Below is a transcript/copy of an email exchange between myself and one of my students from my online introduction to ethics course in the summer of 2013. I post this here for two reasons: (1) because it serves as a nice snapshot of my teaching in action, and (2) because it serves as evidence of my teaching effectiveness, particularly the high praise the student gives my course and teaching, even though I was asking for critical feedback. The emails are presented in the order they were received/sent; and the student’s name and email address have been deleted:
On Jul 12, 2013, at 11:29 AM, “[deleted] (MU-Student)” <[deleted]> wrote:
Professor Shields,
Would it be at all possible to come discuss the second exam with you in person? I know this is for an online course, but I’m at Mizzou, and I want to discuss two particular questions in certain depth regarding their clarity. If this is impossible I can just ask you via email, and I completely understand, I just was curious if you held traditional office times or availability like the regular semester. Thanks.
-[deleted]
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Shields, Kenneth W. (MU-Student)” <kwsb56@mail.missouri.edu>
Date: July 12, 2013, 11:43:02 AM CDT
To: “[deleted]. (MU-Student)” <[deleted]>
Subject: Re: Second Exam – Ethics 1100 Online
Hi [deleted],
Let’s begin with which questions you have in mind, over email. But first let’s wait until the exam deadline has expired (so after 11:59pm tonight).
Best regards,
Kenny
—-
Kenneth Shields, M.A.
University of Missouri
Kline Research Assistant
Phone: 214-460-4292
On Jul 14, 2013, at 7:19 PM, “Shields, Kenneth W. (MU-Student)” <kwsb56@mail.missouri.edu> wrote:
Hi [deleted],
Did you still have questions from the second exam you wanted to discuss? I’m ready when you are.
Best regards,
Kenny
—-
Kenneth Shields, M.A.
University of Missouri
Kline Research Assistant
Phone: 214-460-4292
From: [deleted] (MU-Student)
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:59 AM
To: Shields, Kenneth W. (MU-Student)
Subject: Re: Second Exam – Ethics 1100 Online
Professor Shields,
Sorry for the delay after the exam, I somehow managed to avoid all of reality for a few days accidentally.
I forgot what one of my questions was because of the time, but it was one of the two I missed that I was curious about, but I believe the other one I missed was just a complete error on my part. The other question I had was over the question about giving preference according to utilitarianism. I don’t have the exact wording, but the question was when is it permissible according to utilitarianism, and there were the standard four options. The first was it is never permissible to give preference, the middle two were always question (clearly incorrect), and the last one was this is it okay as long as the overall well-being is being helped. At least it was similar, I apologize for not writing it down.
My question is on the nature of preference and utilitarianism. I’m almost certain that I must have misread the question, but it seemed like the preference being discussed was a scale tipper. As in, if you take into consideration your family preference then it is 1 unit of (even tho I know utilitarians don’t have a solution for the unit problem) happiness greater than the other outcomes. My question is this, if that is the case, is that still giving preference? If utilitarianism is extended to all possible considerations with the information known to a particular person, then would the preference not be a preference at all? In the strict sense it is an advantage, which preference shouldn’t matter to utilitarians, but even if it does, isn’t that just a part of everyones calculus? I prefer my family to yours, you prefer yours to mine, but that is still considering the maximizing factors. It would fall directly into the same scope of consideration as the person who is poor getting 100 dollars versus your friends getting 2 who are financially sound.
So I guess the general question is, wouldn’t preference, whether considered significant or not, play out in the same manner? Thus whether it is never considered or sometimes considered is dependent upon how the preferential consideration is looked at?
Again, this is somewhat removed from my thoughts at the time, but I was curious since it was a question I knew I was going to lose when taking the exam. If none of this makes any sense, I’m sorry for using your time.
Thanks.
-[deleted]
On Jul 16, 2013, at 1:27 PM, “Shields, Kenneth W. (MU-Student)” <kwsb56@mail.missouri.edu> wrote:
Hi [deleted],
So I’ve found the question you are referring to:
If utilitarianism is true . . .
(a) it is always acceptable to give preference to the interests of our family members.
(b) it is never acceptable to give preference to the interests of our family members. [you chose this]
(c) it is sometimes permissible to give preference to our family members but only when doing so is most beneficial. [this is the correct answer]
(d) it is always obligatory to give preference to the interests of our family members.
