DOCSLIB.ORG

PHI219 Ethics: Theoretical and Practical Autumn Semester 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PHI219 Ethics: Theoretical and Practical Autumn Semester 2014 PHI219 Ethics: Theoretical and Practical Autumn Semester 2014 Joseph Kisolo-Ssonko [email protected] Timetable: There will be two lectures each week Tuesday: 10:00 – 11:50 AT-LT02 (TBC) Tuesday: 12:00 – 13:50 AT-LT02 (TBC) From week 3 you must also attend one of the following discussion seminars Wednesday: 10:00 – 11:50 HI-F35 [Hicks Building] (TBC) Wednesday: 11:00 – 12:00 HI-F35 [Hicks Building] (TBC) Writing week: Week 7 (10th – 14th November). There will be no teaching on this week. Office Hours: My office hours are Tuesday 14:00 – 15:00 and Wednesday 14:00 – 15:00. B-(TBC) [Philosophy Department, 45 Victoria Street] Course Overview: Ethics is the investigation of the rightness or wrongness of peoples' actions. One approach to such an investigation is to focus on what, in ethical terms, good or bad really means. We might question the nature and status of moral judgements, whether there is such a thing as moral truth or whether morality is just a construct of mere sentiment or political power. These are questions of meta-ethics. Another option might be to seek to discover the general rules and standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. We might ask whether good acts are those that maximise the amount of happiness in the world or whether we ought to try to act in a way that is an expression of good character. These are questions of normative ethics. Lastly, we might examine specific examples ask what in particular makes them good or bad. We might ask whether it is acceptable to partake in sports that put our lives at risk, we might ask if it is acceptable for many people in the world to be hungry. These are questions of applied ethics. This course will touch on all of the themes above, mixing philosophical theory with some real applied issues. In particular we will explore: ● Virtue ethics ● Ethics and animals ● Utilitarianism ● The ethics of leisure ● Contractualism ● The ethics of hunger ● Ethical relativism ● Ethics and social life ● Duty‐ based morality ● Subjectivism about value ● Political critiques of ethics (Feminism, Marxism, Global Justice and Anti-racism) Learning: Each week there will be two lectures. These will involve a chunk of me talking from the front of the class however you should also expect to take an active part – both by way of answering and asking questions. The majority of your student learning ought to take place outside the classroom, when you read and take notes on texts; plan and draft coursework essays or examination answers; and by engaging in philosophical discussion with your peers. The lectures will seek to provide you with a framework for this wider learning, to situate it in the wider debate and help you learn to navigate through it. You will also attend one seminar (chosen from the two options above). These should involve me talking as little as possible. Rather they are a chance for you to discuss and debate your interpretation of the texts we have read. Think of them as opportunities to do philosophy rather than merely learn it. They will help you rehearse the ideas, and form your own objections and arguments, which you are then better equipped to present in your written essays. For each seminar you must have read, thought about and made notes on the required reading for the preceding week (i.e. for week 2 you must have read the required texts from week 1) The course aims to get you thinking philosophically about ethics; to familiarise you with some important writings in ethics; and to enhance your ability to present and discuss philosophical issues orally and in written work. On successful completion of this course unit, you will be able to demonstrate; understanding of, and the ability to critically engage with, these writings and their broad context. You will have a strengthened ability to present and discuss the examined ideas clearly both in written and oral form. You will have enhanced your independent research skills. Assessment: This course will be assessed by means of TWO coursework essays (50%) and ONE two-hour pre-released examination (50%) in which you will have to answer two questions. Essays must be between 1500 and 2000 words in length. Essays are marked anonymously, so there should be no record of your name on the essay itself. Please make sure that your registration number is at the top of your essay. Essays submitted late will be docked 5% for each working day after the deadline, unless the Director of Second & Third Year Studies has granted the student a formal extension owing to special circumstances. (The Director of Second & Third Year Studies this year is Tom Cochrane [email protected]) Essays submitted more than five days late without permission are automatically given a mark of zero. The Director of Studies is not normally at liberty to grant more than ONE extension per essay. After that the standard deduction of marks for lateness applies. Any second time a deadline is missed without an extension an Unsatisfactory Progress Report is automatically triggered see http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssd/sca/progress Essay submission DEADLINES for the Autumn semester are: mid-term essay BEFORE 4PM (TBC) end-of-semester essay BEFORE 4PM (TBC) DECEMBER All essays must be submitted both electronically and in paper form. Electronic submission is done through MOLE, which you can access through your MUSE webpage. Go to the Assignments link of the relevant module, and upload your essay there. Be sure to press the submit button. The paper copy should be submitted by handing it in to the Departmental Office (45 Victoria Street). Your work will receive a high mark: if