Category: Philosophy

The assignment has two parts:
Part 1
Please do these readings BEFORE the weekend (you will be assigned two more for Monday):
Thomson: “A Defense of Abortion” (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265091?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents) and Don Marquis, “Why Abortion is Immoral” (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026961?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents), which both discuss abortion. We will take several classes to discuss abortion, but for this class, try to outline (for yourself) the articles (one for, and one against, abortion). What do you think are the main points of these articles? How would you explain them to someone who has not read the articles?
Part 2
Read Schouten- Fetuses, Orphans, and a Famous Violinist.pdf.Download Schouten- Fetuses, Orphans, and a Famous Violinist.pdf.
IN WRITING, from the articles we have read, choose the article that is most challenging to you (that is intentionally broad!). Explain what the challenge is, why it is challenging to you, and how you respond.
Be sure to pick an article or point that genuinely makes you question your own view, and explain what is a challenge to your way of thinking.

Do a 30-point seminar on an open question, on Monday where you will review the Justice readings by Rawls and Sen. You will review your own writings and try to find an issue that you can solve with either of the theories.

Read the articles by Sen (Sen- What Do We Want From a Theory of Justice.pdf Download Sen- What Do We Want From a Theory of Justice.pdf) and Khasnabish (to be added) 04-Ch2 -proofread Khasnabish-oct.8.pdf Download 04-Ch2 -proofread Khasnabish-oct.8.pdf
The goal is today’s class is to further discuss some of the complications surrounding the idea of “justice” in discussing ethics. In particular, in a world that is full of a wide variety of inequalities, how can justice be achieved? And do we all actually believe that justice is a valuable goal, or is it simply lip service paid to an unattainable ideal that serves to maintain the positions of those in power?
In Writing: After reading Rawls, and the critiques of Rawls, what is your view of how successfully he eliminates the basic tendency of all of us to favor our “group” or “groups” when we try to behave justly? What criticisms seem correct and supportable to you, and what criticisms seem to be unfair or inaccurate? This will take you at least one full page.

Complete readings “The Nature of Virtue”, by Aristotle, and “How Can I be a Better Person? On Virtue Ethics,” by Douglas Giles [“Virtue Ethics” by Julia Driver (Missing)]
You have now read something about three different ethical theories (utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Virtue theory). Imagine that you are the doctor in charge of emergency services in a small, local hospital. Your hospital has three ventilators, which help people struggling to breathe to stay alive. Today five people have been admitted to the hospital with coronavirus symptoms, and all five need help breathing. Without knowing anything (yet) about the patients, your hospital has to formulate a policy about how to decide who gets to use a ventilator and who will not (keeping in mind that it may be that someone who does not get to use a ventilator may die, and someone who gets to use a ventilator may not live). First, use virtue theory to describe a policy that your hospital might implement. HINT: remember that virtue theory focuses on the character of the “actor” – what would a reasonable person do here? Why would virtue theory indicate this way? Be sure to mention the advantages and disadvantages of using virtue theory.
Then, compare that answer to EITHER the answer a utilitarian will give to formulate this policy OR how a Kantian/deontologist would design the policy. Remember the “Why”, and the advantages and disadvantages.. ).