Euthyphro Dilemma of Socrates Questions Discussion Paper Questions: (chose one to answer, it should be between 1000-1500 words) 1. Does one need to appea

Euthyphro Dilemma of Socrates Questions Discussion Paper Questions: (chose one to answer, it should be between 1000-1500 words)

1. Does one need to appeal to God and religion in order to make sense of an objective morality?

2. What is the Euthyphro dilemma, and what problem does it pose for divine command ethical theory?

3. Describe, and critically evaluate, at least one version of the social contract theory of morality.

4. What is the prisoners’ dilemma, and what, if anything, does it tell us about the relationship between pursuing our own self-interest and engaging in social cooperation?

5. What is moral expressivism, and how does it differ from a moral error theory? In what sense are these views forms of moral anti-realism?

6. What is moral relativism, and what kinds of considerations motivate such a view? Are any of these considerations persuasive?

Citations

You should cite when you paraphrase material in your paragraphs from the textbook. When citing from the book, put the author, year, and page number. For example, (Bennett, 2015, p. 11).

For the book, your bibliography should look like this:
Bennett, Christopher. *What Is This Thing Called Ethics?* Second edition. London: Routledge, 2015.
*Put the book title in italics. HOW TO WRITE A CRAP PHILOSOPHY ESSAY:
A BRIEF GUIDE FOR STUDENTS
James Lenman
(Sheffield University)
Always begin your essay along these lines: “Since the very dawn of time the problem
of free will has been considered by many of the greatest and deepest thinkers in
history.”
Always end your essay along these lines: “So it can be seen from the above arguments
that there are many different points of view about the free will problem.”
Whenever in any doubt as to what to say about X, say, apropos of nothing in
particular and without explanation, that X is extremely subjective.
When that gets boring, try saying that X is all very relative. Never say what it is
relative to.
Use language with as little precision as possible. Engage heavily in malapropism and
category mistakes. Refer to claims as “arguments” and to arguments as “claims”.
Frequently describe sentences as “valid” and arguments as “true”. Use the word
“logical” to mean plausible or true. Use “infer” when you mean “imply”. Never use
the expression “begging the question” with its correct meaning but use it incorrectly
as often as possible.
“Argument” is perhaps the most important word in philosophy. So why not impress
the marker by spelling it with two “e”s?
Get into the habit of inserting words like “so” and “therefore” between sentences that
are entirely irrelevant to one another. This, all by itself, will bring into being a mutual
relevance that previously did not exist.
Be careful always assiduously to avoid answering the question asked. There are so
many other more interesting things for you to discuss.
Put “quotation marks” round words “entirely” at random.
Be completely defeated by apostrophes. Systematically confuse “its” and “it’s”.
At some point in every essay, treat the marker to a brief Dr McCoy style sermon
about the dangers of being too “logical” when trying to think about the existence of
God/moral obligation/free will/the theory of knowledge/any subject matter whatever.
To reinforce the point it always helps to point out how once again how very
subjective the subject matter in question is.
Avoid clarity at all costs. Remember: nothing that is clear can possibly be really deep.
If as a result the marker gives you a third that just shows that your wisdom is going
straight over his/her head.
(Don’t, whatever you do, heed the words of Peter Medawar: “No one who has
something original or important to say will willingly run the risk of being
misunderstood; people who write obscurely are either unskilled in writing or up to
mischief.” – What a silly man!)
Remember. Paragraphs are for sissies. So are headings.
Only little people use examples. Avoid them strenuously. If you must insist on using
some, be sure to do so with studied irrelevance.
Paper Grading Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Proficient
Intelligibility
Is the
explanation of