it is clearly written, well organised and structured; if it displays detailed and sophisticated understanding of the subject area; if it adopts a critical stance in relation to that material (i.e. giving evidence of having been thought through in a critical way for yourself); and if it displays an ability to argue cogently. The following four examples of unfair means are serious academic offences and may result in penalties that could have a lasting effect on your career, both at University and beyond (including possible expulsion from the University). Plagiarism (either intentional or unintentional) is the stealing of ideas or work of another person and is considered dishonest and unprofessional. It may take the form of cutting and pasting, taking or closely paraphrasing ideas, passages, sections, sentences, paragraphs, or graphical material from any other source (e.g. books, articles, internet sites) and submitting them for assessment without appropriate acknowledgement. Failing to properly reference quotes, where it is unclear if you are trying to pass them off as your own words, can be a form of unintentional plagiarism. Verbatim or near- verbatim reproduction of material from lecture handouts, without acknowledgement, also counts as plagiarism. Submitting bought or commissioned work is an extremely serious form of plagiarism as it implies a clear intention to deceive the examiners. The University also takes an extremely serious view of any student who sells, offers to sell or passes on their own assignments to other students. Double submission (or self plagiarism) is resubmitting previously submitted work (without proper acknowledgement). It may take the form of copying either the whole assignment or part of it. Normally credit will already have been given for this work. Your courses should be designed, as far as possible, not to overlap in assessed topics but this does not remove your responsibility to ensure that you do not double submit. Collusion is where two or more people work together to produce a piece of work, all or part of which is then submitted by each of them as their own individual work. This includes passing on work in any format to another student. Discussing your work with others is allowed, and encouraged. Group work, where you are explicitly asked to work together to produce a single piece of work, is allowed. The library offers a online “Guide to Plagiarism” tutorial, available @: librarydevelopment.group.shef.ac.uk/shef-only/research/plagiarism_rsch.html Reading List: You can find an electronic version of this reading list via MOLE. It includes links to online copies of those required readings that are not available in journals (i.e. printed texts). This list is not by any means exhaustive, and you are encouraged to go away and find other relevant readings (in fact it will help us all out if you find useful texts that I may have missed!) For further reading a good search resource is the Philosopher's Index, it can be accessed via MUSE. The bibliography's of the texts you are reading can provide useful starting point for finding further reading. For an overview introduction to the area a good starting point is the “Ethics” article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [ iep.utm.edu/ethics/ ]. Many of the required readings for this course are in either Fricker & Guttenplan, Reading Ethics: selected texts with interactive commentary (Wiley-Blackwell) or LaFollette ed. Ethics in Practice (3rd edition; Blackwell). The other papers in these collections are also worth reading. Each week you must read the required readings, marked with a (*). If you read them before start of the week this will help you get more out of the lectures. Discussion of these will form the starting point of the seminars so it is essential that they are read before these seminars. * = Required reading Week 1 – What is Ethics? & Utilitarianism and the 'Greatest Happiness Principle'. * Bernard Williams (1963), section 2 of ‘A critique of utilitarianism’, in J.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rethinking Feminist Ethics
    RETHINKING FEMINIST ETHICS The question of whether there can be distinctively female ethics is one of the most important and controversial debates in current gender studies, philosophy and psychology. Rethinking Feminist Ethics: Care, Trust and Empathy marks a bold intervention in these debates by bridging the ground between women theorists disenchanted with aspects of traditional ‘male’ ethics and traditional theorists who insist upon the need for some ethical principles. Daryl Koehn provides one of the first critical overviews of a wide range of alternative female/ feminist/feminine ethics defended by influential theorists such as Carol Gilligan, Annette Baier, Nel Noddings and Diana Meyers. She shows why these ethics in their current form are not defensible and proposes a radically new alternative. In the first section, Koehn identifies the major tenets of ethics of care, trust and empathy. She provides a lucid, searching analysis of why female ethics emphasize a relational, rather than individualistic, self and why they favor a more empathic, less rule-based, approach to human interactions. At the heart of the debate over alternative ethics is the question of whether female ethics of care, trust and empathy constitute a realistic, practical alternative to the rule- based ethics of Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill and John Rawls. Koehn concludes that they do not. Female ethics are plagued by many of the same problems they impute to ‘male’ ethics, including a failure to respect other individuals. In particular, female ethics favor the perspective of the caregiver, trustor and empathizer over the viewpoint of those who are on the receiving end of care, trust and empathy.
