teaching statement€¦ · web viewstephen davey. auburn university. contents. introduction to...

Sample Syllabi

Stephen DaveyAuburn University

Contents

Introduction to Ethics2

Ethics and the Health Sciences9

Business Ethics13

Introduction to Symbolic Logic22

Introduction to Philosophy 27

Introduction to Early Modern Philosophy32

Philosophy of Law36

Moral Theory 41

Action Theory 45

PHIL 1020

Introduction to EthicsFall 2015

Instructor: Stephen Davey Office: Haley Center 2202 Email: [email protected]: Wed 9-11 and by appointment

Course Description

The interests of different people can vary pretty dramatically, especially at a university where so many different topics are investigated, and talents developed. But every one of us has an interest in improving our grasp on how to live a good life. That’s a pretty good starting point for ethics. What should I do? What principles should I follow? What kind of person should I strive to be?

A good starting point, yes. But ethicists aren’t just interested in asking these questions; they are also interested in coming up with theories that explain and systematize the answers we give. And they are also interested in understanding what kind of authority morality has, and where that authority comes from. AND they are also interested in applying all of these theories to specific moral dilemmas.

This course will be an introduction to the different types of ethical investigations, and to some of the most influential contributions to those investigations, both historical and contemporary.

Course Structure

Each week, we will have two lectures. Attendance and participation are mandatory (not to mention the only way to get good at doing philosophy). Students will be expected to have completed the reading before the session for which it is assigned, and to have retained at least enough to say something interesting about the main ideas, points and counterpoints (of course, you will not be expected to have mastered it prior to any instruction. Some of this stuff is really hard!).

In the first week, we will be building a conceptual toolbox for the remainder of the term. Students will be introduced to the types of questions that ethicists like to ask, and the ways in which the major theories answer them. Then, students will get a crash course in the basics of argument and critical thinking. Then it’s off to the races.

2

Our first two units will be a mix of normative ethics and applied ethics.

Normative ethics: What makes right actions right and wrong actions wrong? Is there a single principle that guides us to acting rightly? Which character traits are virtues, and which are vices (and why)?

Applied ethics: What can these theories tell us about the pressing moral dilemmas of the day? Can we come up with a well-grounded explanation for why _______ is right/wrong (where you fill in the blank with whichever hot topic you like)?

We will start (unit one) with the two most significant schools of thought in modern normative ethics, consequentialism, and Kantianism. We will learn about these theories, and their pros and cons, and then we will see how modern consequentialists and Kantians have handled some of the day’s most pressing moral problems.

Then we’ll have an exam on that stuff.

Next (unit two) we will consider a variety of theories/approaches that say neither the consequentialists nor the Kantians are going about things in the right way: (a) social contract theory, (b) pluralism, (c) virtue ethics, (d) feminist ethics and ethics of race. Again, we will learn about the theories and their pros and cons, and then we will see how some of their adherents have approached some difficult problems.

Then we’ll have an exam on that stuff.

Our third unit will shift focus away from the questions of normative and applied ethics, and toward questions about the status of morality – what philosophers call metaethics. When say things like “it is wrong to murder” what are we doing? Are we just expressing our opinions, or our own commitments not to murder? Or are we purporting to state an objective, perhaps universal, fact (or something else entirely)? Are there really any such things as good/bad, right/wrong, virtuous/viscous, and if so, where do they come from? We will learn about three types of responses that philosophers have typically given to these questions – (a) moral relativism, (b) moral anti-realism, and (c) objective moral realism – and some of their most prominent variations.

Then we’ll have an exam on that stuff. This exam will take place during the scheduled final exam time, but it will only apply to material in the third unit. Bonus Topics

After the second exam, but before we begin our metaethics unit, I have set aside two sessions for class discussion on topics of your choosing. This is your chance to get a topic on the agenda that is of particular interest to you (I will conduct a survey on CANVAS at the start of term to

3

identify the two most popular topics). In class, we will debate some of the more interesting questions surrounding these topics, informed by a survey of the recent literature.

Grades

Your grade will consist of:

3 exams (20 % each)1 paper (25%)10 reading checks (15% total, short, reading comprehension)

Exams

The exams will cover the recent material from the book and from lecture (by “recent” I mean that the second exam will only cover material that we discuss between exams 1 and 2, and the third exam will only cover material that we discuss between exams 2 and 3).

There will be a variety of questions types: true/false, multiple choice, fill in the blank, etc. You will not be asked to write essays.

Exams will be written in the blue scantron forms, available at the book store, which you will be responsible for purchasing.

Papers

On a rolling schedule (which we will discuss in class in the first week) you will submit a short, 4-5 page paper. The purpose of the paper will be to critically evaluate one of the arguments that we consider in the first two units of the course, and to present and defend an argument of your own on that topic. We will discuss the finer points of writing these papers in class, and I will point you toward valuable online resources, but if you would like some additional clarification, feel free to ask questions by email, or (better yet) in office hours.

I strongly encourage students to seek feedback on their core arguments before submitting their papers. Office hours are an excellent time to do this. Students will also have an opportunity to test out their arguments on the class. If you make a request in advance, I will set aside five or ten minutes of the next class session for you to present you main points, and take questions/comments from your classmates (time permitting). This takes some guts, but it is the best way to strengthen your arguments. Philosophy is a cooperative enterprise.

