*Scroll Down to Read Chapter One*
Want a Desk Copy?
If you're an ethics educator (current or aspiring), desk copies and my personal support are always on the house. Just email matt (at) mattdeaton.com from your institutional address noting your role, where you teach, how you're considering using the book, which edition you prefer (paperback, Kindle or audiobook) and how I can help.
|
Available at Amazon in paperback, Kindle and audiobook here. And for the bookstore: Ethics in a Nutshell: The Philosopher’s Approach to Morality in 100 Pages by Matt Deaton Copyright 2017, Notaed Press Audiobook ISBN 978-1-951677-10-7 e-Book ISBN 978-0-9892542-9-8 Paperback ISBN 978-0-9892542-4-3 |
|
"Ethics in a Nutshell is a terrific short survey book—engaging, accessible, and wonderfully succinct. I recommend it for the beginning of applied ethics courses with high interdisciplinary enrollment (environmental ethics, business ethics, animal ethics, bioethics, etc.) in order to bring students with no philosophical background quickly up to speed in the basic methodology of the field, or even at the beginning of an ethical theory course as a way to preview what's to come."
Philosophy Professor Jennifer Everett, Co-Director of Environmental Fellows Program, DePauw University, Indiana |
Syllabi Set? Semester Underway?
Mine, too! Solution: link to the lecture videos on the home page in an email or class announcement and let students decide whether the book or audiobook is worth their time. If you can tell a difference – in their discussions, exams, papers – assign it next semester, and use the resources below to make working it into your curriculum super easy.
Schedule Ethics in a Nutshell early in the semester to welcome students to the discipline and prepare them for deeper study. Use it to disarm and reassure non-philosophy majors taking Bioethics or Medical Ethics, Contemporary Moral Issues, Business Ethics, Engineering Ethics and other courses attracting interdisciplinary enrollment. Use it as an engaging, accessible way to kickoff Introduction to Ethics or Philosophy 101. It can even be enjoyed by bright, upper-level high school students in a Civics or Contemporary Issues class, and can boost the gravitas of any ethics bowl team.
Schedule Ethics in a Nutshell early in the semester to welcome students to the discipline and prepare them for deeper study. Use it to disarm and reassure non-philosophy majors taking Bioethics or Medical Ethics, Contemporary Moral Issues, Business Ethics, Engineering Ethics and other courses attracting interdisciplinary enrollment. Use it as an engaging, accessible way to kickoff Introduction to Ethics or Philosophy 101. It can even be enjoyed by bright, upper-level high school students in a Civics or Contemporary Issues class, and can boost the gravitas of any ethics bowl team.
Prefer to Make Your Own Lecture Videos?
|
Me, too! Solution: pre-made lecture notes are in the back of the book. Use those plus these videos to deliver live or make your own lecture vids. And for bonus coaching, see my public speaking book here.
|
|
But Is It Read by the Author?
|
Ethics in a Nutshell is light on pretense and heavy on fun. Plus, the accompanying lecture videos make ethics more inviting (and less intimidating) for students used to learning and communicating through screens.
However, there's no substitute for reading a text firsthand. But our students often have under-developed reading stamina and a long list of competing distractions. Many will skim at best. Some won't read at all. Solution: recommend the audiobook, available via Amazon, Audible and iTunes. Read by the author, it's an enjoyable, efficient way to absorb and reinforce the philosopher's approach to morality in 100 minutes rather than 100 pages. Share this 5-minute sample in an email or on the course website, and let students decide for themselves whether they would benefit. |
|
Would an Editable Syllabus Help?
Below are links to three downloadable syllabi with schedules and assignments you're invited to tweak to suit your purposes. If you’d like additional assistance, just ask via matt (at) mattdeaton.com – I'm happy to suggest complementary texts, help you perfect assignments, whatever you need.
Introduction to Ethics A Based on an online Ethics Intro I’ve taught for a university in Texas – after my "How to Study Philosophy" and "Fundamentals of Critical Thinking" (available upon request), opens with Ethics in a Nutshell, transitions into political philosophy using Michael Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (find my lecture videos on Sandel's Justice at YouTube.com/MattDeatonPhD) then in the final month focuses on abortion ethics using Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell: A Pro-Both Tour of the Moral Arguments.
Introduction to Ethics B Based on an online Ethics Intro I've taught for a community college in Tennessee – similar to version A, only rather than Sandel’s Justice, uses applied ethics articles on topics including the death penalty, artificial intelligence, guns, vaccine and mask mandates (be on the lookout for lecture videos on those readings on my YouTube channel fall, 2021).
Ethics Bowl-centric Ethics Syllabus Uses Nutshell and Sandel's Justice as the primary texts, beginning and culminating with focus on past and/or current ethics bowl cases, and then conducting of an intra-class or intra-school ethics bowl. Could serve as an excellent syllabus for a dedicated ethics bowl class, or be used by a team to prepare for a regional competition. For additional resources, visit a site I run, EthicsBowl.org.
P.S. For oral-concentration ethics classes, or to simply incorporate a speaking element into any class, consider The Best Public Speaking Book. It's not ethics or philosophy-specific, but does include several philosophical references, as well as a cool assertiveness drill called the Urban Honey Badger, honored on the book's cover. Based on my experience teaching oral-concentration philosophy classes, and growing from a stage-terrified rookie to a part-time comedy club host and keynote presenter.
Introduction to Ethics A Based on an online Ethics Intro I’ve taught for a university in Texas – after my "How to Study Philosophy" and "Fundamentals of Critical Thinking" (available upon request), opens with Ethics in a Nutshell, transitions into political philosophy using Michael Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (find my lecture videos on Sandel's Justice at YouTube.com/MattDeatonPhD) then in the final month focuses on abortion ethics using Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell: A Pro-Both Tour of the Moral Arguments.