    [Show full text]
  • Feminist Transformations of Moral Theory Author(S): Virginia Held Source: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , Autumn, 1990, Vol
    Feminist Transformations of Moral Theory Author(s): Virginia Held Source: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , Autumn, 1990, Vol. 50, Supplement (Autumn, 1990), pp. 321-344 Published by: International Phenomenological Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108046 REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108046?seq=1&cid=pdf- reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy and Phenomenological Research This content downloaded from 132.174.250.211 on Sun, 03 Jan 2021 15:21:30 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. L, Supplement, Fall i990 Feminist Transformations of Moral Theory VIRGINIA HELD City University of New York, Graduate School and Hunter College The history of philosophy, including the history of ethics, has been con- structed from male points of view, and has been built on assumptions and concepts that are by no means gender-neutral.' Feminists characteristi- cally begin with different concerns and give different emphases to the issues we consider than do non-feminist approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtue Ethics: the Misleading Category
    ARETÍ revista de filosofía Vol. XI, Nllli 1-2, 1999 pp. 533-571 Virtue Ethics: The Misleading Category Martha C. Nussbaum University of Chicago La ética de la virtud es frecuente­ Virtue ethics is frequently consid­ mente considerada una categoría ered to be a single category of ethi­ singular de la teoría ética, y una ri­ cal theory, and a rival to Kantianism val del kantismo y del utilitarismo. and Utilitarianism. I argue that this Considero que es un error, puesto approach is a mistake, because both que tanto kantianos como utilitaris­ Kantians and Utilitarians can, and tas pueden tener, y tienen, un interés do, have an interest in the virtues en las virtudes y en la formación del and the forrnation of character. But carácter. Mas, aun si focalizamos el even if we focus on the group of grupo de teóricos de la ética, co­ ethical theorists who are most com­ múnmente llamados "teóricos de la monly called "virtue theorists" be­ virtud", porque rechazan la direc­ cause they reject the guidance of ción tanto del kantismo como del both Kantianism and Utilitarianism, utilitarismo y se inspiran en la ética and derive inspiration from ancient griega antigua, hay poca unidad en Greek ethics, there is little unity to este grupo. Aun cuando hay un del­ this group. Although there is a thin gado territorio común que vincula a common ground that links all the todos los miembros del grupo -una group's members - a focus on the preocupación por la formación del formation of character, on the nature carácter, la naturaleza de las pasio­ of the passions, and on choice over nes y por la elección sobre el trans­ the whole course of life - there are curso entero de la vida- también also crucial differences among hay diferencias cruciales entre ellos.
    [Show full text]
  • First Phd in Women's Studies in Canada) Concerns Women's Friendships with Women. Katherine Side's Dissertation, Combining Theory
    first PhD in Women's Studies in Canada) concerns human lives, as much as their evils derive from women's friendships with women. Katherine Side's interdependence" (86). It seems rather that the place dissertation, combining theory and empirical work, assigned to conflict in the process of community celebrates the power and value of women's building depends on how we define community, or friendships with women, and also is clear-sighted more specifically, what we mean by community in about the social and economic realities that shape the institutional, disciplinary, ideological, social, expectations about what these relationships can and and political contexts of Women's Studies. Instead should offer us. of a totalizing narrative of compulsory sisterhood, The three papers in the cluster on "Conflict our sense of community may stem from various, and Community Building in Women's Studies" sometimes conflicting, positionings and alliances as reflect something of the range of interests and feminists in the academy, practitioners of a specific "situations" of students in our programme. They feminist methodology, members of the same were presented first in June 1997 at the annual association, students in a particular programme, or Canadian Women's Studies Association meeting in even participants in a given seminar. In other St. John's, Newfoundland, as a student-generated words, joining Women's Studies, we encounter panel. Later, in November 1997, they were multiple possibilities of community building, and delivered at York University as part of the this precisely is the main reason why most of us Programme Seminar Series organized for students come to the programme.