Reading Checks

The reading checks are just there to keep you honest. Philosophy classes can be a mess if nobody does the reading, but they are excellent if everyone does. But we’re all human, so sometimes we need an additional incentive. Each reading check will have just a few multiple

4

choice or true/false questions covering the most basic, bottom line ideas from that session’s assigned reading. There will not be a reading check every day. You will not know in advance which days will have reading checks.

Absence and Late Work

Absences will only be excused for medical, religious, or other legitimate reasons (as determined by the university, and/or the instructor). Where possible, the student should notify the instructor in advance of absences (e.g. for religious holidays). Students are expected to provide documentation for medical absences within one week.

For more on excused absences, please see the student policies ehandbook at http://www.auburn.edu/student_info/student_policies/

There are legitimate reasons to fail to hand in an assignment by the assigned date, but they are few. When something comes up which prevents a student from doing the work that he or she has been putting off until the last minute, that student fails to live up to his or her academic responsibilities.

Extra credit will not be offered. Unexcused late work will be penalized and will not be accepted after one week.

University Policies

All portions of the Auburn University student academic honesty code (Title XII) found in the Student Policy eHandbook will apply to this class. All academic honesty violations or alleged violations of the SGA Code of Laws will be reported to the Office of the Provost, which will then refer the case to the Academic Honesty Committee.

Read this stuff. Seriously, read it. And if any of it is not absolutely crystal clear, ask me about it. We take it very, very seriously, and ignorance will not be accepted as an excuse.

Accommodations for Students with Disabilities

Students who need accommodations are asked to electronically submit their approved accommodations through AU Access and to arrange a meeting during office hours the first week of classes, or as soon as possible if accommodations are needed immediately. If you have a conflict with my office hours, an alternate time can be arranged. To set up this meeting, please contact me by e-mail. If you have not established accommodations through the Office of Accessibility, but need accommodations, make an appointment with the Office of Accessibility, 1228 Haley Center, 844-2096 (V/TT)

Reading

5

http://www.auburn.edu/student_info/student_policies/

There is one required text for the course:

Russ Shafer-Landau, The Fundamentals of Ethics, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press

This text is really impressive. It is incredibly clear and concise, and it is accessible to beginners without sacrificing substance. Seriously, the author is some kind of magician. Still, this stuff is really difficult, and if you are having trouble keeping up with the readings, for goodness’ sake, come talk to me about it (see the next section)!

In addition to the textbook, we will occasionally be reading papers from notable philosophers. These will be made available in advance, in PDF form, on CANVAS.

Supplementary Reading: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a wonderful resource for anyone interested in further reading on these subjects (and nearly any subject in philosophy). It is here: http://plato.stanford.edu

I will also post additional papers on each of our applied ethics topics that are interesting, accessible, and historically influential. And I strongly encourage students who would like to continue reading about these (or other) topics to ask for recommendations.

What to do if you are struggling

Philosophy can be really, really difficult. If you are struggling, do not fret. If things don’t make sense immediately, I can help.

Don’t be afraid to speak up in lecture; you might think that you have a ‘dumb’ question, but it is overwhelmingly likely that many other students in the class have the same question you do, and are also afraid to ask because they too think their question is ‘dumb’. The student who is brave enough to ask quickly becomes the secret hero of the rest of the group.

“I’m so confused that I don’t even know what question to ask!” “I’m lost, but I don’t know why I’m lost!” If these thoughts are in your head, just let them out! If you just tell me that something isn’t making sense to you, I’ll figure out what it is. That’s my job.

Come to office hours. You won’t be interrupting me – I set aside time just for this. And we can probably sort out your difficulties pretty quickly.

Schedule

Date Topic Reading

AUG 16 Intro to Intro to Ethics

AUG 18 Intro to Argument and Philosophical Writing

AUG 23 God and Morality Ch 5

6

AUG 25 Consequentialism Ch 9

AUG 30 Consequentialism Ch 10

SEPT 01 Topic –Genetic Enhancement Savulescu, “Genetic Interventions”

SEPT 06 Kantian Ethics Ch 11

SEPT 08 Kantian Ethics Ch 12

SEPT 13 Topic – Capital Punishment Kant (MM); Nathanson, “An Eye for an Eye”

SEPT 15 EXAM ONE

SEPT 20 The Social Contract No Reading

SEPT 22 Topic – The Right to Health Care Daniels – “Is There a Right to Health Care?”

SEPT 27 Pluralism / Particularism Ch 16

SEPT 29 Virtue Ethics Ch 17

OCT 04 Virtue Ethics (Aristotle) No Reading

OCT 06 Topic – Abortion Hursthouse, “Virtue Ethics and Abortion”

OCT 11 Feminist Ethics Ch 18

OCT 13 Topic – Abortion (cntd) Little, “The Morality of Abortion”

OCT 18 Ethics and the Philosophy of Race No Reading

OCT 20 Topic – Privilege McIntosh, “Unpacking the Invisible Backpack”

OCT 25 EXAM TWO

OCT 27 Bonus Topic 1 TBD

NOV 01 Bonus Topic 2 TBD

NOV 03 Relativism Ch 19

NOV 08 Paper on Relativism Boghossian, “The Maze of Moral Relativism”

