In engaging with the jailhouse thoughts of Socrates and Martin Luther King, we realize that we can’t fully consider issues of justice and injustice (what in our first reading Frankena calls normative thinking) until we have an account of what makes the just actions just and the unjust actions unjust (what Frankena calls meta-ethical thinking).
We then get discussions of four different meta-ethical accounts: subjectivism, the divine command theory, cultural relativism, and egoism. (These are actually five if we count both psychological and ethical egoism.)
Choose one (two, at most) of these accounts and apply it/them to some of the thinking of Socrates or King that we’ve encountered in this course, to show either why what you choose does NOT offer a plausible account of meta-ethics or why it DOES. Be sure in your discussion to include an objection that a reasonable person might have to your position, as well as your reply to it.
Your two-to-three pages (500-750 words) are due emailed to me by the start of class on September 2 either as an attachment in Microsoft Word or as a link to a Google doc to which you’ve given me editing permission.
I will use the following rubric:
Accuracy of describing the chosen account(s): 3 pts.
Appropriateness of applying to Socrates or King: 3 pts.
Clarity of your reasoning for your position on your chosen account(s): 3 pts.
Statement of an objection to your position: 3 pts.
Your reply to said objection: 3 pts.
Total: 15 pts.