Due date: November 30 , handed in electronically by midnight Central Time.
What does the first form of the Categorical Imperative (CI) say? Explain it in your own words. What are the two ways of violating it (talk about perfect and imperfect duties here)? Are there any morally acceptable things that the first form of the CI prohibits? Are there any morally wrong actions that the first form of the CI allows? Explain and argue for your claims, discussing examples. (Even if you think the answers to both questions are negative, you should talk about what sorts of examples seem to disprove Kantian ethics.) If either answer is positive, is there a way of saving Kant from these difficulties?
What does the second form of the Categorical Imperative (CI) say? Explain it in your own words. Are there any morally acceptable actions that the second form of the CI prohibits? Are there any morally wrong things that the second form of the CI allows? Explain and argue for your claims, discussing examples. (Even if you think the answers to both questions are negative, you should talk about what sorts of examples seem to disprove Kantian ethics.) If either answer is positive, is there a way of saving Kant from these difficulties? Is it a good idea to combine both forms of the Categorical Imperative?
Explain Kant's argument for the first form of the CI based on the idea that rationality is objective. What are the assumptions in the argument? Are they true? Does the conclusion follow from these assumptions? Do you think there is another way to argue for the first form of the CI?
What sorts of reasons might one have to think that lying is always wrong? Cases where something terrible happen if one does not lie are a common reason to think that sometimes lying is right. One way for someone who thinks that lying is always wrong to get out of the difficulty that these cases pose is to argue that something that is normally thought to be a lie is not really a lie. How might one might make such an argument? (The Pruss paper on lying is relevant here as an example.) Does such an argument stand up? Is there a better way for someone who thinks that lying is always wrong to defend her position against the difficulties that these kinds of cases pose, or should she admit that some lies are right?
What is utilitarianism? Why does Mill think it gives a good account of justice? Some examples have been given (try to come up with ones of your own) that attempt to show that utilitarianism sometimes requires unjust action. Do these examples in fact succeed in showing this?
Andrea Dworkin thinks that pornography is pernicious because it objectifies women. What kinds of things might she mean by this claim? Given the various things she means by it (a) is it the case that objectification is wrong, and (b) is it the case that pornography objectifies women? Argue for your answer and discuss what an opponent might say. Kant should come in somewhere in your paper, but saying "Kantian ethics implies p" is not quite enough as an argument for p--you will need to either try to come up with at least one other argument or explain why you think Kantian ethics is true.
State and explain the first two forms of the Categorical Imperative and explain why Kant thinks they are correct (this part takes some work). Kant thinks the two forms say the same thing. Is he right? Why or why not? Are there actions that one form permits and the other prohibits? If so, are there actions that one form commands and the other prohibits? (Note: A principle "commands" an action if and only if it prohibits you from omitting it.)
What kind of meaning, if any, do Russell and Camus find in our earthly life? Are they both right, both wrong, or is one right, and why or why not? If our existence is absurd, can there be any meaning in recognizing this absurdity? Can there be meaning in life if death is the final end of our existence? Can there be meaning in life apart from God? Argue for your claims (that's the hard part!).