PHIL 2200-021 Summer 2008
MTWR 3:20 - 5:00 pm Rocket Hall 1549 Jun 23 - Aug 1, 2008
Register for this course at UT
Instructor: Nita de Oliveira, Ph.D. Office: Scott Hall 3012
Phone: 419-530-4517 Office Hours: MWF 11-12:00
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org F 3:00 - 5:00 or by appointment
PHIL Ė 2200-004/05 †INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
[3 hours] (Can be taken for major credit) An introduction to philosophical reflection on such issues as the existence of God, free will, knowledge and objectivity, social justice and moral responsibility. The course will be divided into three main parts, Truth, God, and the Good, respectively dealing with philosophical questions about knowledge (epistemology), being (metaphysics and ontology), and moral action (ethics).
Louis P. Pojman,
Editor. Philosophy: The quest for truth.
Jacques Maritain, An introduction to philosophy. Translated by E. I. Watkin.
Wilhelm Windelband, An introduction to philosophy. Translated by Joseph McCabe.
Gilles Deleuze and Fťlix Guattari, What is
by Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell.
Martin Heidegger, Phenomenological interpretations of
Aristotle: Initiation into phenomenological research. Translated
by Richard Rojcewicz.
Martin Heidegger, What is philosophy? Translated
with an introd. by
William Kluback and Jean T. Wilde
Josť Ortega y Gasset, What is
philosophy? Translated from the Spanish by Mildred Adams.
Ragland and Sarah Heidt, Editors. What is
Grades are based on point accumulation throughout the semester. There are 2 Homeworks worth 15 points each and 1 Midterm worth 30 points. One of the Homeworks might be replaced by a Class Presentation. NO LATE ASSIGNMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED, unless they are accompanied by evidence of a medical emergency (e.g., signed doctorís note) or death in the family (e.g., funeral program). Make-up exams will be given only to those students who inform me of their emergency by email on the day of the exam. The cumulative final exam is worth 40 points, so as to make up 100 points:
30 points = Homework
30 points = Midterm
40 points = Final Exam
100 total points
Final grades for the course are based on the following scale:
93-100 pts. = A†††††††††††††††††††††† 77-79 pts. = C+
90-92 pts. = A-††††††††††††††††††††††† 73-76 pts. = C
87-89 pts. = B+†††††††††††††††††††††† 70-72 pts. = C-
83-86 pts. = B†††††††††††††††††††††††† 60-69 pts. = D
80-82 pts. = B-††††††††††††††††††††††† 59 and below = F
Neither plagiarism (i.e., presenting
the written work of another as oneís own) nor cheating (i.e., providing answers
to exam questions or receiving exam answers from another) will be tolerated.
Any academic dishonesty will be disciplined according to the guidelines in the
If you need special accommodations to attend my class, please notify me immediately. Your need for special accommodations, including special testing requests, will need to be documented by the Office of Accessibility, located at 1400 Snyder Memorial.
Chapters on the schedule
refer to Pojmanís book.† Prepare all the readings before the date
given. The reading assignments are usually short and hopefully pleasant.
Homework is turned in at the beginning of class on the day itís due. In-class practice exams will be given on Review days.
For the Homeworks # 5 and # 6, you are asked to write a 1-2 page essay trying to address 2 questions from each reading assignment (check the suggested study questions below). So that means that for each text you read you should prepare 2 study questions. You can use the texts you read and the material available on the internet, but make sure you cite your sources properly.
Besides Pojman's Appendix (below), you might want to take a look at Jeff McLaughlin, How to Write a Philosophy Paper or P. Bokulich, Paper Writing Hints.
The FINAL EXAM will cover all the 3 sections (I-Truth, II-God, III- The Good).
August††††††††††††† 20: Introduction: What is Philosophy? Truth, God, and the Good
PART I: TRUTH, or the problem of knowledge (epistemology)
††††††††††††††††††††††† 22: Chap. 1: Socratic wisdom
††††††††††††††††††††††† 24: Chap. 2: Of enthusiasm and the quest for truth
29: Chap. 24: The correspondence theory of truth
††††††††††††††††††††††† 31: Chap. 25: The pragmatic theory of truth
September †††††† †3: Labor Day Ė No Class
††††††††††† ††††††††††† †5: Appendix: How to read and write a philosophy paper
††††††††††††††††††††††† †7: Homework #1 & Review
††††††††††††††††††††††† 10: Chap. 22: The origin of our ideas and skepticism
††††††††††† † ††††††††† 12: Chap. 23: An argument against skepticism
††††††††††††††††††††††† 14: Chap. 32: What is it like to be a bat?
