Ethics [ed: George Matthews]

OER Project Directory Introduction to Philosophy
21

@sebastian.higherlearning

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. Yes, I agree that there should be more material on non-Western ideas about ethics, but know next to nothing about Taoism and it’s potential for discussion in the context of this project. Maybe we can find someone who does.

As for the sections -vs- chapters question, I guess that’s what we are in the process of hammering out. Maybe it’s just a matter of terminology, but I was envisioning something like a text with “Parts” (which are being referred to by the main editors as “sections” so I guess I should use that term) devoted to each sub-topic in philosophy with a part on each of the main topics of Aesthetics, Ethics, Metaphysics, Logic, Epistemology, etc. and within each part a few short chapters devoted to particular questions, and then within each chapter, sections. One intro text I’ve been using lately has a single longish chapter devoted to each of the main branches of philosophy, but it seems to me that its treatment is a bit too condensed in that format. There also seems to be more room here, than with a traditional published textbook, and depending on the ultimate format of the book, to make it more expansive and to enable people who might use it to select from a larger range of material to include in their particular classes.

1 Like
22

@geoslack
I agree that there’s a need to abbreviate here, and that it will inevitably result in skipping certain details. My main concern is to not give a too crude of a presentation - the thing that we should keep in mind (in my opinion), is that the book is meant to be modular, so the lecturer/student should be able to cut out certain parts while still getting the general overview. Perhaps dividing each section into a brief overview and a more in-depth overview could alleviate these problems?
I think there is a Buddhist approach to ethics (via the notions of karma, samsara and bodhi), and that it is centred on specific practices and ways of thinking to be cultivated. Fundamentally, it isn’t that different from certain Western ethical notions (especially in the modernized, Western Buddhism), but both modern and traditional forms contrast with the Judeo-Christian notions of salvation that have influenced Western ideas of right conduct.
In any case, I agree that there should be a note somewhere saying that there’s much more to Buddhism (and its various interpretations) than the average Western reader will witness.

23

Sorry for my lateness in replying here … just submitted final grades for the term so I can finally spend more time on this project!

I think it’s true, as @unfalsify says, that the text will be modular, but it’s also the case, as @geoslack says, that our main efforts at the moment are to produce an intro textbook that is something first-year students can legitimately be expected to handle. So there’s going to have to be brevity, with a lot of detail left out.

I think the idea of the brief then in-depth overviews in each section is intriguing, but for the sake of getting something done on this ethics section relatively quickly (I mean, within the next 6 months ideally) I would rather aim for the focus on the brief aspects first. The beauty of this kind of project is that it can be a living document that people add to later, or as we go along with the other sections. I am also concerned about two things:

  1. some rough sense of uniformity in the sections, so if we had brief/detailed sub-sections in Ethics, we’d want to have something similar in the other sections

  2. getting volunteer authors (this is what I’m most concerned about): asking people to write a short-ish amount of text for free may be easier than getting people to write more in-depth sections for free.

So my view is that we aim for the more introductory overview in all the sections of the whole textbook (ethics, aesthetics, etc) and then if someone wants to write more in-depth sections we can add that in later. Maybe I relax my concern for uniformity in the different parts…we could cross that bridge later.

But I do agree that even in the brief overview aspects, we don’t want to caricature things to the point where we give the wrong impression, and having statements about how there is much more detail that is being missed in our discussion is important. And if there are places to point students to that give those details, even better.

1 Like
24

@clhendricksbc Just emerging from the end of the semester, so I’ll be able to devote some more time to this.

As for uniformity, I like the idea suggested by Scott in his outline of the Aesthetics material of having each chapter focus on a question and using that as the primary way of organizing that material. And I’d be happy to rewrite the outline in that way, which I can do in the next few days.

Also for the sake of clarity we should also decide on terminology regrading parts, sections, chapters and so on since we seem to be using them in different ways.

I’ve been using the terms from the world of LaTeX which are as follows:

  • Book (e.g., This Intro Book)
    • Part (e.g., Ethics)
      • Chapter (e.g., Is it all relative?)
        • Section (e.g., Subjectivism)
          • Subsection (e.g., Arguments for Subjectivism)

If you’d prefer a different terminology, just tell me and I can use that.

1 Like
25

@unfalsify Would you be willing to be an author for the section/chapter on Buddhist ethics?

26

@geoslack Yes. Regarding editing, I presume that the chapters will be peer-reviewed before we commit them to the book? While I do aim for a rigorous presentation (evidence in this thread), I didn’t specialize in Buddhism during my studies, and my writing has sometimes been described as too terse - at least if you ask my past professors - so having a reviewer would be good.

27

@geoslack

This logical structure is precisely the one that I am most familiar with–the one of LaTeX. Maybe someone with the right authority can edit this into the main document page.

