Transcript 8,2x - UW Canvas

Ben Hole, Winter 2016
Office hours after class.
 Where we are and what we’re
doing / Admin Stuff
 Conference next week!
 Hursthouse & Driver, Discussion
Questions
Week, Date
Required Reading
1, 1/5
Syllabus for Phil 340
1, 1/7
Apology (all)
2, 1/12
Meno (70-86); Phaedo (all)
2, 1/14
Republic Book 1 (all); Book 2 (357-376)
3, 1/19
Republic Book 2 (357-376); Book 4 (all)
3, 1/21
Republic Book 4 (all); Book 8 (all)
4, 1/26
Nicomachean Ethics Book 1
4, 1/28
Nicomachean Ethics Book 1-2
5, 2/2
Nicomachean Ethics Book 2-3; Book 6.13
5, 2/5
Nicomachean Ethics Book 3-4
6, 2/9
Nicomachean Ethics Book 4
6, 2/11
Anscombe, “Modern Moral Philosophy,” Nussbaum,
“Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach”
7, 2/16
Euthydemus (278-281); Stoics (Primary texts, PDF
form)
7, 2/18
Finish Stoics; Paper Outline Workshop
8, 2/23
Hursthouse, OVE Chapter 9; Annas, “Virtue Ethics:
Which kind of naturalism?”
8, 2/25
Driver, “Virtue Theory”; Hursthouse, “Are the Virtues
the Proper Starting Place for Morality?"
In-Class Paper Conference
9 & 10
On Virtue Ethics, OUP, 1999
“[Any] virtue ethics which is
‘Aristotelian’ as described inevitably
aims to stick close to the author’s
interpretation of Aristotle, and
interpretations of Aristotle, in many of
which relevant issues vary” (1999, 9).
Additional clarifications
 An action is right if and only if it is
 Virtue ethics answers the questions
what a virtuous agent would do in the
circumstances.
 A virtuous agent is one who acts
virtuously; that is, one who has and
exercises all the virtues.
 A virtue is a character trait a human
being needs to flourish or live well.
 Eudaimonia is a difficult concept, but
not substantially more so than
rationality or happiness.
 Virtue ethics is not trivially circular.
“What should I do?” as well as “What
kind of person should I be?”
 Virtue ethics does involve rules or
principles.
 Virtue theory is not committed to
reductionism.
 What is the Rawlsian framework? What is Hursthouse’s complaint about that
framework? Critically evaluate her argument. Is virtue ethical theory immune from
a collapse into a theory of the right, or a theory of the good? Why or why not? Make
an argument.
 What is Hursthouse’s view on homosexuality in On Virtue Ethics (chapter nine, on
naturalism)? Hooker objects to the account of naturalism on the grounds that it
entails that homosexuality is a vice. How does Hursthouse respond to this objection
in the reading for this week? Is this a convincing response? Why or why not?
 Julia Driver argues that virtues of ignorance, such as modesty, suggest that Aristotle
was wrong to claim that the virtues require knowledge (or are grounded in
phronesis). Explain Driver’s argument. Now explain, and critically evaluate,
Hursthouse’s response. Is her response to Driver’s objection successful? Why or
why not?
 One of the primary challenges to virtue-oriented approaches to ethical theory is
that virtues fail to be action guiding. Explain Hursthouse’s account of “V-Rules”;
also explain how this is supposed to help assuage the action guidingness worry.
Are the “V-Rules” more or less action guiding than principles in other theories
(such as the Categorical Imperative in Kantianism, or the Principle of Utility in
Utilitarianism)? In other words, critically evaluate Hursthouse’s response to the
action guidingness worry.
 Explain Hursthouse’s bi-conditional, and what it purports to show. Critically
evaluate the bi-conditional in terms of accessibility. Does a virtue ethical theory
based on that bi-conditional make itself vulnerable to problems of elitism,
demandingness, or relativism? How, exactly? And to what extent? How is this
accessibility importantly different from (or similar to) Aristotle’s theory?
 Driver criticizes Hursthouse’s bi-conditional on the basis of tragic dilemmas. What,
exactly, is Driver’s criticism? What, exactly, is Hursthouse’s response? Critically
evaluate this debate. Which side wins and why?
 Driver discusses an example of a compassionate person and an evil dictator. What
does this example purport to show? What is Driver’s argument? And what, exactly,
about Hursthouse’s account is Driver’s argument an objection to? Now, critically
evaluate Driver’s “compassionate person and an evil dictator” argument.
 Is a Neo-Aristotliean Virtue Ethical Theory a good approach to ethical theory?
Week, Date
Required Reading
1, 1/5
Syllabus for Phil 340
1, 1/7
Apology (all)
2, 1/12
Meno (70-86); Phaedo (all)
2, 1/14
Republic Book 1 (all); Book 2 (357-376)
3, 1/19
Republic Book 2 (357-376); Book 4 (all)
3, 1/21
Republic Book 4 (all); Book 8 (all)
4, 1/26
Nicomachean Ethics Book 1
4, 1/28
Nicomachean Ethics Book 1-2
5, 2/2
Nicomachean Ethics Book 2-3; Book 6.13
5, 2/5
Nicomachean Ethics Book 3-4
6, 2/9
Nicomachean Ethics Book 4
6, 2/11
Anscombe, “Modern Moral Philosophy,” Nussbaum,
“Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach”
7, 2/16
Euthydemus (278-281); Stoics (Primary texts, PDF
form)
7, 2/18
Finish Stoics; Paper Outline Workshop
8, 2/23
Hursthouse, OVE Chapter 9; Annas, “Virtue Ethics:
Which kind of naturalism?”
8, 2/25
Driver, “Virtue Theory”; Hursthouse, “Are the Virtues
the Proper Starting Place for Morality?"
In-Class Paper Conference
9 & 10
 Favorite argument?
 Favorite ancient ethical theory or aspect theory?