Here are what I think are the most important points from ch. 1, including my notes regarding this chapter on the Web site:

1) I disagree with Boss's claim that ethics in the West is overly "theory happy" (my term). Rather, I note the importance of praxis in Western ethics.

--> Is this what you mean in your essays by experience?

2) Over against especially postmodernist critiques of "the Western tradition" - the Western ethical theories we will examine often intersect with other traditions.

3) On developing accounts of human nature: descriptive ("what is") accounts (e.g., from the social sciences) are useful and necessary - but not sufficient for determining an account of human nature.
 

A) there's a variety of such theories - no single one seems to be the final word, even for social scientists

(e.g., consider the range of psychological theories - Freudian, Jungian, Rogerian, etc.

the range of sociological theories - including the fight over the past 60 years or so between behaviorists and cognitive psychologists - etc.)

[technical name from philosophy of science: the underdetermination of theory - i.e., the observable "facts" can be explained/accounted for by more than one theory

--> the observable "facts" do not force us to choose one theory as "true," over against all other competing theories as false.

B) the multiplicity of competing theories - e.g.,
 

over human beings as free and/or determined

over human beings as capable of reason (and thereby the capacity to chose their own goals and rules) and/or as simply driven by desire

over human beings as naturally inclined towards self-interest and competition only, and/or towards altruism and cooperation
 

and continuing debate over those theories seem to suggest that
 
I) we must critically evaluate competing theories if we are to decide which one(s) we will assume for the sake of ethical and political analysis

II) our choice of theory/theories depends on arguments, critical analysis of pertinent evidence, etc.

BUT THIS MEANS...

III) OUR CHOICE OF THEORY BECOMES A PHILOSOPHICAL ACTIVITY - i.e., one marked by

 
a) critical evaluation of arguments, evidence

b) the recognition that many theories may be correct, and

c) since our choice of any given theory depends on critical evaluation of argument and the best evidence available at the time - our theory choices are always open to revision and correction

d) this philosophical approach theory choice requires a high tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty, the willingness to always be open to new argument/evidence - and the possibility of having to change even our most fundamental views.

 

4) The philosophical approaches to theory, including attention to
 

the logic we use (dualist / complementarity)

our epistemology (how do we know?)

our metaphysics (what do think is "really real" - and why?)
 

A) Conversation:
 

She: "Are you married?"
He: "Sometimes."

B) President Clinton's denials of wrong-doing

C) Fact vs. Fiction episode

D) Global Warming

Task: Analyze one of these examples, following the "interpretation triangle" in Boss, p. 40, to help you and your group sort out what is

experience

interpretation, and

analysis

As you do so, be sure to identify
 

the arguments used in your group to support one conclusion/analysis over against another

the epistemological assumptions made in these arguments

the metaphysical assumptions made in these arguments

the assumptions regarding which logic is the most appropriate to use in these analyses.

What conclusion(s) can you come to regarding the competing interpretations of these events?

===

In-class exercise B: Comment on your response to question 4, p. 54.

Notice: what arguments and evidence are offered to support / reject the view that morality is relative?

Can you analyse these arguments / evidence

i) in light of Boss's and my critiques of ethical relativism?

ii) more generally, along the lines we just used?

Assignment for Thursday, January 29:

Review the fallacies Boss describes on pp. 54-70. (You may also find the web site materials on informal fallacies helpful.)

In writing:

a) Find three examples of the fallacies Boss describes - i.e., an example of appeal to tradition, hasty generalization, etc. (Be sure to note your sources.)

b) Respond to the following on p. 70: Questions 1, 4.