|
||||||||||||||||
|
Remarks: The two pieces by Rachels in our anthology are superb examples of good, clear philosophical writing. This is the style of writing students should aim for in their philosophy papers for this course. Use Rachels as a model in that respect. The closer you are able to come to that level of organization — and especially that level of clarity and careful attention to detail — the better your paper will be. And if you are able to match or exceed Rachels in those respects, fantastic! (The reading assignment for August 30 is on pp. 533-537.) To see a portrait of James Rachels, click here.
IS THERE A DUTY TO CONTRIBUTE FOR FAMINE RELIEF? [This section clarifies the nature of Ethical Egoism] |
| 1. What is the difference between Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism? |
| 2. Rachels states that Ethical Egoism sometimes requires you to help others. Under what type of circumstance does Ethical Egoism require this? |
| 3. Does Ethical Egoism say that no actions are ever morally wrong? Give an example of an action that would be morally wrong according to Ethical Egoism. |
| THREE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF ETHICAL EGOISM |
|
4. The first argument for Ethical Egoism comes in three versions, labeled “a”, “b”, and “c”. Does Ayn Rand offer any of arguments, a, b, or c? If so, which? |
| 5. What does Rachels think is the main problem with the first main argument (labeled “1”) for Ethical Egoism? |
| 6. Rachels explicitly attributes the second argument (labeled “2”) to Rand. What does he think is wrong with this argument? |
|
Remark: Rachels points out that there are two very different ways of presenting Ethical Egoism. The first is to offer it as a theory about what all morally right actions have in common (and wrong actions lack) — when we use our current moral sensibilities to sort actions into the two categories. This is how the theory was first presented in lecture. Presented this way, Ethical Egoism is offered as an account of the ultimate grounds of our current, conventional morality. But it can be presented instead as a criterion we ought to adopt in place of our current morality. Rand sometimes seems to present it in the first way, but often in the second. |
| 7. Rachels gives a few illustrations to show how Ethical Egoists have tried to argue that their theory provides a good foundation for the moral judgments of conventional morality (that is, for the way conventional morality sorts actions into right and wrong). What are these illustrations? |
| 8. What does Rachels think is wrong with the suggestion that Ethical Egoism is the ultimate foundation of conventional morality? |
| THREE ARGUMENTS AGAINST ETHICAL EGOISM |
|
9. The first objection to Ethical Egoism is due to Kurt Baier (my ethics professor in graduate school). What does Rachels think is wrong with this objection?. In your opinion, who is correct on this point: Rachels, or Baier? |
| 10. The second objection to Ethical Egoism is also due to Kurt Baier. What does Rachels think is wrong with this second objection? In your opinion, who is correct on this point: Rachels, or Baier? |
| 11. Rachels’ own objection to Ethical Egoism consists of two premises (1) and (2), and a conclusion (3). If (1) and (2) are true, would (3) have to be true, too? Are (1) and (2) both true, in your opinion? |