AA: Eastern Perspectives, pp. 318-325:

HW: What might attract western thinkers to Eastern thought. Do you agree with Daly’s criticism that western notions of God are sexist?

BB: Ethics Chapter 7, What is Ethics? pp. 510-519:

HW. Define ethical and cultural relativism. Is the relativist or absolutist more tolerant of those whose moral views differ from the majority? Why?

CC: Egoism, Utilitarianism, pp. 519-530:

Consequentialist Theory: measures the morality of action by the non-moral consequences (the ratio of good to evil that an action produces is considered; the right action is the one that produces or will probably produce the most good). If you evaluate the consequences just for yourself, your judgment will be different than if you evaluate the consequences for the other party involved. Should we evaluate consequences only for ourselves, or should we consider the effects on all people involved? Egoism: states that we act morally when we act in a way that promotes our own best long-term interests. What do egoists mean by "self-interests"? Hedonism: states that only pleasure("freedom from bodily pain and mental agitation") is worth having for its own sake. Utilitarianism: claims that we act morally when our actions produce the greatest possible ratio of good to evil for ALL concerned. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart lay the basis for the utilitarian moral principle that actions are right to the extent that they promote pleasure, wrong to the extent that they produce pain. Should only pleasure be considered, or are there other things(ex. knowledge) ?

DD: Natural Law, KANT's Ethics, pp. 531-548:

Nonconsequentialist theory: in ethics is the position that the morality of an action is determined by more than just its consequences. Divine command theory is a a nonconsequentialist normative theory that says we should always do the will of God . Natural law ethics: holds that humans should live according to nature; by the natural order put in by God, man will be happy. Scriptural divine command theories: states that we should obey God's laws simply because God wills it; expressed in sacred scriptures. Implications of divine command ethics: moral and natural vs. immoral and unnatural sexual activity; is the only "right" purpose of sex procreation? Does this make other sexual acts (for pleasure) "wrong"? Categorical imperative: Kant's ethical formula: act as if the maxim (general rule) by which you act could be willed to become a universal law; the belief that what is right for one person is also right for everyone in similar circumstances; his appeal is logical consistency, not to consequences; he appeal's to logical consistency, not to consequences; act so that you always treat people as ends in themselves, and never merely use them as means. Implications of Kantian ethics: states that all sexual activity between informed and voluntary adults is approved, it is morally acceptable; it can be considered to be too permissiveDefine Kant’s view of the categorical imperative. How does Kant’s view differ from utilitarian and egoist ethics?

EE: Buddhist Ethics, pp. 548-554:

Buddhist Ethics: no killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, or intoxicants. That is, in becoming a Buddhist, or affirming one's commitment to Buddhism, a layperson is encouraged to vow to abstain from these negative actions, in order to avoid accumulating negative karma.

 How Buddhist Ethics Work

 

- Ethical behaviour could be generalized in two ways: First, voluntary actions are considered extremely important, because according to the moral law of causation (Karma), they determine our destiny. We will be what we have been; what we do will determine what we become.  Second, ethics is considered the parent of wisdom, in that reflection on the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of volunteer actions leads to discipline of the mind, which usually results in insight and enlightenment.

 

Basic to the doctrines of Buddhism are the Four Noble Truths which are:  Truth of Sorrow, birth is sorrow, age is sorrow, disease is sorrow, death is sorrow; contact with the unpleasant is sorrow, separation from the pleasant is sorrow, every wish unfulfilled is sorrow; these are all five components of individuality.  Arising of Sorrow, arises from craving, which leads to rebirth, which brings delight and passion, and seeks the pleasure now here, now there-craving for sensual pleasure, the craving for continued life, the craving for power.  Stopping of Sorrow, is the complete stopping of that craving, so that no passion remains, leaving it, being emancipated from it, being released from it, giving no place to it.  Way which leads to the stopping of sorrow, Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.  The Buddhist standards of morality, then, must always be conductive to the entertainment of nirvana (enlightened wisdom) and the realization of the Four Noble Truths. 

 

Five Basic Rules of Buddhism

1. Refrain from harming living things.
2. Refrain from taking what is not given.
3. Refrain from a misuse of the senses.
4. Refrain from wrong speech.
5. Refrain from taking drugs or drinks which tend to cloud the mind.

