SECOND PAPER
TOPICS
Write a 2000 to 2500 word (
Please bear in mind in writing that the virtues of a philosophy paper are clarity, depth of analysis and critical questioning, judicious consideration of arguments, and logical organization. Be sensitive to such questions as: Are my claims clear? Are my arguments clear? Am I being fair to opposing views and adequately appreciative of what might be said in response to my claims and arguments? Also, when you make claims about a philosopher we have read, make sure that you support your interpretation with specific references to the text.
Finally, academic integrity requires that you clearly acknowledge and reference ideas you have derived from others (whether from books or from the Internet). Especially when you take a specific formulation of a point, it is necessary to make that clear with quotation. The College's policy on academic integrity and plagiarism can be found at:
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/lsa/detail/0,2034,24%255Farticle%255F5143,00.htm
If nothing else, please bear in mind that this is an ethics course.
1. Nietzsche says of Kant’s famous formula that “the categorical imperative smells of cruelty.” (Genealogy.II.6.1) Present what you think would be Nietzsche’s strongest criticisms of Kant’s moral philosophy, giving special attention to this quote. Then say what you think Kant’ most effective replies to these criticisms would be. Finally, critically assess the overall debate. Whose picture of ethics do you find most persuasive and why?
2. Kant’s second formulation of the CI says: “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other other, always at the same as an end, never merely as a means.” Consider the following utilitarian response: “This principle is completely consistent with a form of utilitarianism, like Mill’s, that treats dignity (or autonomy) as an important constituent of human happiness. Utilitarianism never recommends that individuals be treated merely as means, since its end (the greatest overall happiness) is one that any agent morally should endorse, and since happiness itself includes rational functioning as a part.” Critically discuss Kant’s ethics in light of this statement. What morally and philosophically important differences are there between Kant’s ethics (especially the second formulation of the CI) and Millian utilitarianism? Say which picture of morality you find most persuasive and why.
3. Critically discuss Rawls’s idea of a choice of principles of justice (or, more generally, principles of moral right and wrong) from behind a veil of ignorance in an “original position” as an interpretation of Kant’s CI, in its different formulations, especially with respect to the End-in-itself formulation. In what respects is Rawls’s notion within the spirit of Kant’s approach and in what ways do you think he departs from Kant? If possible, make use of an example (or examples) to illustrate your points. Finally, critically assess Kant’s and Rawls’ ideas. What do you think are their strongest and weakest points and why.
4. The End-in-itself formulation of the CI is both suggestive and deeply resonant in ordinary thought. But it is also puzzling and hard to make precise. Write an essay in which you attempt to interpret, critically analyze, and evaluate this idea, including:
a. an extended analysis of an example of something you think the formulation rules out,
b. some discussion of whether the formulation entails a kind of absolutism, for example, that it is always wrong to lie, coerce, or manipulate, regardless of the consequences. (If you think it does, what does this say about the formulation’s acceptability?)
c. some discussion of how the formulation relates to the passages in the Groundwork where Kant discusses what it is to be a rational being, what it is to have a will, etc.
d. some discussion of how the second formulation, as you interpret it, relates to the other formulations, in light of Kant’s claim that the various formulations are equivalent.
5. Discuss the
fundamental dilemma of metaethics and Kant and Mill’s ethical philosophy as a
response to this dilemma. Which, in your
view, is more successful and why?