An anonymous reader writes in:
I was wondering if you might ask the Cocoon if anyone knows of a neat, snappy, clear little essay/article along the lines of "Hey, this is what ethics is as a branch of philosophy," that could be suitable for first-time philosophy students. I am teaching an introduction to ethics class for the first time in the Fall (as a graduate student) and I'd like to open the course with something like this. Of course, if I cannot find anything I like, then I'll just begin with the Euthyphro, I think. Maybe you could ask the blog the more general question of what people like to use when they teach ethics.
Also I'd be curious to know more generally how people like to kick-off their intro ethics courses. Many have told me to get relativism right out in the open, so some go for Rachels or Benedict. Others, of course, do start with the Ancients, or Mill. The options are endless I suppose.
I think this is a great query. I've been thinking of revamping my lower-division ethics course for a while, and so would be very curious to hear what readers have to say.
For my part, I usually begin my ethics course with Tom Regan's short piece, "How Not to Answer Moral Questions" from this book. The piece, while quite flawed in my view, is very short and accessible, and introduces them to relativism and divine command theory (both of which Regan argues are flawed, albeit far too quickly in my view – I do not think either doctrine is as obviously flawed as many moral philosophers seem to). I then tend to teach my moral philosophy course historically, beginning with selections from Book II of Plato's Republic: the parts where Glaucon presents the Ring of Gyges case. I find this really grabs a hold of students, getting them to see the importance of both the "Why be moral?" question and the "What is morality?" question. I then tend to introduce them to Socrates' answer (viz. justice in the soul), before moving onto Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, Mill, Kant, and then some more contemporary stuff.
While I've found this approach–introducing students to "the basics" of major moral philosophers through original sources (rather than a textbook)–has some advantages, I'm not entirely satisfied with it. Sometimes I wonder whether I should go through fewer theories more slowly and deeply. Other times I think maybe I should use a good textbook, as I often worry the primary sources are far too difficult for an intro class–though I'm not sure which textbook I might use (side-note: I tend not to like textbooks for many reasons, not the least of which is I find their authors typically present theories and arguments in flawed, opinionated ways that in my view gives students the wrong impression of the merits and demerits of different views). Finally, there are other times I think maybe I should try to present even more perspectives than I do, such as Confucian ethics, etc. (another note: I do make a point, in most of my courses, to go beyond standard "canonical" figures, but obviously there is only so much time in one semester that choices are difficult!).
Anyway, that's what I do, along with some reasons why I've thought about changing my approach. What do you all do? What do you find works, and why?
Leave a Reply to JordanCancel reply