If I understand your concern correctly, you are suggesting that it shouldn’t really count as “giving preference” to the interests of our family members if the action was the only action available that was most beneficial overall. This may be a fair point, except there is an alternative scenario available to the utilitarian: there could be a situation where there are two actions available, each of which would result in the most beneficial results overall (they are essentially tied for first place, if you like), but only one of these actions satisfies the interests of your family members (the other might even harm your family members’ interests). Because the utilitarian calculations in this case add up to a tie, then on the assumption that utilitarianism is true, it would be permissible in this case to give preference to your family members. In other words, you are not obligated to perform the other action, though you are obligated to perform one of the two actions tied for first place. So you get to choose, or in other words, enact your preference.
There’s also the idea that intention plays a crucial role in the notion of preference. Remember that utilitarians aren’t interested in your intentions when you act, just the results of your action. So you could intend, on some occasion, to give preference to the interests of your family members. But as it happens (perhaps completely unbeknownst to you), your action on this occasion happened to be the most beneficial overall! The utilitarian would say you did the right thing, even though you may not have cared at all about utilitarianism when you acted (in fact, you could have even consciously thought that utilitarianism is false at the moment of action!). Does this seem like you gave preference to your family members in this scenario, even though (by hypothesis) this was the only permissible action assuming utilitarianism is true? It does to me, but if you don’t share my intuition here, there’s always the above explanation about the scenario where two actions are tied for first place.
Does that seem too tricky? I had thought Shafer-Landau mentioned a case like this in the text, but now I’m not sure.
Here’s the other question you missed, just in case you’d like to discuss it as well:
Measuring well-being is difficult for utilitarians because . . .
(a) there is no precise unit of happiness. [you chose this]
(b) there might be multiple things that directly contribute to well-being.
(c) there doesn’t seem to be any method to compare the quantities of different benefits.
(d) all of the above [this is the correct answer]
Thank you for having the courage to press me on this stuff. I wish I could get more students to do this – I’m sure they probably have similar concerns about other questions, or the course in general. Might you have some advice on how I can present myself so my students will feel more comfortable doing what you have done?
Best regards,
Kenny
—-
Kenneth Shields, M.A.
University of Missouri
Kline Research Assistant
Graduate Instructor, Introduction to Ethics
Phone: 214-460-4292
Re: Second Exam – Ethics 1100 Online
[deleted]. (MU-Student)
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 12:17pm
To: Shields, Kenneth W. (MU-Student)
Hi Professor Shields,
I’m sorry for the late response again. I feel bad because I rarely ever am like this when it comes to communication.
I still ultimately believe the problem is preference might be placed in well being, but your arguments are quite sound I believe and this is more a misunderstanding of the text on my end. And just for clarification I had no illusion of trying to get back points I was just genuinely curious. I really appreciate the very thorough response.
As for how you could get students to press on certain issues, I’m really not that sure. I’ve never felt like any response you have ever given about the course was unfounded or not fully thought out. Also, your online lectures are so comprehensive. I was a little surprised the exam average was a 73 on the second exam if only because after the first exam, you really know whats coming. As shown with the extra credit, there are so many opportunities to succeed even if the student wasn’t initially proactive. When you break down the week’s discussion it is very clear cut, so I’m pretty stumped on what your next move is when it comes to interaction. I’ve taken eight other philosophy courses and rarely is it ever this focused and clear. And while I admit theres probably a higher level of difficulty when it comes to organizing 4000 level courses, the course is handled really well. I know that does nothing for you, but the truth is that almost ever corner is covered in this course when related to material, I don’t know how you could engage further when it comes to comfort. You’re very enthusiastic about the course, so it’s not as if you have intense malice in your heart and everyone is running the other way. I’m actually pretty surprised to find out that more people haven’t discussed with you. Those reasons color exactly why I had no problem asking about a meaning of a particular question that is structured in a definitive right or wrong way based on the material.
It might just be due to the nature of an online course, but for what it’s worth, and it is rarely said, it might just be this particular situation. Given your courses are always like this I sense more people will come with questions. Again, I apologize for the late response, and thank you for the very understandable response my inquiry.
-[deleted]
Kenneth Shields 