NOV 10 Anti-Realism: Error Theory Ch 20

7

NOV 15 Anti-Realism: Expressivism Ch 20

NOV 17 Paper on Anti-Realism Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic

NOV 21-25 THANKSGIVING BREAK (NO CLASS)

NOV 29 Paper on Objective Realism Enoch, “Why I am an Objectivist…”

DEC 01 Objective Realism Ch 21

EXAM THREE: During the scheduled final exam period (but non-cumulative) Dates vary by section. See: http://www.auburn.edu/administration/registrar/calendars/exam_schedule_fall_2016.pdf

8

PHIL 1030Ethics and the Health Sciences

Spring 2017

Instructor: Stephen Davey Office: Haley Center 2202Email: [email protected]: Tue. 9:00-11:00 (walk in), and by appointment

Course Description

Many of the most controversial ethical topics of the day arise in the context of medical science: Abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, mandatory vaccination, etc. And there is no shortage of passionate opinions on every side of every issue. It often seems as though our discussions dissolve into shouting matches, and the best bet is just to “agree to disagree”. This class will be an attempt to resist that inclination. We will embrace the opportunity to subject our beliefs to careful scrutiny.

Students will be introduced to influential philosophical treatments of these and other important topics. We will learn about some of the dominant ethical theories, and we will apply these ideas to the pressing issues of the day.

Some of the questions that we will be asking this term involve the core ethical concepts and how best to understand them

What makes right actions right and wrong actions wrong? What is it my duty to do? What does virtue consist in? What are rights, and what does having rights mean to us?

Other questions will relate these questions to specific moral dilemmas.

Is it permissible to (have an abortion; harvest stem cells for research; hasten the death of a terminally ill patient, etc.)? Always? What makes it permissible, why, and when?

How might one demonstrate this-or-that virtue or vice in each of these specific contexts?

What stand should the law take on these questions?

9

Course Structure

Each week, we will have three 1-hour sessions. Attendance and participation are mandatory (not to mention the only way to get good at doing philosophy).

In the first three weeks, we will get a crash course in moral theory. We will spend some time distinguishing the different types of questions that ethicists like to ask, and the different types of answers that the major theories give. This theoretical background will enhance our understanding of the debates to come; knowing a particular author’s theoretical allegiance will help us both to understand the strengths of their arguments, and to raise objections.

We will cover five main topics throughout the remainder of the term: abortion, human genetic enhancement, euthanasia, autonomy and public policy, and justice & the right to healthcare. However, there is some flexibility built into the schedule, and students are encouraged to suggest different topics according to their interests.

For each topic, we will read influential papers whose purpose it is to convince us of something important. We will critically evaluate the arguments each author presents and decide for ourselves whether, and to what extent, they succeed. Students will be expected to have completed the reading prior to the session for which it is assigned, and to have retained at least enough to say something interesting about the arguments and core theses (of course, you will not be expected to have mastered it prior to any instruction. Some of this stuff is hard!).

Classroom Activities

The greater portion of our time in class will be dedicated to lecturing and discussion among the whole class. But from time to time, we will also break into groups for discussion (see the schedule).

Lectures will be designed to enrich students’ understanding of the arguments from our readings, with special attention to logical structure, dialectic, and points of criticism.

Group work and discussions will be designed to develop students’ critical skills. Students will build their own arguments and counterarguments with input from other students, the instructor, and the texts.

Papers

Students will submit a short, 1250-1500 word paper. The purpose of the paper will be to critically evaluate one of the arguments that we consider in the first four units of the course (i.e. not justice and the right to health care), and to present and defend an argument of your own on that topic. The first session after the first exam will be dedicated to paper-writing, but if

10

you would like some clarification before then, feel free to ask questions in class, by email, or (better yet) in office hours.

Due dates for the paper will be staggered according to the chosen topic, as follows:

Abortion October 23Genetic Enhancement November 13Euthanasia November 27Autonomy and Public Health December 8

Students will also have a chance to test out their paper ideas on the class, very briefly and informally, in order to solicit valuable feedback. This takes some guts, but it is the best way to strengthen your arguments. Philosophy is a cooperative enterprise.

Reading Checks

The reading checks are just there to keep you honest. Philosophy classes can be a mess if nobody does the reading, but they are excellent if everyone does. But we’re all human, so sometimes we need an additional incentive. Each reading check will have just a few multiple choice or true/false questions covering the most basic, bottom-line ideas from that session’s assigned reading. There will, of course, be no reading checks on days when no reading is assigned

Grades

Exams (x4) – 15% Reading checks* (total) – 15%Paper – 25%

Absence and Make-Up Work


Students will be given an opportunity to make up graded work that is missed for legitimate, university-recognized reasons. It is the student’s responsibility to schedule make-ups, and they must do so within one week, except when circumstances make that impossible. No make-ups will be offered after the deadline to submit grades at the end of term.


11

University Policies




Reading

There is no textbook for this class, but there is a lot of reading. All required readings will be posted on CANVAS well in advance, in PDF form.


Through the university library website, we have free access to a bounty of academic journals. The philosophy journals are here.

Philpapers is also an excellent free resource (the browse functionality is quite impressive)

Avoid Wikipedia like the plague.

