This course is an introduction to ethical theory that focuses on fundamental issues about the nature of morality, rather than specific moral problems.  We will examine different theoretical approaches to understanding what makes a life good and what grounds the obligations we have.

Before studying rival conceptions of value and obligation, however, we need to consider various common challenges to the possibility of doing secular moral theory.  Moral theorizing seems to presuppose the existence of right answers to moral questions, but that assumption may seem hard to square with the importance of tolerance of diverse moral codes.  Even if we believe that there are moral truths, it may seem hard to recognize the autonomy of ethics.  Can we make sense of moral requirements independently of God’s commands?  If not, we face a dilemma.  Atheism or agnosticism would seem to imply moral skepticism.  But even if theism is true, this would seem to reduce moral deliberation to ascertaining God’s will.  Is autonomous ethics possible?  Moral theory is under threat from another quarter if, as some people maintain, all human action is at bottom self-interested, for that would appear to threaten altruistic demands and concern with the common good.  Finally, there seems to be little point in entertaining rival conceptions of what makes a life good if, as some believe, the good is essentially a subjective matter on which the individual’s own judgment must be authoritative.  These are some potential obstacles to taking moral theory seriously that we will address and attempt to surmount.

Our discussion of moral theory will focus on two influential traditions -- utilitarian and deontological ethics.  The utilitarian insists that our actions be guided by an impartial concern with people’s happiness; it says that we should do that action, among the alternatives, with the best consequences for the general happiness.  The demands of utilitarianism depend upon how we understand happiness or the good.  By contrast, deontological views deny that it is always right to do the action with best consequences.  On this view, some optimal actions are morally wrong, and some suboptimal actions are morally required.

We will examine utilitarian and deontological conceptions by looking at the views of their primary historical proponents.  We will begin our discussion of utilitarianism by looking at the views of the political and legal reformer Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.  Bentham understood the good as pleasure (hedonism) and defended hedonistic utilitarianism.  But our discussion of utilitarianism will focus on the views of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) in Utilitarianism.  Mill’s brand of utilitarianism famously rejected Bentham’s hedonism and introduced the doctrine of higher pleasures.  Understanding and assessing Mill’s utilitarianism will require comparing his version of utilitarianism both with its Benthamite predecessor and with his own spirited defense of individual liberty in On Liberty.

Our discussion of the deontological tradition will focus on the difficult but important contributions of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.  Kant is famous for insisting that moral requirements are requirements of reason that are not grounded in our emotions, interests, or desires.  He thinks that this requires us to act on rules that all rational agents can accept.  This, he thinks, requires that we treat everyone as an end and never merely as a means.  It will help us better understand the Kantian project if we look briefly at how it is developed and applied to questions of distributive justice by the twentieth century political philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002).  Rawls espouses a form of liberalism that insists on equal basic liberties and tolerates social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society.  He defends these two principles by arguing that they would be chosen by parties to a hypothetical social contract choosing behind a veil of ignorance about their identities and attributes.

We get a better sense of the utilitarian and Kantian conceptions of morality if we see how they apply to a concrete moral problem, such as punishment.  Bentham illustrates well the utilitarian’s forward-looking approach to the justification of punishment that focuses on deterrence and other good consequences that punishment produces.  By contrast, Kant is a good exemplar of the retributivist tradition that justifies punishment by the backward-looking criterion of past wrongdoing.  Looking at the implications of utilitarian and Kantian traditions for punishment may affect our views about those traditions and about punishment.

FORMAT
Class meetings will be lectures, seasoned with discussion.  The lectures provide philosophical background and structure to the issues raised by the readings and will present and assess these issues in a fairly systematic way.  Student questions and comments are welcome during these meetings.  But extended discussion will be reserved for section meetings.  Section meetings present the opportunity not only for student discussion and clarification of lecture material but also for in-depth discussion of issues examined briefly in lecture.  Students will profit by attending lectures and sections regularly.

REQUIREMENTS
Work for the course will consist of three papers and a comprehensive final exam.  The first paper should be approximately 2-3 pages and is due Tuesday, October 14.  The second paper should be approximately 4-5 pages and is due Thursday, November 6.  The last paper should also be approximately 4-5 pages and is due Tuesday, November 25.   Paper topics will be distributed at least one week before the due date.  Students are encouraged to discuss paper topics and their plans for the paper with their TA or me.  Study questions for the final exam will be distributed before the end of term (details later).  As percentages of your grade, the first paper is worth 15%, the second and third papers are worth 25% each, and the final is worth 35%.  All requirements must be completed to receive a passing grade.
 

BOOKS
Two books have been ordered for the course and should be available at the university bookstore:

The Classical Uitilitarians: Bentham and Mill, ed. J. Trover (Hackett).
Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, trs. Ellington (Hackett).

READINGS
The reading assignments are listed on the Syllabus.  I will regularly indicate where we are on the Syllabus (remind me if I don’t).  It is important to read the assignments on time and not to fall behind.

WEBSITE
All course materials -- Course Description, Syllabus, Paper Topics, Paper Guidelines, Exam Study Questions, and Handouts -- will be put on the course website as soon as they are available and can be accessed through the departmental website.  Students will be expected to download and print these materials and bring them to class.  It is especially important to bring Handouts to class, as the lectures will often be organized around the Handouts and presuppose that students can look at them.