Next: About this document ...
Up: HUMA 11700, Spring 2005,
Previous: Instructions
- What, according to various authors (and/or their characters), is
``justice''? To what extent is the disagreement between them merely a
verbal one (about how to use this word), and to what extent are they
really arguing about the nature of one single thing? (For example, if
justice is giving each his, or possibly her, due, to what extent are
they disagreeing about what is ``due'' to whom and why?) What,
according to these authors/characters, is the relationship between
justice and mercy? (Do they apply in the same cases? Is there
necessarily or possibly a conflict between them? Can it be good to be
merciful instead of being just, or vice versa?) What about the
relationship between justice and benevolence? Between justice and
memory? Between justice and usefulness to society? (To which
``society''?) Between justice and obedience to the law, or to those in
authority?
- A possibly related topic (and a variant on an old topic from
last quarter): according to our sources, why is it important (or is it
important?) not to lie and/or to tell the truth?1 (When is it important? Always?) Is telling the truth
good, or is lying bad, for the speaker, or for the hearer, or for
both, or neither? Are there different ways in which a statement can
be true, or different ways in which a statement can be a lie? What is
the relationship between truth-telling and knowledge: do they go
together, or are they possibly in conflict? What about truth-telling
and memory? What about the relationship between truth-telling, or not
lying, and virtue/morality: is one a special case of the other, or are
they identical, or are they possibly or even necessarily in conflict?
(Note that if there are different ways of ``telling the truth,'' as
suggested above, the answers to the other sub-questions could
obviously depend on which way we are talking about.) When, if ever,
should a (moral) philosopher tell the truth, and why? Or: when, if
ever, should a (moral) philosopher lie?
- Discuss the relationship between memory and/or forgetting and
virtue/morality. According to our authors and/or their characters,
what is the relationship between the two? What, if anything, are we
morally required to remember, and in what sense of ``remember''? What,
if anything, are we morally required to forget, and in what sense of
``forget''? Does morality or virtue in general presuppose memory
and/or forgetting? What is the relationship between memory and/or
forgetting and the ability to act? Between memory and/or forgetting
and life? How (if at all) are those relevant?
- Discuss the role in morality or in thinking about issues related
to morality of the concepts of law, rules, and/or necessity. According
to our authors and/or their characters, in what sense, if any, is a
moral act a necessary (rather than a contingent) act? In what
sense, if any, is acting morally acting according to law or following
rules? In what sense, if any, are these rules self-legislated, or in
what sense, if any, does morality involve legislating for or ruling
over oneself? Or are some of the above things, according to some
authors and/or characters, in some sense not true of morality? If so,
are they true of something else, and does this make that something
else is some way better or more desirable than morality? Or: is there
some sense in which necessity and/or submission to law is in conflict
with morality--e.g., because morality requires ``freedom''?
(Obviously because of the ``in some sense'' qualifiers someone might
consistently hold both that morality requires necessity and that it is
in conflict with necessity--as Kant does, for example.)
- How do the different authors (all of whom are male) and/or their
male characters think about women? (In the case of female characters
you might also discuss this, I mean how they think about women,
or--if you find evidence that the author has presented things from
such a perspective--you might discuss how they think about men.) What
role, if any, do women and/or (more abstractly) gender differences
play in their theories of morality (or, more generally, in their way
of thinking about moral issues, or issues related to morality--e.g. issues of what is desirable or worthwhile or valuable)? Would they or
do they consider unequal treatment of men and women to be an injustice
(or to be wrong or bad for some other reason), and why? If so would
they or do they think the injustice (or other problem) can be
corrected, and why or why not? Do they think it is good or just for a
man to in some sense posses a woman (or vice versa), or do they think
it is bad, or do they think it is not even possible? (Are there
relevant differences between different men and/or different women? In
the case of Severian, in particular, you might want to consider what
different women mean to him, or how the different women in his life
represent his shifting or developing ideas. Also, don't forget that
there are minor characters you could talk about, e.g. Master
Gurloes.) (If you want you could try to relate this to things from
previous quarters--e.g. the role of women in the Iliad, or
what Socrates says about women in the Meno and or the Ion.) How, if at all, might the history of philosophy (moral
philosophy or even philosophy in general) have been different if all
or some of the great philosophers had been female? (Treat that last
question with caution: obviously it's big and difficult. But it could
potentially provide a good organizing thesis for the whole paper.)
- Discuss the use of symbols and metaphors by the
various authors and/or their characters--either in general (but then
you had better give some particular examples) or with regard to a
particular symbol/metaphor or symbolic/metaphorical opposition
(examples: the sun, and/or the moon, and/or light in general, as
opposed to darkness; inside/inner vs. outside/outer; a tower; a cave;
a forest; war; high mountains; flying vs. remaining on the ground; a
book or books; health vs. disease; blindness vs. sight; water and/or
sinking or drowning in water; death and resurrection). Why do some
authors/characters use certain symbols/metaphors rather than others?
Or: why do some authors use symbols/metaphors extensively, and others
much less so or not at all? (Please don't just say that so-and-so
uses metaphors because he is writing literature or writing in a more
literary or poetic way--not unless you think you can explain why he
thinks that is the correct way, or at least a correct way, to write
about moral issues.) Or: how do the different (or similar) uses which
different authors and/or characters make of the same symbols/metaphors
throw light on the differences (and similarities) between their
theories or ways of thinking? (In at least some cases you could take
the use of the same symbols/metaphors as evidence that one author is
actually responding to another--either in agreement or in
disagreement.)
- Discuss the views of various authors and/or their characters
about progress in human history. Are people in general, according to
them, now (in some sense) better than they once were? Are philosophers
better? (Note: the intention here, as usual, is to say whether the
authors think philosophers have gotten better--not whether
you think so.) Should we expect or strive for progress, and if so how
and in what respects? Has progress (if any) been continuous, and/or
should we expect it to be? Or has it been/should we expect it be a
matter of sudden transitions? In what ways does or should a new stage
of civilization and/or of philosophy build on what came before, and in
what ways does or should it reject what came before? What role does or
can or should knowledge of history play in progress? (Is it necessary?
Helpful? Detrimental? Or does it depend on what kind of progress, or
what kind of ``knowledge of history,'' we're talking about?) What is
the relationship--again, according to the authors and/or their
characters--between progress in whatever sense it happens (if any)
and morality? Are people (or philosophers?) getting ``better'' in a
moral sense (and, if so, is that good)? What does this show
about, or what implications does it have for, their theories of or
about morality? (Note: if you can't answer that last part--if all
you can produce is a list of who thinks what--then you should write
about a different topic.)
- Discuss the views of our authors and/or their characters on
suicide. What counts as ``suicide''? What would be typical motives for
it--and are there other possible motives? Is it necessarily or
possibly bad (in some sense of ``bad''), or is it possibly good,
possibly even a duty? Why? What do disagreements about these issues
reveal or imply about general disagreements over the nature of
morality, values, life, death, and the relations between them? (Note:
if you can't answer that last part--if all you can produce is a list
of who thinks what--then you should write about a different topic.)
Next: About this document ...
Up: HUMA 11700, Spring 2005,
Previous: Instructions
Abe Stone
2005-09-28