PHIL 340: ANCIENT ETHICAL THEORY Ben Hole, Winter 2016 Office hours after class.

Agenda Where we are and what we’re doing / Admin Stuff Week, Date Required Reading 1, 1/5 Syllabus for Phil 340 1, 1/7 Apology (all) 2, 1/12 Meno (70-86); Phaedo (all) 2, 1/14 Republic Book 1 (all); Book 2 (357-376) 3, 1/19 Republic Book 2 (357-376); Book 4 (all) 3, 1/21 Republic Book 4 (all); Book 8 (all) 4, 1/26 Nicomachean Ethics Book 1 4, 1/28 Nicomachean Ethics Book 1-2 5, 2/2 Nicomachean Ethics Book 2-3; Book 6.13 5, 2/5 Nicomachean Ethics Book 3-4 6, 2/9 Nicomachean Ethics Book 4 6, 2/11 Anscombe, “Modern Moral Philosophy,” Nussbaum, “Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach” 7, 2/16 Euthydemus (278-281); Stoics (Primary texts, PDF form) 7, 2/18 Finish Stoics; Paper Outline Workshop 8, 2/23 Hursthouse, OVE Chapter 9; Annas, “Virtue Ethics: Which kind of naturalism?” 8, 2/25 Driver, “Virtue Theory”; Hursthouse, “Are the Virtues the Proper Starting Place for Morality?" 9 & 10 In-Class Paper Conference Agenda Where we are and what we’re doing / Admin Stuff Conference next week! Hursthouse & Driver, Discussion Questions

Rosalind Hursthouse On Virtue Ethics, OUP, 1999

Hursthouse’s Neo-Aristotelian Virtue Ethical Theory “[Any] virtue ethics which is ‘Aristotelian’ as described inevitably aims to stick close to the author’s interpretation of Aristotle, and interpretations of Aristotle, in many of which relevant issues vary” (1999, 9). An action is right if and only if it is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances. A virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously; that is, one who has and exercises all the virtues. A virtue is a character trait a human being needs to flourish or live well. Additional clarifications Eudaimonia is a difficult concept, but not substantially more so than rationality or happiness. Virtue ethics is not trivially circular. Virtue ethics answers the questions “What should I do?” as well as “What kind of person should I be?” Virtue ethics does involve rules or principles. Virtue theory is not committed to reductionism.

Discussion 1 What is the Rawlsian framework? What is Hursthouse’s complaint about that framework? Critically evaluate her argument. Is virtue ethical theory immune from a collapse into a theory of the right, or a theory of the good? Why or why not? Make an argument.

Discussion 2 What is Hursthouse’s view on homosexuality in On Virtue Ethics (chapter nine, on naturalism)? Hooker objects to the account of naturalism on the grounds that it entails that homosexuality is a vice. How does Hursthouse respond to this objection in the reading for this week? Is this a convincing response? Why or why not?

Discussion 3 Julia Driver argues that virtues of ignorance, such as modesty, suggest that Aristotle was wrong to claim that the virtues require knowledge (or are grounded in phronesis). Explain Driver’s argument. Now explain, and critically evaluate, Hursthouse’s response. Is her response to Driver’s objection successful? Why or why not?

Discussion 4 One of the primary challenges to virtue-oriented approaches to ethical theory is that virtues fail to be action guiding. Explain Hursthouse’s account of “V-Rules”; also explain how this is supposed to help assuage the action guidingness worry. Are the “V-Rules” more or less action guiding than principles in other theories (such as the Categorical Imperative in Kantianism, or the Principle of Utility in Utilitarianism)? In other words, critically evaluate Hursthouse’s response to the action guidingness worry.

Discussion 5 Explain Hursthouse’s bi-conditional, and what it purports to show. Critically evaluate the bi-conditional in terms of accessibility. Does a virtue ethical theory based on that bi-conditional make itself vulnerable to problems of elitism, demandingness, or relativism? How, exactly? And to what extent? How is this accessibility importantly different from (or similar to) Aristotle’s theory?

Discussion 6 Driver criticizes Hursthouse’s bi-conditional on the basis of tragic dilemmas. What, exactly, is Driver’s criticism? What, exactly, is Hursthouse’s response? Critically evaluate this debate. Which side wins and why?

Discussion 7 Driver discusses an example of a compassionate person and an evil dictator. What does this example purport to show? What is Driver’s argument? And what, exactly, about Hursthouse’s account is Driver’s argument an objection to? Now, critically evaluate Driver’s “compassionate person and an evil dictator” argument.

Discussion 8 Is a Neo-Aristotliean Virtue Ethical Theory a good approach to ethical theory?

Schedule Week, Date Required Reading 1, 1/5 Syllabus for Phil 340 1, 1/7 Apology (all) 2, 1/12 Meno (70-86); Phaedo (all) 2, 1/14 Republic Book 1 (all); Book 2 (357-376) 3, 1/19 Republic Book 2 (357-376); Book 4 (all) 3, 1/21 Republic Book 4 (all); Book 8 (all) 4, 1/26 Nicomachean Ethics Book 1 4, 1/28 Nicomachean Ethics Book 1-2 5, 2/2 Nicomachean Ethics Book 2-3; Book 6.13 5, 2/5 Nicomachean Ethics Book 3-4 6, 2/9 Nicomachean Ethics Book 4 6, 2/11 Anscombe, “Modern Moral Philosophy,” Nussbaum, “Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach” 7, 2/16 Euthydemus (278-281); Stoics (Primary texts, PDF form) 7, 2/18 Finish Stoics; Paper Outline Workshop 8, 2/23 Hursthouse, OVE Chapter 9; Annas, “Virtue Ethics: Which kind of naturalism?” 8, 2/25 Driver, “Virtue Theory”; Hursthouse, “Are the Virtues the Proper Starting Place for Morality?" 9 & 10 In-Class Paper Conference Schedule

Discussion 9 Favorite argument? Favorite ancient ethical theory or aspect theory?