††††††††††† ††††††††††† 19: Chap. 27: Postmodernism and truth
††††††††††††††††††††††† 21: Homework #2 & Review
††††††††††††††††††††††† 24: MIDTERM #1
PART II: GOD, or the problem of being (metaphysics and ontology)
††††††††††††††††††††††† 26: Chap. 3: The value of philosophy
††††††††††† ††††††††††† 28: Chap. 4 The five ways
††††††††††††††††††††††† † 5: Chap. 7: The watch and the watchmaker (Paley)
††††††††††††††††††††††† † 8: Chap. 8: A critique of the teleological argument (Hume)
††††††††††† ††††††††††† 10: Chap. 9: The Ontological Argument
††††††††††††††††††††††† 12: Homework #3 & Review / Bonus Exam (Pojman p. 29-33, Deductive Arguments)
††††††††††††††††††††††† 15: Fall Break -- No Class
††††††††††††††††††††††† 17: Chap. 10: An analysis of the ontological argument
††††††††††††††††††††††† 22: Chap. 12: Why doesnít God intervene to prevent evil?
††††††††††††††††††††††† 24: Chap. 13: There is a reason why God allows evil / John Hick
††††††††††††††††††††††† 26: Homework #4 & Review
29: MIDTERM #2
PART III: THE GOOD, or the moral problem (Ethics)
††††††††††††††††††††††† 31: Chap. 15: The ethics of belief
November †††††† 2: Chap. 41: The dilemma of determinism
††††††††††††††††††††††† 7: Chap. 44: Freedom of the will and the concept of a person
††††††††††††††††††††††† 12: Veteranís Day -- No Class
††††††††††† ††††††††††† 14: Chap. 47: Morality is not relative / Rachels
16: Homework #5& Review / Makeup Midterm
21-23: Thanksgiving Break -- No Class
††††††††††† ††††††††††† 7: Homework #6
December †††††† 12: FINAL EXAM Wednesday 12:30-2:30
Philosophy Dept - UT
When one asks this question, one may think of either an historical approach or a rather thematic approach to the question.
In historical terms, the word "philosophy" refers us back to the 6th century before the Christian Era, when Pre-Socratic thinkers started questioning the ultimate principle of the cosmos, by breaking away from traditional, mythological accounts (theogonies and cosmogonies) and resorting to rational inquiries into the origins and meaning of things in the world, human nature and activities. Thus Thales of Miletus thought that water was the first principle, while Anaximenes held that everything in the world was composed of air and Heraclitus taught that fire was the natural principle that accounted for all phenomena. Pythagoras --who taught that numbers were the fundamental principle of the cosmos (as opposed to the four elements --water, air, earth and fire)-- was among these radical thinkers and was in effect the first one to call himself a philosopher, or lover of wisdom. The Greeks were amazed at the plays of opposites (for instance, between rest and motion, day vs. night, warm vs. cold, wet vs. dry, the changes of seasons (summer, fall, winter, spring), the repetition and the becoming of natural phenomena, such the growth of plants and animals,† the observation of planets, stars, eclipses, comets, and celestial bodies, and their wonder led them to develop geometry, mathematics, astronomy, and especially philosophy. These sciences already existed† (of course, in a pre-modern understanding of "science") but it was thanks to the development of philosophy that they were developed and became more and more sophisticated.
Hence, etymologically speaking, the word "philosophy" simply means "love of wisdom" (from the Greek words philia = love, friendship, and sophia = wisdom).
So the first philosophers set out to know themselves and to know reality and the world around them. Philosophy can be thus regarded as a permanent quest for truth, for the meaning of being and first causes (especially God), and the end of our actions (especially the moral good). As we speak of Truth, God, and the Good we are not only following a textbook division (say, in Pojman's book!) but are attempting to make sense of this philosophical question in both historical and thematic terms. To be sure, we are talking about Western philosophy --itself very rich and complex, and always on the move!
Historically speaking, one might
say that Western philosophy began in
Ancient,† Medieval,† Modern,† and† Contemporary.
Ancient Philosophy : From the Pre-Socratics (Thales, Parmenides,
Heraclitus) through Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, all the way till the end of the
Roman period (
Medieval Philosophy : From the decline and fall of the
Modern Philosophy : From the times of the Reformation and the emergence of the scientific world (16th century) up to the end of the 19th century; Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche.
Contemporary Philosophy : From the beginning of the 20th century
till our days; Husserl, Heidegger, Russell, Wittgenstein,
As we think of Greek and Roman philosophy to stress the cultural context of the birth of Western philosophy, we may also recall that Medieval philosophy was dominated by theological thought (Christian, Jewish, and Arabic), and we may signal that one speaks of an Italian renaissance, French rationalism, British empiricism, German idealism, and American pragmatism. And today we celebrate multicultural and intercultural approaches to philosophy, both Eastern and Western, feminist and gay, continental and analytic.
By all accounts, from the outset, philosophy has been a perennial inquiry into the ultimate reality and a quest for the truth, the good, and the beautiful. Thus one can fairly divide philosophy into several fields of investigation, namely:
the truth††††††††††††††††††††† what can I know?†††††††† † ††††††††† ††††††††††† epistemology
the good††††††††††††††††††††† what ought I to do?† †††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ethics
the beautiful†† ††††† how can I judge? what can I hope for? †††††† aesthetics
††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† philosophy of religion
being / beings†††† what makes beings what they are? ††† metaphysics / ontology
Traditional metaphysics has been divided into
general metaphysics (ontology = the study of beings, "ta onta," in Greek)
and special metaphysics, itself comprising
1. theology = study of god, or the first mover, the ground of being
2. anthropology = the study of human being and/or psychology = the study of the soul as active principle of living beings, especially human beings
3. cosmology = the study of the cosmos ("kosmos" in Greek, the universe, the whole or totality of all beings)
Philosophers like Kant allowed for a rapprochemnt between religion and aesthetics, for instance, when dealing with the question of the sublime. Hegel reappropriates this view when he brings art, religion, and philosophy together in his Phenomenology of the Spirit.
Philosophy can be thus distinguished from religion, art, and science, even though there is no consensus among philosophers about this. In effect, it is very common to approach philosophy from a more or less scientific attitude (for instance, in analytic philosophy) or from a rather artistic, literary perspective (Romanticism, Continental philosophy, postmodernity). In any case, philosophy cannot be reduced to either science or art.
What is philosophy ?
Well, that will certainly remain a damn good question for philosophers and nonphilosophers alike!
"... we cannot learn philosophy... We can only learn to philosophize; in other words, we can only exercise our powers of reasoning in accordance with general principles, retaining at the same time, the right of investigating the sources of these principles, of testing, and even of rejecting them."
(Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason 1781, PART II: The Transcendental Doctrine of Method, CHAPTER III. The Architectonic of Pure Reason)
I. TRUTH (EPISTEMOLOGY):
1. Plato, Apology: Socrates' (470-399) trial and death penalty; drinking the hemlock
charges: corrupting the youth and introducing new gods
the gadfly of Athens : a radical critic of his own culture and times (democracy)
sophistry = reasoning which is fallacious and dishonest, manipulative
1. maieutics (midwifery) = helps to bring to light knowledge / truth already latent in one's soul; "know thyself" / self-knowledge (Delphic oracle)
2. elenchus (cross-examination) = refutation of an opinion, by eliciting self-contradiction and comparing several hypotheses, arguments, and counterarguments
3. dialectics (dia + legein = back and forth argumentation) = the art of arguing for and against given positions (for example, thesis vs. antithesis)
we start from opinions (doxa) and move towards real knowledge (episteme) as we commit ourselves to an endless search for truth, by knowing ourselves and things around us: " an unexamined life is not worth living"
2. John Locke (1632 - 1704)
An Essay concerning Human Understanding, (1690)
tabula rasa = clean slate, blank tablet, blank sheet / blank diskette
Empiricism: the human mind acquires knowledge by processing all data through experience, as opposed to rationalism (the assumption that innate ideas and principles make our knowledge of the world possible, as Plato and Descartes held)
"Enthusiasm" (in the sense of the Enlightenment) = a state of religious exaltation that seeks to establish supernatural revelation as over against the natural light of reason.
3. Renť Descartes (1596-1650)
Meditations on First Philosophy (1641)
mathesis universalis = universal, rationalist method to lay the foundations of the sciences
intuition = immediate representation of a self-evident truth
1. methodic doubt; skepticism about sensory perception, suspension of judgment about the external world, hypotheses of madness, dream, the evil demon (check the Wikipedia entry on the thought-experiment brain in a vat or David Chalmers' blog on the philosophy of Matrix)
2. "Cogito, ergo sum" = "I think, therefore I am" : I doubt > I think > I exist
3. whatever is clear and distinct must be true; deductions
deduction = proceeds from universal to particular propositions, or better said, in deductive reasoning if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true
for ex.: If p, then q
Therefore, q [modus ponens]
Everyone born is Florida is American, but not all Americans were born in Florida.
induction = proceeds from particular cases toward generalized propositions, or in more strictly logical terms, inductive reasoning means that the premises of an argument support the conclusion but do not ensure it, hence it is a matter of probability
for ex.: John observes 1,000 green ducks in the property and notices that they all have a black head
It is very likely that the 1,001st green duck found in the property will also have a black head --but this is just a probability, it might not actually occur.
4. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
As opposed to a coherence theory of truth, a correspondence theory of truth maintains that:
1. truth is to be opposed to falsehood
2. "true" or "false" are assigned only to beliefs
3. beliefs, in turn, depend on facts outside the beliefs themselves (external world).
Coherence theories of truth betray a "completely rounded system" ("The Truth") and must presuppose basic truths such as the law of contradiction (such as stated in 1: it is either true or false that "such and such is the case," say, that "the cat is on the mat.")
5. William James (1842-1910)
A pragmatic theory of truth is an alternative to both coherence and correspondece theories.
A proposition is true if holding to be so is practically successful or useful.
After all, good theories are supposed to work and to make a difference in real life ("cash-value")
according to pragmatism, "our beliefs are rules for action"
"intellectualist" conception of truth: a copy of reality; an inert static relation
"True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot."
Truth is "what we ought to believe," hence "the true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief"
6. David Hume (1711-1776)
A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40): Of Understanding, Passions, Morals
analytic truths ("relations of ideas"/ a priori) vs synthetic truths ("matters of fact"/ a posteriori)
All perceptions of the mind: ideas (less forcible) vs. impressions (more lively)
"3 . 5 = 30 / 2 ," Pythagorean theorem are relations of ideas, tautologies
"That the sun will rise tomorrow" and that water boils at 212 F are matters of fact: probability
"cause and effect" is a relation solely established by custom, habit: skepticism
"From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects": "constant conjunction"
7. John Hospers, "An Argument Against Skepticism" (1967)
3 senses of "knowing": acquaintance, ability, propositional
"I know that p": p must be true, I must believe that p is true, I must have evidence for p
8. Thomas Nagel, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" (1974)
consciousness cannot be fully dealt with by dualism or physicalism/materialism
dualism: mind (soul, thinking substance) vs body (extension, corporeal substance)
physicalism: "mental states are physical states" (materialist reduction)
objective and subjective perspectives are complementary not excluding
phenomenology: a descriptive science of what appears as the experience of consciousness
9. Richard Rorty, "Dismantling Truth" (1987)
("hard," natural) sciences vs. humanities
objectivity: "methodical," "rational," "scientific"
(hard) facts vs. (soft) values
deconstructing absolute conceptions of Truth: "the paradigm of rationality"
Thomas Kuhn: "paradigm shifts" in the history of science
new pragmatism: "the new fuzziness," blurring the objective-subjective distinction
"unforced agreement": ethnocentric, intersubjective; fluid communities / cultures
10. Daniel Dennett, "Postmodernism and Truth" (1998)
In defense of Western civilization: science and epistemology
Truth ultimately refers to objective facts and "events that really happened"
Postmodernism and multiculturalism: science is objective, not neutral
Postmodernism: a radical, deconstructive critique of modern ideals and metanarratives
Postmodernists vs. modernists:
difference vs. identity (logic, ontology, metaphysics, correspondence)
fragmentation vs. totality (system, absolute, completion)
dissemination/dispersion/dissent/displacement vs. unity (closure, coherence, symmetry)
II. GOD (METAPHYSICS):
B. Russell: The value of philosophy consists not in material goods (money) or conclusive answers ("the meaning of life" or self-help crap!), but in self-knowledge, self-understading, and the pursuit of knowledge (between the self and the not-self, all that remains to be known in the universe)
Aquinas: The five ways (5 arguments for God's existence):
1. the argument from change (motion)
2. the argument from causation (efficient cause)
3. the argument from contingency (hence, a necessary being)
4. the argument from degrees of excellence (perfection)
5. the argument from harmony (design)
Craig: the kalam cosmological argument
Premise 1: whatever begins to exist has a cause
Premise 2: the universe began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause [Modus ponens]
Edwards: calls into question that the existence of contingent beings necessarily implies the existence of a necessary being (let alone, that this being must be the personal God of Jews, Christians and Muslims)
Paley: teleological argument for God's existence = intelligent design, cannot be reduced to the laws of nature or the order of the universe
Hume: both orthodox believers (dogmatic) and natural theologians (like Paley) fail to prove the existence of a personal, theistic God
The ontological argument (Anselm): God = a Being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
God must exist in reality (or God necessarily exists): if God did not exist, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (in the understanding).