Introduction to Ethics B Based on an online Ethics Intro I've taught for a community college in Tennessee – similar to version A, only rather than Sandel’s Justice, uses applied ethics articles on topics including the death penalty, artificial intelligence, guns, vaccine and mask mandates (be on the lookout for lecture videos on those readings on my YouTube channel fall, 2021).
Ethics Bowl-centric Ethics Syllabus Uses Nutshell and Sandel's Justice as the primary texts, beginning and culminating with focus on past and/or current ethics bowl cases, and then conducting of an intra-class or intra-school ethics bowl. Could serve as an excellent syllabus for a dedicated ethics bowl class, or be used by a team to prepare for a regional competition. For additional resources, visit a site I run, EthicsBowl.org.
P.S. For oral-concentration ethics classes, or to simply incorporate a speaking element into any class, consider The Best Public Speaking Book. It's not ethics or philosophy-specific, but does include several philosophical references, as well as a cool assertiveness drill called the Urban Honey Badger, honored on the book's cover. Based on my experience teaching oral-concentration philosophy classes, and growing from a stage-terrified rookie to a part-time comedy club host and keynote presenter.
Teaching Online?
|
|
I've taught ethics and other philosophy classes (including oral-concentration philosophy classes) exclusively online since 2013, which came in handy when COVID hit. Here are a few tips I shared with my fellow philosophy educators back in March of 2020, still relevant today. |
Would Essay/Reflection/Discussion Questions Make Your Life Easier?
Chapter 1: Introduction
a) Imagine that you tell a friend that you're taking an ethics class, and that you've just read the first chapter of 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 what philosophical ethics is, 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 own view, but simply conveying the arguments presented in the book.
b) In chapter 1 Dr. Deaton argues that doing philosophical ethics requires courage. "Not firefighter courage. But courage nonetheless" (1).
Based on what you know from this first chapter, would it seem that doing ethics would indeed require courage, or is Dr. Deaton just being dramatic?
c) In chapter 1 Dr. Deaton presents philosophers as scientists with one primary tool, their brains.
Based on what you know from this first chapter, do you think answering big, non-empirical questions in a logical, scientist-like way is even possible? Please explain.
d) Dr. Deaton presents Star Trek's Spock as the ideal ethicist.
Please explain why Dr. Deaton thinks Spock would make such a great ethicist. Based on what you understand so far, do you agree or disagree? Why?
Chapter 2: Ethics, Religion & Public Discourse
a) In chapter 2 Dr. Deaton argues that doing philosophical ethics can not only be complementary to religious moral reasoning, but that we have good reason to think a creator would expect us to do it. "Along with many others, I figure if a creator gave us these big brains, he, she, or it would expect and want us to use them—not only to better understand the natural world for scientific and technological purposes, but the moral world so we can make better decisions" (12).
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, and that drawing on non-religious sources also seems 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, please explain how Deaton argues 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.
b) Now that you've explained what Deaton says philosophical ethics is, as well as his argument that philosophical ethics is compatible with religious moral reasoning, provide your assessment of his arguments. That is, does it seem that philosophical ethics could indeed be compatible with and even complementary to religious moral reasoning? Does Deaton's "big brains" argument make sense? Why? Why not? Please feel free and encouraged to argue in whatever way seems to make the most sense. Agreeing with any of the authors we'll read, including Deaton, isn't required to do well on these assignments. Demonstrating careful reflection is.
Chapter 3: Why Ethics Isn't Ice Cream
a) After your discussion with one friend on how philosophical ethics may be compatible with and even complementary to religious moral reasoning , another friend jumps in and challenges ethics from a different perspective. "Ethics? And an ethics class? What could you possibly teach or learn in an ethics class? It's just a bunch of personal opinion, with no one's view being any better than the next person's. Doesn't that negate the possibility of teaching and learning anything useful about ethics?"
Citing the "negative" and "positive" arguments from Ethics in a Nutshell chapter 3: "Why Ethics Isn't Ice Cream," explain to your friend how Deaton argued that ethics is not a mere matter of personal taste. In other words, explain how he argued that moral subjectivism is flawed. Be sure to include both the negative and positive arguments contained in the chapter and summarized in the lecture video.
b) Now provide your own assessment. Do the negative and positive arguments seem to work? Both? One? Neither? Please explain, and always argue whichever way you think makes the most sense after careful reflection -- you'll receive full credit so long as you satisfy the requirements articulated in the syllabus, so feel free and encouraged to disagree if that's how your good sense leads you.
Chapter 4: Three Key Distinctions
a) In chapter 4 Dr. Deaton explains why legality is a poor basis for morality. Citing how states regulate various activities differently as one reason why legality can't = morality he writes, "Surely if I were to take off from an airport in Denver, CO and land in Montpelier, VT the moral status of recreational marijuana use and physician-assisted suicide wouldn’t somehow magically switch mid-air" (35).
While state laws may differ, the US Constitution serves as a meta-law guaranteeing certain rights and limiting certain restrictions on citizen behavior. While state laws may be a poor basis for morality, doesn't the Constitution avoid their weaknesses? Please explain.
b) In chapter 4 Dr. Deaton also distinguishes psychology from morality, explaining how a propensity to do something doesn't automatically mean one should do it.
Please elaborate on this distinction between psychology and morality, and argue whether you think the two can be neatly separated and why.
Chapter 5: The Four Dominant Ethical Theories
Chapter 5 provides brief summaries of the arguments supporting and explanations of how to apply the four dominant ethical theories of Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Feminist Ethics, and Virtue Ethics. For the purposes of this assignment, if your last name begins with:
First, briefly explain your two assigned ethical theories (how they work, what they require, why we should care, etc.). Second, think through an ethical issue that you find interesting (immigration, student debt, drug use, the death penalty, etc -- your choice) using your assigned theories one at a time. Resist the temptation to bend the theories to suit your current biases -- it's understood that your analysis doesn't necessarily represent your current personal views, but your best understanding of how your assigned theories might evaluate your chosen issue.
In applying your assigned theories to your pet issue do your best to honestly apply it as you understand it. That is, resist the temptation to twist your assigned theories to fit your initial view on your ethical issue. If your theory recommends an evaluation contrary to your own current view, everyone understands that you're simply applying a philosophical ethical theory for a class, and not making your own argument. Feel free to emphasize this in your post if you like.
Chapter 6: All Things Considered
Chapter 6 explains how to develop an All-Things-Considered view that combines analysis from the sometimes conflicting viewpoints of the four dominant ethical theories. "Once we know which ethical theories are most and least relevant, deciding what to do is a matter of weighing and contrasting how powerfully the different theories would recommend different actions. That is, a strong Kantian consideration against an action would override a weak Utilitarian consideration for the same action, and vice versa" (73).
Employers will sometimes require drug testing as a condition of employment. Some have argued that this is disrespectful and an invasion of privacy. So long as an employee is safe on the job and able to complete their assigned work, why is it their employer's business what they do on their own time? Others have argued that employers should be able to require most anything they like of employees, and should especially be able to ensure that they're not engaging in debilitating, often illegal activities whether on the job or off. Develop an All-Things-Considered view that considers the issue of drug testing employees from the perspective of at least three of the four dominant ethical theories.
Chapter 7: Argument by Analogy
In chapter 7 Dr. Deaton explains the reasoning technique of moral argument by analogy, and provides guidance on how to evaluate such arguments. "The best way to analyze an argument by analogy is to look for relevant differences between the cases being compared. For example, with Singer’s drowning child/charitable giving argument, while we can know with certainty that the child will live if we jump in the water to save them, when we donate our shoe money to Oxfam we may wonder how much of it will actually purchase life-saving medicines" (84). With that chapter in mind, reconstruct in your own words and then evaluate the following argument by analogy:
Citizens desiring a driver's license must prove their competence through vision, on-the-road driving and knowledge tests. Drivers who prove themselves incompetent, irresponsible and/or unsafe via repeat or especially egregious instances of reckless and/or harmful driving can have their license temporarily or permanently revoked. Both being an incompetent, unsafe or irresponsible driver and an incompetent, unsafe or irresponsible parent can seriously harm the health and wellbeing of innocent persons (pedestrians, passengers and other drivers in the first case; a person's children in the second case). Therefore, since people must acquire a license to drive a car, people should also be required to acquire a license to parent children. Parent licenses could be awarded upon proving one’s fitness to care for and nurture a child, and revoked for those who prove themselves incompetent, irresponsible and/or unsafe via repeat or especially egregious instances of reckless and/or harmful parenting. In such cases existing children would be placed in state's custody, parents would be barred from future child bearing and given various forms of birth control, and children resulting from unauthorized pregnancies would be placed in foster care.
In conducting this exercise, you may be tempted to trivialize the issue or rationalize your first blush reaction. To get the most out of it, get your thoughts on paper (or on the screen) where they're easier to organize, analyze and improve. Reflect on possible strategies and implications. Be willing to explore lines of thought that initially appear to be dead ends.
Chapter 8: Intuition, Reflection & Coherence
a) In chapter 8 Dr. Deaton explains how moral intuitions can be used to inform moral principles and vice versa. He also explains the importance of attaining coherence among our views such that similar standards can be applied to relevantly similar cases and issues.
In the US, the political left generally supports abortion rights, tighter regulations on firearms, and more robust spending on programs for the poor such as Medicaid. On the other hand, the political right generally supports tighter restrictions on abortions, firearm owners' rights, and reduced spending on programs for the poor. They've also been divided over the issue of vaccines and mask mandates. Consider whether an underlying moral principle can make sense of and reconcile their views. That is, is the political left being consistent? Is the right? Please explain.
b) Use what you've learned in chapters 6, 7 and 8 (as well as previous chapters as warranted) to thoroughly analyze the following argument: States require driver's licenses. That is, citizens desiring to drive a car must prove their competence to do so through vision, on-the-road, and knowledge tests. Drivers who prove themselves incompetent, irresponsible and/or unsafe via repeat or especially egregious instances of reckless and/or harmful driving can have their license temporarily or permanently revoked. Both being an incompetent, unsafe or irresponsible driver and an incompetent, unsafe or irresponsible parent can seriously harm the health and wellbeing of innocent persons (pedestrians, passengers and other drivers in the first case; children in the second case). Therefore, since people must acquire a license to drive a car, people should also be required to acquire a license to have kids. Parent licenses could be awarded upon proving one’s fitness to care for and nurture a child, and revoked for those who prove themselves incompetent, irresponsible and/or unsafe via repeat or especially egregious instances of reckless and/or harmful parenting. In such cases existing children would be placed in state's custody, parents would be barred from future child bearing and given various forms of birth control, and children resulting from unauthorized pregnancies would be placed in foster care.
Chapter 9: Conclusion
In chapter 9 Dr. Deaton reiterates the main points from the book and encourages the reader to both continue their study of philosophical ethics and to use what they've learned to engage others.
Of the ideas considered and arguments made in Ethics in a Nutshell, which did you find most profound, compelling or useful? Which did you find least profound, compelling or useful? Please explain.
Open-ended Questions You Can Use With Any Chapter (and most any reading) so long as word count and material engagement expectation are clear
a) What in the readings did you find especially interesting? Why?
b) What in the readings did you find yourself most in agreement with? Why?
c) What in the readings did you find yourself most in disagreement with? Why?
a) Imagine that you tell a friend that you're taking an ethics class, and that you've just read the first chapter of 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 what philosophical ethics is, 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 own view, but simply conveying the arguments presented in the book.
b) In chapter 1 Dr. Deaton argues that doing philosophical ethics requires courage. "Not firefighter courage. But courage nonetheless" (1).
Based on what you know from this first chapter, would it seem that doing ethics would indeed require courage, or is Dr. Deaton just being dramatic?
c) In chapter 1 Dr. Deaton presents philosophers as scientists with one primary tool, their brains.
