Midterm paper

Write about six to eight pages (double-spaced) on one of the following topics, or one of your own choosing (with prior approval from instructor). The paper must carefully lay out the problem, stating the relevant authors' positions and arguments, and must also include original work.

It is appropriate, though not mandatory, to use third party sources on this assignment. Every reference must be listed in a bibliography. If you'd like advice finding third party sources, let me know.

1. Ayer argues that moral judgments are pseudo-propositions, literally meaningless and serving only to express emotional reaction to various kinds of actions. In this respect, he is unique, since even Mackie's moral skepticism takes the opposite view: moral judgments are meaningful propositions about objective values, but these judgments are false, since there are no objective values. Summarize and criticize each author's position, indicating which (if either) comes closest to the truth.
2. We have discussed the metaethical theories of Emotivism (Ayer), Relativism (Gensler), Skepticism (Mackie) and Realism (Shafer-Landau). Each of these theories aims to explain the actual status and/or meaning of moral claims. Compare these four theories and argue which one seems to have the high ground as the most appropriate account of morality.
3. Describe the theories of psychological and ethical egoism (Feinberg and Rachels, resp.), clearly distinguishing the two. Give arguments for and against each, and evaluate whether either or both of the two theories is plausible. Also, discuss whether the two theories are actually compatible — could they both be true? If so, what consequences would we draw?
4. Gilligan and Calhoun argue that classical ethics emphasizes rules rather than context-based reasoning, justice rather than care, individual autonomy rather than the interconnection of relationships. As a result, the perspective of women is neglected in the literature, producing a skewed view of ethical issues. Summarize these arguments and then evaluate whether in fact such bias is evident in our readings or in whatever classical ethics texts you choose. To what extent does this alter our perception of ethics?
5. Carefully explain Brink's Puzzle, explaining how the four premises are mutually exclusive. Which premise is most dubious, to your mind, and why? What would denying that premise entail? What about the other premises make them more plausible? Fully and carefully argue your position.
6. We often evaluate the reasonableness of moral theories by considering hypothetical cases and seeing what the theory entails. If the theory agrees with our intuitions, so much the better for the theory. If the theory often contradicts our intuitive judgments, so much the worse --- indeed, this may be taken as a reason to reject the theory entirely. However, Kagan argues that there is no good reason to consider our "moral faculty" a reliable source of moral knowledge. How does he argue this point? In particular, how does it compare to our use of observation in the context of physical theories? Finally, what should the reasonable person conclude about moral intuition. Should we reject our pre-theoretical judgments as unreliable guides entirely? Or can one defend such judgments as indispensable in some way?