Here's the Student Guide for Mill and Utilitarianism

sorry for the delay on the turn-around on this one, but it's been a week of distractions (friend in town from Turkey, important departmental lecture, a slew of friends' birthdays, etc..). at any rate, here are the goods:

STUDENT GUIDE – J. S. MILL AND UTILITARIANISM
Below is a list of questions and considerations for you to keep in mind while reading Utilitarianism.
1) What type of moral theory is utilitarianism (deontological or consequentialist) and what exactly is the significance of this?

2) Student should be able to clearly define the Principle of Utility—or Greatest Happiness Principle—and characterize the various aspects of this principle.

•how is utility defined?
•how is happiness defined?
•how is pleasure defined?
•what are the different kinds of pleasures discussed?
•what are the different aspects of each of these different pleasures?

3) According to Mill, what are the two hindrances to happiness? (see pg. 13)

4) Student should be able to discuss the relationship between the Principle of Utility and Education.

5) What is the relationship between Utility and Justice according to Mill?

Writing asignment #2 Anjanette Broadway

I do not believe in getting an abortion unless it is absolutely necessary. If it is against that woman's health, I think she should do it. What is a right to life? Every human being have a right to life. The government has the right to protect this law. I am against this procedure myself, because I do not believe in taking another's life. Life begins at conception, it is up to that individual to decide on what she should do. It is so many against abortion, but the belief is in that individual. I will not do it myself unless it was a do it or harm myself seriously. Abortion is a terrible thing, it is a little life growing inside of you. It is against all morals to commit that particular thing. The bible says thou shall not kill. I do not think we are thinking of that child's rights, when we do that to a life being developed inside of that woman. Some say, well if it is right at very beginning, it is ok. I do not think, we have the right to take life like that. I believe it should be illegal, unless life or death situation from either the mom or child. It can be legal and illegal. Abortion goes against a lot of morals and considered immoral at all times, by most people. I think if the mother has to do it that is different. Life should not be taken by another human being. That is wrong regardless of how you put it. That is all I have to say about that situation. A very touchy subject to me. I think about, what if someone else got an abortion before I came. I would not be here today if had not been for someone birthing me.

Writing asignment #1 Anjanette Broadway

Brazil is a great city of values. Hunger is just like a disease, that have attack the land. It is a magnificient to see a city,try to cure hunger. The city of Belo has 2.5 million people and that is the best thing the government could have did. I believe every one should have a right to eat and not starve. It is a pitiful thing for people to be starving in any country or city. People deserve to eat. I know hunger is not cause by a shortage in food, because we have plenty to pass around in most states. Why should someone be hungry? What is the answer to that question? Brazil need to inspire some more cities to feed all citizens. That is an excellent task to take on . Food as a right sounds good to my ears. Some people can not help that, they are hungry. People fall to bad times in their life. Who give us the right to turn someone down who is trying to eat? I believe everyone should have a right to eat. I will help someone who need something to eat. God enable me to eat and sometimes it looks very slim, but he still provides. I will feed the hungry. I think that is one of the best things Brazil could have done. It is a wonderful thing to not have to go through pure trouble just to get something to eat. Some places have so many questions you have to answer just to get something to eat.I have one thing to say about this article,it is wonderful.

Link - Writing Assignment 2

     Fundamentally, the right to life is the right to not be harmed. To be put even more simply, it could be described as the right not to be killed. As with most rights, this applies only to humans. Where a difference in interpretation arises is at the definition of human. The definition comes under scrutiny in many circumstances such as capital punishment, terminal illness, and abortion.
     The definition of humanity is most debated when discussed in regards to abortion. For many, life begins at the point of conception, granting an unborn fetus the status of a human. Others do not grant humanity to anything less than a late-stage fetus or birthed infant. For the purpose of a standard abortion, the mother is allowed to determine her own morality. However, the bill mentioned in the assigned article would give hospitals the right to insert their own set of morals, possibly denying abortive procedures to emergency patients. In such an instance, a hospital would be placing the life of a child at a higher value than that of the mother. The problem is that we, as a society, are obliged to leave decisions such as this up to the discretion of the mother. Any third party interjecting its views into the situation appear to be using the mother for their own means. By heroically denying an abortion to a woman, hospital staff and politicians are able to feel good about themselves for having fulfilled their moral values. Unfortunately, their personal satisfaction would be gained at the cost of the mother's hopes, dreams, and ideals. So far as I am concerned, the value of a child's life is left to the mother. If she decides that her child's value supercedes hers, so be it. Until then, hospitals and government shouldn't treat pregnant mothers as a means for their own morality, but rather as a autonomous human with her own beliefs.