Based on what you know from this first chapter, do you think answering big, non-empirical questions in a logical, scientist-like way is even possible? Please explain.
d) Dr. Deaton presents Star Trek's Spock as the ideal ethicist.
Please explain why Dr. Deaton thinks Spock would make such a great ethicist. Based on what you understand so far, do you agree or disagree? Why?
Chapter 2: Ethics, Religion & Public Discourse
a) In chapter 2 Dr. Deaton argues that doing philosophical ethics can not only be complementary to religious moral reasoning, but that we have good reason to think a creator would expect us to do it. "Along with many others, I figure if a creator gave us these big brains, he, she, or it would expect and want us to use them—not only to better understand the natural world for scientific and technological purposes, but the moral world so we can make better decisions" (12).
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, and that drawing on non-religious sources also seems 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, please explain how Deaton argues 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.
b) Now that you've explained what Deaton says philosophical ethics is, as well as his argument that philosophical ethics is compatible with religious moral reasoning, provide your assessment of his arguments. That is, does it seem that philosophical ethics could indeed be compatible with and even complementary to religious moral reasoning? Does Deaton's "big brains" argument make sense? Why? Why not? Please feel free and encouraged to argue in whatever way seems to make the most sense. Agreeing with any of the authors we'll read, including Deaton, isn't required to do well on these assignments. Demonstrating careful reflection is.
Chapter 3: Why Ethics Isn't Ice Cream
a) After your discussion with one friend on how philosophical ethics may be compatible with and even complementary to religious moral reasoning , another friend jumps in and challenges ethics from a different perspective. "Ethics? And an ethics class? What could you possibly teach or learn in an ethics class? It's just a bunch of personal opinion, with no one's view being any better than the next person's. Doesn't that negate the possibility of teaching and learning anything useful about ethics?"
Citing the "negative" and "positive" arguments from Ethics in a Nutshell chapter 3: "Why Ethics Isn't Ice Cream," explain to your friend how Deaton argued that ethics is not a mere matter of personal taste. In other words, explain how he argued that moral subjectivism is flawed. Be sure to include both the negative and positive arguments contained in the chapter and summarized in the lecture video.
b) Now provide your own assessment. Do the negative and positive arguments seem to work? Both? One? Neither? Please explain, and always argue whichever way you think makes the most sense after careful reflection -- you'll receive full credit so long as you satisfy the requirements articulated in the syllabus, so feel free and encouraged to disagree if that's how your good sense leads you.
Chapter 4: Three Key Distinctions
a) In chapter 4 Dr. Deaton explains why legality is a poor basis for morality. Citing how states regulate various activities differently as one reason why legality can't = morality he writes, "Surely if I were to take off from an airport in Denver, CO and land in Montpelier, VT the moral status of recreational marijuana use and physician-assisted suicide wouldn’t somehow magically switch mid-air" (35).
While state laws may differ, the US Constitution serves as a meta-law guaranteeing certain rights and limiting certain restrictions on citizen behavior. While state laws may be a poor basis for morality, doesn't the Constitution avoid their weaknesses? Please explain.
b) In chapter 4 Dr. Deaton also distinguishes psychology from morality, explaining how a propensity to do something doesn't automatically mean one should do it.
Please elaborate on this distinction between psychology and morality, and argue whether you think the two can be neatly separated and why.
Chapter 5: The Four Dominant Ethical Theories
Chapter 5 provides brief summaries of the arguments supporting and explanations of how to apply the four dominant ethical theories of Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Feminist Ethics, and Virtue Ethics. For the purposes of this assignment, if your last name begins with:
- A through G, use Kantianism and Feminist Care Ethics
- H through M: Utilitarianism and Feminist Care Ethics
- N through S: Kantianism and Virtue Ethics
- T through Z: Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics
First, briefly explain your two assigned ethical theories (how they work, what they require, why we should care, etc.). Second, think through an ethical issue that you find interesting (immigration, student debt, drug use, the death penalty, etc -- your choice) using your assigned theories one at a time. Resist the temptation to bend the theories to suit your current biases -- it's understood that your analysis doesn't necessarily represent your current personal views, but your best understanding of how your assigned theories might evaluate your chosen issue.
In applying your assigned theories to your pet issue do your best to honestly apply it as you understand it. That is, resist the temptation to twist your assigned theories to fit your initial view on your ethical issue. If your theory recommends an evaluation contrary to your own current view, everyone understands that you're simply applying a philosophical ethical theory for a class, and not making your own argument. Feel free to emphasize this in your post if you like.
Chapter 6: All Things Considered
Chapter 6 explains how to develop an All-Things-Considered view that combines analysis from the sometimes conflicting viewpoints of the four dominant ethical theories. "Once we know which ethical theories are most and least relevant, deciding what to do is a matter of weighing and contrasting how powerfully the different theories would recommend different actions. That is, a strong Kantian consideration against an action would override a weak Utilitarian consideration for the same action, and vice versa" (73).
Employers will sometimes require drug testing as a condition of employment. Some have argued that this is disrespectful and an invasion of privacy. So long as an employee is safe on the job and able to complete their assigned work, why is it their employer's business what they do on their own time? Others have argued that employers should be able to require most anything they like of employees, and should especially be able to ensure that they're not engaging in debilitating, often illegal activities whether on the job or off. Develop an All-Things-Considered view that considers the issue of drug testing employees from the perspective of at least three of the four dominant ethical theories.