the material
clear?
Clear Thesis
Is a short,
precise
statement of
the main idea
present in the
introduction?
Meaning is effectively
communicated
throughout. Sentences
are varied and there is
no repetitious of ideas
in a paragraph. Each
sentence of the paper
has a specific purpose
to develop the idea
meaningfully.
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Significant
grammar or
syntax errors that
impede meaning
in isolated cases.
More frequent
wordiness;
unclear or
awkward
sentences;
imprecise use of
words
Systematic
grammar or syntax
errors impede
meaning such that
argument is not
intelligible.
Numerous
grammatical errors
and stylistic
problems seriously
detract from the
argument.
Proficient
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Thesis is specific,
relevant,
thoughtful, and
arguable relevant
to the central ideas
of the essay.
Thesis vague or not
central to argument;
central terms not
defined. There is a
thesis statement, but
it’s not clear.
No simple thesis
statement found.
Thesis statement
does not successfully
engage the prompt or
themes.
Satisfactory
Textual
Support
Is the relevant
material from
the reading
supported with
good
examples?
Proficient
There are examples,
but it is not clear how
Most concepts,
they relate or explain
when introduced,
the concept. There
are followed by an
may be significant
example.
inaccuracy. Shows an
understanding of the
Shows a good
understanding of the basic ideas and
information involved in
texts, ideas and
the assignment; may
methods of the
have some factual,
assignment.
interpretive, or
conceptual errors.
Unsatisfactory
No examples are
provided to further
develop ideas.
AND/OR Irrelevant
quotes or
misinterpretations
throughout. Writer
lacks critical
understanding of
lectures, readings,
discussions, or
assignments.
Unsatisfactory
Proficient
Argumentative
Structure
How does the
paper present the
ideas?
Satisfactory
Paper does not
follow clear
Paper presents
There is an
argumentative
arguments ordered in a argumentative
structure.
clear way. The inferences structure, but
Frequent
being made are
at times it is
repetition.
explained and not just
not clear. The
Relevant
reported. Distinct units of author fails to
inferences are not
thought in paragraphs
explain some
present or left
controlled by specific,
important
unexplained.
detailed, and arguable
inferences
Paragraphs are
topic sentences; clear
being made.
simplistic,
transitions between
Paragraphs
wanders from one
developed, cohering,
may contain
topic to another;
and logically arranged
extraneous
illogical
paragraphs.
information.
arrangement of
ideas
Mapping
Is there a
map of the
whole paper
at the
beginning?
Proficient
The author
explains how the
paper will develop
from one
paragraph to the
next. This is
clearly laid out in
the introduction.
Counterarguments
Does the author
present
problems with
the arguments?
Satisfactory
The author somewhat
indicates how the paper
will develop from one
paragraph to the next.
But it is not clearly laid
out or may not occur in
the introduction.
How does the
paper analyze
the various
arguments?
The author does not
explain how the
paper will develop
from one paragraph
to the next in the
introduction or
anyway in the body of
the essay.
Proficient
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Substantial counterarguments, counterexamples, or counterviews are considered
for all important
controversial
premises.
At least one
counterargument is
considered, but
key controversial
premises remain
unexamined.
There are no counterarguments
considered. The
paper just sticks to
one position and does
not even consider the
other side.
Proficient
Analysis
Unsatisfactory
The paper
successfully breaks
the problem,
concepts, and
arguments into
relevant parts. The
connections between
the parts are clear
and accurate.
Satisfactory
The paper breaks the
argument, issue, or
problem into parts, but
some parts may be
missing or unclear. The
connections between
the parts are somewhat
accurate.
Unsatisfactory
The parts
identified are
not the correct
and/or relevant
ones. The
connections
between the
parts are
inaccurate.
Synthesis
Proficient
How does the
The paper successfully
paper draw
integrates all relevant
connections from parts from various
places into a coherent