Link - Writing Assignment 1

     What the city of Belo Horizonte has accomplished in regards to food allocation is truly awe-inspiring. The various groups and committees that comprise the local government have firmly embraced their role as dutiful protectors of the people. The government saw that the general welfare of its people was being threatened by a lack of access to quality food. The resulting programs enacted by the government sought to maximize happiness not by giving food away, but by enabling local farmers to sell quality goods at low prices to the people who need it most. This arrangement is beautiful, bordering on utopic.
     Food, one of the most basic human necessities, is something I never considered as a human right. Rights always seemed to be something much loftier, often something based in principle rather than reality. But really, if my government has made sure I have the right to carry a weapon, could it not also insure that I have the right to not die by starvation? Personally, I would love for the access to food to be considered a basic human right. Such a right would communicate an intense sentiment of goodwill between a government and its people, something to the effect of, “Hey, you're not just another taxed citizen. You're a person who belongs to a community that wants you to be happy and healthy.” In America, I feel like this could work on a very small scale. Unfortunately, capitalism seems too important to the mindset of American society and economy for a program such as this to have any hope of functioning on a nationwide scale. In small numbers, it is easy to feel a sense of duty towards each other. But in large groups, people lose their humanity and become numbers and statistics.

Writing Assigment #2/Kolicia Baskin

Every woman has a right to live and it is just ridiculous that there is a bill trying to be passed that would give hospitals and doctors the ability to turn women away. If a pregnant woman comes in and is having complications, she should be able to make the decision whether or not to save her own life or her child’s life. To say that a woman could be refused help or be transferred to a facility that “may” or “may not” assist is nonsense. Living is a right that we all have and it is a right that was given to us from the day we entered the womb. Now, if complications arise during the pregnancy and decisions must be made, like the aforementioned, that decision should be made by the woman carrying the child. We all have a right to live and should be able to make our own decision on what to do in a situation that may ultimately end our life. Me being a woman, I want to know that if I am pregnant and have complications I can go to any hospital to get the treatment I need. That means that I also can make my own decision because I have the right to, terminate my pregnancy if it means saving my life. Everyone has there own moral values and some may feel it is more moral and choose to save their baby’s life over there own. In any case, each woman should have the right to make the decision on whether she wants to abort her pregnancy or not. We all have individual rights and there should not be a question on whether we will or will not be provided medical care. If there is a bill that is trying to be passed that says let a woman die instead of having an abortion, what will be next? If you don’t have any money then you can not be seen, or if you have had an abortion then you will be turned away. These are questions that one should not have to be concerned with or worried about. We should all feel comfortable with knowing that we can go to any health facility and be taken care of no matter what situation we are in. Every woman has a right to live and there should not be any stipulations or limitations to whether or not her life should be saved if there are complications with her pregnancy.

writing assignment 2/ T. Nicholson

I think everyone should have a say if they want to live or die. I can’t believe that someone would even want to promote the abortion bill. I personally think this is very demented for someone to make such a choice on an individual’s life. I believe everyone has a right to life. A right to life simply means the right to live or the right to not be killed by another human regardless of the substance of the material or context. If this bill was passed, the doctors wouldn’t do anything to save the mother’s life due to pregnancy problems. The thought of that alone just seems irrational and would clearly eliminate the legal rights of women. Women should have individual rights when it comes to such a touchy subject. Now if a woman chooses to die in order for her baby to live, that is fine because it is her choice. The situation is different when the mother wants to live and the baby would kill her if it was born. The mother and baby rights are not equal. The abortion bill seems to read, “Out with the old, in with the new.” As dark as that sounds, it seems as if this is what the bill would apply if passed. I think women regardless of the circumstances of their term have a right to abortion. I am not saying that the mother couldn’t give the baby to a family member or an adoption agency, but it should be the mother’s choice if she wants to bring life into the world. It is the woman’s body not the government. I think babies have a right to life but only when the baby is viable and not in the embryo stage. Under all circumstance I think the government should not intervene with the mother’s choice. Both the mother and the baby have a life, but why should the government act as if it should decide who lives or dies. I agree with the pro-choice view on abortion rather than the pro-life view. To me it seems that pro-life viewers are forgetting that the women are alive too, and they believe that the baby has a right to life because the embryo is a person. I know religion plays a part in there views, but it seems like they are giving themselves power, even though God made humans with free will in the beginning. I think the bill should be thrown out because the idea is just crazy and should not decide what a woman should do with her body based of irrational views.

writing assignment 1/ T. Nicholson

I think all humans have a right to food, regardless where the individual is located geographically. The Brazil city Belo Horizonte, is a fine example of how other countries should go about to end hunger in their countries. In 2009, America spent over 4.3 billion dollars on food stamps. What does that tell you? There are a lot of people who need assistance in this country. Food stamps are a assistance program for those who can’t afford to buy food with their current income due to individual reasons. Even though America has this program, there are thousands of Americans who are poor and don’t eat like they should. I would like to appeal to the golden rule, which is derived from Kant’s principle of fairness. The golden rule put simple is to treat someone the way you would want to be treated. If you were without money and hungry, wouldn’t you want to eat? Any rational person would say yes to this question. The job market isn’t looking so well and many people are not only losing their jobs, but they are also losing their homes. Even though America is the land of opportunity, many people don’t get a chance to experience the favorable circumstances that the land/America is supposed to offer. America is supposed to be the country were all can achieve their goals, but this is an unrealistic truth. I think the Brazil city also appealed the principle of utility. Mill’s principle of utility is to promote the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, or the least amount of unhappiness. In the Brazil city, the leaders of the city made a choice to end hunger for the people and made some foods cheaper or free. This choice was for the people and caused much happiness for them. If a similar plan was implemented in United States, I don’t see why people wouldn’t be happy if they were getting actual food instead of a EBT card, unless they were selling some of their food stamps for money. The city of Belo spent 10 million dollars or 2% of it’s budget for a city of 2.5 million people. I don’t see why that would be a problem for us cities who have so much more than this city. I personally think this could work and save the country money that could go towards debts that United States owe. This would create happiness for the greatest amount of people if implemented. I think it would save money for the country as well as decrease petty crimes. I think the city of Belo definitely sets an example that other countries should follow to get rid of poverty and give people their right to food.

Writing Assignment #1/ Kolicia Baskin

Food as a right is a very touchy subject and she be carefully focused on. I think that what the people of Belo Horizonte are doing a wonderful job and when I read the article it put me in the mind of the Principle of Respect for Persons, which states that we should act such that never treat another person merely as a means to your own ends, but always as an end in themselves. Basically to treat others the way one wants to be treated. This city took their food issues into their own hands so that they could cut down on the hunger issues in this city. After reading the article, I really started to think of how the United States differs from this city in many ways. While this city banned together to find a means of eliminating hunger by producing more fresh foods and restaurants that provide food/dinner at very low cost, the U.S already has systems set in place for those who are less fortunate. There are food stamps, WIC, child support, section 8, and many more programs for those who are struggling. These systems that we have in place are set to help those who are in need and also to help provide in aiding less hunger so that children and families do not have to go without or be homeless. So while I think that what that city did for their people is truly great and amazing, I really just do not see the strategy used being something that would work in the United States. We are a free country that allows one to be able to get up and apply for jobs, apply for government assistance, or (as much as I hate to say it) not do any of those and live homeless.
The cost of how much it took to end hunger in this country is also something I found to be very interesting. Around $10 million annually or less than 2 % of the city budget is how much it took to end the city hunger. I find that this is a large number and just to know that that is all it took to change this cities hunger is amazing. I am glad to know that there are places that take hunger seriously and want food to be a right. When I think of this city the principle of utility comes to mind, to act so as to promote the greatest amount on happiness for the greatest number of people. This city exercised this principle by strategizing to come up with the best solution to stop hunger so that everyone can achieve the greatest amount of happiness.