Chapter 7: Argument by Analogy
In chapter 7 Dr. Deaton explains the reasoning technique of moral argument by analogy, and provides guidance on how to evaluate such arguments. "The best way to analyze an argument by analogy is to look for relevant differences between the cases being compared. For example, with Singer’s drowning child/charitable giving argument, while we can know with certainty that the child will live if we jump in the water to save them, when we donate our shoe money to Oxfam we may wonder how much of it will actually purchase life-saving medicines" (84). With that chapter in mind, reconstruct in your own words and then evaluate the following argument by analogy:
Citizens desiring a driver's license must prove their competence through vision, on-the-road driving and knowledge tests. Drivers who prove themselves incompetent, irresponsible and/or unsafe via repeat or especially egregious instances of reckless and/or harmful driving can have their license temporarily or permanently revoked. Both being an incompetent, unsafe or irresponsible driver and an incompetent, unsafe or irresponsible parent can seriously harm the health and wellbeing of innocent persons (pedestrians, passengers and other drivers in the first case; a person's children in the second case). Therefore, since people must acquire a license to drive a car, people should also be required to acquire a license to parent children. Parent licenses could be awarded upon proving one’s fitness to care for and nurture a child, and revoked for those who prove themselves incompetent, irresponsible and/or unsafe via repeat or especially egregious instances of reckless and/or harmful parenting. In such cases existing children would be placed in state's custody, parents would be barred from future child bearing and given various forms of birth control, and children resulting from unauthorized pregnancies would be placed in foster care.
In conducting this exercise, you may be tempted to trivialize the issue or rationalize your first blush reaction. To get the most out of it, get your thoughts on paper (or on the screen) where they're easier to organize, analyze and improve. Reflect on possible strategies and implications. Be willing to explore lines of thought that initially appear to be dead ends.
Chapter 8: Intuition, Reflection & Coherence
a) In chapter 8 Dr. Deaton explains how moral intuitions can be used to inform moral principles and vice versa. He also explains the importance of attaining coherence among our views such that similar standards can be applied to relevantly similar cases and issues.
In the US, the political left generally supports abortion rights, tighter regulations on firearms, and more robust spending on programs for the poor such as Medicaid. On the other hand, the political right generally supports tighter restrictions on abortions, firearm owners' rights, and reduced spending on programs for the poor. They've also been divided over the issue of vaccines and mask mandates. Consider whether an underlying moral principle can make sense of and reconcile their views. That is, is the political left being consistent? Is the right? Please explain.
b) Use what you've learned in chapters 6, 7 and 8 (as well as previous chapters as warranted) to thoroughly analyze the following argument: States require driver's licenses. That is, citizens desiring to drive a car must prove their competence to do so through vision, on-the-road, and knowledge tests. Drivers who prove themselves incompetent, irresponsible and/or unsafe via repeat or especially egregious instances of reckless and/or harmful driving can have their license temporarily or permanently revoked. Both being an incompetent, unsafe or irresponsible driver and an incompetent, unsafe or irresponsible parent can seriously harm the health and wellbeing of innocent persons (pedestrians, passengers and other drivers in the first case; children in the second case). Therefore, since people must acquire a license to drive a car, people should also be required to acquire a license to have kids. Parent licenses could be awarded upon proving one’s fitness to care for and nurture a child, and revoked for those who prove themselves incompetent, irresponsible and/or unsafe via repeat or especially egregious instances of reckless and/or harmful parenting. In such cases existing children would be placed in state's custody, parents would be barred from future child bearing and given various forms of birth control, and children resulting from unauthorized pregnancies would be placed in foster care.
Chapter 9: Conclusion
In chapter 9 Dr. Deaton reiterates the main points from the book and encourages the reader to both continue their study of philosophical ethics and to use what they've learned to engage others.
Of the ideas considered and arguments made in Ethics in a Nutshell, which did you find most profound, compelling or useful? Which did you find least profound, compelling or useful? Please explain.
Open-ended Questions You Can Use With Any Chapter (and most any reading) so long as word count and material engagement expectation are clear
a) What in the readings did you find especially interesting? Why?
b) What in the readings did you find yourself most in agreement with? Why?
c) What in the readings did you find yourself most in disagreement with? Why?
Need Exam or Quiz Questions?
(since these are public, consider minor changes to keep your students on their toes)
Chapter 1: Introduction
In chapter 1 academic philosophy is defined as
a) "poetry on steroids"
b) the reason-based attempt to answer life's big non-empirical questions
c) the primary sub-discipline of psychology
d) a way of looking at the world
Chapter 2: Ethics, Religion & Public Discourse
According to Dr. Deaton, Christian philosopher Robert Audi has argued that
a) since all morality can be boiled down to the Golden Rule, studying philosophical ethics is a waste of time
b) thinking through issues from a “public” perspective, using reasons anyone should be able to appreciate, regardless of their religious commitments of lack thereof, seems required by the Golden Rule
c) philosophy and religious moral reasoning are irreconcilable and incompatible
d) political philosopher John Rawls offered the best defense of constitutional democracy imaginable
Chapter 3: Why Ethics Isn't Ice Cream
The "negative" argument Dr. Deaton offers in refutation of moral subjectivism (or the view that morality is a matter of personal opinion) could be boiled down to the statement that
a) the Categorical Imperative may be similar to the Golden Rule, but the two are not the same
b) country, rock and rap music all have fans, and so all are equally good
c) just because people disagree over a matter that can't be conclusively proven doesn't mean the object of their inquiry is a matter of personal taste
d) nothing is valued for its own sake, but for the pleasure it ultimately brings us
Chapter 4: Three Key Distinctions
Which of the following was NOT a distinction drawn by Dr. Deaton in chapter 4?
a) the difference between morality and psychology
b) the difference between morality and legality
c) the difference between predictive and prescriptive uses of "should" and "ought"
d) the difference between morality and normality
Chapter 5: The Four Dominant Ethical Theories
According to Dr. Deaton, which of the four dominant ethical theories focuses on character?
