Papers (either for Monday's or Wednesday's class--your choice). Mills, Reeves, Turgeon, Westland, Yang, Walton Wynn
Explain and analyze one of Nietzsche's arguments on one of the following topics:
papers. Roesch, Shukarey, Solmonson, Stuard, Van Lith, Vien.
(1) Explain why Nietzsche asserts one of the following claims, what it means, and why you agree or disagree with it.
Assigmment: we'l be discussing the general acceptability of utilitarianism. Think of either (i) objections you have to utiliarianism, (ii) reasons why you think utilitarianism is true, or (iii) responses to what you think are common objections against utilitarianism.
papers: Krohn Olson Piotter Popp Sloneker Stein. Write on one of the three things listed above.
papers (Hilley Hoemberg Hoffmann Johnston, Monnens Simon):
(1) Explain and evaluate Mill's story about how the sentiment (or feeling) of justice arises.
(2) Why should we respect the rights of others, according to Mill? Do you agree?
(3) Why does Mill think that justice cannot be independent of Utility? Do you agree?
(4) How does Mill handle apparent conflicts between what Utility and justice demand? Do you find his account convincing? Why, or why not?
papers (Haaland Hagen Hayward Lebedoff Macho Mahling):
(1) Explain why Mill thinks that the ultimate sanction of all morality is a "subjective feeling in our own minds." Do you agree? Why or why not? (If you wish, you can also comment on what Kant or Epicurus might say to Mill about this.)
(2) Explain why Mill thinks that the "social feelings of mankind" ae a natural basis for utilitarian morality. Do you agree? Why or why not? (If you wish, you can also comment on what Kant or Epicurus might say to Mill about this.)
(3) Explain and evaluate Mill's proof that the general happiness is the only thing that is desirable. (If you are ambitious, set it out in the form of a step-by-step proof.)
(4) How does Mill argue that virtue can be desired for its own sake, even though happiness is the only thing that is desird for its own sake? Evaluate Mill's argument.
(5) Explain and evaluate some other part of Mill's positon from the readings.
Paper (Dunbar Foley Goodman). From section ii, explain (in your own words) one of the objections that Mill considers and his reply. Pick one where you think his reply is not adequate, and say why. Or, if you prefer, present an objection of your own to utilitarianism.
papers: 1st section, Burmeister Danner Donat. 2nd section. Hatheway Johnson.
(1) Explain why Kant thinks that the person who borrows money not intending to pay it back (p. 31) violates the categorical imperative. Do you think that the person has violated the categorical imperative? Has Kant shown that acting in this way is not right?
(2) Why does Kant think (esp. p. 33) that duty can be expressed only by categorical, and not hypothetical, imperatives? Explain in your own words. Do you agree? How would this apply to Epicurus, do you think? What do you think Epicurus would say?
(3) Examine one of the other examples of duty that Kant discusses on pp. 30-32. Why does he think that the proposed act (and the maxim it is based upon) violate the categorical imperative? Do you agree?
(4) (pp. 33-34.) Why can't the commands of duty be based upon human nature, according to Kant? How would this apply to Plato, do you think? What would Plato say about this doctrine of Kant's?
Reading: Kant, Grounding, First Section. For the paper, look especially at pp. 10-12.
Papers: (1st section: yang beers buie; 2nd section: finnegan gilkey):
(1) Assume that a merchant has a duty not to cheat his customers. Imagine a merchant who does his duty, and doesn't cheat his customers, but only because he believes that not cheating will help his business prosper. Kant would say that the merchant's actions (in this case) have "no moral worth." Now imagine that the merchant refrains from cheating, but does so because he really likes his customers a lot, doesn't want to hurt them, finds inner pleasure from spreading joy, and rejoices in the happiness of other people. Kant would say that the his actions still have "no moral worth." Why does Kant think that, in both cases, the merchant's actions have no moral worth? Explain Kant's arguments. Do you agree with Kant? Why or why not?
(2) Why would Kant argue that the actions of an Epicurean, or of a Platonist, have no moral worth? Would you agree? Why, or why not?
(3) Pick some other argument of Kant's, explain it in your own words, and evaluate it.
For 4/2
Reading: Meditations on First Philosophy: Sixth Meditation.