    [Show full text]
  • A Beauvoirian Critique of Hume's Theory of Justice and a Humean Answer Propiedad Y Libertad
    Property and Freedom: A Beauvoirian Critique of Hume’s Theory of Justice and a Humean Answer Propiedad y libertad: una crítica a la teoría de la justicia de Hume desde el pensamiento de Simone de Beauvoir y una respuesta humeana Dylan Meidell Rohr1 John Christian Laursen2 Universidad de California, Riverside (Estados Unidos) Recibido: 12-06-18 Aprobado: 16-07-18 Abstract David Hume and Simone de Beauvoir agree that human beings have a great deal of control over their moral and political lives, which is well captured in Hume’s assertion that “mankind is an inventive species”. But Hume argues that the most important thing needed to settle our social lives and determine justice is the agreement on rules of property, while Beauvoir thinks that the rules of property will never be enough to establish the best life, but rather that we should be focusing on freedom. In this article we reconstruct Hume’s argument for property, then develop a Beauvoirian critique of Hume that brings out the weakness of any theory of property that does not prevent inequalities of property from interfering with freedom. And then we give the last word to a Humean response to Beauvoir that would insist that there can be no freedom but only violence without rules of property, which she ignores. Both thinkers appeal to humanity as an overriding goal, and perhaps that is the way to reconcile the two: we need both property and freedom to achieve our humanity. Key-words: David Hume, Simone de Beauvoir, Property, Freedom, Humanity. 1 ([email protected]) Enseña teoria politica en el departamento de Ciencia Politica de la University of California, Riverside.
    [Show full text]
  • Feminist Philosophy Phil 4130W
    PHIL 4130W FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY SPRING 2016 Professor Dr. Rosemary Kellison Contact [email protected]; 678.839.5514 Office TLC 2245 Office Hours Tues. 1–4, Weds. 10–12 & 1–4, Thurs. 2–4, and by appointment Meeting Time TR 9:30–10:50 am Classroom Humanities 205 Course Website https://westga.view.usg.edu ABOUT THIS COURSE Course Description Feminists argue for the equal dignity of women and against the oppression of women. In this course, we examine how these arguments have been expressed in philosophy. We will consider the ways in which philosophers have contributed to the development of feminist thinking and practice, as well as the ways in which feminists have critiqued philosophy. We will also consider some of the major debates within feminist philosophy. Students will leave this course with a deeper understanding of what is distinctive about feminist philosophy as well as how this tradition has developed and differentiated over time. Course Objectives Upon successful completion of this course, students These course-specific learning outcomes will be able to: contribute to the departmental learning • give an account of the historical and intellectual outcomes of the Philosophy Program by development of major trends and debates in enabling students better to: feminist philosophy; • discuss the views of at least three major • describe the arguments of several significant historical figures of philosophy; feminist philosophers; • identify and critically describe different • formulate a feminist critique of major philosophical positions and issues in oral philosophical arguments; and written communications; • and perform independent research to write a • and exhibit critical thinking skills. philosophical paper on a topic in feminist philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Philosophy of Simone De Beauvoir Advantages of Ambiguity
    THE MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR ADVANTAGES OF AMBIGUITY: THE MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR By AMY LEASK, B.A. HONS A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts McMaster University ©Copyright by Amy Leask, April 1999 MASTER OF ARTS (1999) McMaster University (Philosophy) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: Advantages of Ambiguity: The Moral Philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir AUTHOR: Amy Leask, B.A. Hons (McMaster University) SUPERVISOR: Dr. S. M. Najm, Dr. E. Boetzkes NUMBER OF PAGES: vi, lO2 ii Abstract Simone de Beauvoir is known as a prolific novelist, a passionate political activist for the women's movement, and the long-time