The paper takes a moral puzzle which Corbett will pose and you then make the best case you can for the decision a person would make using the assigned moral system.
The six systems for the papers are:
Please note that any evidence of plagiarism, that is work that is not the student's own, will result not only is a grade of F for the paper, but for the entire course.
Devon is a very hard working and ambitious fellow. He wants to succeed economically and is willing to do virtually anything to achieve this success. Currently he is working toward an advanced degree in management theory which he fully believes will be a critical step in achieving his goals. Devon has no current job. He simply can't afford the time to work. He lives at home with his aging widowed mother, and she supports the two of them from her pension.
They have no other family, and when Devon's father was alive the mother and father worked together in their small business and had virtually no outside friends at all. Devon is the only personal contact in his mother's life.
This is a pressing semester for Devon. He's taking, among other things, a difficult course in moral philosophy and must get a good grade. However, just about mid-term his mother falls ill. It is a very serious illness, but if only she takes her medicine every 4 hours for the next 6 weeks she will be sure to recover. Otherwise she will die. Were she to die, however, her pension, which is not a government pension, but a pension of stocks, would go to Devon as her only surviving relative. She is simply too weak to take this medicine, or to wake herself each 4 hours. They don't have enough money to hire anyone to do this.
If Devon doesn't give her the medicine, then she is almost for sure going to die.
Despite the fact that she supports Devon, and has never treated him in any way which he himself thinks was bad, Devon simply doesn't much like his mother. Further, this is a pressing semester, and were Devon tied to the house and needing to wake each four hours, he would be in grave danger of endangering his career plans.
Devon is a dedicated and convinced Ethical egoist. He sits down and tries to figure out how to deal with his mother in a rational Ethical egoist manner.
You must completely 100% move into the mind and perspective of this Devon. You many not change one iota of the facts. You must make the most compelling case from within Devon's moral and factual "place," that will arrive at the moral judgement concerning what he will do about his mother's illness and his possible role in providing her this life-sustaining medicine.
To violate:
In sum your arguments must be precisely and exactly what THIS Ethical egoist would argue were he truly an Ethical egoist, and rational and a careful thinker.
Michiko is a dedicated rights theorists. She lives her life by this moral theory and she does so with PENETRATING reasons and careful thinking. But she is sorely troubled at the moment. She recognizes a prima facie right to personal freedom, but knows even this right limits her somewhat since she must give some of her freedom to the prima facie right of others not to be harmed.
Currently she is in a serious situation in her neighborhood. She has purchased a pit bull dog for her protection. The dog is well-trained and she keeps it only in her own yard which is well fenced and the dog is quite secure. Her neighbors, however, are terrified of the dog and have strong views about how dangerous pit bulls are. There are many small children who live and play in this neighborhod as well. Michiko, however, believes they are simply mistaken in this view of how dangerous her dog is, and even if they weren't she has taken extreme precautions that the dog cannot get out, it is only there for her protection.
She and the neighbors are in a terrible disagreement, nearly a fight over what is right here in this situation. Michiko now sits down and figures this thing out with her careful reasons and her deep commitment to a theory of moral rights.
What does she conclude and how did she get to this conclusion?
You must completely 100% move into the mind and perspective of Michiko. You many not change one iota of the facts. You must make the most compelling case from within Michiko's moral and factual "place," that will arrive at the moral judgement concerning what she will do about her neighbors and her dog.
To violate:
In sum your arguments must be precisely and exactly what THIS Rights theorist would argue were she truly a Rights theorist, and rational and a careful thinker.
Chen is a committed rule utilitarian, and a vigorous rational moralist. He is, however, worried about his own choices for the future. He has a demonstrated ability in chess, and most experts who have heard of him and seen the records of games this 17 year-old has played believe he could be one of the next great grandmasters of chess. Not only is he a great player, but he is one of the most astonishing theorists of the game in the last 4 centuries. The Chen family, at first just flabbergasted at his ability since none of these people from their small farm village had ever even heard of the game, followed his prompting and begging and made his training and advancement possible, but at enormous sacrifice to themselves. They lived in virtual poverty to support his demands for training.