Now, I do agree that while the existence of ‘deities’ or other ‘beings’ has an impact in the ethical behavior of those who believe in such things, it should not be central to the exposition of the text. Ultimately, ethics corresponds to actions and behavior (in my opinion) and metaphysical considerations of the Buddhist canon would better be left out for the time being.

Or perhaps even better, this would be an opportunity for a box in the relevant section. Something like: ‘How do metaphysical beliefs affect ethical behavior?’ As the textbook reaches maturity, I am looking forward to have intersections between the different parts of the book. I think ‘boxes’ are the ideal environment for such cross-pollination!

28

@geoslack This terminology sounds good to me. I’ll put it in the thread for project leads: https://forum.rebus.community/topic/146/project-leads-discussion/

1 Like
29

@unfalsify Yes, that is the plan, to submit completed drafts of chapters to reviewers for editorial feedback. I will be away for a week with no email contact :slight_smile: but then will work on finalizing the table of contents. (Off to a zen monastery to stare at the wall – a welcome prospect after this far-too-busy semester.) I’m still a bit unclear whether the material on Buddhist ethics should go in a chapter on ethics and religion, whether it would be better in a chapter of its own (or one shared with other non-Western approaches), or whether it should remain where I originally suggested, in a chapter that deals with “embodied ethics,” if that is not too vague and mysterious a concept. Partly this depends on whether we want to avoid extending the number of chapters per part, or err on the side of too many chapters, assuming that whoever ends up using this text will likely make a selection. It seems to me that doing justice to Buddhist ethics for those not at already familiar with the basic tenets of Buddhism would require a chapter on its own (if chapters are roughly 5000 words or less).

30

@geoslack I’m thinking maybe a chapter on its own, which would then open up the idea for others to possibly submit chapters on other “non-Western” ethics (a term I dislike but I don’t know what to replace it with). But it’s mostly up to you to decide, after getting input from us!

Enjoy your week away. Please check email when you get back as we’re trying to set up a meeting!

31

@clhendricksbc Agreed - I think this level of structuring makes perfect sense

32

@clhendricksbc I think I share your concerns. Isn’t there a kind of prior framing needed which is a bit more general? What is ethics? What do we mean by right and wrong? What kind of ethical systems are out there, and how do these relate to philosophical ethics? Maybe it is assumed these kinds of questions would be dealt with in a brief intro or something…

I would always (like you, I think) introduce the three main ethical theories (deontological, consequentialist, virtue) so they can be used as prisms through which to examine ethical problems. I also think it is useful to explain the meta-ethical and normative differences between them (in broad strokes). The proposed structure reads more like a taught course to me - which is fine if you’re teaching it and you know how you want to present it, but I’m less sure this is the way to go in a textbook.

We used Hospers when I was an undergrad (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Philosophical_Analysi.html?id=OVu0CORmhL4C&redir_esc=y). One thing that makes this book really accessible is that there are hypothetical dialogues between persons A & B which offer a kind of dialectical introduction to the lines of argument. Maybe it’s worth incorporating something similar.

33

@drrobertfarrow Thanks for the suggestions! I agree that the more “neutral” (for lack of a better term) we can make the chapter in terms of how people teach, the better. Though then again I guess there isn’t any such thing as neutral to that…maybe we can aim for what is most popular in the ways people teach ethics instead. And having the three main types of ethical theories, as they are understood in the English speaking world at the moment (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics) is pretty common in my experience.

If we go too far into a specific way of teaching the course, even though people could pick and choose and move stuff around, the reality likely is that many won’t take the time and they’ll just say, well, I’ll use this other, commercial textbook because it’s organized the way I teach the course. So many university faculty are so busy they don’t have the time or the energy to mess around with changing up the textbook very much. Some will, of course, but I fear that would be the minority.

So maybe if we go for a more “traditional” organization that would be better. I’m starting to lean more and more this way.

We could think about something like introducing the parts of the chapter with dialogues, though that would mean either asking each author to write one (would be different styles) or finding someone to write all of them. I think let’s start with getting the content in there first and then maybe someone will be willing to write dialogues for each section after they’re written?

1 Like
34

I am posting here simply to introduce myself. My name is Joseph, and I have a philosophy PhD and teach philosophy at a community college in Chicago. I mostly teach ethics and would be happy to have an open source text for use my classes. I signed up for the first chapter.

Looking at the description, I’m not entirely sure what you’re looking for in that first section of the chapter, the “overview of ethics as a discipline.” Some things I had in mind were to talk about (1) different tools for defending ethical positions (argument, thought experiment, moral intuition), (2) domains of ethical assessment (action, intention, consequences, and character) and then (3) an overview of key deontic categories (such as right, wrong, obligatory, optional, supererogatory). Possibly, if those aren’t already too much, I could include an introduction to the problem of definition, namely that key moral terms (like murder, theft, torture, just, etc.) can be and are defined in different ways.