12

http://philpapers.org/

http://xt5bv6dq8y.search.serialssolutions.com/?V=1.0&L=XT5BV6DQ8Y&N=100&SS_searchTypeJournal=yes&S=SC&C=RE0115

http://plato.stanford.edu/


Schedule

Date Topic Reading (optional)21-Aug Intro to the Course 23-Aug Ethical Theory - Consequentialism 25-Aug Ethical Theory - Consequentialism 28-Aug Ethical Theory - Kant 30-Aug Ethical Theory - Kant

1-Sep Ethical Theory - Virtue Ethics 4-Sep Labor Day 6-Sep Ethical Theory - Aristotle 8-Sep Ethical Theory - Social Contract; Pluralism

11-Sep Irma – University Closed 13-Sep EXAM - Ethical Theory 15-Sep Critical Thinking - Arguments 18-Sep Critical Thinking - Fallacies20-Sep Abortion (Warren)22-Sep Abortion Thompson25-Sep Abortion Discussion27-Sep Abortion Marquis (pp. 189-197)29-Sep Abortion Hursthouse (pp. 233-246)

2-Oct Abortion Discussion4-Oct Exam - Critical Thinking and Abortion 6-Oct Paper-writing 9-Oct Genetic Enhancement (Savulescu)

11-Oct Genetic Enhancement Sandel (selections – online)13-Oct Fall Break 16-Oct Genetic Enhancement Discussion18-Oct Genetic Enhancement Gordon-Solmon (intro and 4)20-Oct Genetic Enhancement (Persson & Savulescu, Harris)23-Oct Genetic Enhancement Discussion25-Oct Euthanasia Rachels27-Oct Euthanasia (Nesbitt and Kuhse)30-Oct Euthanasia Velleman - skip highlighted txt1-Nov Euthanasia Discussion3-Nov Euthanasia - Advance Directives (Dworkin; Dresser)6-Nov Exam - Genetic Enhancement and Euthanasia 8-Nov Autonomy and Public Health (Sunstein)

10-Nov Autonomy and Public Health Conly13-Nov Autonomy and Public Health Discussion

13

15-Nov Autonomy and Public Health Flannigan - pp. 5-13(top)17-Nov Autonomy and Public Health Navin – pp. 69-75(top)20-Nov Thanksgiving Break 22-Nov Thanksgiving Break 24-Nov Thanksgiving Break 27-Nov Justice and the Right to Health Care (Rawls)29-Nov Justice and the Right to Health Care Daniels

1-Dec Justice and the Right to Health Care (Nozik)4-Dec Justice and the Right to Health Care Discussion6-Dec Justice and the Right to Health Care Cappelan and Norheim8-Dec Review

The final exam date/time will depend upon your class section. See here for details: http://www.auburn.edu/administration/registrar/documents/Fall2017_ExamSchedule.pdf

14

PHIL 1040Business Ethics

Fall 2018

Instructor: Stephen Davey Office: Haley Center 2202Email: [email protected]: Tue. 9:00-11:00 (walk in), and by appointment

Course Description

The interests of different people can vary pretty dramatically, especially at a university where so many different topics are investigated, and talents developed. But every one of us has an interest in improving our grasp on how to live a good life. That’s a pretty good starting point for ethics. What should I do? What principles (if any) should I follow? What kind of person should I strive to be?

Now, one might expect that a course specifically on business ethics would be specialized and narrow in focus, so much so that this very general description would be of little use. But “doing business” is something that permeates much of our lives. As customers, as members of a community, as employees, and perhaps as employers and regulators, we constantly stand in important relations to others for which it is appropriate – even pressing – to ask, “am I doing this well?”

Some of the questions that we will be asking this term involve the core ethical concepts and how best to understand them

What makes right actions right and wrong actions wrong? What is it my duty to do? What does virtue consist in? What rules of conduct would it be reasonable for us to agree to in coordinating our

broad cooperative enterprise?

Other questions will relate these questions to specific moral dilemmas.

Is it permissible to…o regulate how companies in a free market can operateo manipulate/deceive in advertisingo hire disproportionately from one demographic

15

o lobby the government to influence legislation in the service of corporate interests

o reinforce damaging social attitudes in advertisingo manufacture products in a way that causes damage to the environmento operate foreign factories well below domestic standards

Always? What makes it permissible, why, and when? How might one demonstrate this-or-that virtue or vice in each of these specific

contexts? What stand should the law take on these questions?

Course Structure

Each week, we will have three 1-hour sessions. Attendance and participation are mandatory (not to mention the only way to get good at doing philosophy).

There will be four ‘units’. In the first unit, we will lay a theoretical foundation. We will (1) introduce ourselves to the main contemporary debate about the role and duty of the organization, and (2) get a crash course in moral theory, discussing the differences, strengths, and weaknesses of the major theories.

With this theoretical foundation in place, we will spend the rest of the term discussing a variety of specific moral dilemmas. Units 2-4 will correspond to three different relationships in business, and some of the moral issues particular to those relationships:

2 - the company and the consumer3 - the company and the employee4 - the company and the community

The topics that we discuss within each unit will vary, and the interests of other stakeholders (e.g. shareholders) will often enter into the discussion, but each unit will focus primarily on the moral demands that may arise in these relationships. The topics are scheduled in advance, however, there is some flexibility built in, and students are encouraged to suggest different topics according to their interests.

