owl_of_minerva | Have any of you read anything ethicsy lately?

Current Location: My office. Home away from home.

Entry tags:

Have any of you read anything ethicsy lately?

I'm working on my syllabus for a sophomore course on ethics; it's a required core course for all students at my university. Everyone will have already had one course on philosophy. I'm going to start the class with two weeks of one-shot classes on various themes: a day on medical ethics (I'm using an article on the problems with research on human subjects), a day on animal rights (thanks to

epistolarysmack and

theoryishotcrew, I'm probably going to use the Nozick piece on "Constraints and Animals"), a day on business ethics, and a day on pacifism/violence. Something like that, anyway. These two weeks will set up general questions about what philosophical ethics tries to achieve, and students will begin tentatively working on a paper project that they will develop over the course of the semester.

I'm still hunting around for articles, as you can see, for the last two... I'm also open to changing the themes. Peter Singer's piece in the NY Times last month about charitable giving might be a likely prospect, also. The articles should be accessible -- the type of thing that comes up in the NY Times magazine, for instance, is right about perfect.

So -- have any of you read anything neat and roughly ethicsy lately that you think might appeal to 19-20 year olds who are being forced to take my course? It could even be something provocatively denying the possibility of ethics -- i.e., realpolitik in humanitarianism or something. Any recommendations are good.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I was just wondering (the absolutists would have seemed quite Kantian but for this), because of the line from the linked piece: Similarly, since the idealistic ideologies--situationism and absolutism--stress the need to achieve positive, humanitarian consequences, then individuals who accept these ideals might be more likely to engage in immoral action if such actions are the means to help others. A Kantian deontologist, however, would never do that, consequences be damned. (there's a famous section in Kant on whether there's a duty to lie when a would-be murderer is at the door asking about the whereabouts of his desired victim.)

Ah, cursed subtlety and complexity -- they'll get ya every time. ;)

I'll make a note to get back to you when my papers turn up. I had an impromptu vacation a couple of weekends ago and ended up putting things recklessly into boxes, and I've been too busy since then to fix the situation. Soon, though! :)

Cool. :) Yay fun, new neat thing to learn about!

:)

I'm really interested in the intersection of psychology and the humanities, esp. psychology and philosophy. I was tempted to take a seminar this term with Mark Johnson (of "Lakoff and Johnson") but just couldn't make the time for it. With luck he'll repeat it in a couple of years.

Very neat. One of my good friends in grad school is doing her phd in applied developmental psych, focusing on existential phenomenological psych -- she frequently sits in on philosophy classes, and we talk psych vs. phil all the time. Sometimes I I tease her about it ("why don't you just come to the dark side of philosophy!") but she seems to like the psychological viewpoint.

Wow, that's impressive. Both that she's studying that and that there's a place one can study that. :)

Well, she was excited about it coming in, but she found out when she got here that it's not necessarily something the whole department is thrilled about, so she's faced some obstacles. Things seem to be getting better, though -- they're even letting her organize a conference (on qualitative psych in general, if I recall correctly, not just existential phenomenological).

They must be impressed with her, if not with the conventionality of her interests. :)

We had a big Merleau-Ponty conference here a year or so ago (but of course just for phil, not psych).

Okay, I found it, and I took it to the office and scanned it here. It's sideways and I don't have an easy way to fix that, so you'll have to rotate it or print it, I guess.

They classify "high idealist/high universalist" as deontological, "high pragmatist/high universalist" as "teleological," and the other two as "skeptical," I think. I like your word "consequentialist" better than "teleological," since for me the former is more associated with results and the latter with purpose, which I think of as results + intent. But that's just my amateur impression.

This is neat! I started reading it and then got called away. I'm going to add you as a friend, if you don't mind, so I remember to ask you more about this. :)

That would be fun. :) Where does one go to read the "real blog" you mentioned in your profile?

It's been a little quiet lately, since I haven't wanted to talk about my job search on it. I posted some links to it back in November (http://owl-of-minerva.livejournal.com/2069.html)

Looks like you post pretty often on LJ anyway. :)

Well, the job search related stuff, and some teaching-related stuff, is best written somewhere it can be friendslocked. I'd be tempted to move over to LJ entirely, but that a number of my friends that I keep up with over the blog aren't on LJ and don't want to be -- and also I've got almost 5 years of blogger archives that I feel kind of attached to.

The font's a little small for my aging eyes over there, but I like your tortoiseshell kitty!

Thanks! (The font is pretty small; it hurts my eyes a little too. Someday I will redo the template over there. It's the same one I started with.)

My last tortoiseshell was two kitties ago, and I don't have an icon for her (long haired, mostly black, named Sappho), but this is Lillian.

Aww! Very very cute. This is my mom's cat, who was my cat through high school, Willow.