a) Virtue Ethics
b) Feminist Care Ethics
c) Utilitarianism
d) Kantianism
Chapter 6: All Things Considered
The All-Things-Considered approach to moral reasoning is especially useful when
a) doing environmental ethics
b) listening to NPR
c) the four dominant ethical theories seem to provide no recommendations whatsoever
d) the four dominant ethical theories seem to provide conflicting recommendations
Chapter 7: Argument by Analogy
Arguments by analogy work by
a) proving that all cases in a set contain like modules
b) confusing the listener
c) applying the four dominant ethical theories in a non-sequential manner
d) showing how moral reasoning applied to an uncontroversial case can illuminate what to do in a relevantly similar controversial case
Chapter 8: Intuition, Reflection & Coherence
According to Dr. Deaton
a) our intuitions are necessary input into the moral reasoning process
b) intuitions are not only useless but harmful because they cloud the mind
c) moral intuitions are used exclusively by witches in Harry Potter
d) an ethicist really good at logical reasoning has no use for moral intuitions
Chapter 9: Conclusion
The pop culture character that Dr. Deaton argues best captures the philosopher's disposition is:
a) The A-Team's B.A. Baracus (AKA Mr. T)
b) Morpheus from The Matrix
c) Tony Stark (AKA Iron Man)
d) Star Trek's Spock
In chapter 1 academic philosophy is defined as
a) "poetry on steroids"
b) the reason-based attempt to answer life's big non-empirical questions
c) the primary sub-discipline of psychology
d) a way of looking at the world
Chapter 2: Ethics, Religion & Public Discourse
According to Dr. Deaton, Christian philosopher Robert Audi has argued that
a) since all morality can be boiled down to the Golden Rule, studying philosophical ethics is a waste of time
b) thinking through issues from a “public” perspective, using reasons anyone should be able to appreciate, regardless of their religious commitments of lack thereof, seems required by the Golden Rule
c) philosophy and religious moral reasoning are irreconcilable and incompatible
d) political philosopher John Rawls offered the best defense of constitutional democracy imaginable
Chapter 3: Why Ethics Isn't Ice Cream
The "negative" argument Dr. Deaton offers in refutation of moral subjectivism (or the view that morality is a matter of personal opinion) could be boiled down to the statement that
a) the Categorical Imperative may be similar to the Golden Rule, but the two are not the same
b) country, rock and rap music all have fans, and so all are equally good
c) just because people disagree over a matter that can't be conclusively proven doesn't mean the object of their inquiry is a matter of personal taste
d) nothing is valued for its own sake, but for the pleasure it ultimately brings us
Chapter 4: Three Key Distinctions
Which of the following was NOT a distinction drawn by Dr. Deaton in chapter 4?
a) the difference between morality and psychology
b) the difference between morality and legality
c) the difference between predictive and prescriptive uses of "should" and "ought"
d) the difference between morality and normality
Chapter 5: The Four Dominant Ethical Theories
According to Dr. Deaton, which of the four dominant ethical theories focuses on character?
a) Virtue Ethics
b) Feminist Care Ethics
c) Utilitarianism
d) Kantianism
Chapter 6: All Things Considered
The All-Things-Considered approach to moral reasoning is especially useful when
a) doing environmental ethics
b) listening to NPR
c) the four dominant ethical theories seem to provide no recommendations whatsoever
d) the four dominant ethical theories seem to provide conflicting recommendations
Chapter 7: Argument by Analogy
Arguments by analogy work by
a) proving that all cases in a set contain like modules
b) confusing the listener
c) applying the four dominant ethical theories in a non-sequential manner
d) showing how moral reasoning applied to an uncontroversial case can illuminate what to do in a relevantly similar controversial case
Chapter 8: Intuition, Reflection & Coherence
According to Dr. Deaton
a) our intuitions are necessary input into the moral reasoning process
b) intuitions are not only useless but harmful because they cloud the mind
c) moral intuitions are used exclusively by witches in Harry Potter
d) an ethicist really good at logical reasoning has no use for moral intuitions
Chapter 9: Conclusion
The pop culture character that Dr. Deaton argues best captures the philosopher's disposition is:
a) The A-Team's B.A. Baracus (AKA Mr. T)
b) Morpheus from The Matrix
c) Tony Stark (AKA Iron Man)
d) Star Trek's Spock
Chapter 1: Welcome
Welcome to the philosopher’s approach to morality. Studying philosophical ethics can make you a more sophisticated thinker, as well as a more articulate person. It can also make your brain hurt… but usually only temporarily.
Whether you’re here out of curiosity or for a class, know that doing ethics honestly and with an open mind (aka “in good faith”) requires courage. Not firefighter courage. But challenges to our views, even self-challenges, can be scary. However, if the thought of developing a richer, more mature understanding of right and wrong is appealing, you’ve come to the right place.
Fans of The Matrix might liken this to Morpheus’s red pill warning to Neo: “Remember, all I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more.” I hope any truths you find here are less dramatic than Neo’s. But studying ethics definitely takes guts, so buckle up.
Nutshell in a Nutshell
This book covers the basics of any good introductory ethics course: what academic philosophy is, why philosophical ethics is compatible with religious moral reasoning, why most ethicists reject the view that morality is a mere matter of personal opinion, the four dominant ethical theories of Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics and Care Ethics, the essential role of our moral intuitions, how to construct and evaluate moral arguments (especially moral arguments by analogy), how careful reflection can produce a more coherent set of moral views, and how to develop an “All-Things-Considered” view that balances all of the above.
The goal isn’t to tell you what to think about various moral and political issues, or to even replace whatever method you currently use to decide them. Rather, our modest aim is to introduce these tools with the hope that you’ll find some of them worth making your own.
I wrote the first version of this book for students in my applied ethics courses at the University of Tennessee where I had the pleasure of teaching Contemporary Moral Issues, Business Ethics, Bioethics, Professional Responsibility and Social and Political Philosophy. I later expanded and revised a similar version to share with the ethics bowl community, tweaked that version for my students at the University of Texas at Tyler, revised once again after recording YouTube lectures for each of the chapters (several in my home, one floating down a river, and a handful at landmarks in New York), and made minor improvements in 2021 while recording the audiobook edition.
You can access my lecture videos by clicking on the chapter titles in the eBook, or by visiting YouTube.com/MattDeatonPhD or EthicsinaNutshell.org, where you’ll also find sample exam and discussion questions, editable syllabi and reading schedules, and an “Ask Matt” interface. There’s even some stuff there on my new book, Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell: A Pro-Both Tour of the Moral Arguments.
However, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Before we tackle the philosopher’s approach to morality, we need a clearer idea of exactly what academic philosophy is.
What Philosophy Is and How It’s Done
Academic philosophy is the reason-based attempt to answer life’s big, non-empirical questions, including “Did an intelligence create the universe?”, “What does it mean to know something?” and “How can we be sure we’re not trapped in the Matrix?”
Ethics is but one of the four sub-disciplines of philosophy, the other three being logic (the study of the basic rules of reason, progress in which enabled the advent of computer coding), metaphysics (the study of the ultimate nature of the universe, which goes beyond observable, testable science) and epistemology (the study of what constitutes genuine knowledge, which is sometimes oversimplified as justified true belief).
The philosopher’s subject matter is “non-empirical” in that it’s not directly testable in the physical world. And academic philosophy is the “reason-based” attempt to answer these sorts of questions because philosophers necessarily employ logic. How?
Well, they offer one another arguments, which are collections of claims called premises, intended to support another claim, called the conclusion. Now notice how “argument” and “conclusion” are used in a special, technical sense here, the former not referring to a quarrel between two people, and the latter not referring to the end of a story. An argument can be presented by a single author, and its conclusion can be shared at the beginning rather than the end.
Most philosophers’ styles are more subtle, but anytime you hear the words “therefore” or “thus,” a conclusion is probably nearby. Similarly, the words “because” and “since” are premise indicators. For example, here’s a deceptively simple ethical argument:
"Because mammals experience pleasure and pain, their interests therefore deserve consideration."
On the surface, we have the observation that animals can experience pleasure and pain, hastily followed by the declaration that their interests deserve consideration. But this is actually a complex argument waiting to be unpacked and examined. It rests on dozens of implicit premises concerning why the ability to experience pleasure and pain (or “sentience”) is morally significant, why moral significance is tied to an obligation to take mammals’ interests seriously, and even what “interests,” “deserves” and other key terms really mean.
Part Human, Part Vulcan
Members of the philosophical community—which you are hereby officially invited to join—construct, share, evaluate and revise arguments like the example above in a collective effort to make moral progress, similar to how the scientific community uses hypotheses, experiments, observation and analysis to make scientific progress.
Just as a scientist’s conclusions are only as good as the accuracy of their instruments, a philosopher’s conclusions are only as good as the quality of their arguments. Therefore, conceptual clarity and logical precision are very important.
Another similarity between philosophers and scientists is that just like any good scientist, any good philosopher is willing to change his or her mind when given good reason. In both cases, evidence (in the scientist’s case, empirical and measurable; in our case, abstract and conceptual) is paramount. Committed first and foremost to the truth, scientists and philosophers are obliged to conclude as the balance of reasons suggests, independent of what we might want to believe.
Of course, this doesn’t mean scientists and philosophers don’t possess strongly-held views, or that we don’t prefer to be right. We’re only human. It just means that we recognize our fallibility and are therefore happy to adjust our views according to the best arguments, regardless of what we might personally prefer to be true.
Good scientists and philosophers are therefore simultaneously smart and humble, which is a stark contrast with the one-sided, defend-your-view-to-the-death approach modeled by politicians, attorneys and advocates of various causes on television and the web.
If a movie character would help, think of Star Trek’s Spock. He’s serious, logical, and very confident in his reasoning abilities. But at the same time his devotion to truth requires that Spock remain open to new information, and always willing to change his mind. Half human, he’s able to draw on his moral intuitions. But half Vulcan, reflection and further analysis sometimes cause him to override his gut reactions. Both emotionally attuned and logically rigorous, Spock is the prototypical ethicist. Plus, he has great hair, and a mean nerve pinch.
A young Spock actually recites the definition of the philosophical ethical term “supererogatory” during a flashback of his schooling in the 2009 Star Trek film. Moments later he pummels bullies for insulting his human mother, and eventually exacts revenge on time-traveling Romulans for destroying his home planet.
But that’s enough Trekkie nerdishness… for now. Before we cover some important distinctions between morality, psychology, predictability and legality (spoiler: just because something’s legal doesn’t mean it’s moral), and then review the four dominant ethical theories (Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Care Ethics and Virtue Ethics), we should first clarify what the term “ethics” even means. Or at least what it means when philosophers use it.
Whether this is your first or simply your latest adventure into academic philosophy, I hope you enjoy the journey. Be sure to check out those lecture videos, which are designed to reinforce key concepts we’ll cover here in greater depth.
And welcome. Kudos for being willing to explore ethics in good faith – that’s an increasingly uncommon trait, but one the world desperately needs. And remember that if any of this gives you a headache, hang in there—it’ll wear off.
Whether you’re here out of curiosity or for a class, know that doing ethics honestly and with an open mind (aka “in good faith”) requires courage. Not firefighter courage. But challenges to our views, even self-challenges, can be scary. However, if the thought of developing a richer, more mature understanding of right and wrong is appealing, you’ve come to the right place.
Fans of The Matrix might liken this to Morpheus’s red pill warning to Neo: “Remember, all I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more.” I hope any truths you find here are less dramatic than Neo’s. But studying ethics definitely takes guts, so buckle up.
Nutshell in a Nutshell
This book covers the basics of any good introductory ethics course: what academic philosophy is, why philosophical ethics is compatible with religious moral reasoning, why most ethicists reject the view that morality is a mere matter of personal opinion, the four dominant ethical theories of Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics and Care Ethics, the essential role of our moral intuitions, how to construct and evaluate moral arguments (especially moral arguments by analogy), how careful reflection can produce a more coherent set of moral views, and how to develop an “All-Things-Considered” view that balances all of the above.
The goal isn’t to tell you what to think about various moral and political issues, or to even replace whatever method you currently use to decide them. Rather, our modest aim is to introduce these tools with the hope that you’ll find some of them worth making your own.
I wrote the first version of this book for students in my applied ethics courses at the University of Tennessee where I had the pleasure of teaching Contemporary Moral Issues, Business Ethics, Bioethics, Professional Responsibility and Social and Political Philosophy. I later expanded and revised a similar version to share with the ethics bowl community, tweaked that version for my students at the University of Texas at Tyler, revised once again after recording YouTube lectures for each of the chapters (several in my home, one floating down a river, and a handful at landmarks in New York), and made minor improvements in 2021 while recording the audiobook edition.
You can access my lecture videos by clicking on the chapter titles in the eBook, or by visiting YouTube.com/MattDeatonPhD or EthicsinaNutshell.org, where you’ll also find sample exam and discussion questions, editable syllabi and reading schedules, and an “Ask Matt” interface. There’s even some stuff there on my new book, Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell: A Pro-Both Tour of the Moral Arguments.
However, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Before we tackle the philosopher’s approach to morality, we need a clearer idea of exactly what academic philosophy is.
What Philosophy Is and How It’s Done
Academic philosophy is the reason-based attempt to answer life’s big, non-empirical questions, including “Did an intelligence create the universe?”, “What does it mean to know something?” and “How can we be sure we’re not trapped in the Matrix?”
Ethics is but one of the four sub-disciplines of philosophy, the other three being logic (the study of the basic rules of reason, progress in which enabled the advent of computer coding), metaphysics (the study of the ultimate nature of the universe, which goes beyond observable, testable science) and epistemology (the study of what constitutes genuine knowledge, which is sometimes oversimplified as justified true belief).
The philosopher’s subject matter is “non-empirical” in that it’s not directly testable in the physical world. And academic philosophy is the “reason-based” attempt to answer these sorts of questions because philosophers necessarily employ logic. How?
Well, they offer one another arguments, which are collections of claims called premises, intended to support another claim, called the conclusion. Now notice how “argument” and “conclusion” are used in a special, technical sense here, the former not referring to a quarrel between two people, and the latter not referring to the end of a story. An argument can be presented by a single author, and its conclusion can be shared at the beginning rather than the end.
Most philosophers’ styles are more subtle, but anytime you hear the words “therefore” or “thus,” a conclusion is probably nearby. Similarly, the words “because” and “since” are premise indicators. For example, here’s a deceptively simple ethical argument:
"Because mammals experience pleasure and pain, their interests therefore deserve consideration."
On the surface, we have the observation that animals can experience pleasure and pain, hastily followed by the declaration that their interests deserve consideration. But this is actually a complex argument waiting to be unpacked and examined. It rests on dozens of implicit premises concerning why the ability to experience pleasure and pain (or “sentience”) is morally significant, why moral significance is tied to an obligation to take mammals’ interests seriously, and even what “interests,” “deserves” and other key terms really mean.
Part Human, Part Vulcan
Members of the philosophical community—which you are hereby officially invited to join—construct, share, evaluate and revise arguments like the example above in a collective effort to make moral progress, similar to how the scientific community uses hypotheses, experiments, observation and analysis to make scientific progress.
Just as a scientist’s conclusions are only as good as the accuracy of their instruments, a philosopher’s conclusions are only as good as the quality of their arguments. Therefore, conceptual clarity and logical precision are very important.
Another similarity between philosophers and scientists is that just like any good scientist, any good philosopher is willing to change his or her mind when given good reason. In both cases, evidence (in the scientist’s case, empirical and measurable; in our case, abstract and conceptual) is paramount. Committed first and foremost to the truth, scientists and philosophers are obliged to conclude as the balance of reasons suggests, independent of what we might want to believe.
Of course, this doesn’t mean scientists and philosophers don’t possess strongly-held views, or that we don’t prefer to be right. We’re only human. It just means that we recognize our fallibility and are therefore happy to adjust our views according to the best arguments, regardless of what we might personally prefer to be true.
Good scientists and philosophers are therefore simultaneously smart and humble, which is a stark contrast with the one-sided, defend-your-view-to-the-death approach modeled by politicians, attorneys and advocates of various causes on television and the web.
If a movie character would help, think of Star Trek’s Spock. He’s serious, logical, and very confident in his reasoning abilities. But at the same time his devotion to truth requires that Spock remain open to new information, and always willing to change his mind. Half human, he’s able to draw on his moral intuitions. But half Vulcan, reflection and further analysis sometimes cause him to override his gut reactions. Both emotionally attuned and logically rigorous, Spock is the prototypical ethicist. Plus, he has great hair, and a mean nerve pinch.
A young Spock actually recites the definition of the philosophical ethical term “supererogatory” during a flashback of his schooling in the 2009 Star Trek film. Moments later he pummels bullies for insulting his human mother, and eventually exacts revenge on time-traveling Romulans for destroying his home planet.
But that’s enough Trekkie nerdishness… for now. Before we cover some important distinctions between morality, psychology, predictability and legality (spoiler: just because something’s legal doesn’t mean it’s moral), and then review the four dominant ethical theories (Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Care Ethics and Virtue Ethics), we should first clarify what the term “ethics” even means. Or at least what it means when philosophers use it.
Whether this is your first or simply your latest adventure into academic philosophy, I hope you enjoy the journey. Be sure to check out those lecture videos, which are designed to reinforce key concepts we’ll cover here in greater depth.
And welcome. Kudos for being willing to explore ethics in good faith – that’s an increasingly uncommon trait, but one the world desperately needs. And remember that if any of this gives you a headache, hang in there—it’ll wear off.
Two Early-Semester Resources & One to Share a Month Before Papers are Due
Accompanying PDFs available for free upon request.
|
|
|
|