Philosophy 361 Ethics Darwall Fall 1997 SECOND PAPER ASSIGNMENT Write a 6 to 8 page essay on any of the following topics. Your papers should be turned in at the beginning of the lecture on Monday, November 24. 1. In Chapter 3 of Utilitarianism, Mill argues that utilitarian morality is binding because, under favorable conditions, human beings can have motives to act as it requires. In Chapter 3 of the Groundwork, Kant attempts to argue for a much more ambitious conclusion, that the CI is binding on any rational agent, whatever their psychology might otherwise be like. Critically assess Kant’s project and argument in Chapter 3. Why does he argue for such a strong conclusion? Why would he reject Mill’s arguments as inadequate? How successful is Kant’s project in your view. 2. The End-in-itself formulation of the CI is both suggestive and deeply resonant in ordinary thought. But it is also puzzling and hard to make precise. Write an essay in which you attempt to interpret, critically analyze, and evaluate this idea, including: a. an extended analysis of an example of something you think the formulation rules out, e.g., some form of lying, coercion, or manipulation, b. some discussion of whether the formulation entails a kind of absolutism, for example, that it is always wrong to lie, coerce, or manipulate, regardless of the consequences. (If you think it does, what does this say about the formulation’s acceptability?) c. some discussion of how the formulation relates to the passages in the Groundwork where Kant discusses what it is to be a rational being, what it is to have a will, etc. d. some discussion of how the second formulation, as you interpret it, relates to the other formulations, in light of Kant’s claim that the various formulations are equivalent. 3. Write an essay in which you: a. present Nietzsche’s critique of the idea of morality, with textual support, b. Discuss how either Mill or Kant would defend morality against Nietzsche’s attacks, and how the philosophical (metaethical) support he offers for morality would fare against Nietzsche’s arguments. c. Consider whether Nietzsche would have good responses to these replies and critically assess the debate. 4. Compare and contrast Aristotle’s defense of the claim that a good life for human beings consists in the excellent exercise of distinctive human faculties, hence in excellent, distinctively human activity with Mill’s defense of qualitative hedonism. Do Mill and Aristotle really disagree? (Be sure to bring in both what Aristotle says about pleasure in Book I and in chapters 1-5 of Book X.) What, if anything, is really the issue between them and what does it reveal about their respective approaches to ethics. If they don’t disagree, what explains the appearance that they do?