PHIL 240 Intro to Ethical Theory Assessing Utilitarian

PHIL 240: Intro to Ethical Theory Assessing Utilitarian and Kantian Approaches, W 6 L 2 Benjamin Visscher Hole IV Office Hours: M, T, F 11: 50 -12: 30 Email: bvhole@uw. edu

Agenda Clicker Quiz Paper Workshop 1. 2.

Clicker Quiz

1. Anscombe claims that it is not profitable to do moral philosophy until we have an adequate philosophy of: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. duty. value. physics. psychology. aesthetics. formal logic. collective action problems. all of the above. none of the above.

2. According to Anscombe, the concept of moral obligation: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. is central to all ethical theories. should be clarified. ought to be jettisoned from our moral thought. was central to Aristotle’s ethics, but has since declined. is reducible to the concept of moral value. serves as a foundation for moral value. all of the above. none of the above.

3. Anscombe claims that British moral philosophers since Sidgwick: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. have splintered into rival, incompatible schools of consequentialists and deontologists. have all held that the right action is the one that produces the best consequences. have all held that the right action is one that does not violate any prima facie duties. have tended to believe that some actions are absolutely forbidden, regardless of their consequences. hold that it is always forbidden to kill an innocent person, even if doing so would bring about good consequences (e. g. , by saving several others. all of the above. none of the above.

Paper Workshop 1. 2. I will assign two groups Groups will critically evaluate each member’s outline.

Groups Matt’s group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Esther Edward Albert Colin Hannah Tyler Ron’s group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Nicholas Heather Casey Margarita Marvin Chris

Paper Workshop 1. For each argument: 1. 2. 3. Is each argument valid in form? Does each argument include all the premises necessary for conclusion? Are the premises sufficient for the conclusion? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. For the overall paper: Is your thesis a strong and simple statement of your core argument’s conclusion? Are you being as charitable as possible in the exegesis? Does your core argument engage with a premise in the argument from the exegesis? Does your objection engage with a premise from your core argument? Is the objection strong (or a straw man)? Does your response to the objection engage with a specific premise? Does your response treat the objection charitably? Does your paper have broader