To what extent is it acceptable or perhaps even morally correct- to allow your own interests to supersede the interests of others?

Essay Topics:
Consider the (numbered) topics below, categorized by more general topics. Consult me if you have another idea you would like to write about.
Topics Concerning Dismissive Notions about Ethics (Relativism, Skepticism, Egoism, etc.)
To what extent are different perspectives or attitudes about ethics comparably reasonable? Are all perspectives equal, including the Nazi perspective and Albert Fishs perspective? If not, then how might one draw a distinction between reasonable and unreasonable perspectives? Among reasonable perspectives, do you think a best perspective exists?

To what extent is it acceptable or perhaps even morally correct- to allow your own interests to supersede the interests of others?

NOTE: If you are going to bring up topics 1 or 2 at all, then it must be the topic of your entire essay. It is not acceptable to appeal to subjectivism, relativism, egoism, etc, in defense of a thesis on another topic. Example (this is an automatic low grade): Immanuel Kant attempts to formulate moral rules that everyone should follow, but each person has their own point of view, and their own standards that are right for them. Therefore, Kant has no business trying to tell anyone what standards to follow.

Topics Concerning Normative Ethical Theory
Defend utilitarianism against the apparent counterexamples we discussed in class (the chop-up-chuck case, the trolley cases, etc.) To do this, you have to argue (at least) one of two things, (a) that the decision in the alleged counterexample does not really maximize happiness and hence is not recommended by utilitarianism, or (b) that the decision in the alleged counterexample is morally correct after all.

Critique Mill’s qualitative version of utilitarianism. Consider focusing on one or two of the following questions.
Does Mill succeed in defeating the objection that utilitarianism recommends gluttony and degrades human lies he appeal only to the hedonistic notion of pleasure or enjoyment, or does he cheat by appealing to some other values?
Is he correct in claiming that mental or intellectual pleasures are a better kind of pleasure than sensual pleasures, that they cant be compared or weighed against each other, or even that they constitute a distinct kind of pleasure in the first place?

Explain and evaluate Aristotles claim that every virtue is a mean between two extremes. Consider virtues that dont easily fit into Aristotles picture, discussing and evaluating what you think is the best possible attempt to accommodate such examples.

Guidelines and Standards:
Write tersely. (Make each point as quickly and efficiently as possible.) However, your draft will almost certainly need to be about 1500-2000 words in order to be complete. If it is shorter, then consider whether you have sufficiently covered all the relevant issues. The accepted file formats are listed where you submit the essay. Use a legible, reasonable sized font, and double space. You must write grammatically, produce solid reasoning, discuss potential objections to your view, and demonstrate competence with class materials. The rubric is attached below. Use it to check your work before submitting.

Last Completed Projects