COSC3325 			   Report-1
         		Philosophical Foundations of Ethics	
							Due: Wednesday, 2/3/2010  
A. Requirements:
   
   1. Choose and read/study two papers and turn in a report.
      Although a list of articles is provided in what follows for your convenience,
      you can choose any paper/article as long as they pertain to "Philosophical
      Foundations of Ethics."
      This report, five or six doubly-spaced pages long, should contain your analysis of 
      the two papers in as many separate sections. 
      And, the analysis of each paper should contain the following in the given order,
      if appropriate:
	a. Summary of the paper.
	b. Relation to other similar theories/ideas/work
	c. Contribution and merits of the article.
	d. What you really think you have learned from the paper.
	e. Your own criticism and/or assessments and any possible improvements in the
	   way key ideas are presented.
	f. all bibliographies (A list of all papers/articles you searched and/or looked at)
	e. elements of independent study (The extent to which you think you have done independent
	   study for each paper and resulting learning outcomes, if any)
   2. Your report should be well-organized with suitable headings/sub-headings.
   3. Present the report of both papers to class using the MS Powerpoint or something 
      similar on February 3rd. 
   4. Due: A written notice of your choice of two papers is due on Wednesday, 1/27/2010.
           (This requirement is not to be met by E-mailing)  
   5. Most books are available in our Library and they are reserved on the 
      Second floor of the library.
   6. After all presentations are made on February 9th, each of you are requested to
      turn in a note that shows your choice of the two BEST presentations along with
      your objective justifications for your choices.
      The note also must show your own name and the name and title of the presentations 
      of your choice to get a credit.

B. List of papers: 

   1. Marcus G. Singer, "Value Judgements", in Key Themes in Philosophy,
      Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 145-172.
      (Call number: B29K388 1989)
   2. Edward A. Westermarck, "The Relativity of Ethics," in Philosophy for a New 
      Generation, Macmillan Company, 1973, pp. 94-104.
      (Call number: B29B52 1973)
   3. Charles B. Ketcham, "Toward the New Morality," in the same book above, pp. 85-94.
   4. Jeremy Bentham, "Utility, Pleasure and the Good," in the same book above, pp. 118-125.
   5. Immanuel Kant, "Learning Moral Rules," in the same book above, pp. 137-142.
   6. William D. Ross, "Duties and The Right," in the same book above, pp. 143-149.
   7. Archie J. Bahm, Introduction to Philosophy, Asia Publishing House,
      1963, Chapter 24 Ethics, pp. 302-338.
      (Call number: BD21B24 1964)
   8. Deborah G. Johnson, Computer Ethics, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, 2001, 
      Chapter-2 (Philosophical Ethics),  pp. 26-52.
   9. George Wall, Introduction to Ethics, Charles E. Merrill Publishing, 1974, 
      Ethical Formalism (The Position of Kant), pp. 75-101.
      (Call number: BJ1012W35) 
  10. The same book above, Chapter-10, Ethical Egoism, pp. 239-251.
  11. The same book above, Chapter-11, Utilitarianism, pp. 251-261.
  12. The same book above, Chapter-14, Questions concerning Freedom, pp. 297-317.
  13. Gilbert Hartman and Judith Jarvis Thomson, Moral Relativism and Moral 
      Objectivity, Blackwell Phblisher, 1996, Chapter-1, Moral Relativism, pp. 3-20.
      (Call number: BJ1012H316 1996)
  14. The same book above, Chapter-2, Social Contracts, pp. 20-32.
  15. The same book above, Chapter-3, Expressing Basic Disagreement, pp. 32-44.
  16. J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart (editors), An Introduction to the Principles of 
      Morals and Legislation, University of London Press, 1970, Chapter-1, 
      Of the Principle of Utility, pp. 1-16.
  17. The same book above, Chapter-2, Of Principles Adverse to that of Utility, pp. 17-33.
  18. Wendy Donner, The Liberal Self: John Stuart Mill's Moral and Political 
      philosophy, Cornell University Press, 1991, Chapter-1, Mill and Bentham: 
      The Nature of Pleasurable Experience, pp. 8-36.
      (Call number: B1607D58 1991)
  19. The same book above, Chaper-3, Models of Utility, pp. 66-82.
  20. M. David Ermann. et al, Computers, Ethics, and Society, Second Edition,
      Oxford University Press, 1997, the Best Action is the One with the Best
      Consequences, John Hospers, pp. 33-41.
      (Call number: QA76.9 C66C6575 1997)
  21. The same book above, The Best Action is the One in Accord with Universal
      Rules, James Rachels, pp. 42-46 
  22. Thomas E. Hill, "Moral Dilemmas, Gaps, and Residues: A Kantian Perspectives, in
      Moral Dilemmas and Moral Theory, edited by H.E. Mason, Oxford University Press,
      1996, pp. 167-198.
      (Call number: BJ1031M665 1996)
  23. Wendy Donner, "Mill's Utilitarianism" in The Cambridge Companion to MILL,
      edited by John Skorupski, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 255-292.
      (Call number: B1607C25 1998)
  24. Richard W. Doss, "Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative," in The Business of Ethics, 
      second edition, 1991, pp. 43-54.
      (Call number: BJ1012D59 1991)
  25. The same book above: "Utilitarianism," pp. 85-96.