Papers: (Stuard, Turgeon, Westland, Carlson, Elvehjem, Farrell):
(1) Descartes says that he is "taught by nature" that he has a body (vs. seeing that he has a body by the "light of nature"), and he says that things that he is taught by nature are not indubitable. Nonetheless, he uses the fact that he is "taught by nature" that he has a body as the basis for an argument he does, as a matter of fact, have a body (and that there is an external world). What is his argument? Do you find it convincing? Why, or why not?
(2) Why does Descartes think that the mind is completely different from the body? What is the relation between the mind and the body, according to Descartes? Either come up with an objection against Descartes' position, or think of a reply on Descartes' behalf to a potential objection.
reading: Meditations on First Philosophy, the rest of Meditation 4. Papers (Reeves, Roesch, Solmonson, Bingner, Boike, Borg.
(1) Descartes thinks that, if God exists, it is impossible that He ever deceive me, and that therefore, I can trust the faculty of judgment, when used properly. What are Descartes' arguments for these conclusions? Do you find them convincing? Why, or why not?
(2) Explain Descartes' theory about the cause of intellectual error (roughly, misuse of the faculty of will, but give a little more detail than that), and why he thinks that this theory is consistent with there being an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good God. Do you agree with Descartes? Why, or why not?
(3) Explain and evaluate one of Descartes' other arguments for why he thinks that error is consistent with there being an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good God. If you wish to, discuss this argument in the context of the "Problem of Evil," not just Descartes' "Problem of Error."
Reading: Meditations on First Philosophy: Meditation 3, pp. 69-71 (up to end of last full paragraph. Meditation 4, p. 81, First 3 pararaphs. Meditation 5 (all of it). papers (Olson, Piotter, Popp. Vien Walton, Wyyn):
(1) At the beginning of the third meditation (paragraph 35 ff.), Descartes derives the following "rule" for what he may be certain of, a rule he thinks he derives from the Cogito: "everything that I very clearly and distinctly perceive is true." Answer the following questions about this rule: (i) what do you think he means by this? (ii) Is the rule the correct lesson to draw from the Cogito? (iii) Do you think that this is a good rule to follow if you want to believe only what is certain?
(2) Why does Descartes think that he needs to prove God's existence? Do you agree with Descartes that he needs to prove God's existence? If he can prove God's existence, does it accomplish what he wants it to accomplish? If he CANNOT prove God's existence, what would the results of this failure be? (NOTE: you do not need to discuss Descartes' proof itself, just the place of the proof within Descartes' project.)
(3) Why does Descartes think that it is contradictory to suppose that God does not exist, just like it's contradictory to suppose (in Euclidean geometry) that there is a triangle whose interior angle sum does not equal 180 degrees? Evaluate some part of his argument for this conclusion.
Reading: Meditations on First Philosophy: Meditation 2.
Papers: Hilley, Hoemberg, Mills, Sloneker, Stein, Van Lith.
(1) How is the Cogito (Descartes' proof that he exists: "I think, therefore I am") supposed to work? Why is it certain? How does it escape the hypothesis of the evil deceiver? Do you agree that one can know this with certainty? Why, or why not?
(2) Why does Descartes conclude that he is a thinking thing? What does mean by this? Do you find his arguments for this convincing? Why, or why not?
(3) Why does Descartes think that he can be more certain that he has a mind than that he has a body? Do you agree?
Paper topics (John Hoffmann, Patrick Johnston, Kris Krohn, Paul Mahling, Paul Monnens, Rachel Simon):
(1) Explain Descartes' arguments for why the senses cannot be trusted at all. Do you agree with him? Why, or why not?
(2) Why does Descartes engage in his method of 'hyperbolic doubt' (i.e., 'engaging in the general demolition' of his opinions by withholding his assent from all opinions that are not completely certain and indubitable)? Is this a reasonable procedure? Why or why not?
(3) Is there anything that you are so certain of that you could not possibly doubt it? If so, how can you be certain of it in the face of Descartes' 'dreaming hypothesis' and 'evil deceiver hypothesis'?
If you'd like to read more Lucretius--and some of the best part of him!-- click here and scroll down to the selection on "Folly of the Fear of Death."
Also, the on-line article on Epicurus; read about the virtues and justice.
Papers (Tonya Krauth, David Lebedoff, Liza Macho.)
(1) What is justice, according to Epicurus? What reason does the wise person have to be just? What about the foolish person? Evaluate some part of Epicurus' position or his arguments.
(2) What do you think Epicurus would say if he heard the story of the Ring of Gyges? What would he recomend that one do, and why? Evaluate his response.
Also, the on-line article on Epicurus; read about the virtues and justice.
Papers (Katie Foley, Tracy Hagen, Dee Hayward.)
(1) Why does Epicurus advocate the simple life? Give and evaluate one of his arguments.
(2) Explain Epicurus' three-fold division of desires. Do you find this division convincing? Why, or why not?
(3) What is justice, according to Epicurus? What reason does the wise person have to be just? What about the foolish person? Evaluate some part of Epicurus' position or his arguments.
(4) What do you think Epicurus would say if he heard the story of the Ring of Gyges? What would he recomend that one do, and why? Evaluate his response.
Possible paper topics (Nicole Goodman, Katie Foley, Jodie Haaland, Alex Hatheway, Lushanda Johnson, Jack Kinsley).
(1) Why does Epicurus think that only ones own pleasure has value? Give and evaluate one of his arguments.
(2) Why does Epicurus think that mentl pleasures are greater than bodily pleasures? Give and evaluate one of his arguments.
(3) Why does Epicurus advocate the simple life? Give and evaluate one of his arguments.
(4) Explain Epicurus' three-fold division of desires. Do you find this division convincing? Why, or why not?
On-line article on Epicurus; finish up the section dealing with his metaphysics.
From The Epicurus Reader: text 2 (sections 63-67); text 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 104, 109.
For Epicurus' philosophy, you may also wish to look at Lucretius' poem "On The Nature of Things." Lucretius gives much more detailed arguments on topics (1) and (2) below. Click on this link and scroll down and read the sections on "Nature and Composition of the Mind" and "The Soul is Mortal."
Papers: Danielle Stuard, Mindy Donat, Margaret Dunar, Jen Farrell, Tim Finnegan, Marit Gilkey.
(1) Why does Epicurus think that the mind must be something bodily? Give and evaluate one of his arguments.
(2) Why does Epicurus think that death is annihilation? Give and evaluate one of his arguments.
(3) Why does Epicurus deny that the world is under the providential care of a deity or deities? Give and evaluate one of his arguments.
For 2/23. Reading:
On-line article on Epicurus, up through his the section of his metaphysics dealing with the gods.
From The Epicurus Reader: text 2 (sections 34-45, 54-55, 60-62, 68-71) texts 14, 78, 79, 80, 82, 85, 87, 89 (sections 220-222), 90, 92, 109, 110, 111, 114.
Paper topics (Sophia Buie, Sara Burmeister, Andrea Danner, Andrew Borg, Peter Carlson, Jackie Elvehjem):
(1) Why does Epicurus think that bodies and void exist? Explain his arguments, and evaluate one (or more) of them.
(2) Why does Epicurus think that bodies and void are the only things that exist, although (in a sense) things like colors and like also exist. What is the relationship between 'things' like color and bodies and void, according to Epicurus? Evaluate his position.
(3) Why does Epicurus think that there must be an infinity of matter and space, and that the universe has no beginning or end? Explain his arguments, and evaluate one (or more) of them.
(4) Why does Epicurus think that what happens in the universe (i) is not due to the providential care or plan of any deities, and (ii) occurs because of mechanical, not teleological, processes? Evaluate his arguments for either of the above claims.
Assignment #10
Due Sun. night, 2/18.
Read book 7 of the Republic to 519b.
Papers: (1st section Amanda Westland, Francois Yang; 2nd section: Tajuan Beasley, Ian Bingner, Angela Boike)
(1) What is the difference between the 'lovers of sights and sounds' and the philosophers? Why do the lovers and sights and sounds have only opinion and not knowledge?
(2) Why does Socrates think that knowledge of the 'form of the good' is the highest sort of knowledge?
(3) Anything else: if you wish to explain and evaluate some part of what Socrates says in the similes of the Sun or of the Line at the end of book 6, feel free.
(4) Plato uses the allegory of the Cave to illustrate the process of education. Explain how the different stages of the ascent out of the Cave relate to the segments of the divided Line (509c-511e). Plato argues that mind-independent Forms, which do not exist in the world of senses, must exist as the objects of knowledge. Why does he think this, and do you agree with him? Why or why not?
Assignment #9
Due Thurs. night, 2/15.
Read book 5 of the Republic 471c to the end and Book VI.
Papers: (1st section Kris Krohn, Laura Solmonson, Killa Shukarey; 2nd section: Sakeena Walton, Krista Wynn, David Lebedoff).
(1) Why should philosophers rule, according to Socrates? Do you agree? Why, or why not? (NB: keep in mind what Socrates says about who are the true philosophers, vs. those who are presently called philosophers.)
(2) What is the difference between the 'lovers of sights and sounds' and the philosophers? Why do the lovers and sights and sounds have only opinion and not knowledge?
(3) Why does Socrates think that knowledge of the 'form of the good' is the highest sort of knowledge?
(4) Anything else: if you wish to explain and evaluate some part of what Socrates says in the similes of the Sun or of the Line at the end of book 6, feel free.
Assignment #8
Due Sun. night, 2/11.
Read book 4 of the Republic
Papers (1st section: Rheann Piotter, Lindsey Reeves, Sarah Popp; 2nd section: Lee VanLith, Tara Vien, Sabrina Walton).
(1) Are the people of the ideal Republic happy? Give and evaluate Socrates' arguments for why they are.
(2) Is the ideal Republic just? Give and evaluate Socrates' arguments for why it is. What is justice (in the city), according to Socrates? (Alternative topic: give and evaluate Socrates' argument for why it has one of the other virtues.)
(3) Give and evaluate Socrates' arguments why there are distinct parts of the soul.
(4) What is justice (in the individual), according to Socrates, and why does he say this? Is he right?
(5) Is justice an intrinsic good for you (if Socrates is right about what justice is)? Why does Glauson think that it is? Is he right?
Assignment #7
Due Thurs. night, 2/8.
Read the rest of Book 2 of the Republic, and all of book III, excluding 392c-412b .
Papers (1st section: Patrick Johnston, Amanda Mills, Bobbie Olson; 2nd section: Rachel Simon, Michael Sloneker, Erika Stein).
(1) (376ff.) Why does Socrates advocate censoring the stories of Hesiod and Homer, and how does his proposed censorship relate to his educational proposals? Do you agree with his proposal? Why, or why not?
(2) 378ff: Why does Socratesı say that the stories of Hesiod and Homer are harmfiul lies? What argument does he give for his own conception of the gods, at 379b ff? Do you agree with his arguments? Why, or why not?
(3) (412 b ff.) How are the rulers of the cities chosen, and why? Do you agree with this method (and rationale) for choosing the rulers? Why, or why not?
(4) (414c ff.) Explain the myth of the metals. Why does Socrates propose promulating it? Is it justified? Why, or why not?
Assignment #6
Due Tues. night, 2/6.
Read Book 2 of the Republic, up to 369b.
Papers (1st section John Hoemberg, Sarah Roesch, Coleman Turgeon; 2nd section: Liza Macho, Paul Monnens, Paul Mahling).
What would you do if you had the Ring of Gyges, and why would you do it? (I'm looking for a justification here, not an explanation.) If you'd choose to do something that would be considered unjust, what do you think Socrates' strongest argument against you doing so would be, based on what he says in Book I of the Republic? How would you respond to Socrates? If you would not do something unjust, what do you think Thrasymachus would say against you, based upon what he says in Book I of the Republic? How would you respond to Thrasymachus?
Assignment #5
Due Sun. night, 2/4.
Read Book 1 of the Republic.
Papers (1st section Tracy Hagen John Hoffmann; 2nd section: Hatheway, Alex Jack Kinsley Tonya Krauth).
(1) Briefly summarize one of the arguments that Thrasymachus gives for injustice being more profitable, or one of Socrates' argumetns for justice being more profitable. Do you find the argumetn cogent? Why, or why not? if you wish to, you can also give your own views about which (if either) is more profitable, and why.
(2) Briefly summarize Socrates' objections to either the definition of justice given by Cephalus or by Polemarchus. Do you believe tha Socrates' refutuation is convincing? Why, or why not?
Assignment #4
Due Thurs. night, 2/1.
We'll continue discussing the Euthyphro. Optional papers. You may write for Friday's class if you wish. If you don't, you'll be writing a paper for Monday's class. (1st section Tracy Hagen Dee Hayward DJ Hilley 2nd section: Tajuan Beasley, Alex Hatheway, Shanda Johnson)
(1) Pick one of the definitions of piety that Euthyphro offers, or that Socrates offers on his behalf:
(2) Consider Socrates' objection to the folowing definition of piety: "What all the gods hate is impious, and what all the gods love is pious." (9d) Does his objection show that a Divine Command Theory of ethics is false: that is, a theory according to which morally wrong actions are wrong because God prohibits them, and morally obligatory actions are obligatory because God commands them? (I.e., what is right and wrong is made so by the will of god?) Why, or why not? Defend your answer against objections.
