DOCSLIB.ORG

Species of Goodness

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Species of Goodness University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1999 Species of goodness. William Benjamin Bradley University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Bradley, William Benjamin, "Species of goodness." (1999). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2318. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2318 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPECIES OF GOODNESS A Dissertation Presented by WILLIAM BENJAMIN BRADLEY Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY February 1999 Department of Philosophy © Copyright by William Benjamin Bradley 1999 All Rights Reserved SPECIES OF GOODNESS A Dissertation Presented by WILLIAM BENJAMIN BRADLEY Approved as to style and content by: 7 /U^l Fred Feldman, Chair Phillip Bricker, Member ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people I must thank for their help in my completion of this dissertation. First and foremost, I thank my thesis director, Fred Feldman. The idea for this dissertation came out of Fred's Ethics seminar in Spring 1996; it was Fred who encouraged me to pursue this project. He also provided helpful comments quickly on countless drafts. Anyone who knows Fred's work will recognize his obvious influence on this dissertation. I also thank Phil Bricker, Gary Matthews, and Angelika Kratzer for serving on my committee. Several people deserve thanks for helping me develop whatever philosophical skills I have. These especially include Bill Boardman, John Dreher, and Tom Ryckman at Lawrence University, and Phil Bricker, Fred Feldman, and Ed Gettier at the University of Massachusetts. Portions of Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 are adapted from my “Extrinsic Value” {Philosophical Studies 91 (1998), pp. 109-126). They are reprinted here with kind permission from Kluwer Academic Publishers. Many parts of this dissertation have been presented to audiences. Portions of Chapter 2 were presented at the Symposium on Intrinsic Value at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro in April 1998. Portions of Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 were presented in Fred Feldman's seminar on Axiology in Spring 1996, at the Brown University Graduate Student Conference in February 1997, at the Mid-South Philosophy Conference in March 1997, and at an Ohio University philosophy colloquium in April 1998. Portions of Chapter 6 were presented at a UMass IV philosophy colloquium in October 1997 and at the Brown University Graduate Student Conference in February 1998. I thank all those people (too many to list here) who gave me helpful feedback at these events. I especially thank my excellent commentators. Ed Abrams, Jason Kawall, and Erik Wielenberg. Many other people have helped me to develop the ideas contained in this dissertation, through conversation and through comments on drafts. These people include Earl Conee, Tom Hurka, Shelly Kagan, Arthur Kuflik, Ned Markosian. Ted Sider, and an anonymous referee for Philosophical Studies. I am certain there are other people who I am forgetting. I thank all of these people. Finally, I thank my parents, my wife Cathy and my dog Frank for supporting me in this project. ABSTRACT SPECIES OF GOODNESS FEBRUARY 1999 WILLIAM BENJAMIN BRADLEY BA., LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by: Professor Fred Feldman The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle. I contend that the distinction has never been properly drawn. My main task is to formulate the distinction in a way that avoids the problems of the traditional formulations. After defending the traditional Moorean conception of intrinsic value against John Mackie’s arguments from relativity and “queemess,” and against recent attacks by Elizabeth Anderson and Shelly Kagan, I attempt to define two important types of extrinsic value in terms of intrinsic value. First, I define instrumental value. The main problem with traditional definitions of instrumental value is that they fail to account for the fact that preventing something intrinsically evil from occurring seems to be just as worthwhile as bringing about something intrinsically good. I attempt to account for this fact by introducing a “contextualist” analysis of instrumental value. Next, I present and defend an analysis of contributory value. I compare contributory value with conditional intrinsic value, and present an argument to show that the notion of conditional intrinsic value faces problems that can be avoided by admitting the VI existence of contributory value. I then expand on the contextualist analysis of instrumental value, and provide an analysis of extrinsic value that explains what is common to instrumental and contributory value. I contend that my analysis can also account for other types of extrinsic value — for example, signatory value — and I defend my analysis against recent objections by Alastair Norcross involving the extrinsic values of actions. Finally, I argue that contributory value can help to solve a current problem in environmental ethics. The problem is this: how can it be that the last member of a species is more valuable than a similar member of a flourishing species (irrespective of human interests)? I argue (following Leibniz and Brentano) that