Now however, he is no longer sure about his future. He is a competent automobile mechanic, not a great one, but he can fix lots of things and he enjoys it. Chess is heavy pressure and real work. Fixing cars is fun and not very demanding, especially since no one expects too much of him since he's not so very good at it.
Yet he thinks he may want to quit chess and live a life as a mechanic. He is concerned about many things, including what he family will think, of just what the world of chess will lose without his theorizing and his example in his games. He is worried about the low level of economic life he will have as a barely acceptable mechanic in comparison with the assured riches his chess talents would give him.
He does realize this is a radical choice. If he fails to work at his chess game and theory the many hours he does each day, his game and ability to theorize will quickly sink to a level that will make him no longer interesting to the chess world any longer.
How does Chin work this out?
You must completely 100% move into the mind and perspective of Chin. You many not change one iota of the facts. You must make the most compelling case from within Chin's moral and factual "place," that will arrive at the moral judgement concerning what he will do about his life choice of jobs.
To violate:
In sum your arguments must be precisely and exactly what THIS Rule Utilitarian theorist would argue were she truly a Rule Utilitarian theorist, and rational and a careful thinker.
Martha, a rigorous Kantian and carefully rational thinker is deeply troubled. She married Tim 22 years ago and he has been a loyal and loving husband, sharing his time, life's dreams and wealth with her. He is faithful, loving, considerate, fair -- just a very decent human being. She has been the same toward him, except perhaps not as loving. But, she's been faithful, considerate, fair and genuinely enjoys his company. He's been her best friend, but she's never really felt any powerful romantic or sexual love for him, nonetheless they've had a quite happy married life until now.
They have no children, a fact of their own mutual choice, not an accident of nature. Neither of them has ever wanted children.
Martha is now in a profound dilemma. She has fallen terribly in love with Mark, a fellow at her work. She never meant to, she's never in any way violated her marriage vows, she's had no "affair" at all. This is not about an affair. Rather, in their working together over the past 6 years she just gradually has come to love him very much, and does have extremely strong sexual feelings toward him (never acted upon), in addition to a general all-round love of him.
She has never told Tim of this growing attraction for Mark, and she's never even gone on a "date" or anything of that nature with Mark. However, recently, in almost an accidental manner, she has discovered that Mark, married for 20 years to Shirley, feels the same way toward her.
As a Kantian she knows she must act with respect toward persons and she does. However, she knows that one of Kant's mandates is that she respect herself as well. There seems to be a tremendous conflict of "respects" here for her.
Tim must be respected, so must Mark. Shirley must be respected and so must she respect herself. Like her and Tim, Mark and Shirley have no children and have no plans to do so.
She and Mark have discussed the possibility of leaving Tim and Shirley respectively and having the rest of their lives together where they finally have not only the pleasant lives they've already been having with their current mates, but have this powerful and almost desperate romantic and sexual love as well. They even think that perhaps they "owe" it to themselves. But Martha needs time to think this all out in a pure Kantian fashion.
Present Martha's moral decision and then her careful reasons for why she decides to do what she does.
You must completely 100% move into the mind and perspective of Martha. You many not change one iota of the facts. You must make the most compelling case from within Martha's moral and factual "place," that will arrive at the moral judgement concerning what she will do about her decision of what to do in her long-term life, and with which partner.
To violate:
In sum your arguments must be precisely and exactly what THIS Kantian theorist would argue were she truly a Kantian theorist, and rational and a careful thinker.
| My Philosophy Page | Webster U. Philosophy Department |
| Philosophy for Children | Critical Thinking | Current Semester | Education | Existentialism |
| Miscellaneous Topics | Moral Philosophy | Peace Issues | Voluntary Economic Simplicity | |
Bob Corbett corbetre@webster.edu