Assignments

 

●    For Monday 1/23: Read the article by Richard Brandt in the Moser collection.

●    For Wed. 1/25: Read the essay by Popper. Write one paragraph in which you state what you take to be his main claim(s) about moral relativism and moral knowledge. Also, write up at least two fairly specific questions that arise in connection with this essay. They can be “what does he mean by” questions or they can be criticisms. You can pick your topic, but I’d most like it to be about what he says concerning standards and/or about moral knowledge. (See esp. the last few pages.) We will discuss his paper, you will read your paragraphs to the group. Then, you will rewrite for next week.

●    For Mon. 1/30: Write a 1 or 2 page essay on one of the following three topics. You do not have to include an introductory section. Just state and explain your answer to the questions. Try to make your responses as clear and direct as possible. Email me or stop by my office if you have questions about this assignment.

a) What is Popper claiming in the sections in which he writes about “getting nearer to the truth”? Is his idea that we never actually get the truth, but we do get closer and closer to it? If so, is what he says about this consistent with the fallibilist view we discussed in class?

b) What exactly is the point of the argument displayed on p. 51? What is Popper’s response to this argument?

c) Popper begins the final paragraph of section 15 by saying “It may be objected to all this that, whether or not my views on the nature of ethical knowledge are acceptable...” But what are Popper’s view about ethical knowledge? Does he think that we can have ethical knowledge? Explain. (Or explain why you can’t figure out what his view is.)

●    For Wed. 2/1: Read the article 3, by James Rachels. Rachels summarizes his conclusions in the second sentence of the section beginning in the middle of p. 64. He says that it adds up to “pretty thorough repudiation of” Culture Relativism. Go back to his statement of what Cultural Relativism is, and then look his arguments for the conclusions he draws here. Write a paragraph (not to be collected) in which you sketch how a defender of the theory might respond to one of his points.

●    For Mon. 2/6: Rewrite the paragraph you wrote for today about Rachels. Make it 1-2 page critical discussion of one of his points. Keep in mind the various points about writing that we discussed in class. It is fine to write about a different point than the one you mentioned in class today if, on reflection, you think that you this other point is a better one.

●    For Wed. 2/8: Read essays 4-7. This is more than the typical amount of reading, but essays 4-5 are largely descriptive, and we will not dwell on them. Essay 6 is short and makes a fairly simple point that may be familiar. We will discuss it. Essay 7 is philosophically more complex, and we will spend some time on it. Come in with a one paragraph question or comment on some aspect of this (preferably Essay 7, or maybe 6) , not to be collected..

●    For Mon. 2/13: Write a page or two about the article by Ross or (preferably) the article by Moody-Adams (or follow up on something from today’s class). Keep your topic narrowly defined. Default question: in the light of what we’ve discussed so far, discuss the meaning of the phrase “fundamental moral disagreement”. Is it clear what this means? Are there puzzles about how to interpret it? Use examples to illustrate the point. The phrase comes up a couple of times in Moody-Adams’ paper.                 

●    For Wed. 2/15: We will continue our discussion of Moody-Adams’ article. We’ll start with further discussion of the idea raised at the end of class about the significance of the cultural relativists’ claims. We will also begin discussion of the articles 9 and 10 (Postow and Lyons). Read them for Weds. Come in with a question about one of them, preferably Lyons.

●    For Mon. 2/20: Come to class with a written paragraph raising a question about some aspect of the essay by Lyons.

●    For Wed. 2/22: Read the essay by Gilbert Harman in the anthology. Write one paragraph raising a question about or an objection to something he says. We will read these aloud in class on Weds.

●    For Mon. 2/27: Write a 1-2 page essay about Harman’s paper. You may respond to one of the questions on the handout from class, or you may address a question of your own. Email your essays to me ahead of time if you can.

●    For Mon. 3/1: Read the essay by Graham in the anthology. A fairly tentative schedule for the rest of the semester is available here: tentative schedule.

●    For Mon. 3/6. Read the article by Nagel. Write a 1 paragraph or so response to one of the questions distributed in class on 3/1, or to a question you’ve posed yourself. Email that response to me by noon on Monday.

●    For Wed. 3/8: We will continue discussing Nagel’s article. Send me by email another paragraph about the paper, taking into account the ideas that we discussed in class today. Two things you might want to think about: i) his examples of basic “passions” that can be rationally assessed; ii) his discussion of free will and the analogy to moral/practical reasoning.

●    Here’s a link to the paper assignment distributed in class today: First Paper Assignment.

●    For Mon. 3/20: Read the article by Mackie. Here are the questions about Mackie’s paper that were distributed in class: Questions about Mackie. Send me a paragraph about this before class.

●    For Wed. 3/22: No written assignment. But be better prepared to discuss Mackie’s arguments about moral properties in the light of the ideas explained in class on 3/20.

●    For Mon. April 3: Read The Ethics of Belief by William Clifford. Print out and bring to class a copy of the paper. Come to class with some written questions or comments about Clifford’s essay. Be prepared to present your questions to the class.

●    For Wed. Apr. 5: As discussed in class on 4/3, send me by noon on Weds. a paragraph or two commenting on Clifford’s article. You may discuss any part of it, but I’d prefer that you discuss Clifford’s claim near the end of section I: “To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

●    For Mon. Apr. 10: Read The Will to Believe by William James. Print out and bring to class a copy of the paper. Come to class with, or send me ahead of time, some questions or comments on this essay. Focus on this question: does James have a good objection to Clifford? Keep in mind the various ideas we discussed in class on 4/5.

●    For Wed. Apr. 12: As discussed in class on 4/10. send me by noon on Weds. a paragraph or two commenting on James’s article, especially the merits of his objection to Clifford. Keep in mind the points we discussed in class concerning forced options, intellectually undecidable options, and so on.

●    For Mon. Apr. 17: Read Tom Kelly’s article The Rationality of Belief and Some Other Propositional Attitudes. Print out the article and bring it to class. Formulate at least 3 specific questions for Kelly. We will review his article, and your questions, in class. Also, here’s a link to the paper of mine that I mentioned: Clifford’s Principle and James’s Options.   

●    The Second Paper is due on Friday April 28.

 

 

 

 

.

Last updated April 19, 2006 by Richard Feldman