Assignment:
Essay
Option 1
Your exploration will contain two main parts. Remember to begin the essay with an introduction and end with a conclusion. Use the headings "Part 1" and "Part 2" for the two main sections.
Ethics has often been described as an activity or enterprise only for humans. Cohen and Baxter, respectively, make this point in our readings. Regan, however, takes an opposing view. To complete this assignment you should read the following: For Part 1 read Cohen and Baxter from Timmons as well as the article/video for Regan listed in the syllabus. For Part 2 be sure to read the introduction, pages 114-117 in Timmons and see the slides under Topic about direct/indirect moral standing.
Part I
Humans are said to be ethical entities.
Define metaphysically what it means to be, and not to be, human. Use your definition to evaluate whether non-paradigm humans such as infants, the senile, persons on life support, etc. are also human and ethical entities. Do all humans, no matter who they are and what condition/situation they are in, have moral standing based on some metaphysical principle or something else? What (if anything) gives all humans or specific humans, moral standing?
Non-human animals cannot (Cohen) or can (Regan) be bearers of rights? Use metaphysics and your philosophical skill of definition to articulate what it means to be (and thus not to be) an animal. Does your definition allow that being human and being a dog are both animals? Or are humans different from animals and of their own kind so that only humans, as Cohen argues, can be bearers of rights?
If you quote/use the authors in the course you may simply use parenthetical citation (Cohen, 121).
Part II
Review Timmons about direct vs. indirect moral standing, pages 114-117 and review the relevant slides under Topic.
Now that you have metaphysically articulated what it is to be human and to be an animal, explain how humans, dogs/cats, cockroaches, trees, and rocks are or are not ethical entities. Explain how each does or does not have moral standing, and if it does have standing whether it is direct or indirect. If you say that humans and dogs have direct moral standing and insects and trees have indirect moral standing, you will need to argue specifically for each. For example, you may argue that entities that experience pleasure and pain have moral standing and therefore dogs have moral standing but plants and rocks do not. You may need a paragraph for each (humans, dogs/cats, cockroaches, and plants).
Option 2 (you may choose this topic only with permission from the instructor):
As you are seeing, philosophical ethics is not just an action or a rule; it is a way of being in the world. This "way of being in the world" involves a manner of acting as to consider myself and others in my interpersonal actions and behaviors. Furthermore, it involves a method of thinking, doing and becoming which relies heavily on the philosophical process and its approach to interpersonal, interactive situations.
For your third essay you will be returning back to the beginning of the class. Your purpose is explore a past ethical experience in the light of the philosophical ethics approach. You essay will be constructed in two parts:
Part 1: The framework of the ethical situation
(a) Explain the ethically pertinent details of the situation. Make sure you not only explain the situation itself, but explicitly explain which features of the situation make it one which prompts ethical consideration and engagement.
(b) Explain what you actually did at the time and why you did it that way.
Part 2: Philosophical ethics approach
Use your imagination to re-approach the situation using the philosophical ethical engagement process. Just saying "I wouldn't change anything..." will not work. Instead explicitly explain how the philosophical ethical approach, and its three tools, would apply to this situation. See page 26 in the Introduction (Sease) about the three tools of the philosophical ethical approach. These tools are intentionality, metaphysical inquiry, and the six philosophical steps as they apply to ethically considerate actions.
Your explanation here should address questions like - "who would be considered", "how would they be considered", "when would consideration of action occur (before or after, only when others question me)" and even "why would you consider the situation in this manner". But your response to these questions will not arise from what you actually did at the time (as this was the focus of "Part 1"), but instead based on the application of the philosophical ethical approach as it applies to your specific situation. Your response to Part 2 should address the following two sub-parts:
(a) Start with an explanation of moral agency as it applies to this specific situation. As all ethical acts in philosophy begin with an intention (the first tool of the philosophical engagement process), explain why you wanted to consider the situation ethically. Then explain the manner in which this intention provided the context of how you would move forward in considering your action choice.
(b) Then explain how the remaining two tools of the philosophical ethical engagement process would apply to your action choice in this specific situation. Think about how you would apply metaphysical inquiry and the six steps to the situation at hand in choosing an action that aligned with your ethical intention. Start by explaining to whom or to what would would you apply these two tools. Then explain how you would they apply to them or that. Then, explain how this manner of consideration would impact your action choice.
See Introduction to the Fundamentals of Philosophical Ethics and PHI 110 - Ethics: Review and Conclusion to review the process and these three tools.
Note that the purpose of this essay is not to tell your story or feel good/bad about what you did/did not do. The purpose of this essay assignment is found in part 2 - applying the philosophical ethical process to a real-world, personal interaction you have encountered. Therefore, part 1 should be stated and explained only in a way that gives support to part 2 - not the other way around. In other words, do not get carried away telling your story in part 1, and then neglect part 2. Instead for part 1 focus only on the elements of your story that are needed to complete part 2.
Readings:
The Case for Animal Rights
By Tcm Regan