Some feedback might be helpful. And note that I’m talking about the first section of the first chapter. The second section, on relativism and subjectivism, I think is a bit more clear-cut.

35

Hello,

I’m also writing to introduce myself. I’m a PhD student and teaching assistant in philosophy at Florida State University. I specialize in ethics. I work mainly on metaethics and evolutionary debunking arguments against moral/value realism, although I also have strong interests in moral cognition, neuroethics, moral responsibility, philosophy of action, and philosophy of religion. I’m also interested in philosophy pedagogical methodology and specifically how best to introduce students to philosophy. I hope I can be of service for this open access textbook!

I noticed that the relativism and ethics/religion chapters were already claimed. Those would have been best suited to my expertise. I did notice that chapter 7 might include a discussion on evolution and ethics. That would also be a good one for me as that’s the area of my dissertation. However, I wouldn’t be the best person to write about feminist ethics and Foucault, as I’m not well-read in those areas. I saw that Christina commented about possibly having a separate chapter on feminist ethics. If the feminist and evolutionary ethics end up being split into their own, separate chapters, then I’d be happy to do the evolution one!

36

@paul.rezkalla I had signed up for Chapter 1, but if you specialize in that, I think it would be better if you take it. I put your username on the spreadsheet, and I switched to Chapter 6. I think I could do a better job with Chapter 4 on egoism and the social contract, but I can handle Ch 6.

37

​Hi all,

Another introductory post. My name is Steven, I’m a PhD student at Notre Dame Australia, and I teach at the University of Sydney. My areas of expertise are virtue ethics and feminist ethics of care. I’m also fairly confident when it comes to military ethics, ethics of emotion, deontology, and consequentialism. I’d love to write/help out with the chapter on virtue ethics, or with the feminist one if feminism ends up getting its own chapter.

Just a suggestion. I see that non-Western ethics might be getting a chapter to itself too. If that’s the case, then Hutcheson, Hume, and/or Smith could provide the contrast that Buddhist virtue ethics would have. Enlightenment virtue ethics would also provide some continuity with the chapter on feminist ethics, if there’s going to be one.

38

@jakranak
Hi Joseph!
Glad you are interested in helping out! All of what you mention as part of the “overview of ethics as a discipline” is material that would most likely go into a kind of preface to this whole part of the book, rather than as a a section within the first chapter, like so:

PART 3: METAPHYSICS …

…

PART 4: ETHICS

Introduction: what is philosophical ethics?

Chapter 1: Relativism and Subjectivism

  • section 1: The case for cultural relativism
  • section 2: Is anything just plain wrong (these are just examples!)

Chapter 2: Ethics and Religion …

It seems to me that rather than include the more general definitions and basic concepts within the first chapter it should all go in a separate intro. ( @clhendricksbc That will be the case for the whole book, right? Each Part has its own “here’s the gist of what’s included in this Part” bit along with basic vocabulary and concepts. ) Of course when some relevant detail about a definition, some technical term or the like comes up in each chapter it could be briefly reiterated or the reader could be referred back to the introduction.

It also seems to me that what exactly will be included in such an introductory part will depend on the final form that the chapters themselves take, although your suggestions make good general guidelines.

39

Here is how things stand so far for the ethics part of the book.

I’ll be writing a general introduction to this part of the text.

Below is a list of people who have signed up so far. Those who have taken on chapters who are not yet active here on this forum will hopefully be here soon. I’d like to try using this site as the main means of communication just to keep things somewhat centralized. There has been some talk of shifting over to some other project management system, but so far at least, here we are.

A note to those who have signed up for more than one chapter: in the interests of including as many people as we can in this project, would you please respond with your number one choice of a single chapter. There are a few people who would like to sign on.

We also need someone for chapter 7 which is a portmanteau kind of chapter covering some recent developments in ethics, so if anybody knows anybody interested in that area, or even a part of it, please respond here as well.

Chapter 1 On relativism and subjectivism
Paul Rezkalla
@paul-rezkalla

Chapter 2 Ethics and Religion
Douglas Giles

Chapter 3 Virtue Ethics
Douglas Giles

Chapter 4 Egoism and Social Contract Theory
Dr Frank Aragbonfoh Abumere

Chapter 5 Utilitarianism
Dr Frank Aragbonfoh Abumere

Chapter 6 Deontology
Joseph Kranak
@jakranak

Chapter 7 Contemporary developments including feminist ethics, new naturalism in ethics, ethics in recent continental philosophy

Here is a link to the spreadsheet with more detailed chapter information.

Also if you do not have your email listed here (most people do) please send me an IM with your address since at times email seems a better way to talk.

Thanks!

George Matthews

40

@stevensteyl Thanks for the offer to contribute. We should be sorting out the chapters soon and will find a place where your expertise fits I am sure! See my post below for a link to the table of contents as it stands so far.