In the blogs, 11/20/2008

In the blogs today, November 20, 2008:

At 4:30:
• Hannah says that the government should be more subject to moral rules than everyone else, not less
• Tori defends Hobbes’s logic, and offers a sense in which the government might be held responsible in a moral sense.

At 6:30:
• Matt P., and, in the comments to his entry, Monica, give a convincing case for the plausibility of Hobbes’s position.
• Matt F. gives an argument for why we should reject Hobbes’s notion of sovereign immunity from moral judgment.

In the blogs, 11/17/08

In the blogs today, November 17, 2008:

At 4:30,
• Sean points out that we’re in a constant struggle against falling back into the state of nature
• Kristen explains that it’s difficult to know what people would be like in the state of nature

At 6:30,
• Joe sums up Hobbes’s argument in an extremely clear way.
• Chris R. argues against Hobbes’s claim that resources are necessarily scarce.

In the blogs, 11/10/08

In the blogs today, November 10, 2008:

• Sara explains the role of self-love in Kant’s prohibition on suicide
• Sean hypothesizes a very specific role for rationality in Kant’s theory
• Matt P. draws attention to a tension in Kant’s focus on self-love.

In the blogs, 11/3/08

In the blogs today, November 3, 2008:

• At 4:30,
  • Gordon gives a step-by-step demonstration of how the categorical imperative is supposed to work
  • Sebastian clearly states the important distinction between Mill and Kant, and warns us about what to look for when discussing Kant’s theory
• At 6:30,
  • Stacey has a clear way of explaining the way the Categorical Imperative works
  • Amanda, on Ken’s blog, asks a question about what it can really mean to will a maxim into universal law.

In the blogs, 10/30/08

In the blogs today, October 30, 2008:

• The question was whether happiness, in contradistinction to what Mill says, has any inherent worth. At 4:30,
  • Vinny has a simple reason for thinking that there is some intrinsic worth
  • Lance sees happiness as an emotion or a feeling, and denies that these have value in themselves
• At 6:30,
  • Sherida says that happiness needs a person in order to have value.
  • Stacey agrees that there is no intrinsic value in happiness, but arrives at this conclusion via an argument from Kant.

In the blogs, 10/27/08

In the blogs today, October 27, 2008:

• At 4:30,
  • Becca wonders to what extent we are really responsible for the outcomes of our actions
  • Gordon asks how it could possible seem reasonable to divorce examination of someone’s motives from the judgment of their actions
  • Tyler wants to know how Mill can reconcile himself to such an inexact theory.
• At 6:30,
  • Neha wants to know how Mill can separate motives from morality.
  • Jeffersson points out that we still haven’t been told how we’re supposed to divine the consequences of our actions
  • Jon T. asks to what extent we should consider the repercussions of an action when determining its moral worth

In the blogs, 10/16/08

In the blogs today, October 16, 2008:

• At 4:30, Becca makes it crystal clear how utiltiarianism could still be a useful theory even in a terrible world. At the same time, Lance argues that is no such thing as a moral lie.
• At 6:30, Chris gives some very convincing examples to support a particular kind of objection to utilitarianism.

In the blogs, 10/13/08

In the blogs today, Octover 13, 2008:

• At 4:30, Sara talks about the distinction between what makes an action moral (in retrospect, as it were) and how we make moral decisions. Meanwhile, Liz defends Mill’s argument that utilitarianism is not in fact too demanding.
• At 6:30, Mike gives a nice summary of the utilitarian position regarding when self-sacrifice is a good thing.

In the blogs, 9/22/08

In the blogs today, September 22, 2008: I asked you to think about Mill’s position that some pleasures – the “higher” pleasures – are intrinsically better than others – the “lower” ones.

• At 4:30,
  • Tom sums up the anti-Mill position quite clearly
  • Matt P., on the other hand, gives an example supporting the intuitive nature of Mill’s position
  • Gordon gives one independent reason for thinking that higher pleasures are better
  • Hannah has another, related reason
• At 6:30,
  • Jeffersson gives a clear statement of why Mill sounds a bit stuffy
  • Justin has a novel reason for preferring the higher pleasures
  • David questions the coherence of separating the two kinds of pleasure – and the two kinds of pleasure-havers
  • Eric gestures in the direction of an argument against Mill

In the blogs, 9/18/08

In the blogs today, September 18, 2008:

The question was this: To what extent are we morally responsible for the consequences of our actions, and what does this tell us about utilitarianism?

• At 4:30,
  • Liz states the problem with utiltiarianism and intentions quite clearly in her second paragraph
  • Nicole says that our responsibility stops when another person steps in
  • Ethan generalizes somewhat on this idea
  • Rich maintains that responsibility is very limited
• At 6:30,
  • Aja holds a strongly utilitarian position
  • Jeff focuses on immediate consequences
  • Jeffersson makes a nice analogy with kitchen appliances

In the blogs, 9/15/08

In the blogs today, September 15, 2008:

• Section D – 4:30 was asked to think about whether a moral God also had to be a rational one:
  • Nilakshan says that God isn’t bound by our notions of sensibility
  • Emanuel suggests that God doesn’t have to be moral himself at all, as long as he can get the job done
  • Gordon argues that morality requires rationality because reasons are what we really judge, not actions
  • Becca makes a slightly different distinction: between performing a moral action and being a moral individual
• Section G – 6:30 considered the effect of rejecting DCT on our notion of God:
  • Ken says that taking away God’s power to create morality strips him of his creative powers
  • Chiara thinks we would still have morality even without DCT
  • Monica sees an upside to rejecting DCT: no more “blind faith” justifications of heinous actions

In the blogs, 9/11/08

In the blogs today, September 11, 2008:

• At 4:30, students were asked to consider what ramifications it would have for religious belief if DCT were false.
  • Matt P. wonders: If DCT is false, what purpose is left God? Tori K. sums up the idea as well
  • Sara J. and Sebastian C. have a response to this concern
  • Brian S. points out one of the practical problems with accepting DCT
• At 6:30, the question was whether God could, should, or would ever change his mind about moral value.
  • Waqar O. says that God would get things right the first time
  • Jeffersson C. suggests that people wouldn’t have much respect for a flip-flopping God
  • Matthew P. tries to reconcile the idea of perfection with the idea of changing one’s mind
  • Meredith C. says that the question of DCT might not have any practical significance for people as fallible as us