|
||||||||||||||||
| Remark. When reading Nagel's paper, it is especially important to keep track of whose view he is describing — his own, or someone else's. You have to be vigilant in looking for the relevant indicators. Sometimes the indicator will be the first sentence of the paragraph. For instance, Nagel might begin a paragraph by saying, “For Kant this seems incoherent . . .” and then going on in the rest of the paragraph to explain Kant's views. | ||||||
| Remark. These terms, or Nagel's use of them, might be unfamiliar to you: | ||||||
|
||||||
| 1. The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) thinks that the consequences of action are totally irrelevant to moral evaluation. Does Nagel agree or disagree with Kant on this point? | ||||||
|
2. On page 467, Nagel refers to what he calls the “condition of control.” He introduces this principle (by implication, at least) in earlier paragraphs. This principle states a necessary condition for being subject to moral praise or blame. State the principle by completing this statement: A person is subject to moral praise or blame for something only if . . . . |
||||||
| 3. On page 466, Nagel lists some (types of) paradigm cases in which the condition of control exempts or excuses a person from moral praise or blame for what they have done. What are they? | ||||||
|
4. Nagel distinguishes four kinds of cases in which (a) we offer moral praise or blame, even though (b) the condition of control entails that moral praise or blame is unwarranted. List the four kinds of cases. |
||||||
| 5. State one example of each of the four kinds of cases from question 4. Where possible, use an example offered by Nagel. | ||||||
|
6. Does Nagel think that we apply the condition of control consistently? Why or why not? |
||||||
| 7. Does Nagel think that even the will's bare acts of choosing might be exempted by the condition of control? | ||||||
| 8. Do you agree, or disagree, with Nagel's assessment of the situation in the last seven paragraphs of his paper? | ||||||
| Remark. On page 467, column 2, paragraph1, Nagel draws a parallel between the situation he is discussing in ethics, and another situation in the theory of knowledge. In our next reading assignment, by René Descartes, we will be turn to the latter situation that Nagel refers to here. |