multiple texts
and synthesize whole. The
connections between
the various ideas the parts are clear and
into a coherent insightful.
whole?
Textual
Accuracy
Is the relevant
material from
the reading
presented
accurately?
Proficient
All ideas that come
from the texts are
cited appropriately,
including the work
cited page and in-text
citations. Quoting is
minimal, but when
used is quite effective.
All paraphrases are
accurately cited.
Unsatisfactor
y
Satisfactory
The paper integrates
some parts from
various places into a
somewhat coherent
whole. The
connections between
the parts are
somewhat unclear.
Satisfactory
Some lapses in
proper citation,
including lacking
one or more
required references
(e.g., page numbers
or mistakes in
works cited page),
but there is a clear
attempt at citing
sources
The parts to be
integrated are
not clear and/
or relevant.
The
connections
between the
parts are
unclear.
Unsatisfactory
No citations or
references to the
text. There may be
a work cited page
or not, and there
is no references
made in the text
indicating where
certain ideas were
derived.
what is this thing
called ethics?
What is morality? How do we define what is right and wrong? How does moral
theory help us deal with ethical issues in the world around us?
This second edition provides an engaging and stimulating introduction to philosophical thinking about morality. Christopher Bennett provides the reader with
accessible examples of contemporary and relevant ethical problems, before looking at
the main theoretical approaches and key philosophers associated with them. Topics
covered include:
•
•
•
•
life and death issues such as abortion and global poverty;
the meaning of life, whether life is sacred and which lives matter;
major moral theories such as utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and virtue ethics;
critiques of morality from Marx and Nietzsche.
What Is This Thing Called Ethics? has been thoroughly revised and updated
throughout, with a new final chapter on meta-ethics.
With boxed case studies, discussion questions and further reading included within
each chapter, this textbook is the ideal introduction to ethics for philosophy students
coming to the subject for the first time.
Christopher Bennett is Reader in Philosophy at the University of Sheffield, UK.
His research interests include moral, political and legal philosophy. His previous
publications include The Apology Ritual: A Philosophical Theory of Punishment (2008).
This page intentionally left blank
CHRISTOPHER BENNETT
what is this
thing called
ethics?
second edition
• First published 2010
This second edition published 2015
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2010, 2015 Christopher Bennett
The right of Christopher Bennett to be identified as the author of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Bennett, Christopher, 1972What is this thing called ethics? / By Christopher Bennett. — Second edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Ethics. I. Title.
BJ1012.B455 2015
170–dc23
2014035414
ISBN: 978-0-415-83232-8 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-83233-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-49418-9 (ebk)
Typeset in Berling LT Std by
Saxon Graphics Ltd, Derby
C O NT ENT S
Preface to the second edition
Acknowledgements
Introduction
WHAT IS MORAL THINKING?
WHAT IS MORAL THEORY?
WHY DO WE NEED MORAL THEORY?
IS MORALITY ALL RELATIVE?
WHAT SHOULD WE LOOK FOR IN A MORAL THEORY?
THE STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOK
• PART I: LIFE AND DEATH
1 Death and the meaning of life
IS DEATH BAD FOR THE PERSON WHO DIES?
COULD LIFE BE MEANINGLESS?
HEDONISM: THE PLEASURE PRINCIPLE
HIGHER PLEASURES?
ARISTOTELIANISM: MEANING IN ACTIVITY
ELITISM
THE OZYMANDIAS PROBLEM
CONCLUSION
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
FURTHER READING
NOTES
2 Which lives count?
SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT KILLING
A STRANGE SUGGESTION
HUMAN LIFE AS SACRED
WHY THINK THAT HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED?
THE “SANCTITY OF LIFE” IN PRACTICAL DEBATES
CRITICISMS OF THE SANCTITY OF LIFE
ix
x
xi
xi
xii
xiv
xv
xix
xx
1
3
3
7
8
10
12
13
15
17
17
17
18
19
19
20
22
24
26
31
vi
•
CONCLUSION
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