Writing Assignment Two/Bedel

The “right to life” is not anything that someone else should have a say about other then the person’s life that is at stake when it comes to a pregnant woman. Women should not have to fear for their lives when going into a hospital because of pregnancy complications. If the toll must be paid of one life or another, the one the woman is carrying, that is her choice. She has provided care for this child from her own body up until this point, and if she chooses her life over her unborn child’s, that is her decision. Hospitals are meant to help those who come to them hurt and afraid, it is the very doctor’s oath to do so, so no woman should be left to die. In regard to the mother’s rights verses the child’s rights, it depends on the situation and how far along the pregnancy is and what danger is presented. If the mother is not in any danger, I do not believe abortion should be allowed. If she does not want, or cannot afford to care for the child, that is what adoption is for. This is where the baby needs the government’s protection. However, as I stated before, if the mother is in danger of death then she should be able to get an abortion. The child has a right to life, just like the mother does, and if the child can be born without putting the mother in danger then that child has that right. This is the only time I believe the government should be able to supercede the right of the mother. The fact that the government would be able to place restrictions on a hospital, better yet, a doctor’s ability to save a life, is ludicrous. The woman is the one walking into that hospital, looking to further her life, and should not be turned away because the government has decided her life is less valuable than her unborn child. She is the one with free will, she is the one who has come into this social contract we have by living in this country, and she has the right to feel secure and protected by her country. She is not cattle, not a “baby machine”, she is an individual who has the right to continue her life and look for protection from her country. This would be over stepping our individual rights and leaning towards a more communist country, which is against everything America stands for. This is nothing other than poor, simple, biased foolishness.

Writing Assignment One/Bedel

Author: Angelique Bedel

I do not believe that food is a right in our country. We are a country based on freedom and on working hard. In justifying this, I will appeal to Kant's principle of Fairness and to simple logic. I will agree it is a good thing that they are feeding the poor in Brazil. However, one must realize that at this rate the population will continue to grow and become comfortable with this life style. What happens as the population grows? What will their children do when the money is gone, and they do not know what to do? Perhaps it will work itself out, but it is a valid concern. Moving on to why I am against it in this country, is because we have food stamps and welfare. The number of Americans receiving food stamps reached 43 million in November 2010, the highest number since the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) program began in 1939. For those who are unable to work for their living, there is already an alternative. With this, in light to fairness, they have to qualify in order to receive assistance. This implements the principle of respect, of treating others as you would want to be treated. If an individual is capable of working and supporting their family, then one should do so. However, if that individual truly needs help, it is readily available. Not to mention all of the missions and church hand outs that are also readily available to the public. This also connects with the pursuit of human virtue, an individual principle of morality, that states we should try to hold ourselves up to a certain standard. We do push education in this country, and this is one of the primary reasons we do so. This also backs up Mill's greatest happiness principle, in food stamps and welfare, we are looking out for each other by handing over our tax dollars to help those who cannot help themselves, whatever the reason(s) may be. But is food truly a right? Perhaps free housing is a right too? Why not jobs for everyone, regardless of experience in that field? This falls in an ideal world, where enough questions were not asked. Things need to be qualified, and as a human being, we all have our individual rights to do what we want. However, being born into this country and choosing to live here enters us into a social contract. This means that if you don't like the way it is here, leave, or fight for change. In contrast, we do all of those things. We have HUD housing, food stamps, welfare, and job assistance programs. In order to receive the benefits though, we fall back to qualification standards, making this fair for all.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR WRITING ASSIGNMENT

Below are some general and formal instructions for your writing assignments.

1)SAVE ALL OF YOUR WORK! I would suggest that, whether blog or emailed assignment, you save your writing assignments using a word processing program. Whether you compose them there or not is up to you, but you need to have a record of the work that you do over the course of the semester in case there is any question concerning whether or not you turned in an assignment.
2) If you intend to email your assignment to me, you may either send it to me as an email attachment or paste your assignment in the body of an email.
3) Please include your name and the name of the assignment (ex. “Writing Assignment #2) with your work. For those posting to the blog, include the name of the assignment in the “Title” field and your name at the beginning of your post.
4) Speaking of blogs, your assignments will be turned in as “blog posts.” So, go to and sign into the blog, once you are signed in, click on “New Post,” here is the environment for posting. Enter the name of the assignment in the “Title” field and your work in the “Body” field (though it’s not named here). At this point, you have three options: you can a) preview your post; b) save your post; or c) post and be finished. Everyone should proofread their work at least once before posting it. Should you want to preview or save your post, play around with settings in order to familiarize yourself with how it works.
5) If you have questions about an assignment, you can pose those questions to me in the “Comments” field to that assignment. I’ll get back to you by commenting under your comment.
6) Speaking of comments, let’s keep it mature, civil, and relevant to the topic folks, okay. Let’s stay classy.
7) For those of you who will be emailing your assignments, compose them using a version of Microsoft Word (if at all possible), save a copy for yourself, then send to my university email account either as an attachment or copy and paste it in the body of the email. Please include the name of the assignment in the “Subject” heading of your email and your name at the beginning of the assignment.
8) The blog is an open forum for the class. If you all have questions about the readings, comments about the articles we read, or whatever, Post It! Once I get my computer problems fixed next week, I’ll able to be much more active there, so get ready.

That’s it for now, if I add to these instructions, I’ll let you all know.

Study Guide - Unit 2

At a Glance: A Study Guide for Readings
Immanuel Kant

Below is a tentative list of material for you to focus on as you progress through the text.

1) Students should be familiar with the distinction between “Rational” knowledge and “Empirical” knowledge as presented in class.
2) Students should be able to discuss consequentialism and deontology as two (2) approaches to moral reasoning and justification.
3) Students should be able to re-state Kant’s explicit aim for the Groundwork.
4) Students should know what single thing Kant says is unconditionally good and be able to explain why positive value all other “goods” is only conditional and, as such, are secondary.
5) Students should be able to articulate the supreme principle of morality (according to Kant).
6) Students should know the three (3) formulations of the categorical imperative covered in class and be able to discuss/explain one at length.

Writing Assignment #2

WRITING ASSIGNMENT #2
Subject : Regulating Abortion

Please read the following article and write a short response essay wherein you address AT LEAST TWO of the issues given below. Feel free to introduce any additional issues that you found interesting or pose further questions on the topic in your response. Again, consult your syllabus regarding proper length of responses.

To read the article, go HERE

Issues:
1) What, exactly, is a ‘right to life’ in any context?
2) By what measure(s) may we legitimately weigh the rights of the mother to that of the child (early term, late term, doesn’t matter). Are their rights “equal”?
3) Does a government have a duty to protect this right? To what extent (by what means) may it legitimately limit our individual freedoms—and in this case, one's well being—to protect this right? Are there any conditions where the rights of the mother should be legitimately superceded by those of the unborn fetus? If so, explain.
4) One important issue raised concerns restrictions that the government can legitimately place on institutions that receive funds from it. Why is this issue so controversial?
5) Try to identify and distinguish the moral aspects (moral v. immoral) of this controversy from the legal aspects (legal v. illegal) of it.

Writing Assignment #1

Writing Assignment #1
Subject: Food as a Right

Please consult the course syllabus regarding the required length for writing assignments. Also, you must formulate your response as an informal essay. In other words, you need not develop a “thesis statement," but your response should present a clear, thoughtful, and articulate position regarding the article and the question(s) asked.

Check out this article.

In this article, the reporter tells us about a city in Brazil that has eliminated hunger amongst its citizens. The basic idea driving this initiative is that of “food as a right.” Civic leaders and organizers alike came up with a plan guided by the notion that food is a basic human right that we have in virtue of our being human. The goal: to create a community based program wherein everyone regardless of their position within that society can have access to quality, wholesome food for free (or with the least amount of expense possible).

In America, one area wherein we have a similar commitment to universal access is the area of education. Across the united states, we as a country believe that all children, regardless of their socio-economic background, should have access to a quality education and we justify collecting taxes and other civic actions based on our belief in the absolute worth of an education. To put it in Kantian terms, we believe education is something that is good in and of itself. Recent efforts have attempted to elevate heath care to a similar status. For their part, the people of Belo Horizonte took extensive efforts towards making food a right for its citizens and the effects have been pretty remarkable.

Please discuss this article and consider the viability of such a program in the US (even if on a small local scale). In your discussion, try to articulate your response in light of our discussion of moral principles (both individual and social). What principles do you think they are appealing to in order to justify a) the position that food is a right and b) the measures taken on behalf of the city to fund a project such as this. If food is to be a right, then that means we, as citizens and as a society, have a duty (in spite of any ill consequences to us personally—i.e. paying higher taxes and such) to ensure that all have access to quality food. So, what do you think? To what extent to you believe that food is a right? Moreover, to what extent should a society go to protect this right and ensure its citizenry access to food. If it is not a proper right then please explain why it is not. Were there any particular facts about what was accomplished that impressed you? Please discuss them and what you found to be impressive about them. If you are unable to find one on your own, consider the following: According to the article, the program costs the city roughly $10 million dollars a year which amounts to about 2% of the city’s budget at the cost of about a penny a day for each citizen. Why would knowing a fact like this be an important if one wanted to make the case for developing a similar plan in one’s own community? If it costs so little to take care of so many (including ourselves!), to what extent do we have a moral duty to do so? If we do not have such a duty, please explain why we do not.

Schedule of Readings and Assignments

*Note: Due to school closings and such, this schedule has been pushed back about a week or so.

SCHEDULE OF READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS

WEEK 1 – General Introduction to the class and the course.

WEEK 2 – Introduction to Moral Reasoning

WEEK 3 – Introduction to Moral Reasoning
 Test #1: 2/2

WEEK 4 – Groundwork, Sec. I

WEEK 5 – Groundwork, Sec.I/II

WEEK 6 – Groundwork, Sec II

WEEK 7 – Groundwork, Sec. II/III
 Test #2: 3/2

WEEK 8 – SPRING BREAK

WEEK 9 – Utilitarianism, Sec I/II

WEEK 10 – Utilitarianism, Sec II/III

WEEK 11 – Utilitarianism, Sec IV/V
 Test #3: 3/30

WEEK 12 - Existentialism is a Humanism, Preface – p.25

WEEK 13 – Existentialism, p. 25 – 35

WEEK 14 – Existentialism, p. 35 – 44

WEEK 15 – Existentialism, p. 44 – 54
 Test #4: 4/27

FINAL EXAM: MAY 4TH

Syllabus PHL 1102 Spring 2011

PHL 1102.007 – COURSE SYLLABUS
Spring 2011

Values in the Modern World:
On the Philosophical Foundation of Human Values

Texts
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism
Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism

Course Description
Under the general title "Values and the Modern World," this course seeks to investigate and question the underlying first principles that support both our "modern world" and its "values." In so doing, we shall investigate the origin and source of our values in order to determine how these principles serve to shape both our respective views of the world and the values that we carry with us within this world. Toward this end, we shall seek to ask, but not limit ourselves, to the following questions: What is the nature and source of human values? What is the character and status of the will and human Freedom? What is the source and character of moral responsibility? What distinguishes the human from the non-human? Certainly, there can be no definitive answer given to any of the above questions. However, if what we seek in philosophy is an enrichment of our understanding of both ourselves and our world, then an investigation into the fundamental principle(s) of human values should serve as a decisive first step in this direction.

Course Requirements and Grading
There are three primary requirements for this course:
1) Attend class regularly
2) Come to class prepared every day
3) Be courageous in your thinking and respectful of your classmates

Your grade for the course will be determined in the following manner:
75% Four (4) Unit Tests
15% Weekly Writing Assignments
10% Class Participation

Grading Criteria
Unit Tests
At the conclusion of each unit, you will be assigned a take home test on material from that unit. The general aim of the tests will be to evaluate each student's comprehension of central concepts and issues relevant to the respective units. Each test will be made up of two sections: 1) a series of short answer questions; and 2) a short (~500pg) essay question. No outside resources or extra research will be necessary for the successful completion of either of the sections mentioned. While they will be accepted, tests handed in late will be penalized accordingly. Should you be unable to be in class on the day that the test is assigned, it will be your responsibility to acquire a copy of the test to complete either from the blog or from UMdrive. Any additional instructions for the unit tests will be given at the appropriate time.

Writing Assignments
Every Sunday I will assign a question for you answer in a short informal written paper. The aim of these assignments is to provide an informal platform for you to engage with and question the respective texts/issues/problems being addressed. In addition, students will be asked to address particular aspects of the text that they may have found difficult. In this way, I will be able to tailor subsequent lectures with the specific aim of addressing these difficulties and clarifying problematic areas. There are two formats that you may use for these assignments:

1) Course Blog – I have created a blog for the course for the purpose of having a centralized space online to continue our engagement with and discussion of the texts that we read and the issues that will arise in that context. One of the ways for you to participate on the blog is to post your weekly writing assignment there. Blog entries should be between 300 – 500 words in length and can be turned in at your convenience on the day due (or earlier).

2) Response Paper – Should you prefer, you may turn in a short paper 400-500 words in length. You may either email the assignment to me or print it out and turn it to me on the due date.

In order to fulfill the requirements for this portion of the course, students must turn in a minimum total of eight (8) writing assignments over the course of the semester, four (4) of these must be turned in my the completion of Unit II. Now, while the writings are informal, they will be evaluated for basic grammar, punctuation, and the author’s level of engagement with the text and/or question posed.

Class Participation
Your participation in class is crucial for you successful completion of the course. This is so because, unlike many other disciplines, philosophy requires us to engage reflectively with one another over the texts that we read. Because the content of the lectures given in class will serve as the basis for our interpretation of the readings, your attendance and participation in class are invaluable for the development of a general understanding of the respective texts covered. In addition, the blog will serve as a central online site where we may continue our in-class discussions. Again, you are not required to join the blog, however, if you’d like to see first hand what your fellow classmates are saying about the course and the issues we discuss, it is an excellent forum you all to engage with one another independent of the instructor. Lastly, poor attendance will result in a significant penalty to your class participation grade.

Key Terms and Concepts - Unit 1

AT A GLANCE – UNIT 1 KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

This is not an exhaustive list of all of the information you will be responsible for on your test this Monday (2/7), but I hope that it will provide you with a quick and clear account of some of the key ideas that were covered in class so far.

1) Principle of Utility: Act such that you produce seek to produce the greatest amount of happiness (over unhappiness), making sure that one gives equal consideration to the relative happiness (or unhappiness) of everyone who (within reason) stands to be effected by our action(s). In other words, one should act so as to try to produce the greatest amount of happiness (or the least amount of unhappiness) for the greatest number of people, taking into equal consideration all of those who stand to be effected by our action(s).

2) Principle of Respect for Persons: Act such that never treat another person merely as a means to your own ends, but always as an end in themselves. In other words, we shouldn’t merely use other people for our own wants and desires but, rather, always take into account the hopes, beliefs, and goals (their personal projects) of those we interact with in our lives.

3) Moral principles are: Abstract, Perfect, Absolute, Universal, Ideal, Eternal, etc.

4) Moral rules are: Concrete, Imperfect, Changing, Particular, Empirical, Finite/Limited, etc.

What follows is material that I wasn’t able to cover in class that might be of interest to you all (information that you WILL NOT be tested on).

1) The Principle of Equality is one of the four principles of social morality. While you do need to know the principle, here are four aspects of the principle of equality.
a) Procedural Equality: this sets a minimal limit on what is required in the service of promoting equality
b) Equality in Application: this sets minimal limits on what is required in the service of implementing laws. In other words, laws must be applied equally and rules are put into place to set minimal limits in this direction.
c) Equality of Opportunity: here we seek to set minimal limits on what is required in the service of insuring equal opportunity to common goods and services.
d) Equality of Results: sometimes inequalities exist beyond mere opportunity, sometimes there exists inequality of results. For example, on average women earn less money in the work place for performing similar if not identical tasks as their male counterparts. As a result, activists today seek to put into place rules that would correct for such inequalities.

2) General Welfare: According to this principle of social morality, the different levels of government should promote the ‘common good’ or ‘public interest.’ In other words, the government (or society) has a duty to its citizens to provide basic goods and services like public schools and libraries, civic infrastructure, environmental protections, and other such services. In addition, the government has a duty to place limits on our individual freedom in order to promote the general welfare. In other words, a government (or society) has a duty restrict our actions for the sake of the common good. So, we have rules concerning proper conduct that we must obey in both our public and our private lives. Determining the scope and extent of the government’s involvement in our lives, both public and private.

3) Here are some issues related to the Principle of the General Welfare:
a) Social paternalism: under the principle of paternalism, a government or society is justified to act as a surrogate “parent” for its members.
b) Public morality: according to this principle, a government or society is justified in limiting our individual freedoms in order to uphold and promote a tacit moral code within society.
c) Public cost: according to this principle, a government or society is justified in limiting our individual freedoms in order to curb social cost.

PHIL 1102 - Student Guide - Unit 1 Moral Reasoning

PHIL 1102 – STUDENT STUDY GUIDE – UNIT 1: MORAL REASONING

 Here is a list of objectives for you to consider from Unit 1.

1) Students should be able to discuss the distinction between principles and rules and characterize each.

2) Students should be able to name the four principles of individual morality.

3) Students should be able to articulate both Mill’s Principle of Utility and Kant’s Principle of respect for persons.

4) Students should be able to name the four principles of social morality.

5) Students should be able to characterize the issues related to individual morality and social morality.

6) Students should be able to discuss the issues related to the principles of Individual Rights and the General Welfare.