companion to the existential philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre. Her ideas as a philosopher, however, are often overshadowed by these alternate identities. The aim of this thesis is to reaffirm the value of de Beauvoir's philosophical contributions, in particular, those which pertain to moral philosophy. In order to achieve this, I will first attempt to distinguish de Beauvoir's philosophy from that of Sartre. From a moral standpoint, de Beauvoir presents a more explicitly moral version of existentialism, one which takes as its focus the self-other tension left unresolved in Sartrean ontology. Second, and more importantly, I will discuss the broad scope of de Beauvoir's moral theory. Her own application of this theory to the situation of women may be complimented by possible applications to racial, environmental and other moral issues. Perhaps the most significant contribution of this particular thesis lies in its methodological approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. INTRODUCTION WHY HOSTILITY TO JUSTICE AND RIGHTS? Justice and rights are the most contested part of our moral vocabulary, contested not only, or even mainly, by philosophers, but within society generally. To publish a discourse on justice as rights is to plunge into a hornet’s nest of controversy. Few people oppose talk about responsibility and obligation—thera­ pists who believe that guilt feelings are a bad thing, philosophers who see no acceptable way of accounting for obligation, that is about it. Lots of people pay little attention to their own obligations; few declare them­ selves opposed to talk about obligations. So too with virtue and love. Though many care little about either, few express opposition to talk about them. Justice and rights are different. Opposition to rights-talk is common. Some of those opposed are also opposed to talking about justice; they connect the two, rights and justice. Others want to pull them apart. Jus­ tice is fine; it is talk about rights that is bad. Why this hostility? Let us take a brief survey, starting with justice. Large swaths of American Christians believe that in the New Testament love supplanted justice—except for retributive justice. Jesus did not teach, in the second of the two commandments, that we are to treat people justly; he taught that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. In the now- classic book, Agape and Eros, published in the early 1930s, Anders Nygren worked out the idea in detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesquisa, Gênero & Diversidade
    Organizadoras Ana Cristina Aguilar Viana Bárbara Mendonça Bertotti Julia Heliodoro Souza Gitirana Letícia Regina Camargo Kreuz Volume II Tailaine Cristina Costa MEMÓRIAS DO Pesquisa, III ENCONTRO DE PESQUISA Gênero & POR/DE/ SOBRE Diversidade MULHERES CONSELHO EDITORIAL Ana Claudia Santano – Professora do programa de Estado pela PUC/SP; Especialista em Direito Constitucional mestrado em Direitos Fundamentais e Democracia, do pela UNIFOR-CE. Consultora Jurídica na área de Direito Centro Universitário Autônomo do Brasil – Unibrasil. Pós- Urbanístico. É professora do Centro Universitário Chris- -doutora em Direito Público Econômico pela Pontifícia tus, em Fortaleza, nas disciplinas de Direito Administrati- Universidade Católica do Paraná. Doutora e mestre em vo II, Coordenadora de Pesquisa da mesma Faculdade e Ciências Jurídicas e Políticas pela Universidad de Sala- professora associada do Escritório de Direitos Humanos manca, Espanha. vinculado ao Curso de Direito. É professora licenciada da Daniel Wunder Hachem – Professor de Direito Consti- Faculdade Paraíso - FAP, em Juazeiro do Norte-CE, de gra- tucional e Administrativo da Universidade Federal do duação e pós-graduação. Presidente do Instituto Cearense Paraná e da Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná. de Direito Administrativo - ICDA desde 2014. Diretora do Doutor e Mestre em Direito do Estado pela UFPR. Coor- Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Urbanístico desde 2013. É denador Executivo da Rede Docente Eurolatinoamerica- professora de Pós-Graduação da Universidade Regional na de Derecho Administrativo. do Cariri - URCA; Professora colaboradora do Instituto Ro- meu Felipe Bacellar desde 2006, em Curitiba/PR. Emerson Gabardo – Professor Titular de Direito Admi- nistrativo da PUCPR. Professor de Direito Administrativo Luiz Fernando Casagrande Pereira – Doutor e Mestre em da UFPR.