 

“Cease to do evil. Learn to do good. Purify your own mind.”

FF: Character, Virtue, pp. 554-565:

Ethical theories focus on principles or rules of action (with the exception of Buddhist ethics). Modern ethics is based on universal rules or principles, they tell us what actions are morally right and how people should act. Philosophers dont like this because it results in disagreements that cant' be resolved. Modern ethics have forgotten a part of morality that was earlier recognized, this is moral virtue/ character. Moral life isnt about acting on moral rules, morality is about becoming a good person & creating morally accaeptable character traits such as honesty. Ethics should try & identify character traitsor 'virtues' of a morally good person & explain how to develop them. Virtue: a morally good character trait. This was Aristotle's 'cornerstone' of his moral philosophy. Aristotle's theory on virtue Human can only be happy if they fulfil basic human purpose, Humans can only be happy if they act as human should. Aristotle said that humans are meant to act with reason, humans can only be happy if they can act with reason in various circumstances. By developing virtues, happiness will be acheived. He says that when desires, emotions, and actions are involved in excess or falling short, they are vices. We get the virtues of living reasonably and then get the various abilities needed to control these desires, emotions, and actions so that they do not go to excess or fall short. These virtues are the key to happiness. Aristotle sees a virtue as the ability to be reasonable in our actions, desires and emotions. Ex: Courage is the to deal with fear in a reasonable manner. We are not born with these virtues but we gain them through training in communities. They are mainly gained while we are youths because we are trained repeatedly to respond to situations in a certain manner. Acting with virtue at first is difficult, but one the virtue is gained it is easy and pleasent. Aristotle says that our moral; character is developed through our actions that we choose, and these actions shape who we become. To understand the moral rightness or wrongness of moral behavious, one must look at the kind of character that the behaviour produces. If the behaviour creates a virtuos character then it is morally right; it it creates a vicious character then it is morally wrong. Aristotle's beliefs on ethics are much different from Mill, Kant and other philosophers. Virtues remind us of several things that that the rule approach neglects. The first one being; virtues emphasize character traits of a morally good person and the development of these traits and the principle approach neglects character. The Second; virtues remind us of the importance of community and early training and the principle approach ignores this. As a person grows and matures their charactyer is shaped by values that these communities vaklue and the traits they encourage or discouage. Therefore community is important to virtue ethics. The Third; it reminds us of the importance of personal ideals. These personal ideals are ideas of what the ideal person is like and the virtues they display. They serve models that we try and live up to. Virtue theory provides powerfukl insights into our moral lives, therefore many philosophers see it as better than an ethic of rules and principles. A problem about virtues ethics that has been raised is that it does not help to answer the kinds of moral questions that people ask frequently. People often turn to ethics when faced with situations in which they have to decide what to do and the morality of the alternative choices is unclear. Male and Female Ethics: Philosophers (mainly male ones) have claimed that men and women have different ethics. This claim comes from the idea or suggestion that the ethics of women are inferior to those of men. Many female philosophers have suggested that men and women have different moralities. However they have argues that the moralities of women are equal or superior to mens. It has been suggested that men tend to focus on issues that an ethics of principles emphasizes, and women focus on issues taught ethics virtues emphasizes. Carol Gilligan (psychologist) suggested that men and women approach ethics differently. He beliefs go against the beliefs of a psychologist named Lawerence Kohlberg. He believes that women are less morally developed than men. He said that peoples moral abilities developed in stages. There were 3 stages:preconventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Parents or authority figures tell children what is right and wrong and the post-conventional stage. At this stage morality focuses on the self because the children follow authority and avoid punishment. As a child matures into adolescence they develop attachments and loyalties to groups such as friends. At the conventional level morality is based on acceptance from those groups. As the adolescent matures morally they will begin to examine and question the conventional moral standards. At the post-conventional level morality is based on universal moral principles of human welfare, justice and rights. He studied many people and concluded that everyone’s moral rights develop in that order, but not everyone develops fully. Some only make it to one or two levels and then stops, and a minority can only reach the post-conventional level. More men than women make it to the post-conventional level. Women mainly stay that the conventional level where attachment and loyalties to friends and families are more important. The implies that women are less morally developed then men. Carol Gilligan pointed out a flaw in this view: he came to these conclusions by studying mostly men. Therefore hie theory is about how mens morals develop not women’s. Gilligan says that women’s morality is very different from mens and develops differently. She says women see themselves as persons on relationships and when faced with moral issues and they are concerned with maintaining these relationships and avoiding hurting others. So, for women,. morality is about carin and being responsible for others that they are involved in personal relationships with. Women move through 3 levels of development: 1) a stage in which they are overly devoted to caring for themselves, 2) a stage in which they are overly devoted to caring for others, 3) a stage in which they achieve a balance between caring for self and others. When men focus on moral decisions they focus on the individuals involved and see morality as following the moral rules or principles that apply to these individuals. Women focus on relationships and men focus on impartial rules and principles. Women however are not inferior. Caring and responsibility is what society needs. Society disconnects people and promotes competition, individualism, separation, and independence. Caring and responsibility are virtues that are needed to make sure society doesnt become and isolated place. Another philosopher Nel Noddings said that the virtue of caring is superior tp the focus on principles. Noddings says that ethics is about specific individuals; not abstract principles of justice and rights. The ethgical person is one who cares for another specific indidual during an actual encounter with that unique person and who manifests concern for that indivual. As a person grows as they aquire the capacity to care for others and herself. Noddings and Gilligan ave changed their views say in that both men and women can can approach morality from the perspective of cariong. Also. men and women approach morality in terms of universal moral principles. Men appeal to rules and principles, and women appeal to relationships.

