Week 2: Wednesday, January 22nd

What is the basis of your moral code? Starting with this class, we’ll be wrestling with the question of what it takes to live a moral life.  According to utilitarians, the basis of an action’s being moral or immoral is whether it will alleviate suffering and/or promote the welfare of the majority of people. (Here, a ‘person’ is just any creature that can experience suffering.) Some utilitarians (like the English philosopher, John Stuart Mill) suppose that pleasure and the avoidance of pain is what we should maximize. But others, like the Confucian philosopher Mozi, suppose that what we should be maximizing is everyone’s basic welfare. So, utilitarians claim that maximizing something (pleasure, or, welfare) is what deserves your moral consideration.  Moreover, we might be called upon to make some significant sacrifices if it holds out the hope of making the world better.  By the end of class today, you will:

1. Understand the consequentialist logic behind welfare, and hedonic, utilitarianism.

2. Understand Mozi’s Caretaker Argument, and evaluate whether utilitarians are right that personal details tend to bias our thinking about moral decisions.

3. Reflect and connect on the role money (earning it, giving it) plays in developing our moral capacities.

READ THIS:

Philosophical Text: Mozi, pp. 68-76, 105-110 [access through Moodle]

Application Text: Join Wall Street, Save the World (Washington Post)

WATCH THIS:

“The Confucian Mengzi and His Context” from 13:05 to 30:28.

AND WATCH THIS:

DO THIS:

Consider the following questions, write your responses in your journal, and talk about them with a friend:

1. How persuasive is Mozi’s Caretaker Argument? What evidence supports his conclusion about impartial caring? What reasons might one have that undermine Mozi’s argument?

2. Pretend you are the manager of the firm where Jason Trigg (from the Washington Post article) is interviewing for a job.  What do you make of his plan to earn as much as possible and give the money to highly efficient charities?  What are morally admirable features of his decision?  What might give you pause?