Willow's pretty! The picture of Lillian was taken when she had just finished shredding a bunch of toiled paper in the bathroom sink. She's a naughty girl.

Some day I'll ask you more about idealism in the philosophical sense, because I know that it's quite different from idealism in the psychological sense, but presumably there's some conceptual overlap.

I think the best cats are the naughty ones. (Note that mine is named Trouble :) )

Idealism in the philosophical sense = a whole pile of different things, depending on context. Even the meaning of 'idealism' in 'german idealism' is very much up for debate (one of the main debates being whether german idealism is making an epistemological claim about what is accessible to consciousness, or a metaphysical claim about what is out there). (which is not even to enter into the multiple meanings of 'absolute idealism', which also gets bandied about by the german idealists!)

I think the one overlap between the psychological sense and the philosophical sense, at least for the earlier german idealists, and also for Plato & platonic philosophy, is that there is the sense that an "ought" has some sort of weight, some kind of reality (whatever that might be!). An appeal to an ought is saying that there is some sort of ideal of justice/good/whatever (whether this is durable or ever-changing) that can be appealed to. Someone with a more pragmatic or skeptical attitude, on the other hand, would be more likely to dismiss an 'ought' as wishful thinking, or merely practical advice, to be discarded if something better comes along. (and not necessarily in a callous way -- just seeing ethical decision-making as a muddling through & doing the best in each situation, rather than appealing to "Ought"s.)

Does that make sense? Does that seem to square with the psychological division?

One question I had, actually, when going through -- has any of the recent philosophical work on virtue ethics (which is Aristotelian in heritage, but has really been picking up in the last 20 years) carried over to psychological work on ethics/subjectivity? Virtue ethics is broadly situationalist, but focuses on developing the kind of character that is likely to make good decisions. So, one develops virtues of prudence, wisdom, patience, etc., that come into play in making a decision. No rules, but still not a free-for-all. :) I've seen it used in medical ethics/bioethics as being a good model for health practitioners.

I agree about the kitties - Sappho's kitten-name was Mischief, and our intervening (rather difficult) cat Robin had the middle name Anklesbane. :)

Your question about virtue ethics - very good question! I'm going to add that to my reading list. I really am not yet well acquainted with the work being done by psychologists on ethics in general. I do know for my readings for my current project, on idealism as expressed in vegetarianism, that virtue ethics is a strong component of this trend in diet.

Right now I've been mostly focused on absolutes and the role they play in the psyche, such as the ways that people can feel inspired in moving towards transcendent absolutes and ideals, or the way they can feel inadequate by believing they ought to be living in terms of absolutes themselves (i.e., perfectionism). I'm trying to collect readings on theories of problems with perfectionism and idealism, and so far I've read John Passmore's The Perfectibility of Man, which traces thought from Plato through Augustine vs. Pelagius and on into the Enlightenment, modern science, etc. I've also started Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies, but it's awfully hard to find reading time at this point.

I'm also interested in the processes of "secular moralization," in which individuals or society decide to assign moral implications to actions that were previously considered generally neutral, such as eating, smoking tobacco, and exploiting the environment. The tobacco angle ties in with my employment (I've been a tobacco cessation researcher for more than 10 years), and the environmental angle is part of a big, long-term writing project that I've set aside for grad school but hope to complete in a reasonable time period.

I apologize for squinching up this conversation into the extreme right margin of your LJ! :)

Well, this will make it even squishier.

Oddly enough, I was reading The Open Society and its Enemies earlier tonight, but just as a convenient example of Hegel-bashing. :)

Re. perfectionism/idealism & feelings of inadequacy -- have you come across anything about scrupulosity in religion, particularly Catholicism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13640a.htm) (at least, that's the context I know it in; I'm sure it emerges in other faith traditions as well, or anywhere where the ideals are really high)?

I see it as a central practical issue that most religions face, actually, if the divine is a lofty, perfect, Absolute, and people are what they are, pretty ordinary most of the time - how can the gap possibly be bridged? Some religions (Islam, Shinto), have a concept of ritual purity - a proper sequence of performative actions will render people temporarily acceptable so that they can approach God or the gods. Christianity has the psychologically useful concept of "grace" to make up the difference between humans and God, and my lay understanding is that the Catholic Church offers the sacrament of penance to restore it (or at least people's awareness of it) again and again as needed. I'd be interested to know how Judaism handles the issue, as it's even more fussy about rules and meeting impossible standards than Christianity (the idea that the home is to be cleaned of any possible crumb of leavened bread before Passover, for example, sounds extremely stressful), but doesn't focus on individuals and their psychological needs like Christianity does.

That link you shared about "scruples" - fascinating! I'm glad the church has such a humane attitude about it. Thank you!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Have any of you read anything ethicsy lately?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject