Readings
Texts
Notes
Synopsis
Before highlighting themes from our discussion today, I would like to draw your attention to a problem that has struck me as rather more acute than usual: Excessive absences.
Missing Class
I've been disappointed to see so many missing class. After the second examination even some of the students remarked, "where did all those people come from?", noting that they certainly weren't amongst the regulars who attend class without fail.
Obviously, if you happen to be sick, I much prefer you not attempt coming to class for your sake and ours.
However, missing class to study for a test or work on a paper for another course (or even this course) or because you just don't feel like it is another matter altogether.
Now, I understand the inclination to skip class to study for a test, because I've done it myself. Unfortunately the data do not bear this strategy out. That is, last minute cramming has been repeatedly shown to be mostly ineffective in improving test performance. Worse, youmiss classdoing so. You take a double hit. Realistically you won't do much if any better on the test, and you get behind on the material in the class you're skipping.
To be sure, it is possible to miss some classes without getting behind, whether because the content of a course is shallow or its pace glacial. Our pace is rarely slow even when we get behind, and no one would describe this material as shallow. You can't, in other words, miss this course without getting well behind in it. Think of it this way: We have scarcely 28 meetings all semester long. Each meeting is accordingly precious as their supply is so short. Indeed, this is one of those courses I always regret for want of more time. Two-hour classes would much better suit these investigations, if only to permit more in-depth discussion, questions, and arguments.
But I digress: My point is that in missing class to attend to other classes, you make a common mistake. You get yourself behind in a course for the sake of an additional one and one-quarter hour additional studying for an examwhich will have almost no affect on your actual test performance.
Need I also mention how spectacularly galling it is to have students attempt to split the difference by studying for an exam in another class while in class? Your studying is ineffectual, your attention split, and your understanding of our discussion inevitably lacking.
The upshot is that you need to come to class even if you are frantic about an upcoming exam, but you need to set the exam aside to focus on class. If it all gets to be too much for you to control, come see me. I can direct you to people who can help you learn time and stress management skills, which is what this comes to in the end.
It seems that this is pretty much a universal problem on this campus, so there are lots of schemes out there for improving attendance. I figure that if you want to do well in a course you, then should show up to it. Evidently there are lots of examples where that is not the case: Students do well without attending. I don't know how that works, exactly. I suppose if this is the drift of the university, we should just put up degree vending machines on campus. Insert however many tens-of-thousands of dollars, and get your degree. No fuss, no need to worry about attendance, or assignments, or reading, or discussions, or lectures, or, really, anything that makes college a challenging, transformative experience. There aren't too many downsides here. Faculty could focus on their own research to the exclusion of nearly everything else, campus would be uncrowded and uncluttered, and birds would sing--the birds, at least, that manage to escape the cats. Maybe I'm on to something here...
Silliness aside, I hasten to add that there is a robust group of regulars in the course. They pay attention, take notes, make valuable contributions to class discussion, and seem to be following the gist of our investigations. They are fantastic (indeed, inspiring) students who are doing much to restore my confidence that the University can be stronger and more dedicated than ever to the intrinsic value of higher education--understanding for the very sake of understanding itself. I applaud those of you who have the determination and self-discipline to make the most of your educational opportunities. You will, I am certain, go far.
Today's Class
It seems there is a gulf, if you will, between the theoretical perspectives offered by utilitarianism, on the one hand, and deontology, on the other. These are, of course, in some respects radically different ways of thinking about moral normative issues. As we saw in discussion, human experimentation cases particularly tend to highlight the gulf in question.
Our question, then, is whether an intermediate position exists between utilitarianism and deontology. That is to say, is there a position which captures both intuitions about the consequences of actions for individuals and respect for those individuals' autonomy and personhood?
By way of a transition, today we took up the view that ethics is just a matter of self-interest. The resulting theory, Ethical Egoism, is popular to the point of dominance among those in business and economics.
Interestingly, Ethical Egoism passes clarity. It is important to realize, though, that it passes clarity only if the theory can piggy-back on a theory of best interests. Presumably, a theory of best interests should be provided by psychologists, biologists, and sociologists.
It is also important to understand that Ethical Egoism is not a subjectivist theory like Simple Ethical Subjectivism. It is possible, for example, to be completely mistaken about what is in one's own best interests; children often are, and adults are sometimes mistaken as well. Indeed, for some what it means to be an adult, morally speaking, is that one has learned what is in one's best interests and thus is able to take charge of the direction of their own lives. This is crucial: the truth conditions on the implications of Simple Ethical Subjectivism are subjective, but the truth conditions on the implications of Ethical Egoism are objective a posteriori. Simple Ethical Subjectivism should never be confused with Ethical Egoism.
In some respects Ethical Egoism appears to have a good shot at being true. It does not make the the dramatic errors found with Simple Ethical Subjectivism. It is possible to be mistaken about one's best interests, so it is possible to be mistaken about what is morally right. It is possible to have moral disagreement in the sense that it is possible to have debates about what is in one's best interests.
Despite Ethical Egoism's promise, it founders on Reflective Equilibrium. First, Ethical Egoism implies that there can be conflicting moral judgments since there can be genuine conflicts of interest. The Ethical Egoist, then, must be committed to the view that there are true statements of the form "X is morally right and X is not morally right".
Yet if there is a moral fact of the matter, then a single action will either be morally right or not, but not both. The intuition is that there is simply a fact of the matter about, say, whether killing for sport is morally wrong or morally right. Of course, we might have disagreements about whether killing for sport is morally wrong or morally right. But having disagreements is a problem having to do with our not knowing whether killing for sport is morally wrong or morally right. Ethical Egoism commits us to the view that not only can we disagree, in such cases where we disagree there is a fact of the matter such that killing for sport is morally wrong and, paradoxically, there is a fact of the matter that killing for sport is morally right.
Even more problematic than the Conflict Argument, the Discrimination Argument points out that Ethical Egoism requires that we arbitrarily--i.e., without good reason--distinguish between people. That is to say, Ethical Egoism requires that one discriminate morally between oneself and everyone else. Discrimination is fine if there is good reason for it--e.g., blind air traffic controllers or deaf telephone operators--but it must be rejected if there is no good reason for it--e.g., sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, or what have you. Ethical Egoism requires that we discriminate between people without good reason, which is an intolerable result.
There is, however, one further problem for Ethical Egoism--the final nail in its coffin, so to speak. It turns out that Ethical Egoism is fundamentally self-defeating, which we will show using the Prisoner's Dilemma next time.