Ethical Inquiry Assignment for class #2 Due in class on Jan. 27

Note: No class on January 20, 2003 (Martin Luther King Day)

Read: Chapters 1-4 of Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels

Optional: read pp.1-8 of Applied Ethics by Wilcox and Wilcox (covers much the same ground as the Rachels chapters)

Write: Two or three pages answering the following questions:

Rachels is trying to convince us that ethical issues should be addressed in a rational way, that we should make up our minds about what is right and wrong on the basis of our assessment of the reasons which can be given for the various opinions people have. But if Subjectivism, or Relativism, or the Divine Command Theory is correct, then this search for reasons may be a waste of time. So he begins by trying to show that these views are wrong. How convincing is his case? Let's start with a sort of experiment:

1. Think of a question that seems to you clearly to be an ethical question (Perhaps you can fill in the blank in the following: "Is it or is it not ethically permissible to . . . ") Consider your question in light of the first four chapters of the Rachels text. Specifically, try to answer the following questions:

a. Rachels says in Chapter 1 that a moral judgment has to be backed up by reasons. Think about how you are presently inclined to answer the question you have chosen. Can you give reasons for that answer? Briefly, what are they? Do you think they are the sort of reasons that ought to convince any open-minded and reasonable person to agree with you?

b. Does your question seem to be one that people in different cultures might answer differently? Or could it be answered by appealing to a moral rule that is necessary for any society to function? (See Chapter 2, esp. pp. 25-26 of Rachels.) (Explain.)

c. Does it seem reasonable to you to say that people's answers to your question are merely expressions of their personal feelings? Does it seem reasonable to you to say that there is an answer to this question that is a "truth of reason"? (See Chapter 3 of Rachels.)

d. Is your question one that you would try to answer by turning to your religious tradition? Would other people try to answer the question through their religion? How plausible do you find Rachels' claim that this question cannot be answered by religion alone, but requires independent moral thought? (See Chapter 4, esp. pp. 55-61.)

How did the 'experiment' come out? Did your ethical question seem to fit into Rachels' way of thinking about ethics? Is it a question that can be answered through rational inquiry?

2. Are you inclined to agree or disagree with Rachels about the possibility of using reason to answer ethical questions? At what points do you think his argument is the weakest? At what points (if any) has he convinced you?