The analogy of a painter: "For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his understanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is. Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding."
Dostoevsky: If God didnít exist, everything would be possible. Everything is permissible if God does not exist.
The problem of evil: How is it possible that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God does not prevent evil in the world? Is God the author of evil? Can theistic belief in God harmonize the existence of a personal, loving God with the fact that evil things happen to innocent people?
Theodicy = "the justice of God"; justification of Godís moral goodness in the face of moral evil. Assertion of the free will (human freedom) in opposition to determinism.
III. THE GOOD (ETHICS):
ETHICS Power Point
Utilitarianism Power Point
John Rawls Power Point Presentation
Existentialism Power Point (advanced)
Sartre's Existentialism in a Nutshell (PDF)
Suggested study questions for Homework # 1:
I.1 Pojman p. 6-7:
4. What are the charges brought against Socrates? What are Socrates' responses to the charges?
8. What kind of life does Socrates think is worth living?
I.2 Pojman p. 19:
1. What is the first requirement in searching for truth?
3. How does Locke characterize "enthusiasm"? What is its source?
III.19 Pojman p. 166:
1. What caused Descartes to begin the process of doubting everything?
5. What is the first thing that Descartes comes to know with certainty?
III.24: Pojman p. 211:
2. What are the three conditions a theory of truth must meet?
5. What is the proper role for coherence in a theory of truth?
III.25 Pojman p. 216-217:
4. What is James' argument against the "intellectualists" (that is, e.g., philosophers who believe in the correspondence theory) ?
10. What is the relationship between the good and the true ?
Suggested study questions for Homework # 2:
III.22 Pojman p. 193:
1. What is the origin of our ideas? How does Hume distinguish ideas from impressions?
6. Why is causal reasoning doubtful? What does Hume mean by saying that causal relations can never be discovered by a priori arguments?
III.23 Pojman p. 202:
1. What are the three senses of "know" that Hospers describes? Which is most important philosophically?
2. What are the three conditions for propositional knowledge?
IV.32 Pojman p. 285:
2. What is the "subjective character of experience," according to Nagel?
5. What is Nagel's speculative proposal regarding bridging the gap between the subjective and the objective?
III.26 Pojman p. 225f.:
1. What is the relationship in our culture between science and the humanities? Which receives greater respect and why?
6. What role does Thomas Kuhn's work play in the debate between science and the humanities? Why does Rorty congratulate Kuhn?
III.27 Pojman p. 233:
4. Are multiculturalists responsible people?
8. According to Dennett, how do postmodernists treat the concept of truth?
Suggested study questions for Homework # 3:
I.3 Pojman p. 25:
1. What do many scientific and practical people think of philosophy?
3. What are the aims of philosophy? Has it been successful in attaining them? Explain.
II.4 Pojman p. 51:
3. Identify the central idea in each of the five arguments.
4. Outline the second argument in your own words and analyze it. After this, try to sum up the other arguments.
II.5 Pojman p. 54:
1. What are the premises of the kalam argument?
10. Where did the Big Bang take place?
II.6 Pojman p. 72:
1. Even if the cosmological argument is sound, would it show that God is all-good or all-powerful? What is Edwards' view?
