Short Paper Assignments

(Papers should be e-mailed to rlee@uark.edu by the deadline.)

1. Due Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
In a footnote to Utilitarianism (later versions) (see web) John Stuart Mill makes a distinction between motive and intention in response to an objection by Rev. Davies to a claim Mill made in the text. Explain Mill's claim (that Davies' is objecting to), Davies' objection, and Mill's response to it. Who is right here? Defend your answer.

2. Due Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
Gilbert Harman in "Practical Reasoning" talks a lot about intention. He offers some theses. (He numbers these; for example on page 55 he says "The second thesis ...") Explain what each of these theses is. On page 65 Harman writes "Let us apply this suggestion to the problem of distinguishing intended means to ends from merely foreseen consequences of actions." Explain his solution here and how his theses (plus the suggestion) enter into it.

3. Due Tuesday, February 2, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
In "Why there is no deductive logic of practical reason" John Searle addresses Kant's "doctrine that he who wills the end wills the means." Explain and critically discuss Searle's arguments on this issue.

4. Due Tuesday, February 9, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
What is the problem of "bootstrap rationality" that Bratman is addressing -- and what brings up that problem? Explain.

5. Due Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
Fischer et al. in "Quinn on Double Effect" offer several "Bomb Remover" cases. What are these cases and how do they differ? Explain what Fischer et al. are trying to show by using theses cases. Woodward responds to Fischer et al. Explain Woodward's reply. Who is right here? Look at the doctrine of double effect as laid out in an early footnote in Quinn's article. Apply that to each of the three "Bomb Remover" cases.

6. Due Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
In the second half of "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect" Philippa Foot appears to reject the doctrine of double effect. What is her reason, her argument, for this rejection? Is it a good argument? Critically discuss.

7. Due Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
Do (a) or (b):
(a) Thomas Nagel, in "Agent-Relative Morality" talks a lot of "agent relative" reasons and goals and "agent-neutral" reasons or goals or values. Carefully explain this distinction and how each fits into morality, as Nagel sees it. Where does the doctrine of Double Effect fit into this? Explain. (Warning: This selection is part of a larger work and Nagel presumably has explained the distinction earlier, so while he appeals to it here, he writes as if he has already explained it; so you will need to unpack what he says to figure out what is going on.)

(b) In her "Medalist's address" G.E.M. Anscombe invokes the principle "Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu." (p.54) Thomas Nagel on pp.46ff of "Agent-Relative Morality" attempts to explain the rationale for this puzzling principle. Explain what the principle means. Carefully explain Nagel's explanation of its rationale.

8. Due Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
Jonathan Bennett writes: "Granted that intending something bad as a means is different from intending it as an end or wanting it for itself, perhaps the two are alike in some morally significant way. Let us dig for it." (p.106) He then considers "three men." By the end of the discussion he says "Is there a moral conclusion to be drawn from this? It seems unlikely." (p.108) Is there some way in which intending something as an end and intending something as a means are alike in some morally significant way (such that, for example, it may be wrong to intend something "evil" as an end and also wrong to intend something "evil" as a means)? Explore an answer to this, being sure to explain how Bennett reaches his conclusions and where you differ from him (or why you agree with him).

9. Due Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
In section II of "Contractualism and Utilitarianism" Scanlon writes "An act is wrong if its performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any system of rules for the general regulation of behavior which no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced general agreement." Give an example of an action which would be wrong according to Scanlon's view -- and explain why it is wrong. Give an example of an action that would not be wrong on Scanlon's view -- and explain why it is not wrong. (Obviously such explanations will require carefully explaining Scanlon's sentence.) Finally, consider the doctrine of double effect. Could the DDE be part of a "system of rules for the general regulation of behavior which no one could reasonably reject ...?" Explain.

10. Due Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
Scanlon in "The Illusory Appeal of Double Effect" distinguishes the "critical" and "deliberative" uses of moral principles. Explain how Scanlon uses this distinction to help account for our judgments in cases in which the doctrine of double effect is often used appealed to. Critically discuss.

11. Due Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
Do either (a) or (b)
(a) Offer helpful critical comments on Danny's presentation. The comments should be on the substance (i.e. the views presented) of the presentation. Please give a copy of your comments to the presenter (at the Wednesday class would be sufficient) as well as submitting them to the instructor.

(b) Explain principle M on page 38 of Moral Dimensions. Carefully explain each of the clauses and qualifications and their significance (e.g., explaining how the principle would be different if they were left out). Give various examples of the application of the principle which illustrate the importance of the clauses and qualifications.

12. Due Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
Do either (a) or (b)
(a) Offer helpful critical comments on Kathyrn's presentation. The comments should be on the substance (i.e. the views presented) of the presentation. Please give a copy of your comments to the presenter (at the Wednesday class would be sufficient) as well as submitting them to the instructor.

(b) Scanlon talks of "the meaning-altering effects of incentive threats" (p.79). What are "incentive threats?" What are the distinguished from? (Explain, using examples.) Scanlon distinguishes between the "meaning" and the "permissibility" of an action. What does he mean by the "meaning" of an action? Finally, give examples of "the meaning-altering effects of incentive threats."

13. Due Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
Scanlon argues that "the idea that we should treat all rational beings as ends in themselves is plausibly understood as a general characterization of moral permissibility. Understood in this way, however, it does not in itself make the permissibility of an action depend on what the agent saw as reasons for performing it." (p.105) Explain his argument. Does it also follow that the permissibility of an action does not depend on the agent's intentions? Explain.

14. Due Tuesday, April 27, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
Do either (a) or (b)
(a) Offer helpful critical comments on Jera's presentation. The comments should be on the substance (i.e. the views presented) of the presentation. Please give a copy of your comments to the presenter (at the Wednesday class would be sufficient) as well as submitting them to the instructor.

(b) On page 128 Scanlon tells us what it is for a person to be blameworthy for an action (or at least what it is to claim such a thing). Explain his account. Explain his "Joe at the party" example and use it to illustrate his thesis. Does Scanlon's account of blameworthiness seem correct? Critically discuss.

15. Due Sunday, May 2, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
Do either (a) or (b)
(a) Offer helpful critical comments on Brandon's presentation. The comments should be on the substance (i.e. the views presented) of the presentation. Please give a copy of your comments to the presenter (at the Wednesday class would be sufficient) as well as submitting them to the instructor.

(b) Scanlon writes "One can ... blame oneself ... The very idea of blaming oneself may seem at first to present a difficult for my account ..." (p.154) Explain Scanlon's account of blame. Explain why blaming oneself may seem to present a difficulty for that account. Explain Scanlon's response to these difficulties. Critically discuss.

Richard Lee, rlee@uark.edu, last modified: 30 April 2010

1.	Due Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	In a footnote to Utilitarianism (later versions) (see web) John Stuart Mill makes a distinction between motive and intention in response to an objection by Rev. Davies to a claim Mill made in the text. Explain Mill's claim (that Davies' is objecting to), Davies' objection, and Mill's response to it. Who is right here? Defend your answer.

2.	Due Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	Gilbert Harman in "Practical Reasoning" talks a lot about intention. He offers some theses. (He numbers these; for example on page 55 he says "The second thesis ...") Explain what each of these theses is. On page 65 Harman writes "Let us apply this suggestion to the problem of distinguishing intended means to ends from merely foreseen consequences of actions." Explain his solution here and how his theses (plus the suggestion) enter into it.

3.	Due Tuesday, February 2, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	In "Why there is no deductive logic of practical reason" John Searle addresses Kant's "doctrine that he who wills the end wills the means." Explain and critically discuss Searle's arguments on this issue.

4.	Due Tuesday, February 9, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	What is the problem of "bootstrap rationality" that Bratman is addressing -- and what brings up that problem? Explain.

5.	Due Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	Fischer et al. in "Quinn on Double Effect" offer several "Bomb Remover" cases. What are these cases and how do they differ? Explain what Fischer et al. are trying to show by using theses cases. Woodward responds to Fischer et al. Explain Woodward's reply. Who is right here? Look at the doctrine of double effect as laid out in an early footnote in Quinn's article. Apply that to each of the three "Bomb Remover" cases.

6.	Due Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	In the second half of "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect" Philippa Foot appears to reject the doctrine of double effect. What is her reason, her argument, for this rejection? Is it a good argument? Critically discuss.

7.	Due Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	Do (a) or (b): (a) Thomas Nagel, in "Agent-Relative Morality" talks a lot of "agent relative" reasons and goals and "agent-neutral" reasons or goals or values. Carefully explain this distinction and how each fits into morality, as Nagel sees it. Where does the doctrine of Double Effect fit into this? Explain. (Warning: This selection is part of a larger work and Nagel presumably has explained the distinction earlier, so while he appeals to it here, he writes as if he has already explained it; so you will need to unpack what he says to figure out what is going on.) (b) In her "Medalist's address" G.E.M. Anscombe invokes the principle "Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu." (p.54) Thomas Nagel on pp.46ff of "Agent-Relative Morality" attempts to explain the rationale for this puzzling principle. Explain what the principle means. Carefully explain Nagel's explanation of its rationale.