For each topic, we will read academic essays whose purpose it is to convince us of something important. We will critically evaluate the arguments each author presents and decide for ourselves whether, and to what extent, they succeed. Students will be expected to have completed the reading prior to the session for which it is assigned, and to have retained at least enough to say something interesting about the arguments and core theses (of course, you will not be expected to have mastered it prior to any instruction. This stuff is hard!).

Classroom Activities

16

The greater portion of our time in class will be dedicated to lecture and discussion among the whole class. But from time to time, we will also break into groups for case study analysis

Lectures will be designed to enrich students’ understanding of the arguments from our readings, with special attention to logical structure, dialectic, and points of criticism.

Group work and discussions will be designed to develop students’ critical skills. Students will build their own arguments and counterarguments with input from other students, the instructor, and the texts.

Papers

Students will submit a short, 1250-1500 word paper. The purpose of the paper will be to critically evaluate an argument on one of the topics we discuss throughout the term and to present and defend an argument of your own on that topic (one or more topics from the end of term may not be eligible due to time constraints). The two sessions after the first exam will be dedicated to paper-writing and critical thinking, but if you would like some clarification before then, feel free to ask questions in class, by email, or (better yet) in office hours.

Due dates for the paper will be staggered according to the chosen topic. Hard copies are due in class on Friday mornings, two weeks after the topics are covered in lecture (except for the Friday after Thanksgiving – those papers can be submitted on Monday when we return).

Students will also have a chance to test out their paper ideas on the class, very briefly and informally, in order to solicit valuable feedback. This takes some guts, but it is the best way to strengthen your arguments. Philosophy is a cooperative enterprise. If you want to take advantage of this opportunity, please give the instructor at least 48 hours’ notice.

Case Studies

From time to time, students will break into groups to discuss scenarios where difficult decisions have to be made – decisions that highlight the moral issues we will be discussing. Groups will identify the salient considerations on either side of the issue, make a recommendation, and defend that recommendation against objections. Representatives of each group will present of their case analysis to the rest of the class. Groups will submit a brief summary for a grade: 0 = incomplete, 1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = very good

Reading Checks

The reading checks are just there to keep you honest. Philosophy classes can be a mess if nobody does the reading, but they are excellent if everyone does. But we’re all human, so sometimes we need an additional incentive. Each reading check will have just a few multiple choice or true/false questions covering the bottom-line ideas from that session’s assigned

17

reading. They will timed quizzes on CANVAS, and will only be available up until 8am on the day for which the reading is assigned.

Grades

Exams (x4) – 15% Case studies (total) – 10%Reading Checks (total) – 10%Paper – 20%

Note: the percentage grade calculations on CANVAS will not be accurate, because the reading checks and case studies grades will be curved at the end of the term, and that curve will not be reflected on CANVAS. Totally ignore the percentage calculations; only look at the

Communication and Course Materials

All materials will be made available on CANVAS, and all communications outside the classroom and office hours will be via email or CANVAS Announcements (which, I take it, shows up in your inbox as well. If not, you should look into changing the relevant settings). It is each student’s responsibility to stay updated throughout the term.

Absence and Make-Up Work


Students will be given an opportunity to make up graded work that is missed for legitimate, university-recognized reasons. It is the student’s responsibility to schedule make-ups, and they must do so within one week, except when circumstances make that impossible. No make-ups will be offered after the deadline to submit grades at the end of term.


University Policies


18





Reading

There is no textbook for this class, but there is a fair bit of reading. All required readings will be posted on CANVAS well in advance, in PDF form.


Through the university library website, we have free access to a bounty of academic journals. The philosophy journals are here.

Philpapers is also an excellent free resource (the browse functionality is quite impressive)

Avoid Wikipedia like the plague.


Philosophy can be really, really difficult. If you are struggling, do not fret. If things don’t make sense immediately, I can help.

Don’t be afraid to speak up in lecture; you might think that you have a ‘dumb’ question, but it is overwhelmingly likely that many other students in the class have the same question you do, and are also afraid to ask because they too think their question is ‘dumb’. The student who is brave enough to ask the question that is on everyone’s mind quickly becomes her classmates’ secret hero.

“I’m so confused that I don’t even know what question to ask!” “I’m lost, but I don’t know why I’m lost!” If these thoughts are in your head, just let them out! If you just tell me that something isn’t making sense to you, I’ll figure out what it is. That’s my job.

Come to office hours. You won’t be interrupting me – I set aside time just for this. And we can probably sort out your difficulties pretty quickly.

19

http://philpapers.org/

http://xt5bv6dq8y.search.serialssolutions.com/?V=1.0&L=XT5BV6DQ8Y&N=100&SS_searchTypeJournal=yes&S=SC&C=RE0115

http://plato.stanford.edu/

Schedule

Date Topic Readings [optional/supplementary in brackets]

20-Aug Intro to the Class 22-Aug Ethics 101 in an hour or less 24-Aug Class cancelled

27-Aug Role and Duties of the Firm - Stockholder Theory

Friedman - the social responsibility of business…

29-Aug Role and Duties of the Firm - Stakeholder Theory

Freeman - Managing for stakeholders pp. 9b-19

31-Aug Role and Duties of the Firm - adjudicating the dispute [Boatright; Hasnas; Heath]