7. What does Edwards say about the possibility of the universe being uncaused? What is his view about the universe being a "brute fact," something that is unexplained?
II.7 Pojman p. 83:
1. What does Paley think are the inherent differences between a stone and a watch? What inferences does each permit about its origins?
3. How does Paley respond to objections to the analogy?
II.8 Pojman p. 86:
1. How does the natural theologian Cleanthes argue for the existence of God?
7. List six objections that Philo makes to the design argument. Are they plausible objections?
II.9 Pojman p. 95:
3. After an initial reading, attempt to outline the argument. Do you agree with Anselm that it proves the existence of God?
4. What is Gaunilo's criticism of the argument? Is it plausible?
Suggested study questions for Homework # 4:
II.10 Pojman p. 98:
1. What are the basic concepts involved in the ontological argument?
6. What is Kantís criticism of the ontological argument?
II.11 Pojman p. 111:
1. Does Ivan believe that God exists? What does he think of the hypothesis that humanity invented the notion of God?
5. What is Ivanís response to the proposal that the solution of the problem of evil is to be found in an eternal harmony?
II.12 Pojman p. 115:
1. What, according to Johnson, are some of the bad explanations for God not intervening to prevent evil?
6. What do people mean when they say that God has a ďhigher moralityĒ than we have, so that we cannot apply our standards to him? What is Johnsonís response to this defense of theism?
II.13 Pojman p. 121:
1. Why is the problem of evil a dilemma?
6. Why couldnít God create people who were both free and totally good?
Suggested study questions for Homework # 5:
II.15 Pojman p. 130 (Clifford):
4. What is the Ethics of Belief? How do moral duties apply to beliefs?
5. What is the danger to a society of becoming credulous?
V.41 Pojman p. 355 (James):
2. What are the two suppositions set forth at the outset?
11. What is Jamesí conclusion to the problem of free will versus determinism?
V.42 Pojman p. 365 (Lamont):
1. What is Lamontís thesis?
4. How does Lamont qualify his thesis that we have free will and are not determined?
V.44 Pojman p. 375 (Frankfurt):
2. What do humans have that no animal appear to have?
7. What according to Frankfurt is freedom of the will?
VI.46 Pojman p. 400 (Benedict):
1. What does Benedict see as the purpose of modern social anthropology?
5. How does Benedict characterize morality? With what phrase is the sentence "It is morally good" synonymous?
VI.47 Pojman p. 406 (Rachels)
2. How do Eskimo practices seem to lend support to the thesis of cultural relativism? Note what Rachels says later about the reasons for these practices.
9. What does the author think are the two lessons of cultural relativism?
Suggested study questions for Homework # 6:
VI.51 Pojman p. 440 (Aristotle)
1. How does Aristotle define politics and ethics? What is the relationship between them?
3. What are the characteristics of the good?
VI.52 Pojman p. 450-1 (Kant)
6. What is the categorical imperative?
9. What is Kantís second formulation of the moral law? Is is equivalent, as Kant thought, to the first formulation?
VI.53 Pojman p. 463 (Mill)
1. How does Mill define utilitarianism?
6. How can utilitarianism attain its end?
VI.54 Pojman p. 470 (Sartre)
1. What are the two meanings of "subjectivism" in this essay?
6. What does Sartre mean by saying that "we are condemned to be free"?
VII.73 Pojman p. 609 (Singer)
1. What is the relationship between the womenís rights movement, the civil rights movement, and the animal rights movement?
2. How does Singer define "speciesism"?
VII.60 Pojman p. 519 (Rawls)
1. What does Rawls say about the relative importance of the individual versus the welfare of society?
7. What are the two principles that Rawls says we would choose behind the veil of ignorance?
If possible, try to write your answers in digital (computer-generated) format, so that you could print them out and keep a copy of your own texts for further studies --this is actually a good practice for your own academic development. But if you cannot type or use a computer, please make sure your handwriting is legible, indicate the question numbers and staple all the pages before turning your homework in. The idea is to explore your writing skills and get as close as you can to developing an essay style, featuring clarity, well-formulated sentences and good arguments. Even if some of the study questions may not seem to require more than simply addressing some definition of a concept or idea, try to avoid mere reproduction, by making explicit your own understanding of concepts and ideas, just as it would be required in a philosophical essay.