diversity of goods increases the value of a whole; therefore, the last member of an endangered species has contributory value in virtue of its contribution to the world’s biological diversity. VII PREFACE When thinking about value, nearly all philosophers have noticed that there are important distinctions between different types of value. For example, in Republic 357 Plato distinguishes three kinds of goods: “Tell me, is there in your opinion a kind of good that we would choose to have not because we desire its consequences, but because we delight in it for its own sake — such as enjoyment and all the pleasures which are harmless and leave no after effects other than the enjoyment in having them?” “In my opinion, at least,” I said, “there is a good of this kind.” “And what about this? Is there a kind we like both for its own sake and for what comes out of it, such as thinking and seeing and being healthy? Surely we delight in such things on both accounts.” “Yes,” I said. “And do you see a third form of good, which includes gymnastic exercise, medical treatment when sick as well as the practice of medicine, and the rest of the activities from which money is made? We would say that they are drudgery but beneficial to us; and we would not choose to have them for themselves but for the sake of the wages and whatever else comes out of them.” “Yes, there is also this third,” I said, “but what of it?” Aristotle seems to endorse a similar view in Nicomachean Ethics : “Clearly, then, things can be called good in two senses: some as good in their own right, and others as means to secure these” (Aristotle 1096b 13). The types of value apparently introduced by Plato and Aristotle are today often referred to as “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” value. The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value is one of the most fundamental distinctions in ethical theory. Axiology cannot be done without this distinction. One essential task of a substantive theory of viii value is to provide a statement of necessary and sufficient conditions for having intrinsic value in 1 the most basic way. Differences between theories of value can usually be seen as disagreements over what these necessary and sufficient conditions are. There is another essential part of axiology, however. This part consists of the attempt to formulate rules determining the (non-basic) intrinsic, extrinsic, and overall values of things. This part of axiology has been largely overlooked. The question of to how determine the intrinsic value of something based on the values of its parts has 2 received some attention, most notably from G.E. Moore (1903). However, the question of how to determine something’s extrinsic value has been mostly ignored; even when it has not been ignored, it has typically been given a simplistic one- sentence answer. Most axiologists seem to think that rules determining extrinsic value are easy to state and uncontroversial. One of the things I hope to show is that these rules are neither easy to state nor uncontroversial; they deserve more attention than they have received. They deserve attention not simply because they have never been properly stated, but also in virtue of the fact, noted by William Tolhurst, that difficulties in distinguishing intrinsic from extrinsic value have “led some who grant that there are some things that are good to deny that anything is intrinsically good” (Tolhurst 383). One important preliminary issue concerns the meaning of the word ‘good.’ It has often been noted that there are many senses of the word ‘good.’ Since we will be focusing on the attempt to define extrinsic value or goodness, we must be clear on the sense of ‘value’ or ‘good’ we have in mind. One sense of ‘good’ is the sense in which IX it is used in sentences like “This is a good knife; it is very sharp,” or “He’s a good thief, he s never been caught.’ In this sense of ‘good," it does not make sense to say ‘x is good’ without having in mind a particular way in which x is good - x is a good thief, knife, etc. To say that something is a good X is to say that it has all (or many) of the qualities that we look for in something of type X.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Generic Statements and Antirealism
    GENERIC STATEMENTS AND ANTIREALISM Panayot BUTCHVAROV ABSTRACT: The standard arguments for antirealism are densely abstract, often enigmatic, and thus unpersuasive. The ubiquity and irreducibility of what linguists call generic statements provides a clear argument from a specific and readily understandable case. We think and talk about the world as necessarily subject to generalization. But the chief vehicles of generalization are generic statements, typically of the form “Fs are G,” not universal statements, typically of the form “All Fs are G.” Universal statements themselves are usually intended and understood as though they were only generic. Even if there are universal facts, as Russell held, there are no generic facts. There is no genericity in the world as it is “in-itself.” There is genericity in it only as it is “for-us.” KEYWORDS: Generic, General, Antirealism I shall take general statements to include those that logicians call universal, typically of the form “All Fs are G,” and particular, of the form “Some Fs are G,” but also those that linguists call generic, typically of the form “Fs are G.” The term ‘realism’ will be used for the metaphysical view that reality, the ‘world,’ is mind- independent, in particular, independent of our knowledge of it. ‘Antirealism’ will stand for the opposite view, including Kant’s transcendental idealism as well as recent positions such as Michael Dummett’s ‘antirealism,’ Nelson Goodman’s ‘irrealism,’ and Hilary Putnam’s ‘internal realism.’ According to antirealism, reality depends, insofar as it is known or knowable, on our ways of knowing it, our cognitive capacities – sense perception, introspection, intellectual intuition, imagination, memory, recognition, conceptualization, inductive and deductive reasoning, use of language and other symbolism.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Altruism's Underspecification Problem
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers Effective Altruism’s Underspecification Problem Travis Timmerman 1. Introduction Whether any given act is supererogatory, obligatory, merely permissible, or impermissible depends upon the alternative acts available to the agent. But what exactly are the relevant alternative acts available to an agent? It turns out that this is a surprisingly difficult question to answer, yet it’s one on which any complete normative ethical theory must take a stance. It’s also one on which any effective altruist must take a stance. This may be unwelcome news for effective altruists since, as I will demonstrate, each of the dominant views in the literature generates verdicts that are (i) implausible in their own right and (ii) seemingly at odds with typical effective altruist commitments. Considering a particular case will help make this issue less abstract: The Gig Brandi has been invited by her friend, Chad, to attend his musical gig. Brandi can easily decide to attend the gig, and then decide at the gig to be supportive of Chad, which would be the best outcome. Unfortunately, Chad is a mediocre musician. Consequently, Brandi would not in fact decide to be supportive of Chad if she decided to attend his gig due to being irritated with Chad’s performance—even though she could decide at the gig to be supportive. Since Chad would be deeply hurt, this would be the worst outcome. Brandi could alternatively decide not to attend Chad’s gig, which would be better than the worst outcome, yet worse than the best outcome.1 To be sure, Brandi can decide to attend the gig, and once, there she can decide to be supportive of Chad.
    [Show full text]
  • The Profoundest Problem of Ethics: About the Possibility of a Profound Solution
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School April 2019 The rP ofoundest Problem of Ethics: About the Possibility of a Profound Solution Pol Pardini Gispert [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Pardini Gispert, Pol, "The rP ofoundest Problem of Ethics: About the Possibility of a Profound Solution" (2019). LSU Master's Theses. 4915. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/4915 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE PROFOUNDEST PROBLEM OF ETHICS: ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A PROFOUND SOLUTION A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Philosophy & Religious Studies by Pol Pardini Gispert B.A., Universitat de Girona, 2001 May 2019 For my mother and father, For as many books as I read, your actions are still my moral compass. ii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv Preface ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Counterfactuals and Antirealism
    ISSN 2664-4002 (Print) & ISSN 2664-6714 (Online) South Asian Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Abbreviated Key Title: South Asian Res J Human Soc Sci | Volume-1 | Issue-1| Jun-Jul -2019 | Short Communication Counterfactuals and Antirealism Panayot Butchvarov* The University of Iowa USA *Corresponding Author Panayot Butchvarov Article History Received: 12.07.2019 Accepted: 24.07.2019 Published: 30.07.2019 Abstract: There could be no causal connections in the world because if there were there would be counterfactual facts, and there are no such facts. Cognition of the world must employ counterfactual statements, roughly of the form “If p were true, then q would be true,” but obviously there are no counterfactual facts. Keywords: cognition, antirealism, causality, counterfactual The ways to antirealism Metaphysical antirealism is seemingly incredible but, paradoxically, also self-evident. It seems self-evident insofar as it says that if there is a world that we do not and cannot cognize (Kant‟s “things-in-themselves”) then we can ignore it, and if there is a world that we do or at least can cognize (Kant‟s “things-for-us”) then it can only be the world as we do or can cognize it. So the world we do cognize seems, in a sense, dependent on our cognition of it. (We may think of cognition as the capacity for knowledge, and of knowledge as the successful exercise of that capacity.) Metaphysical antirealism is not solipsistic – it‟s about what we, not what I, do or can cognize. For cognition of a world, unlike cognition of a toothache but like cognition of physics, mathematics, geography, or history, is inseparable from others‟ cognition – from the common language we speak to most of the views we espouse.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 from Viktor Frankl's Logotherapy to the Four Defining Characteristics of Self-Transcendence (ST) Paul T. P. Wong Introductio