    [Show full text]
  • Feminist Philosophy (An Introductory Course) Peter Seipel
    Feminist Philosophy (an introductory course) Peter Seipel Contact Information [Omitted] Course Description: The relationship between feminism and philosophy is complex. On the one hand, feminists have used philosophical reflection to challenge sexism and support the emancipation of women from oppressive social structures. On the other hand, many intellectuals in the history of philosophy have promoted sexist concepts, theories, and ideas. In this course students will consider how philosophy and feminism stand to benefit from one another. In the first part of the course, we will examine philosophical attempts to grapple with questions about sexism, oppression, gender, and feminine bodily experience. In the second part, we will explore some of the ways that feminist philosophers challenge us to rethink ethics, epistemology, and political philosophy. Course Objectives: Over the course of the semester, students will: • Cultivate critical thinking, reading, and writing skills; • Gain competence in identifying and evaluating philosophical positions; • Understand central issues and debates in feminist philosophy; and • Reflect on their own beliefs about these issues and debates. Course Texts: • Ann Cudd and Robin Andreason, Feminist Theory: A Philosophical Anthology [bibliographical information omitted] • All other readings will be available on Blackboard. Course Requirements: • Participation: 20% • Reading Responses: 10% • Quizzes: 10% • Papers: 30% • Final Exam: 30% Attendance Policy [Omitted] Academic Integrity Policy [Omitted] Classroom Policy [Omitted] Writing Assignments: You are required to write three essays for this course. The essays will focus on three components of argumentative writing and will build on each other over time. • In the first essay, you will summarize an argument from a course reading on sexism. • In the second essay, you will compare and contrast feminist and non-feminist views of ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • New Course Proposal
    SAMPLE SYLLABUS VALUES 511: ETHICS MATTERS: AN EXPLORATION OF SOME MORAL QUALITIES This course aims to introduce graduate and professional students from a wide range of backgrounds to some common moral questions and to provide a basic philosophical framework for thinking about related issues that arise within their own disciplines or fields. It is assumed that the perspectives brought from different fields will prove mutually illuminating for all, and that the experience provided by this course in discussing and analyzing the moral problems and questions that arise within their own areas of expertise with those who come to the table with different interests and expertise will make each better able to articulate her own questions and positions and to do so in a more nuanced, and morally satisfying, way. BOOKS Cheshire Calhoun (ed.), Setting the Moral Compass, Oxford University Press, 2004 Avishai Margalit, The Decent Society, Harvard University Press, 1996. Sarah Lawrence-Lightfoot, Respect: An Exploration. Perseus Books Group, 2000. The other readings for the course are either available through electronic journals or will be provided in a course reader. ASSESSMENT Students will be asked to bring to class a short (2-3 page) response to some issue raised by that week’s reading assignments seven times (of the student’s choosing) during the term. (25%) Small groups (2-4 persons) will be asked to make a presentation to the class. (15%) Each student will write a final paper and submit a draft of that paper for approval and comment three weeks prior to the end of the term. (60%) SCHEDULE OF READINGS AND TOPICS Week One: The Relationship Between Theory and Practice Is there any point to thinking about moral issues? What is the point of thinking about morality? Is there such a thing as a moral expert? Cheshire Calhoun, “Moral Failure.” In On Feminist Ethics and Politics, edited by Claudia Card.
    [Show full text]
  • Property and Freedom: a Beauvoirian Critique of Hume's Theory of Justice and a Humean Answer
    Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política y Humanidades ISSN: 1575-6823 ISSN: 2340-2199 [email protected] Universidad de Sevilla España Property and Freedom: A Beauvoirian Critique of Hume's Theory of Justice and a Humean Answer Meidell Rohr, Dylan; Laursen, John Christian Property and Freedom: A Beauvoirian Critique of Hume's Theory of Justice and a Humean Answer Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política y Humanidades, vol. 20, no. 40, 2018 Universidad de Sevilla, España Available in: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=28264622020 This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International. PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative Monográfico I Property and Freedom: A Beauvoirian Critique of Hume's eory of Justice and a Humean Answer Propiedad y libertad: una crítica a la teoría de la justicia de Hume desde el pensamiento de Simone de Beauvoir y una respuesta humeana Dylan Meidell Rohr [email protected] Universidad de California, Estados Unidos John Christian Laursen [email protected] Universidad de California, Estados Unidos Abstract: David Hume and Simone de Beauvoir agree that human beings have a great deal of control over their moral and political lives, which is well captured in Hume’s Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de assertion that “mankind is an inventive species”. But Hume argues that the most Filosofía, Política y Humanidades, vol. 20, no. 40, 2018 important thing needed to settle our social lives and determine justice is the agreement on rules of property, while Beauvoir thinks that the rules of property will never be Universidad de Sevilla, España enough to establish the best life, but rather that we should be focusing on freedom.
    [Show full text]