Assignment #3
Due Tues. night, 1/30.
Read the Euthyphro. We'll be concentrating on the ealier sections.
papers (Katie Foley, Nicole Goodman, Jodie Haaland, Molly Finnegan, Marit Gilkey, Ian Bingner):
(1) Pick one of the definitions of piety that Euthyphro offers, or that Socrates offers on his behalf:
We will probably discuss this second topic more on Friday, but you may write on it if you wish.
(2) Consider Socrates' objection to the folowing definition of piety: "What all the gods hate is impious, and what all the gods love is pious." (9d) Does his objection show that a Divine Command theory of ethics is false: that is, a theory according to which morally wrong actions are wrong because God prohibits them, and morally obligatory actions are obligatory because God commands them? Why, or why not? Defend your answer against objections.
Assignment #2
Due Thurs. night, 1/25.
Read the Apology. Write one-two pages on one of the questions below, explaining and analyzing one of Socrates' arguments in your own words.
(1) In 25c-26a Socrates argues that he would not willingly corrupt those around him. Why not? What assumptions does he make? Give Socrates' argument and analyze its cogency.
(2) Why does Socrates claim (in 29e-30b and in 36b-37a) that what he is doing is highly beneficial to the citizens of Athens? What is his argument (or what are his arguments) for this? What assumptions does he make? Give and analyze the cogency of Socrates' argument.
(3) In 30b and following, Socrates makes the following claims: "If they kill me, they will harm themselves more than if they harm me," "A better man cannot harm a worse man," and "I am defending myself not for my own sake but for theirs." These claims seem incredible, as Socrates well knew, and would have seemed so to the members of the jury also. Give Socrates' reasons for one of these claims (put this in your own words, as much as possible). Evaluate his arguments adn his claim. (NOTE: he doesn't produce a simple argument for these claims when he makes them, but evidence for why he says these things can be found elsewhere in the dialogue, e.g., 39a-b is especially relevant.)
We might or might not get to this topic on Friday, but you may write on it if you wish:
(4) What is Socrates' argument for why there is good reason to think that death is a blessing (in 40c and following)? Give it (in the form of a numbered argument is OK) and evaluate it.
Assignment #1
Due Tuesday night, 1/23.
Read the Apology. We'll be concentrating on the earlier sections, but please read to the end.
papers (Angela Boike, Andrew Borg, Jackie Elvehjem, Jonah Beers, Sophia Buie, Sara Burmeister):
Read the Apology. Write one-two pages on one of the questions below, explaining and analyzing one of Socrates' arguments in your own words.
(1) In 21b and following, Socrates claims that he is wiser than the other citizens of Athens, even though he is ignorant. Why does he claim this? How does his 'human wisdom' relate to his mission? What do you think of Socrates' claims?
(2) In 25c-26a Socrates argues that he would not willingly corrupt those around him. Why not? What assumptions does he make? Give Socrates' argument and analyze its cogency.
(3) Why does Socrates claim (in 29e-30b and in 36b-37a) that what he is doing is highly beneficial to the citizens of Athens? What is his argument (or what are his arguments) for this? What assumptions does he make? Give and analyze the cogency of Socrates' argument.
The preceding questions would be better, but here are two other paper topics, which I will assign to the students who are writing for Friday's class:
(4) In 30b and following, Socrates makes the following claims: "If they kill me, they will harm themselves more than if they harm me," "A better man cannot harm a worse man," and "I am defending myself not for my own sake but for theirs." These claims seem incredible, as Socrates well knew, and would have seemed so to the members of the jury also. Give Socrates' reasons for one of these claims (put this in your own words, as much as possible). Evaluate his arguments adn his claim. (NOTE: he doesn't produce a simple argument for these claims when he makes them, but evidence for why he says these things can be found elsewhere in the dialogue, e.g., 39a-b is especially relevant.)
(5) What is Socrates' argument for why there is good reason to think that death is a blessing (in 40c and following)? Give it (in the form of a numbered argument is OK) and evaluate it.
Return to the Introduction to Philosophy course web site. Return to the main page.
Send e-mail to okeefets@morris.umn.edu