GG: Applying Ethics, pp. 565-575:

Throughout this chapter many ethical theories are analyzed, however there is no set theory that is completely right or wrong. Ethical theories need to be examined for many different reasons. One reason is to examine different truths and opinions and to weigh out the pros and cons of each point of view. These reasons are evaluated by three different kinds of methods; Utilitarianism, Virtue theory, and Kant. A major question in ethics is the issue of abortion. The definition of abortion is the deliberate ending of pregnancy before the baby is born. In 1973 the U.S Supreme Court made abortion legal stating that is a woman’s personal business and choice of her own. However, after a woman is pregnant after 6 months, the Supreme Court states that abortion is only considered moral if the mother’s health is in danger. The question raised with this issue is; when is it considered moral to have an abortion? An example in the textbook of this issue is with a woman called “Jane Doe”. She agreed with her husband to have an abortion because they felt the timing in their lives was not appropriate for a baby. Kant Method: A philosopher called Mary Anne Warren argues that this couple did the right thing because the fetus is not a person. She backs up her argument by saying that it can only be a person if it has consciousness, reasoning, having self-motivation, being able to communicate and self concepts. This theory was proven invalid when adults with disabilities and even infants lack these traits, however they still have the right to life. A woman named Janet Smith feels that we need to evaluate the virtue theory in order to judge the act as being moral or immoral. Virtue theory: evaluates the morality of behavior by examining the person this type of behavior produces. For example, she states that those receiving an abortion were obviously careless about birth control and even irresponsible and those will be the type of people that will get an abortion. Utilitarianism: This theory thinks that we should evaluate both the pros and cons of this situation and make a “moral” decision based on the circumstances, whatever that may be. Euthanasia literally means “good death”. It is when a person suffering from an incurable disease with great pain wishes for a purposeful death. There are two approaches to this topic. Passive Euthanasia: when the disease is left alone to run its natural course and no medication is prescribed to the patient resulting in death. Active Euthanasia: a deliberate cause of death upon the patient. In 1996 a law was passed and made active euthanasia legal. Kant Method: says to do whatever you would want to be wished upon yourself. Utilitarianism: this theory says that the patient has the right to make the choice to be put to death or to stay alive. Sometimes the pain may be so great that they wish death but really do not mean it. This method says the patient must be completely voluntary. Natural Law approach: cannot take this person’s life without great consideration.