3-Sep Labor Day 5-Sep Moral Theory - Consequentialism 7-Sep Moral Theory - Kant

10-Sep Moral Theory - Social Contract Theory 12-Sep Moral Theory - Virtue Ethics 14-Sep Moral Theory - Pluralism 17-Sep EXAM 1 - role of the firm / moral theory 19-Sep Writing a philosophy paper 21-Sep Critical Thinking 101

24-Sep Marketing ethics: deception and persuasion [Attas; Bishop; Carson et al; Crisp; Sneddon]

26-Sep Marketing ethics: marketing to vulnerable populations

Palmer & Hedberg - The Ethics of marketing to vulnerable populations

28-Sep Marketing ethics - case study

1-Oct Limitations on products and contracts: coercion and corruption [Sandel, pp. 89-96]

3-Oct Limitations on products and contracts: surrogacy

Anderson - Is women's labor a commodity pp. 71-75t, 80b-87t

5-Oct Privacy and data security

8-Oct Discriminatory pricing and net neutrality Marcoux - Much Ado… pp. 57-62t; Elegido - The Ethics of… pp. 638b-642t

10-Oct Limitations on products and contracts - case study

12-Oct Fall Break 15-Oct EXAM 2 - the company and the consumer 17-Oct Firing: at will dismissal [Epstein]

19-Oct Firing: just cause dismissal McCall - A defense of just cause dismissal rules pp. 162-173

22-Oct Hiring: diversity, discrimination [Nagel; Beauchamp; Pojman; Mason]

20

24-Oct Hiring: fair pay Moriarty - Do CEOs get paid too much? pp. 257-259, 262-267

26-Oct Hiring - case study 29-Oct Working: meaningful work [Schwartz; Maitland; Bowie]

31-Oct Working: exploitation Liberto - Exploitation solution to the non-identity problem

2-Nov Working – case study 5-Nov EXAM 3 – the company and the employee

7-Nov Representation in marketing [Bristor et al; Cohen; Cohen-Eliya and Hammer]

9-Nov Representation in marketing 12-Nov Corporate political activity [Weber; Gee; Ostas; Husain & Moriarty]

14-Nov Corporate political activity Stoll - Corporate political speech… pp. 555bl-562

16-Nov Corporate political activity - case study 19-Nov Thanksgiving Break 21-Nov Thanksgiving Break 23-Nov Thanksgiving Break

26-Nov Corporate social responsibility: the public and private spheres

Brenkert - Private corporations and public welfare

28-Nov Corporate social responsibility: the environment [Arnold; Arnold and Bustos]

30-Nov Corporate Social Responsibility - case study

3-Dec Extra Credit Day 5-Dec What Kind of Day Has it Been? 7-Dec Exam Review

The final exam date/time will depend upon your class section. See here for details: http://www.auburn.edu/administration/registrar/documents/Fall2018_ExamSchedule.pdf

21

http://www.auburn.edu/administration/registrar/documents/Fall2018_ExamSchedule.pdf

PHL 313Introduction to Symbolic Logic

Spring 2013

Instructor: Stephen Davey Office: WAG 421Email: [email protected]: T TH, 12:30-1:30

TA: Jane Doe Office: Email: [email protected] Hours:

Course Description

It isn’t always easy to tell whether a bit of reasoning is good or bad. But we certainly want to know! We want to know whether our beliefs are justified, whether our science is strong, whether the arguments of statesman, teachers, economists, lawyers, friends, are genuinely compelling, or merely seem to be. We want to know how to separate the sense from the nonsense.

Logic attempts to give us a kind of standard for evaluating our reasoning that natural language lacks. Quite a few different standards in fact! This course will introduce students to some of the more basic ones. We will learn about two logical languages – sentential logic and first order logic (Q) – and we will learn about different methods for subjecting our reasoning to scrutiny in both.

Text

Bonevac, Daniel. (2002) Deduction: Introductory Symbolic Logic. 2nd ed.

Grades

Exam One 30%Exam Two 30%Problem Sets 30%Participation 10%

22

A = 93+A- = 90-92…B+ = 87-89…B = 83-86…B- = 80-82…C+ = 77-79…C = 73-76…C- = 70-72…D+ = 67-69…D = 63-66…D- = 60-62…F = 0-59…

Exams

There will be two exams. The second exam is not a “final” exam in the sense that it will not be comprehensive; it will focus on material from after the first exam (though these topics tend to build upon one another, so some carry-over is unavoidable). The exams will cover material from lectures, the textbook, and discussion sections. Questions may take different forms (e.g. you may be asked to do proofs, answer multiple choice questions, translate passages from English into a logical language, identify fallacies, etc.). You will not be writing essays, though you may be asked to give very brief explanations of your answers.

Problem Sets

There will be problem sets each week, to be handed in each Tuesday. They will be fairly short, and will test your comprehension of the material from the prior week. Problem sets must be neat and legible. If you hand in chicken scratch on crumpled paper, you won’t get a grade (at the TA’s discretion).

These sets will also contribute indirectly to your final grade in at least two ways: (1) almost nobody can learn logic without lots of practice, and last minute cramming does no good. So your exam grades will be much better if you keep up with the problem sets. (2) You will be much better equipped to participate in discussion sections if you have already tried your hand at the relevant types of problems; either you will know how to do them, or you will know what questions you need to ask.

The assignments will be posted on Blackboard, under Assignments.