FURTHER READING
NOTES
3 How much can morality require us to do for one another?
GLOBAL POVERTY: A RADICAL VIEW
DO OTHERS HAVE A RIGHT TO OUR HELP?
THE LIMITS OF THE DUTY TO HELP?
THE RADICAL’S RESPONSE: ABOLISHING DUTY AND CHARITY
CONCLUSION
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
FURTHER READING
NOTES
• PART II: THREE STARTING POINTS IN MORAL THEORY
4 Utilitarianism
WHAT UTILITARIANISM IS
UTILITARIANISM IN PRACTICE: PUNISHING AND PROMISING
SOME FURTHER PROBLEMS – THE HARD LIFE OF A UTILITARIAN
TOWARDS A SOLUTION: RULE-UTILITARIANISM
CRITICISMS OF RULE-UTILITARIANISM
SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ABOUT THE NATURE OF HAPPINESS
CONCLUSION
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
FURTHER READING
NOTES
5 Kantian ethics
HUMAN DIGNITY
WHAT IS WRONG WITH TREATING A PERSON AS A MERE MEANS?
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT WE ARE FREE?
HOW TO RESPECT PERSONS AS RATIONAL AGENTS
DOES KANTIAN ETHICS LEAVE US DEFENCELESS?
MORAL REQUIREMENTS AS REQUIREMENTS OF RATIONALITY
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
UNIVERSAL LAW
CRITICISMS OF THE UNIVERSAL LAW PROCEDURE
CONCLUSION
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
FURTHER READING
NOTE
contents
35
35
36
36
37
38
41
44
47
49
50
51
52
53
55
55
59
62
64
66
70
72
73
73
74
75
75
77
78
79
80
84
85
86
88
90
91
91
92
contents
6 Aristotelian virtue ethics
MOTIVATIONS FOR VIRTUE ETHICS
VIRTUE ETHICS: BASIC IDEAS
THE HUMAN FUNCTION AND THE GOOD HUMAN BEING
THE DOCTRINE OF THE MEAN AND THE RATIONALITY OF THE PASSIONS
VIRTUE ETHICS AND EGOISM
CONCLUSION
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
FURTHER READING
NOTES
• PART III: FURTHER DIRECTIONS FOR MORAL THINKING
7 Ethics and religion
DOES ETHICS NEED RELIGION?
WHAT PROOF DO WE HAVE OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?
THE EUTHYPHRO PROBLEM
ORTHODOXY, REVELATION AND INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSION
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
FURTHER READING
NOTES
8 Morality as contract
HOBBES: MORALITY AS RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
HOBBES AND THE JUSTIFICATION OF MORALITY
THE “FREE-RIDER” PROBLEM
THE FAIR PLAY SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
KANTIAN CONTRACTUALISM
CONCLUSION
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
FURTHER READING
NOTES
9 Critiques of morality
MARX ON MORALITY
THE NIETZSCHEAN CRITIQUE
WHAT SHOULD WE THINK OF MARX AND NIETZSCHE?
MORALITY AND PROJECTION
CAN MORALITY SURVIVE CRITIQUE?
CONCLUSION
• vii
93
93
96
99
101
105
110
110
110
111
113
115
116
119
121
124
129
129
130
130
131
131
134
137
139
140
143
148
148
149
149
151
151
154
158
159
160
163
viii
•
contents
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
FURTHER READING
NOTE
10 So, this thing called ethics – what kind of thing is it?
INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH “THE WHOLE IDEA OF MORALITY”?
MORALITY AND THE CHALLENGE FROM SCIENCE
163
164
164
165
165
166
170
OBJECTIVELY PRESCRIPTIVE AND MOTIVATIONALLY EFFECTIVE: HOW MORALITY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE ITSELF
IS MORALITY NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN WHY HUMAN BEINGS ACT AS THEY DO?
MACKIE ON THE TWO MAIN ARGUMENTS AGAINST MORALITY’S SELF-IMAGE
RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGE: TWO STRATEGIES
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
CONCLUSION
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
FURTHER READING
NOTES
Conclusion
Glossary of terms
Index
171
174
175
177
179
184
184
184
185
186
191
194
PRE F A C E TO THE S E C O ND E DI TION
I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to prepare a second edition of this
book, and I hope this new edition continues to help students and general readers get
to grips with the theoretical understanding of ethical life. I would like to thank
numerous readers who commented on the strengths and weaknesses of the first
edition, and who made suggestions for improvement. I have not been able to act on
all of these suggestions, but I have been very grateful for the engagement.
In this edition I have broadened the scope of the survey of “ethics” by including a
chapter on “meta-ethics”, that is, the study of the kind of thing that morality is. This