    1 From Viktor Frankl’s Logotherapy to the Four Defining Characteristics of Self-Transcendence (ST) Paul T. P. Wong Introduction The present paper continues my earlier presentation on self-transcendence (ST) as a pathway to meaning, virtue, and happiness (Wong, 2016), in which I introduced Viktor Frankl’s (1985) two-factor theory of ST. Here, the same topic of ST is expanded by first providing the basic assumptions of logotherapy, then arguing the need for objective standards for meaning, and finally elaborating the defining characteristics of ST. To begin, here is a common-sense observation—no one can remain at the same spot for life for a variety of reasons, such as developmental and environmental changes, but most importantly because people dream of a better life and want to move to a preferred destination where they can find happiness and fulfillment. As a psychologist, I am interested in finding out (a) which destination people choose and (b) how they plan to get there successfully. In a free society that offers many opportunities for individuals, there are almost endless options regarding both (a) and (b). The reality is that not all purposes in life are equal. Some life goals are misguided, such as wanting to get rich by any means, including unethical and illegal ones, because ultimately, such choices could be self-defeating—these end values might not only fail to fill their hearts with happiness, but might also ruin their relationships and careers. The question, then, is: What kind of choices will have the greatest likelihood of resulting in a good life that not only benefits the individual but also society? My research has led me to hypothesize that the path of ST is most likely to result in such a good life.
    [Show full text]
  • The Practical Turn' David G
    8 The Practical Turn' David G. Stern What is Practice Theory? What is a Practice? What is "practice theory"? The best short answer is that it is any theory that treats practice as a fundamental category, or takes practices as its point of departure . Naturally, this answer leads to further questions . What is meant by "practices" here? What is involved in taking practices as a point of departure or a fundamental category, and what does that commitment amount to? And what is the point of the contrast between a practice-based theory and one that starts elsewhere? Perhaps the most significant point of agreement among those who have taken the practical turn is that it offers a way out of Procustean yet seemingly inescap- able categories, such as subject and object, representation and represented, con- ceptual scheme and content, belief and desire, structure and action, rules and their application, micro and macro, individual and totality . Instead, practice the- orists propose that we start with practices and rethink our theories from the ground up. Bourdieu, for instance, insists that only a theory of practice can open up a way forward : Objective analysis of practical apprehension of the familiar world . teaches us that we shall escape from the ritual either/or choice between objectivism and subjectiv- ism in which the social sciences have so far allowed themselves to be trapped only if we are prepared to inquire into the mode of production and functioning of the practical mastery which makes possible both an objectively intelligible practice and also an objectively enchanted experience of that practice .
    [Show full text]
  • Virtue Ethics in This Paper, I Am Going to Discuss the Common Objection To
    Virtue Ethics In this paper, I am going to discuss the common objection to virtue ethics that William Frankena and other moral theorists have posed: virtue ethics cannot tell us how we ought to act (i.e. that it is not a normative theory). In doing this I will discuss how Rosalind Hursthouse successfully defends virtue ethics against this charge and makes it more appealing than both deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics. I will then argue that Hursthouse’s defense shows that deontology ethics better serves as a heuristic for virtue ethics, than its own ethical theory. I will finish the paper by arguing Hursthouse’s defense of normative virtue ethics reveals a counterintuitive conclusion, but one that I am willing to accept in favor of the moral framework. In William Frankena’s “A Critique of Virtue-Based Ethics” Frankena brings up the common criticism that a virtue ethics theory cannot tell us how to act, but instead gives us a way to cultivate and teach ourselves and others the existing moral principles we should hold. He does believe virtues have a valuable role to play in “moral education and development,” but ultimately believes they do not serve the purpose of providing us with a direction when we are faced with a moral dilemma (Frankena p. 353). He writes, “the function of the virtues in an ethics of duty is not to tell us what to do but to ensure that we will do it willingly in whatever situations we may face” (Frankena p. 353). He argues that because we have to appeal to existing principles defined by different ethical theories such as trait egoism, trait utilitarianism, trait deontological theory, ect, virtue ethics is just an extension of these theories (Frankena p.
