baier's article, "Commodious Living" and at least one other source from an article or book on Hobbes.

 

 

 

Group 4:  Thomas Hobbes and the Possibility of a Good Life

Chair:  K. Voss

Members:  Bowles (explanatory, interpretive), Costello (critical), Harvey (explanatory, interpretive), Voss (critical)

 

See the Topic Explanation, Suggested Readings, and Sources for Group 3.  Your topic is the same.

 

 

 

Group 5:  Stoicism and Moral Responsibility

Chair: I. Arino

Members:  Arino (explanatory, interpretive), Cardott (critical), Donnelly (explanatory, interpretive), Michener (critical)

 

Topic Explanation, some suggested readings, sources:  Although Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius were not the only classical writers on Stoicism, they are perhaps the most well-known.  You should focus your attention on the positions of Epictetus and/or Aurelius on moral responsibility.  Remember that "responsibility" includes not only one's being subject to punishment or reward for what he or she has done, it also includes responsibility(ies) to oneself, to one's family or society that focuses on what you ought to DO, not what ought to be done TO you with respect to your past actions.  The question here for Stoicism is whether the Stoics have a rich or meaningful conception of what it is to be morally responsible.  To answer this question, you ought to check into works in general on the question of moral responsibility by writers such as Peter French, Harry Frankfurt, and J.M. Fischer and other recent commentators on the problem of responsibility.  You may (and should) find that this question is also very closely related to the problem of free will.

 

 

Group 6:  The Moral Significance of Self-Respect

Chair:  J. Valent

Members:  Buot (Critical), Johnson (explanatory, interpretive), Maluso (critical), Valent (explanatory, interpretive), Weissblatt (critical)

 

Topic Explanation, suggested readings, sources:  Your primary source for this topic is Thomas Hill, Jr.'s article (in the Ethical Traditions text) on self-respect.  There are many works on this issue, some of them focusing on variants of the topic.  For example, Thomas Hill's former student, Bernard Boxill, writes on self-respect and protest, and Robin Dillon has written numerous articles on self-respect.  All of you should read not only Hill's article in the text, but also read at least one additional work on the moral value and significance of self-respect for your element of this paper.  Other possible sources are the work of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Jean Hampton (in her article, "The Wisdom of the Egoist" or "Selflessness and Self-Respect").

 

Group 7:  Ethics without God

Chair: C. Hurlburt

Members:  Beers (critical), Colazzo (critical), Hurlburt (explanatory, interpretive), Lackey (explanatory, interpretive)

 

Topic Explanation, suggested readings, sources:  One of the most well-known writers on this topic is Kai Nielsen in his book, Ethics Without God.  But there are other positions that are relevant.  One obvious candidate for commentary or explanation is F. Nietzsche.  Others are J.P. Sartre, S. deBouvoir, and some works found in a book called Critiques of God.  Everyone writing on this topic should use an article or book chapter by or about K. Nielsen or F. Nietzsche on "ethics without God" broadly construed.  Those writing critical appraisals of this concept need to consult not only these positions/sources, but also one book, chapter, or article on the topic.  

 

 

Group 8:  Ethics without God

Chair:  Cochran

Members: Bartolillo (critical), Cochran (explanatory, interpretive), Manias (explanatory, interpretive), Mongelli (critical), Susman (critical)

 

Topic Explanation, suggested readings, sources: See the explanation for Group 7.  Topics are identical.

 

 

 

Group 9:  Brown vs. BOE and self-respect, Rawlsian theory, Kantian ethics, or Utilitarianism

Chair:  Garbade

Members:  Broadway (critical), Garbade (critical), Margolis (explanatory, interpretive), McNary (critical), Sullivan (explanatory, interpretive)

 

Topic Explanation, suggested readings, sources:  There is a link to the UCF Common Reader in the course syllabus.  These are your major sources for historical and documentary information about the Brown versus Board of Education case.  Philosophically, your major sources are an ethical theory or theories (Kantian or Utilitarian) that you believe best (or least) support the decision against segregation.  Also relevant to this course are questions of self-respect and respect for others as determining factors in assessing the moral impact of this decision.  You may wish to consult some of the sources listed above on the moral status of self-respect.

 

 

Group 10:  Unassigned (please send an e-mail or see me during office hours for group assignment)

Corley, Devins, Huggins, Smith, Stewart