is now Chapter 10, in the “Further Directions for Moral Thinking” section – a good
topic for reflection, I think, once one has a firm grasp of the kinds of things morality
deals with and the substantive claims that are made for it. The questions considered
in this chapter – in particular the issues of morality’s alleged objectivity or relativity, and its compatibility with the outlook of modern science – are perennial
questions in contemporary public (and private) thinking about morality, and hence
it seemed a very helpful addition to the book to include a survey of these debates. In
addition to refreshing the material throughout the book, I have also added “case
studies” for almost every chapter – exemplifying and extending the material being
discussed by bringing it to bear on real-life cases and decisions. These case studies
can provide discussion in their own right; but can also show how reflective moral
theorising and the intricacies of ethical decision-making in everyday life can and
should illuminate one another.
AC K NO W LE D G E ME NTS
I would like to thank Tony Bruce at Routledge for initially suggesting that I should
write this book, and for his help and advice about its contents. I have also been helped
by generous comments from a number of reviewers. For discussions of the first edition,
I would like to thank Brenda Watson and Jan Kandiyali. I am also very grateful to
Michael Bennett and Stephen Bennett for reading the manuscript and offering invaluable comments. In addition I would like to thank Gemma Dunn (formerly at Routledge), Katy Hamilton, Jim Thomas, Emma Joyes and Adam Johnson for their help in
preparing the book. The usual thanks must go to Sue, Sarah and Lois for their patience
with me while I have been writing this book. Perhaps most importantly, however, I
would like to thank those students with whom I have discussed these issues in my
courses on ethics over the years.
INTRODUCTION
• WHAT IS MORAL THINKING?
No one who reads this book will be inexperienced in ethical thinking. People spend
their lives talking and thinking about what to do, what to think, how to react. Sometimes ethics is treated as a bit of a specialised subject: for instance, where an ethics
“expert” is brought in to give their perspective, say on a news story about the permissibility of some controversial medical research, once experts in various other fields
have had their say. But, necessary though this division of labour sometimes is, it can
encourage the view that ethics is something separate from the ordinary conditions of
life. One of the things I want to do in this introductory chapter is to convince the
reader that this view of ethics as a separate, rather unworldly, specialism is misguided.
We think ethically all of the time, because the fabric of our lives – relationships,
ambitions, projects, responsibilities, wants and needs – is constructed out of ethical
materials. In any one day I might agonise over (maybe this is too strong, but you get
the idea) whether it is wrong to be jealous of my friend’s greater abilities, how to
react to a perceived slight or lack of attention from my partner, whether to get
involved in local politics, how far to intervene in my children’s lives, or how much
intervention to tolerate from my own parents. Sometimes we are bad at making these
questions explicit; yet we feel their pressure, and they influence our behaviour even
when more felt than consciously deliberated on. And sometimes we discuss these
issues at length with our friends and colleagues in the office, at home, at the gym, in
cafés, bars, over dinner or lunch – in short, whenever we get the chance.
Ethical issues seem quite personal and intimate, and one person can easily offend
another by acting in a way that the other thinks is wrong, or even by suggesting that
the other’s views are wrong. Our ethical views can be deeply held, bound up with our
feelings and emotions. Another way in which ethical issues can seem quite personal is
that it seems that each person ought to decide for herself what she is to think. We
would think it strange if someone thought it was enough to take up some ethical view
just bec…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment