Morals and Modernity

Morals and Modernity 2000 words ( Harvard) essay Essay Questions Write an essay of 2000 words on one of the following topics. Very high level perfect referencing use Havard referencing,title page index cover page bibliography... . thank you very much :0) 1. 'Aquinas's major concern is to defend a "naturalistic" or Aristotelian Christianity.' Discuss with reference to the place of natural law. 2. Examine the development of the idea of natural law and why it was attacked in the 'modern world'. 3. 'Natural law, if it exists, is a system of law binding on men by virtue of their nature alone, and independently of all convention or positive law.' Critically evaluate, including cases of moral decision in your answer. 4. In one case we looked at this term, natural law seems to allow a woman to take medicine which will inadvertently end her pregnancy, while prohibiting an abortion, even when if the pregnancy is allowed to continue, both mother and the fertilized egg will die. Examine the doctrine of natural law and double effect, and evaluate whether you think it leads to the right outcomes in these cases. 5. Natural law prohibits homosexuality and euthanasia. Examine its arguments for one or both of these prohibitions, and critically reflect on whether you think it is persuasive as a moral position. What problems do you, and others, see for it, and can it respond to those criticisms? 6. "Since what is morally good and bad is not an empirical matter Hume cannot really give an account of moral behaviour. For him morality becomes a purely subjective matter of attitudes and feelings. As a result it is impossible, on Hume's theory, really to disagree over moral issues; all that we can do is to express different attitudes and feelings about a given piece of behaviour." Discuss. 7. Can morality be based on sympathy? Discuss with reference to Hume. 8. ‘It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will.' Kant, Groundwork, 4:393. Discuss and critically evaluate. 9. ‘I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.' Kant, Groundwork, 4:402. What does this tell us about morality? What, if any, moral principles follow? 10. Examine and evaluate the criticisms of Kant offered by at least two of (1) Hegel, (2) Nietzsche, (3) Horkheimer, or (4) Williams—to the effect that Kant's moral philosophy lacks enough substance to give practical guidance, is too other- or non-worldly, and is perhaps even deeply inhumane or cruel. Are these criticisms just? 11. “Morality aims at producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, so in some difficult cases, we have to accept even the sacrifice of an innocent scapegoat, if it will lead to the greater good.” Examine the claims of utilitarian moral philosophy, in light of this famous problem of whether moral sacrifice can ever be justified. 12. Mill wants at once to be a utilitarian, and to hold onto a distinction between higher and lower pleasures, as if he were Epicurus or Aristotle. What is his distinction between kinds of pleasure based on, and do you think that it can feasibly be integrated into the purely quantitative ethics of utilitarianism? 13. Williams argues that adopting a utilitarian morality runs up against our legitimate needs and desires for integrity as individuals. Why does he say this? Examine. Do you agree? Evaluate. 14. Utilitarianism, according to Williams, seems to lead to the idea that acting badly, or letting something bad happen—or even letting someone else act badly—are morally equivalent. Critically discuss this idea, using the cases of George and Jim from our Williams readings for week 11 and 12. 15. Should I do my duty even if it means harming others? 16. Examine at least two of (1) Anscombe's , (2) Williams', (3) Nussbaum's or (4) van Hooft's arguments against modern moral philosophy—principally Kant and the utilitarians. What are the key limitations they see in this way of doing moral philosophy, and do you think their scepticism about it is fully justified? 17. Do you think that the emphases contemporary virtue ethicists like Nussbaum or van Hooft place on the particularity of moral situations, the need of ethical agents to develop fine-grained responsiveness to these particularities, together with the way that ethical agents are always educated in particular ethical traditions, leads to moral relativism (the belief that moral conduct can be guided by no over-arching or universal principles)?