FIRST YEAR SEMINAR IN PHILOSOPHY: RELATIVISM

PHIL 196, Sec. 004: TTh 4pm-5:30pm in G160 Angell Hall
The University of Michigan
Fall 2004

Instructor: James Woodbridge
email address: jwood@umich.edu
Course Webpage: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jwood/umich/Phil196.htm
Office Hours: T 2pm-3pm, W 12:30pm-2pm, and by appointment
Office: 2203 Angell Hall
Office Phone: 764-6882
Dept. Phone: 764-6285

SECOND PAPER ASSIGNMENT

Pick one of the following topics and write a 4-6 page paper fulfilling the tasks assigned.

Your paper is due in the Philosophy Dept. drop-box by 3pm on Friday, December 10th.

Topics:

The starting point for both topics is the same: explain how the view John Stuart Mill presents in Utilitarianism is somewhat similar to a relativist view about morality (consider its flexability and thus how it fits with the general kind of data about different cultures that Sumner and Benedict present) while supposedly remaining a non-relativist account. In doing this, discuss the manner in which and degree to which it satisfies the general points James Rachels makes in "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" about morality and values while criticzing (cultural) moral relativism, but also how utilitarianism fits with what he says relativism gets right. This will involve briefly explaining (in your own words) the basic structure and consequences of both utilitarianism and moral relativism, as well as summarizing Rachels's objections. This should take about 2.5 pages. After you have done this, continue your discussion of utilitarianism in one of the following ways:

1. Explain how utilitarianism fits not only with the conception of naturalism Gilbert Harman presents in "Is There a Single True Morality?" (MR, pp. 165-184) but also with the narrower naturalist thesis he mentions on p. 167. This will involve brief statements of both notions of naturalism. Given that, according to Harman, naturalism tends toward moral relativism, discuss the extent to which utilitarianism is a realist (or what Harman calls "absolutist") moral theory rather than a relativist theory as Harman understands that kind of view (p. 172). Focus on the argument Harman offers for moral relativism from a naturalist perspective (p. 173). Reconstruct this argument and discuss whether utilitarianism can provide an absolutist response from within naturalism. Consider what Mill says in Chapter 3 about the source of the normative force (or "sanction") of morality. Do you think that utilitarianism provides an adequate naturalist absolutist (realist) account of morality, or does Harman's argument show that naturalism supports relativism better? Be sure to give reasons for the position you endorse here.

2. Discuss whether one can make utilitarianism out as an example of the supposedly "benign" version of moral relativism that Philippa Foot considers in "Moral Relativism" (MR, pp. 185-198, especially pp. 194-196) and Thomas Scanlon elaborates on in "Fear of Relativism" (MR, pp. 142-162, especially pp. 149-150, 152-155). In doing this, be sure to explain the basic ideas of this view of morality--in particular, the two parts of a moral code. How well does utilitarianism satisfy what Foot holds are the "definitional starting points" of any code presenting a possible morality? Next, consider how relativist utilitarianism can be with respect to the further, "contingent" parts of a morality. Here, explain what aspect of utilitarianism (from its two-component structure) has to be relative for it to be a relativist theory and how this would do the trick. Considering what Mill says about the ground of utilitarianism--happiness--on pp. 36-38, can we read his view as the kind of view Foot and Scanlon have in mind? If yes, does that mean utilitarianism is ultimately a relativist or a realist (universalist) account of morality? If it does not fit with the Foot/Scanlon view, is that because utilitarianism is more realist or even more relativist than their sort of view? Explain.

Be sure to look at my Paper Requirements and Policies.

Keep your paper within the page limit!