Week 4: Nagel & intro to moral theory (Jan. 21-25)

Monday Jan. 21

Nagel, T. (2012). Death. Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press.

This chapter is a response by a 20th century philosopher to the kind of argument about not fearing death that Epicurus puts forward.
Please see the Library Online Course Reserves page for this course to find this reading. It's a chapter in an ebook; look for the chapter titled "Death." You can download it as a PDF.

The structure of this article is a little complicated; we'll talk about it more in class. Think about it this way:
- He starts by introducing some of the issues around whether we should consider death to be a bad thing for us.
- He gives a preview of his thesis at the bottom of p. 1 & top of p. 2, and then explains some of the aspects of what he means by life being a good thing in itself.
- On the top of p. 4 he provides a "hypothesis" he goes on to test: if dying is bad, it must be because death deprives us of something good, namely life.
- The rest of the article is mostly him raising three objections to this hypothesis and then replying to those objections, thereby suggesting that the hypothesis is true.
Overall, Nagel is saying that death can still be bad even if, as Epicurus says, there is no sensation after death. It can be bad because it deprives us of a good thing, namely life.
Consider the example of the person with a brain injury pp. 5-6: Nagel is saying that this example is somewhat like death in that the person doesn't care afterwards, so how can the injury be bad for them? What do you understand of his answer showing how it can still be considered bad?
How could it be bad for a person if someone else betrayed them after they were dead? (another example that Nagel discusses briefly on pp. 5 and 6.)

Matthews, George. (n.d.) Moral relativism. Philosophical Ethics: A Guidebook for Beginners.

This chapter on moral relativism Links to an external site. is available for free online, in an open textbook on philosophy. Just read up to the slide show (the rest is optional).
Focus on the difficulties raised in the chapter about moral relativism.
We'll be discussing moral relativism and moral universalism as an introduction to moral theory on this day.

There will be student-led discussions in discussion meetings this week.

Work on your first essay! It's due Jan. 28.
If you led a discussion in a small group during your discussion meeting this week, be sure to post your discussion summary by Monday, Jan. 28, 5pm (you can do it shortly after class or on the weekend so you don't have to do it at the same time as when your essay is due!).
Read materials for next week (see week 5).
If you wish, post on the discussion board:
- if your comment is about Nagel, post on the Plato/Socrates, Epicurus, Nagel board.
- if you comment is about ethical relativism, post on the board for ethical relativism, utilitarianism, Kantianism.

Image attribution: Cemetery Links to an external site., marked CC0 Links to an external site. on pixabay.com