Participation

23

You will be required both to attend, and actively to take part in, discussion sections each week. If you never attend discussion sections, you will get zero points for participation.

Extra Credit?

There will be no extra credit.


Absences will only be excused for medical, religious, or other legitimate reasons. The TA and the instructor will have the final say in what counts as a legitimate reason, and will be pretty strict about it. Where possible, the student should notify the TA in advance of absences (e.g. for religious holidays). Students are expected to provide documentation for medical absences.


Unexcused late assignments will be penalized 2 letter-grades and will not be accepted after the start of the next discussion section.


Logic is the sort of subject that ‘clicks’ right away for some people, and seems impenetrable (at first) to others. Do not fret. If things don’t make sense immediately, we can help.

Don’t be afraid to speak up in lecture and in discussion sections; you might think that you have a ‘dumb’ question, but it is overwhelmingly likely that many other students in the class have the same question you do, and are also afraid to ask because they too think their question is ‘dumb’. The student who is brave enough to ask quickly becomes the secret hero of the rest of the group.

“I’m so confused that I don’t even know what question to ask!” “I’m lost, but I don’t know why I’m lost!” If these thoughts are in your head, just let them out! If you just tell us that something isn’t making sense to you, we’ll figure out what it is. That’s our job.

Come to office hours. You won’t be interrupting us – we set aside time just for this. And we can probably sort out your difficulties pretty quickly.

24

University Policies

The University of Texas at Austin has several official policies that bear on the course-related activities of students. Every student is expected to know and act in accordance with these policies.

Email: www.utexas.edu/its/policies/emailnotify.php

Scholastic Dishonesty: http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/sjs/scholdis.phpNB: scholastic dishonesty will result in a failing grade for the assignment or worse. Students can be permanently expelled from the University for scholastic dishonesty.

Special Accommodations: Students who require special accommodations because of a disability should provide me with a letter to that effect from Services for Students with Disabilities. Information on this process can be found here: http://www.utexas.edu/diversity/ddce/ssd/

Schedule

The organization of the course matches the organization of the textbook. There will be some flexibility, but we will aim to cover these topics in this order and at this pace. Students will be expected to have read the indicated sections of the text before the lecture to which they are assigned.

Jan 15 Course introductionJan 17 Making sense – basic concepts of argumentation

Ch. 1Jan 22 Structure and syntax of SL

Ch. 2.1-2.5Jan 24 Truth tables

Ch. 2.6-2.9Jan 29 Evaluating natural language arguments with truth tables

Ch. 2.6-2.9Jan 31 FallaciesFeb 5 Truth trees – what they are, why they’re useful, how to use them

Ch. 3.1, 3.2

25

http://www.utexas.edu/diversity/ddce/ssd/

http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/sjs/scholdis.php

http://www.utexas.edu/its/policies/emailnotify.php

Feb 7 Truth trees – rules: negation, conjunction, disjunction Ch. 3.3

Feb 12 Truth trees – rules: conditional, biconditional, other Ch. 3.4, 3.5

Feb 14 Evaluating natural language arguments with truth treesFeb 19 Natural deduction – what and why

Ch. 4.1Feb 21 Natural deduction – rules

Ch. 4.2-4.5Feb 26 Natural deduction – rules cntd

Ch. 4.2-4.5Feb 28 Evaluating natural language arguments with natural deductionMar 5 Exam reviewMar 7 First exam (in class)Mar 12 -14 SPRING BREAKMar 19 Quantifiers

Ch. 5.1-5.3Mar 21 Q, syntax and symbolization

Ch. 5.4, 5.5Mar 26 Quantified truth trees, rules

Ch. 6.1Mar 28 Quantified truth trees, strategies

Ch. 6.2Apr 2 Interpretations

Ch. 6.3Apr 4 Constructing interpretations from trees

Ch. 6.4Apr 9 Quantified natural deduction, rules

Ch. 7.1Apr 11 Quantified natural deduction, proof

26

Ch. 7.2Apr 16 Identity; truth tree rules for identity

Ch. 8.1, 8.2Apr 18 Natural deduction rules for identity; function symbols

Ch. 8.3, 8.4Apr 23 Evaluating natural language arguments in QApr 25 What else can logic do?Apr 30 Exam reviewMay 2 Second exam (in class)

27

PHL XXXIntroduction to Philosophy

MM/DD/YYYY

Instructor: Stephen Davey Office: WAG 421Email: [email protected]: T TH, 1-2 (and by appointment)

TA: John Doe Office: Email: Hours:

Course Description

Philosophers get excited about things that they don’t understand. If you like solving puzzles or pondering “deep” questions, then the seeds of philosophy are already planted within you. In this course, we will encourage them to sprout.

We have two goals:

(1) Students will be introduced to a variety of questions that have received great attention from philosophers, and to some of the most influential historical and contemporary attempts to answer them.

(2) Students will learn to analyze philosophical theories and arguments, and to construct their own answers to these difficult questions with a measure of creativity and rigor.

We will begin with a brief introduction to the basic ins and outs of doing philosophy, including its goals, its methodology, and its value as a discipline. We will then whet our intellectual appetites with a sampling of puzzles and paradoxes, some of which have vexed philosophers since before the Common Era.

