Paragraph 1: Imagine that you tell a friend that you’re taking an online Ethics class, and that you’ve just read the first two chapters of your professor’s book, Ethics in a Nutshell. Another friend interjects, “Philosophical Ethics — isn’t that what that Chidi character teaches on NBC’s ‘The Good Place’?”
Drawing on chapter 1 as well as the associated lecture video, explain in your own words, using your organic human brain, what philosophical ethics is (as best as you can tell based on the assigned readings and lecture videos – not the Internet or anything else), based on the best understanding you’ve been able to gather at this point. Write (or say) this as if you are directly speaking to them, sharing not necessarily your view, but simply conveying what you’ve been able to gather from the book.
Paragraph 2: Once you’ve clarified what philosophical ethics is, your first friend begins to look uneasy. They cross their arms and explain that studying philosophical ethics is unnecessary because their religion provides clear and definitive answers to all moral questions. In fact, they’ve been taught that drawing on non-religious sources is disrespectful to their faith. “God wouldn’t want me to read that book or take that class. His views on all ethical issues are clearly stated in my holy book — additional study is neither necessary nor appropriate.”
Drawing on chapter 2, using your organic human brain, please explain how your ethics professor has argued in his book that philosophical ethics is compatible with and can be complementary to religious moral reasoning. Write (or say) this as if you are directly speaking to them, sharing not necessarily your own view, but simply conveying the arguments presented in the book.
Paragraph 3: Now that you’ve explained what your professor says philosophical ethics is, as well as his argument that philosophical ethics is compatible with religious moral reasoning, and using your organic human brain (this is a standing expectation), provide your assessment of his argument. That is, does it seem that philosophical ethics could indeed be compatible with and even complementary to religious moral reasoning? Does his “big brains” argument make sense? Why? Why not? Please feel free and encouraged to argue in whatever way seems to make the most sense — you’ll receive full credit on all reflection assignments so long as you satisfy the requirements in the syllabus. Agreeing with any of the authors we’ll read, including me, isn’t one of the requirements. Demonstrating engagement with the readings and thoughtful reflection is.