If you're getting this, it's because you're on my list of students for one of my ethics28 sections. This is the first set of weekly questions. Remember, these are *optional*. To get credit for answering them, just answer by e-mail. You just need to answer three out of the four questions. Short answers (pertinent one-liners) are fine, and you're not getting graded on whether or not you're right or wrong. You just get a check mark which might help your final grade.
There's no time limit to do these, but doing them before section is best. It'll help you in your preparation.
Before I get to the actual questions, a few extra things of note. You can skip them if you want and go right to the questions. Or you can stop reading right now if you're not interested in either these things or answering the questions. Nothing here is mission critical.
--
a)we're not dealing with Ladd this week. But we'll deal with him eventually, so no worries. You won't be cheated out of him
b)you're supposed to do all the readings for the week by the time you hit section. Some of the stuff can get confusing, so you might want to have some questions ready if that's the case. If anything inspires you or annoys the hell out of you, have that ready too
c)the Rawls and Nozick pieces are the heavy hitters this week. These two guys (both big in the 70s and both dead) are some of the most important political philosophers of the 20th century. And they're not as easy as the rest of this week's readings. So take your time, and re-read if necessary
d)if there's a question you're dying to have answered in section, it makes sense to e-mail it to me ahead of time (at my school e-mail address) if you can. I do my best to answer things on the fly, but I'm not that witty
e)someone asked me what "instrumental rationality" was. I suspect that it was in reference to the Ladd article. Anyway, for the purposes of that article, it means the following:
-assume that you have a goal. Let's say the goal is "Hurt people as much as possible". Instrumentally rational people will chose actions which they believe will most effectively achieve that goal. Let's say you're thinking "Hmmm... what are some good ways of hurting puppies?", and you come up with three ideas:
IDEA ONE: throw flowers at them
IDEA TWO: fall in love, volunteer at a charity, get a job you love and die happily in old age
IDEA THREE: get stealth training. Then sneak up on people, punch them, and sneak away. Do this over and over again
In order to be instrumentally rational, you would need to go with the third idea. That's because it's the best way to accomplish your goal, which is to hurt as many people as possible. The important thing to notice here is that it has *no* way to judge whether or not your goal is stupid, evil, or both. It assumes a goal, and then asks "What's the best way for me to achieve it?" It does not ask "Is this a good goal for me to have?"
To put it still another way: it has nothing to do with whether or not your goal is "rational". It's just about whether or not you're being effective in reaching whatever goal you have
(hopefully this answered the question)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the weekly questions:
*****QUESTION 1*****
Watch the PBS video on inequality. What do you think Carnegie would say about it? Bonus: what do you think about it. Bonus #2: what do you think about what you think Carnegie would think about it?
*****QUESTION 2*****
Consider these three scenarios:
-SCENARIO 1:
You live in a very small one-room home. You have running water and a coal stove. You can afford to buy some (used) clothes once a year or so, and can eat enough calories to be healthy. When you go outside, you look down the street, and notice that your neighbors are living in pretty much the same type of life as you.
-SCENARIO 2:
You live in a very small one-room home. You have running water and a coal stove. You can afford to buy some (used) clothes once a year or so, and can eat enough calories to be healthy. Plus you have one dollar more than you did in Scenario 1. When you go outside, you look down the street, and notice that your neighbors are living in spacious homes. They eat whatever they want and frequently listen to Lady Gaga on their iPods.
-SCENARIO 3:
You live in a very small one-room home. You have running water and a coal stove. You can afford to buy some (used) clothes once a year or so, and can eat enough calories to be healthy. Plus you have two dollars more than you did in Scenario 1. When you go outside, you look down the street, and notice that your neighbors are nowhere to be seen. That's because you live next to a gated community with private security. The security guard is pretty nice, but you can't go see the huge homes that your neighbors live in. You have no idea what they listen to on their iPods, but you know that their iPods are made of solid gold.
Most people feel poorer in the third scenario, even though they're two dollars richer. Assuming that the cost of goods is the same in each scenario, is this feeling legitimate? Is it just sour grapes (aka: playa hating)? Is it something else?
*****QUESTION 3*****
Adam Smith talk a lot about self-love, or looking out for number one. One of his classic lines is:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”
Do you think there's any room for morality in Adam Smith?
[note: his other big book is called A Theory of Moral Sentiments :-)]
*****QUESTION 4***** [the hard one!]
In three sentences or less, try to summarize Rawls OR Nozick in your own words
That it! See you this week.
AW
No comments:
Post a Comment