Explain how Granny and Clark Kent should both respond to the situation of the burning building from both Aristotle’s and Mill’s perspectives.
Assignment Goals and Objectives
This assignment is designed to test your ability to explain AND apply the theories you’ve been learning about over the past 4 weeks. To succeed on this assignment you should be able to:
Explain the central arguments for virtue ethics (Aristotle), deontology (Kant), utilitarianism (Mill), distributive justice (Rawls and Nozick), and the metaphysics of personhood (Mills).
Apply each of the theories to a scenario to “test” the feasibility of their normativity.
Formulate objections to philosophical theories and consider possible solutions.
Before you begin answer the questions you need to do some honest self-reflection and ask yourself if you understand the material well enough to explain it and apply it. If you’re uncertain, or you’ve struggled on any of the readings up to this point, you should set up time to chat with me by emailing me. You should also have a look through the Writing Philosophy page.
Assignment Instructions
There are four questions listed below you must answer ONLY THREE. Each question is worth 5 points for 15 points total. Your assignment must sub uploaded in Canvas by 11:59pm on October 17th. Thoroughly answer all parts of the questions.
Each question has a similar format: you’ll be presented with a scenario and you must
The first part is easy – just recap the story.
Suggested length: 1 paragraph
Explain the relevant aspects of the two philosophical theories in question.
This is similar to a philosophical exegesis. What that means is, in your own words, you explain the parts of the theory you’re going to be using. Don’t make any mention of the story here, just talk about Mill (for example) and the relevant parts of his theory.
Suggested length: 1-2 paragraphs per philosopher
Apply the philosophical theories to the scenario in question.
For example, you should explain what Mill’s theory would require Mrs. Smith’s lawyer do with her will and, mostly importantly, why. Then do the same for Kant.
Suggested length: 1-2 paragraphs total.
Assess which philosophical theory offers the best moral guidance for how one should act in the scenario in question.
This should include an argument about why, for example, you maintain that Mill’s theory gives the best guidance to Mrs. Smith’s lawyer AND an argument about why, following the same example, you maintain Kant’s theory is inadequate. You should also include a potential way to strengthen the inadequate theory.
Suggested length: 1-2 paragraphs.
Although the assignment is like an essay, you DO NOT need an introduction or conclusion.
Assignment Questions
Question 1: Consider the following scenario: A burning building, relatively structurally sound, but engulfed in flames, with 4 small children trapped inside. There are two people who must decide how to respond to the situation: Granny — an 80 year old misanthropic, pyrophobic, luddite, who saw her mother burn to death in a fire when she was younger. She’s in relatively good health, although she uses a cane. She has a cell phone for emergencies, but she hates it; Clark Kent — a 30 year, world-renowned firefighter who is on his way back from the latest firefighting championships. He has all his gear with him but, like Wolverine in the X-men, has loads of superpowers, so he rarely needs it.
Briefly explain the story back to me.
Explain, thoroughly, the relevant aspects of Aristotle’s and Mill’s theories.
Explain how Granny and Clark Kent should both respond to the situation of the burning building from both Aristotle’s and Mill’s perspectives. Would Aristotle require both Granny and Clark Kent to do the same thing? Why or why not? Would Mill?
Make an argument explaining which philosopher gives the better moral guidance and which gives the worst. What’s something that you would change to ameliorate the “worse” theory? Be sure to thoroughly explain your assessments here.
Question 2: Imagine you are Mrs. Smith’s lawyer, and you have promised to execute the terms of her legal will after she dies. Years ago, she had you draw up a will (Will 1) leaving her substantial fortune to a famine relief fund. When she died and you went through her papers, however, you find a more recent, and therefore legally binding will (Will 2), written and signed by Mrs. Smith herself, in which she bequeaths all her money to her lazy niece, who (you know) will spend it on beer and Birkin bags. No one else knows of the later will, but by law a later will supplants an earlier one.
Briefly explain the story back to me.
Explain, thoroughly, the relevant aspects of Kant’s and Mill’s theories.
From Kant’s perspective: Should you execute the later will(Will 2)? Or should you secretly destroy it, act as if it never existed, and carry out the terms of Will 1 the earlier one (giving the money to famine relief)? Why? From Mill’s perspective: Should you execute Will 2? Or should you secretly destroy it, act as if it never existed, and carry out the terms of the earlier one (giving the money to famine relief)? Why?
Make an argument explaining which philosopher gives the better moral guidance and which gives the worst. What’s something that you would change to ameliorate the “worse” theory? Be sure to thoroughly explain your assessments here.
Question 3: Image that there’s a famous, rich celebutante/influencer whose Bentley is dangling precariously off the edge of a cliff. Below, past a jagged craggy precipice, a school of hungry hammerhead sharks is circling. The celebutante is frantically tweeting their plight to their millions of followers, promising a large reward to whoever can rescue them. You decided to try your luck, even though you can’t stand celebrity culture, cannot swim, and have no search-and-rescue abilities. You really want the reward: you need a new Birkin bag.
Briefly explain the story back to me.
Explain, thoroughly, the relevant aspects of Aristotle’s and Kant’s theories.
From Aristotle’s perspective, what should you do and why? From Kant’s perspective, what should you do and why?
Make an argument explaining which philosopher gives the better moral guidance and which gives the worst. What’s something that you would change to ameliorate the “worse” theory? Be sure to thoroughly explain your assessments here.
Question 4: Imagine you live in a state, let’s call it Calafia, that can construct laws through proposition initiative. Imagine also that this state has, in the past and present, profited from slavery, land theft from indigenous people, economic exploitation, and internment and labor camps. A group of citizens, descended from the enslaved, marginalised, disenfranchised, and dispossessed people who made Calafia the economic superpower that it is has become, have gathered enough signatures to get a new proposition on the ballot for the upcoming election. The proposition will require Calafia to make reparations to members of all historically marginalised, oppressed, and harmed groups. The reparation fund will come from the state’s surplus economic reserves. Many questions have come up through the process of finalising the proposition: how is membership in reparations-receiving group determined? How should people who have never (either through class or race privilege) felt marginalised, exploited, or oppressed decide how to vote on the proposition? What argument should be made to convince the many libertarians in the state that reparations are both a morally and legally required use of the state’s tax-generated economic surplus? These questions need to be answered for the proposition to move forward.
Briefly explain the story back to me.
Explain, thoroughly, the relevant parts of Mills’s and/or Rawls’s and/or Nozick’s theories.
Yes: in this question you can use three philosophers if you want. If you don’t want to use three you must select any two.
Explain how Mills, Rawls, and/or Nozick, using their theories, would ameliorate, clarify, and respond to the proposed legislation.
Which philosopher(s) would offer the best chance of sufficient clarifying the currently unclear components of the proposed legislation and why?
