KNOWLEDGE, EXISTENCE AND VALUES
FINAL PAPER
POSSIBLE TOPICS

 

Choose only one of the following topics and then write a 4-5-page paper on this topic (your paper has to be double spaced, using a 12 pt font, and margins of 1”, around 1,200-1,500 words). The paper is due Tuesday, May 27, 2003, the same day of the final exam. With no exceptions, no late papers will be accepted. I don’t accept papers by e-mail. Also, don’t leave papers at my mailbox in the Philosophy Department. If you want to give me your paper before the due date (preferably on May 14, the last day of classes), that’s fine. The value of the paper is 25 points, a quarter of your final grade.

            Your essay has to be supported with quotes from the text. You have to give page numbers in the text for every quotation. Your references have to come from the two books we have been reading: Perry and Bratman (eds.), Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings (3rd ed.), or Nagel, What does it all mean? If you want to use any other book, that’s fine, just give the complete reference.

Here are some possible topics you can write about:

    1. Explain David Armstrong’s theory of the mind. How is his materialism different from behaviorism? Do you think that there is room for an immaterial conception of the mind in this theory? Do you think there is room for the concept of an “immaterial soul” in a theory that the mind has a material basis (even if the mind is not identical to the brain)? Do you agree with the idea that the mind has a material basis? If not (if you think that the soul is not identical to the mind and to the brain), tell me why giving me your reasons and your arguments. If you are in favor of some form of dualism, then how do you think that the soul and the brain interact?
    2. Present only one of the three arguments discussed by John Perry in his Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality (that is, that personal identity is based on the same soul, on memories, or on the same body), and explain the objections presented in the text by the character of Weirob. Are you convinced by these arguments or by the objections? If not, give me your arguments for rejecting them.
    3. Moral relativism says that there are no universal values or principles shared by all moralities, but that different cultures have different moral codes. If this is true, do you think that we have the right to impose our values on societies with different moral codes? Do you think, for instance, that universal human rights are valid for all societies? If we judge a cultural practice to be undesirable (e.g. female genital mutilation, violations of human rights), are we allowed to intervene? On what basis? If you don’t agree with moral relativism, argue for your position giving me your reasons.
    4. Psychological egoism claims that each person is so constituted that he or she will look out only for his or her own interests. The only thing anyone is capable of pursuing ultimately (as an end in itself) is his own self-interest. Do you agree with this view? If you do, then how do you respond to the criticisms raised by Feinberg? (Analyze at least two of his criticisms, and give the reasons of why you disagree.) What are your views of altruism and friendship vis-à-vis psychological egoism? Give the reasons for your position.
    5. Explain briefly the main principles of utilitarianism (not more than 1 or 2 pages), then apply the utilitarian theory to only one of these two problems:
         a) Euthanasia. First explain what is euthanasia. Then, if utilitarianism tries to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, what do you think that the utilitarian position on euthanasia would be? If you have a different position, state it separately and then give me your reasons for thinking what you think.
         b) Our treatment of animals. Utilitarians care about maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. If a living creature, regardless of whether is human or not, is capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, then we have a duty to take that into account when deciding what to do and how to treat that creature. Apply the principles of utilitarianism to the issue of our treatment of animals (experimentation with animals, killing them to eat them, etc.).
    6. Peter Singer, in his “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, claims, from a utilitarian point of view, that, as well-off members of an affluent society, we have a duty to contribute to famine relief. Some of his critics find his conclusions too demanding, arguing that faithful adherence to utilitarianism would require you to give away your resources until you have lowered your own standard of living to the level of the neediest people you could help. Do you agree with Singer or with his critics? Compare Singer’s approach with Onora O’Neill’s in her “Kantian Approaches to some Famine Problems”. Which approach do you find more appropriate? Why?
    7. In “Racisms” Kwame Anthony Appiah analyzes different kinds of racism, all of which presuppose what he calls “racialism” (the view that “there are heritable characteristics, possessed by members of our species, that allow us to divide them into a small set of races, in such a way that all members of these races share certain traits and tendencies with each other that they do not share with members of any other race” (p. 669)). He argues that even if racialism were true, no form of racism would be defensible. Analyze how Appiah’s criticism of “intrinsic racism” applies Kant’s Formula of the Kingdom of Ends.
    8. In “War and Massacre” Thomas Nagel defends the idea that there is a moral basis for the rules of war. He compares the approaches of two different moral theories to this claim: utilitarianism and what he calls “absolutist ethics”. What is his criticism of utilitarianism? In what way is his position Kantian? Explain how he applies the principles of Kantian ethics to the issue of the rules of war.
    9. In “Virtue Theory and Abortion” Rosalind Hursthouse clarifies the nature of virtue ethics by comparing it with alternative theories (utilitarian and Kantian ethics). Briefly (1 or 2 pages) explain some of the most important characteristics of virtue ethics, according to Hursthouse; then analyze how she applies this theory to the issue of abortion. What is her position? What are her arguments? Do you agree with her approach? Give me your reasons.

 

If you already wrote about similar topics for your optional paper, then you’ll have to write about another topic. If you want to write about any other issue related to the topics we have been discussing since the midterm, feel free to do it. But in that case, you will have to tell me in advance the topic of your paper (and if possible, your arguments), and I will have to approve the topic before you start writing. E-mail me at gmo9@columbia.edu or come to see me in my office hours (W 6:15-7:15, Boylan 3311) or after class.

Let me know if you want me to recommend you further literature on the topic you choose. You can also find some suggestions at the course website (http://www.columbia.edu/~gmo9/kev).

You will also be evaluated on content and clarity of expression. You will lose points if there are many spelling and grammar mistakes.

 

Ø      DO write in full sentences.

Ø      DO edit for spelling and grammar.

Ø      DO NOT include introductory/concluding sentences or paragraphs. (It is a very short assignment, so just get straight to the discussion.)

Ø      Express your opinions, but give me your reasons for everything you say.

 

You can get help with your writing at the Writing Center (1300 Boylan Hall). If I detect serious problems with your writing style, I may have to refer you there, and you will have to rewrite your paper.