    [Show full text]
  • Justifying Reasons, Motivating Reasons, and Agent Relativism in Ethics
    p. 1 Justifying Reasons, Motivating Reasons, and Agent Relativism in Ethics JOHN J. TILLEY INDIANA UNIVERSITY–PURDUE UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS [email protected] From: Philosophical Studies 118(3) (2004): 373–99. Please cite the published version. ABSTRACT. According to agent relativism, each person’s moral requirements are relative to her desires or interests. That is, whether a person morally ought to φ depends on what interests or desires she has. Some philosophers charge that the main argument for agent relativism trades on an ambiguity—specifically, an ambiguity in “reason,” “reason for action,” or a kindred term. This charge has been common, and widely thought to damage the case for agent relativism, since its appearance, in 1958, in a now classic paper by William Frankena. In what follows I examine the charge in detail, showing that insofar as it aims to discredit the argument for agent relativism, it fails in its purpose. Agent relativism is the view that each person’s moral requirements are relative to her desires or interests. Unless an action is suitably related to those desires or interests she has no moral requirement to perform that action.1 My concern is with the principal argument for this view, specifically with a frequent objection to it. According to that objection, the argument for agent relativism trades on an ambiguity in “reason,” “reason for action,” or a similar term. This objection has been prevalent since its appearance, in 1958, in a now classic paper by William Frankena.2 Strangely, although one or two authors 1 This, at least, is one of the views that go under the name “agent relativism.” I have used that name for a very different view in some of my other papers, e.g., in “Cultural Relativism,” Human Rights Quarterly 22(2) (2000): 501–47, at 506.
    [Show full text]
  • XX Век II. METAETHICS of the 20Th CENTUR
    Максимов Л.В. Сектор этики ИФ РАН (апрель 2016) Метаэтика. Избранная библиография. Часть II. – XX век II. METAETHICS OF THE 20th CENTURY (SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY) 1. Bruce A. Ackerman Social Justice in the Liberal State (New Haven: YAle University Press, 1980) 2. Robert Ackermann "Consistency and Ethics" in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 69, 1969. 3. E. M. Adams "A Critique of the Emotive Theory of Ethical Terms" in Journal of Philosophy 46, 1949. EMA complains that Ayer and Stevenson do not adequately analyse approbation, failing properly to distinguish it from mere liking. If we do analyse it we find it involves a cognitive element in the form of a judgement of rightness. So it is incoherent to analyse judgements of rightness in terms of approval. "Word-Magic and Logical Analysis in the Field of Ethics" in Journal of Philosophy 47, 1950. "The Nature of Ethical Inquiry" in Journal of Philosophy 48, 1951. "Cartesianism in Ethics" in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 16, 1956. "Mr Hare on the Role of Principles in Deciding" in Mind 65, 1956. "The Nature of 'Ought'" in Philosophical Studies 7, 1956. "'Ought' Again" in Philosophical Studies 8, 1957. "Hall's Analysis of "Ought"" in Journal of Philosophy 55, 1958. "The Theoretical and the Practical" in Review of Metaphysics 13, 1960. Ethical Naturalism and the Modern World-View (London: Oxford University Press, 1961). "Classical Moral Philosophy and Metaethics" in Ethics 74, 1964. "A Defense of Value Realism" in Southern Journal of Philosophy 4, 1966. "Gewirth on Reason and Morality" in Review of Metaphysics 33, 1980. "The Subjective Normative Structure of Agency" in Regis, Gewirth's Ethical Rationalism "Rationality and Morality" in Review of Metaphysics 46, 1993.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Obligation of a Citizen
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 52 Issue 3 Article 3 2002 Ethics in the Shadow of the Law: The Political Obligation of a Citizen Robert P. Lawry Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert P. Lawry, Ethics in the Shadow of the Law: The Political Obligation of a Citizen, 52 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 655 (2002) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol52/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. ARTICLE ETHICS IN THE SHADOW OF THE LAW: THE POLITICAL OBLIGATION OF A CITIZEN Robert P. Lawr9 INTRODUCTION This article is a series of meditations on texts. The focus is on the moral quandry a citizen faces when confronted with what he or she perceives to be an unjust or immoral law or policy, emanating from the State in which that citizen has membership. As such, it is a con- tribution to the rich literature of political obligation. It joins the long debate in jurisprudence and political and legal theory over the citi- zen's "obligation to obey the law," or "fidelity to law."1 It joins that debate obliquely, however, not by trying to argue philosophically for one particular theory of political obligation, but by reflecting on inter- esting and historically important texts in that literature.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE Richard Anthony Fumerton
    CURRICULUM VITAE Richard Anthony Fumerton PERSONAL Born, October 7, 1949, Toronto, Ontario Married, two children Home Address: 608 Whiting Ave, Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Office Phone: (319) 335-0022 Home Phone: (319) 338-5602 Cell Phone: (319) 621-8148 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (319) 353-2322 EDUCATION Ph.D. Brown University, 1974, Philosophy M.A. Brown University, 1973, Philosophy B.A. University of Toronto (Victoria College), 1971, Philosophy TEACHING Professor, University of Iowa, 1985-present Associate Professor, University of Iowa, 1979-1985 Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota, Fall Quarter, 1978 Assistant Professor, University of Iowa, 1974-1979 HONORS AND AWARDS F. Wendell Miller Professorship, 2003-present Regents Award for Faculty Excellence, 1997 Collegiate Teaching Award, University of Iowa, 1996 M. L. Huitt Award for Excellence in Teaching, 1994, University of Iowa Canada Council Fellow, 1973-74 Woodrow Wilson Fellow, 1971-72 DISSERTATIONS DIRECTED Brian Collins. A Utilitarian Account of Political Obligation. In Progress. Samuel Taylor. The Problem of Easy Justification: An Investigation of Evidence, Justification and Reliability. In progress. Kalyn Kappelman. A Critical Evaluation of Virtue Consequentialism. In progress. Ian MacMillan. Internalism, Externalism, and Epistemic Source Circularity. November, 2012. Brett Coppenger. Achieving Epistemic Descent.. Summer, 2012. Travis Dickinson. Direct Awareness of Fit as the Solution to all Sellarsian Dilemmas. Spring, 2011. Pat Monaghan (co-directed with Evan Fales). Property Possession as Identity. August, 2010. John DePoe. The Knowledge Argument for Dualism. August, 2010 Tom Javoroski. Space Time Gaps and the Persistence of Objects Through Time. Fall, 2009. Anthony Bryson. Epistemology and the Role of Intuition. Fall, 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtue Ethics
    Business Ethics Queens College Russell Marcus http://philosophy.thatmarcusfamily.org Reading Guide #7: Virtue Ethics This reading guide is provided to assist you in your reading. I encourage you to read the material through, first, then go back to answer the questions. You are not expected to submit written answers. You are expected to have responses ready for class discussion. Only the boldfaced questions will appear on exams. Page numbers refer to Louis Pojman, Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Hackett. Aristotle, “Virtue Ethics,” pp 249-259. 1. What makes some end better than another end? What will the best good be like? 2. Why is happiness the highest good? 3. How does the good of something depend on its function? 4. What is man’s particular function? What is human good? 5. “For one swallow does not make a spring...” (252) Explain. Be specific about the use that Aristotle makes of this statement. 6. What are the two kinds of virtues? Describe them. 7. How do we acquire virtue? What does this mean about how we should live our lives? 8. How must an action be done, in order for it to be done virtuously? 9. Is virtue a feeling? Explain. 10. In what way is virtue a mean state? What lie at the extremes from this mean? 11. How are bravery and temperance virtues? Between which extremes do they lie? 12. How are generosity and magnanimity virtues? Between which extremes do they lie? 13. How are mildness, truthfulness, wit, and friendliness virtues? Between which extremes do they lie? 14. How are some vices more opposed to the mean than others? Provide examples.
    [Show full text]