8.	Due Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	Jonathan Bennett writes: "Granted that intending something bad as a means is different from intending it as an end or wanting it for itself, perhaps the two are alike in some morally significant way. Let us dig for it." (p.106) He then considers "three men." By the end of the discussion he says "Is there a moral conclusion to be drawn from this? It seems unlikely." (p.108) Is there some way in which intending something as an end and intending something as a means are alike in some morally significant way (such that, for example, it may be wrong to intend something "evil" as an end and also wrong to intend something "evil" as a means)? Explore an answer to this, being sure to explain how Bennett reaches his conclusions and where you differ from him (or why you agree with him).

9.	Due Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	In section II of "Contractualism and Utilitarianism" Scanlon writes "An act is wrong if its performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any system of rules for the general regulation of behavior which no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced general agreement." Give an example of an action which would be wrong according to Scanlon's view -- and explain why it is wrong. Give an example of an action that would not be wrong on Scanlon's view -- and explain why it is not wrong. (Obviously such explanations will require carefully explaining Scanlon's sentence.) Finally, consider the doctrine of double effect. Could the DDE be part of a "system of rules for the general regulation of behavior which no one could reasonably reject ...?" Explain.

10.	Due Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	Scanlon in "The Illusory Appeal of Double Effect" distinguishes the "critical" and "deliberative" uses of moral principles. Explain how Scanlon uses this distinction to help account for our judgments in cases in which the doctrine of double effect is often used appealed to. Critically discuss.

11.	Due Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	Do either (a) or (b) (a) Offer helpful critical comments on Danny's presentation. The comments should be on the substance (i.e. the views presented) of the presentation. Please give a copy of your comments to the presenter (at the Wednesday class would be sufficient) as well as submitting them to the instructor. (b) Explain principle M on page 38 of Moral Dimensions. Carefully explain each of the clauses and qualifications and their significance (e.g., explaining how the principle would be different if they were left out). Give various examples of the application of the principle which illustrate the importance of the clauses and qualifications.

12.	Due Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	Do either (a) or (b) (a) Offer helpful critical comments on Kathyrn's presentation. The comments should be on the substance (i.e. the views presented) of the presentation. Please give a copy of your comments to the presenter (at the Wednesday class would be sufficient) as well as submitting them to the instructor. (b) Scanlon talks of "the meaning-altering effects of incentive threats" (p.79). What are "incentive threats?" What are the distinguished from? (Explain, using examples.) Scanlon distinguishes between the "meaning" and the "permissibility" of an action. What does he mean by the "meaning" of an action? Finally, give examples of "the meaning-altering effects of incentive threats."

13.	Due Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	Scanlon argues that "the idea that we should treat all rational beings as ends in themselves is plausibly understood as a general characterization of moral permissibility. Understood in this way, however, it does not in itself make the permissibility of an action depend on what the agent saw as reasons for performing it." (p.105) Explain his argument. Does it also follow that the permissibility of an action does not depend on the agent's intentions? Explain.

14.	Due Tuesday, April 27, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	Do either (a) or (b) (a) Offer helpful critical comments on Jera's presentation. The comments should be on the substance (i.e. the views presented) of the presentation. Please give a copy of your comments to the presenter (at the Wednesday class would be sufficient) as well as submitting them to the instructor. (b) On page 128 Scanlon tells us what it is for a person to be blameworthy for an action (or at least what it is to claim such a thing). Explain his account. Explain his "Joe at the party" example and use it to illustrate his thesis. Does Scanlon's account of blameworthiness seem correct? Critically discuss.

15.	Due Sunday, May 2, 2010, 8:00 p.m.
	Do either (a) or (b) (a) Offer helpful critical comments on Brandon's presentation. The comments should be on the substance (i.e. the views presented) of the presentation. Please give a copy of your comments to the presenter (at the Wednesday class would be sufficient) as well as submitting them to the instructor. (b) Scanlon writes "One can ... blame oneself ... The very idea of blaming oneself may seem at first to present a difficult for my account ..." (p.154) Explain Scanlon's account of blame. Explain why blaming oneself may seem to present a difficulty for that account. Explain Scanlon's response to these difficulties. Critically discuss.