HH: Moral Responsibility, pp. 576-590:

I plan to strive for originality as well as, of course, efficiency in my teaching segment. For the information I've found via your link on the website, I'll utilize some ideas on how to establish the information; be it a video or song or handout - something. And that information is the linked page on Wikipedia titled "Compatibilism and Incompatibilism". That shouldn't be overly long. Then, and this should take up the majority of the class, I am going to look for one of Neitche's books - preferably Beyond Good and Evil - and then get a discussion going encircling his most famous and controversial of quotes: "God is Dead". Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent (people who hold this belief are known as compatibilists). While compatibilists hold that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive, not all compatibilists would insist that both are true. Compatibilism, as championed by the ancient Greeks Stoics, Hobbes, Hume and many contemporary philosophers, is a theory that argues that free will and determinism exist and are in fact compatible. The compatibilist definition of free will states that free will is not the ability to choose as an agent independent of prior cause, but as an agent who is not forced to make a certain choice. Determinists argu e that all acts that take place are predetermined by prior causes. Because human decision is an act that is not exempt from prior cause, by this definition, some determinists known as hard determinists believe that free will thus becomes an illusion. A compatibilist, or soft determinist, in contrast, will define a free act in a way that does not hinge on causal necessitation. For them, an act is free unless it involves compulsion by another person. Since the physical universe and the laws of nature are not persons, they argue that it is a category error to speak of our actions being forced on us by the laws of nature, and therefore it is wrong to conclude that universal determinism would mean we are never free. For example, you could choose to keep or delete this page; while a compatibilist will not try to deny that whatever choice you make will have been predetermined since the beginning of time, they will argue that this choice that you make is an example of free will because no one is forcing you to make whatever choice you make. In contrast, someone could be holding a gun to your head and tell you that unless you delete the page, they will kill you; to a compatibilist, that is an example of a lack of free will. (The compatibilist account sometimes includes internal compulsions such as kleptomania or addiction.) Further, according to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires. That is, when one says that one could either continue to read this page or to delete it, one doesn't really mean that both choices are compatible with the complete state of the world right now, but rather that if one had desired to delete it one would have, even though as a matter of fact one actually desires to continue reading it, and therefore that is what will actually happen. Incompatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are logically incompatible categories. This could include believing that determinism is reality, therefore free will is n illusion (hard determinism), or that free will is true, therefore determinism is not (libertarianism), or even that neither determinism nor free will is true (pessimistic incompatibilism). Incompatibilism means that the notion of a deterministic universe is completely at odds with the notion that people have a free will. It can be treated in at least two ways: by libertarians, who deny that the universe is deterministic through- and-through, and the hard determinists, who deny that any free will exist.

Art and Philosophy By: Kris Ciccone
People have always had two prominent questions when it comes to art, what exactly constitutes as art, and secondly what makes art good and bad. Throughout history people have tried to answer these two fundamental questions and along with this have created a few distinctions in art itself. The first classification that was created to try and answer these questions was Art as imitation. This classification means that a piece of art should be looked at like a picture.  It means that a work of art should represent something in reality. Examples of this are landscapes portraits and even novels. With this type of classification an individual would rate art on its ability to reflect reality. So if one landscape looked more real then another than the first would be a better piece of work. The problem with this type is that when we only allow art to be a picture of reality we basically turn all art into a photocopying machine or camera (both of which would do a better job). After the first classification was conceptualized people came up with the second type of art classification, art as an expression of emotion.  When you listen to music, look at paintings or read books, they all conjure up certain emotions within you. Along with this came Kant's idea of a deeper reality or the "noumenal" world. This idea spread thought out the philosophers of the romantic period and many felt that this deeper world could not be attained through reason but though emotion. After most rejected Kant's ideas, many started to accept the new idea of art as form. This classification basically states that art is art not because it represents something in reality or that it tries to achieve some emotional state, it simply argues that art is art because of the way its parts and materials are arranged so that it stirs our aesthetic emotions. The problem with this type of thinking is that only beautiful works of art in this form can be considered art. If a piece if not beautiful, by this definition, is not classified as a work of art. The last definition of art pertains to whatever people belonging to the "artworld" consider art. An example of an artworld is the painters who paint the art, the galleries and museums that decide if the art if good enough to show, critics who write whether or not the paintings are good, and lastly the audience who decide if they want to buy the art of not. Artworlds are not just limited to art work of the painting variety, they also apply to music as art and to books and poems as art too. It is the individuals that make up these art worlds that are the ones that decide what art is, and if infact it is good or bad art at that.