Teacher's Guide - Class Planning Guide

Guide Homepage | Planning your Course | The Absolute Basics | Class Planning Guide | Essays | Against Lectures | Reading List I Adam Morton's Sample Course

The Contract
Part 1 - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] | Part 2 - [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] | Part 3 - [12[13] [14] [15]

Chapter 8 - Comments on Sections

8.2 It is not important to get an explicit list of the (a), (b), (c) factors for each case, though if you have a large class divided into smaller groups this will define the task for them. But you should nudge the discussion so that in each case the non-utilitarian moral concern emerges. In (1) honesty, principle, in (2) responsibility for particular people, respect for life, in (3) responsibility, respect, implicit promises. (And so on; there are different ways of expressing the concerns.)

8.3 This will not be easy reading for many students. (But it's as simple as I can make it and still state Kant's views.) So you must make sure it has been digested.

8.4 (i) objects to (1); (ii) objects to (3); (iii) objects to the inference from (3) and (2) to (4); (iv) objects to the inference from (1) to (2). The objections to the inferences will be harder to spot than the objections to the premises. If students note that, e.g. (iii) is targeted at (4) then you can push a little bit harder and ask what it shows is wrong with the argument, since after all it may at first seem just to be dogmatically denying the conclusion. Of course the objections may not be fatal, and you should ask both whether the points made in (i) to (iv) are right and whether they would scupper the argument even if they were.
The relationship between (iv) and the inference from (1) to (2) may be hard to see. (iv) could be taken as an objection to (1). But even if we grant (1), that motive is all that matters when we judge actions, the question remains whether it is all that a moral agent should aim at. (iv) suggests that it is not, and that a moral person should try to be competent as well as well-intentioned. So that is something, besides acting morally, that they should aim for.

I have marked this "read for class" as I would want students to have time to think about the relationship between the points and the structure of the argument.

8.6 In (a) the consequentialist is Norbert and the deontologist is Martha. In (b) the consequentialist is Paolo and the deontologist is Ottavia. In (c) the consequentialist is Quinn, the deontologist is Sandra, and Roberta is a rule-utilitarian. (Rule-utilitarianism is defined in 8.8, but you don't need even to mention it. The point is that Roberta's line seems to have elements of both deontology and consequentialism.) The students may find (b) the hardest to diagnose; the point is that Paolo is focused on the grandchildren getting what they want - his consequentialism maximizes want-satisfaction rather than happiness - while Ottavia thinks that there is a fixed way that children in her family should behave. It would be good if the discussion brought out that there is a variety of things that different consequentialists can maximize and a variety of principles that deontologists can hold sacred. (a) should provoke a general discussion of ends justifying means. You may have to interject to point out that consequentialism doesn't give a completely free hand to adopt means to desirable ends: the overall balance of good over bad results has to be positive. The class may well think that shooting the drunk was wrong but shooting the would-be atomic bomber would not be wrong. Ask them what would be allowed to prevent the bomber. Torturing innocent people, shooting down airliners, pre-emptive bombing of a neighborhood? (It is not obvious that the resolute consequentialist position that says Yes to these is indefensible. But it does need defending.)

8.7 This also rehearses 8.5, and should lead to the interesting questions: does a deontologist (from the students' point of view: an anti-consequentialist, who believes that there are things you mustn't do ever) have to say that you must always tell the truth, and never break promises? Is this just a sort of a trap that the consequentialist is trying to lure him into? The heading "Taking your mother's advice" alludes to an incident in Ann Fine's Taking the Devil'sAadvice - which could be called "never marry a philosopher" - which links with the theme here.

8.9 This section picks up on ideas from the end of 8.8, but it can be worked through without first reading 8.8. It might be a good to ask the class first, after they have read all four arguments, which are the more powerful and challenging ones. Then classify them as consequentialist or deontological. There may be an interesting clash then between students' apparent loyalties and the arguments they find persuasive. (1) and (4) are consequentialist in spirit, and (2) and (3) deontological.

8.10 This chapter ends not with a perspective-giving section by me but with an activity that asks the student to put the strands of the chapter together herself. It is not essential to do this. But it could be fun. It would be best to divide the students into small groups of two to four - even a class that is not normally subdivided would be split up for this one - and provide each group with a photocopy of the Jerry/Manuella contributions, cut into strips for them to put into order. The intended result is M2, J2, M1, J3, M3, J5, M5, J4, M4, J1. It would be interesting to know if there are other orders that make both logical and conversational sense. This activity could also be used as a test for the chapter.

Chapter 8 - Tests

First test - the activity of 8.10

Second test

For each of the questions below circle the two wrong answers to it:

(1) How does a morality that centers on motives differ from a morality that centers
on consequences?
(a) Thinking about consequences will commit you to lying.
(b) Sometimes the motives of an action are unacceptable even though the
consequences are desirable.
(c) People can do moral acts from bad motives.

(2) What does Kant's categorical imperative say?
(a) You should act on principles that you could want everyone to follow always.
(b) You should act on principles that would have good consequences if everyone
followed them.
(c) Treating people as ends in themselves is the same as acting out of a desire to
be moral.

(3) How can the idea that there are things no one should ever do be defended?
(a) By giving examples in which acts that no decent person could perform have
good consequences.
(b) By giving examples in which acting from moral principle results in disaster.
(c) By arguing that if some acts are not forbidden then horrendous results will
follow.
(d) By arguing that to act morally is to accept rules restricting your behavior.

(4) How can consequentialism require more of us than conventional morality does?
(a) By forbidding us to tell lies, even to avoid disaster.
(b) By requiring us to consider the consequences of our actions for all people
equally.
(c) By allowing us to perform intuitively immoral actions if they have good
consequences.

(5) How can deontological ethics require more of us that conventional morality does?
(a) By forbidding some actions, whatever the consequences.
(b) By requiring us to contribute to famine relief.
(c) By requiring us to think of others as ends in themselves.