The rest of the semester will be divided between the following four sets of topics:

1. The existence of God

28

2. The nature, grounds, and varieties of knowledge3. The nature of the mind, its relation to the brain, and personal identity4. What it means to be a good person, to live a good life, and to do the

right thing

Course Structure

Each week, we will have two lectures and one discussion section. Attendance and participation are mandatory (not to mention the only way to get good at doing philosophy). Students will be expected to have completed the reading by Monday of the week for which it is assigned, and to have retained at least enough to say something interesting about the arguments and core theses (of course, you will not be expected to have mastered it prior to any instruction. Some of this stuff is hard!).

Grades

There will be five elements to your grade in this class.

3 short written assignments (3-5 pages) – 20% each1 longer essay (6-8 pages) – 30%Participation – 10%

Assignments

For each of the four major units in the course, you will be expected to write a paper.

Three will be shorter in length, and count for less of the final grade. You will reconstruct one of the major arguments we discuss, and critique the argument by giving an objection (not just a repetition of an objection belonging to another of the authors we read, but one of your own), and, if you think the argument can meet this objection, a reply.

The forth paper will longer, and will require a more in-depth discussion of the topic. It need not begin with a reconstruction of one of the arguments that we discuss, but it must substantively engage with at least one of our authors. You will be expected to present your own view on a topic, and to consider and defuse objections.

It is up to each student which topic gets the longer treatment.

29


Absences will only be excused for medical, religious, or other legitimate reasons. Where possible, the student should notify either the instructor or the teaching assistant in advance of absences (e.g. for religious holidays). Students are expected to provide documentation for medical absences within 48 hours.



University Policies




Special Accommodations: Students who require special accommodations because of some disability should provide me with a letter to that effect from Service for Students with Disabilities. Information on this process can be found here: http://www.utexas.edu/diversity/ddce/ssd/

Reading

Primary / Required Reading:

John Perry, Michael Bratman, John Martin Fisher (eds.) Introduction to Philosophy: Classic and Contemporary Readings, 6th edition

30




NB: In addition to the selections listed for each week, you are expected to read the corresponding topic introductions.

Supplementary Reading:

There will, occasionally, be readings that the textbook does not provide. Those will be made available ahead of time online. They are marked with an asterisk on the schedule.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a wonderful resource for anyone interested in further reading on these subjects (and nearly any subject in philosophy). It is here: http://plato.stanford.edu

Stay away from wikipedia. Never, under any circumstances, use wikipedia as a source for a paper (of course, this is not to say that you should take information from wikipedia and then simply omit the citation; that would plagiarism).

Schedule

WEEK ONE - Intro

An introduction to the class, and to the discipline

WEEK TWO - Paradox

Zeno’s Paradox: Achilles and the Tortoise * Lewis Carroll, “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles” The Liar Paradox Russell’s Paradox * Moore’s Paradox

WEEK THREE - Paradox

The Paradox of Identity The Paradox of the Heap The Surprise Examination Goodman’s New Riddle of Induction

UNIT ONE - The existence of God

WEEK FOUR

St. Anselm, The Ontological Argument St. Thomas Aquinas, The Existence of God

31

WEEK FIVE

William Paley, Natural Theology Blaise Pascal, The Wager Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian

WEEK SIX

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion Gottfried Leibniz, God, Evil, and the Best of All Possible Worlds John Perry, Dialogue on Good, Evil, and the Existence of God

UNIT TWO - The nature, grounds, and varieties of knowledge

WEEK SEVEN

Plato, Theaetetus Edmund L. Gettier, Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?

WEEK EIGHT

Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy Christopher Grau, Bad Dreams, Evil Demons, and the Experience

Machine: Philosophy and The Matrix Robert Nozick, Excerpt from Philosophical Explanations

WEEK NINE

David Hume, Of Scepticism with Regard to the Senses David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding W. C. Salmon, The Problem of Induction * Saul Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language

UNIT THREE - The nature of the mind, its relation to the brain, and personal identity

WEEK TEN Bertrand Russell, The Argument from Analogy for Other Minds Gilbert Ryle, Descartes's Myth David M. Armstrong, The Nature of Mind

WEEK ELEVEN Daniel Dennett, Intentional Systems Paul M. Churchland, Eliminative Materialism Frank Jackson, What Mary Didn't Know

32

WEEK TWELVE John Perry, A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality Bernard Williams, The Self and the Future Derek Parfit, Personal Identity

UNIT FOUR - What it means to be a good person, to live a good life, and to do the right thing

WEEK THIRTEEN John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism E. F. Carritt, Criticisms of Utilitarianism Peter Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality

WEEK FOURTEEN Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals J. David Velleman, A Brief Introduction to Kantian Ethics Onora O'Neill, Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems

WEEK FIFTEEN Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Rosalind Hursthouse, Right Action

33

PHL XXXIntroduction to Early Modern Philosophy

MM/DD/YYYY



Course Description

Between (roughly) the middle 17th and late 18th centuries, there was an explosion of ideas in Europe. In this class, we will extract and examine a significant thread of these ideas, focusing on the work of four of the periods greatest minds: Rene Descartes, George Berkeley, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant.

We will be especially interested in how these still-influential thinkers understood the relationship between the mind and the world, in response to the challenges of skepticism.

These are some weird and exciting ideas, but they are also difficult, and they are presented in a manner that will be unfamiliar to first time readers. We will proceed slowly and carefully.

Our goals for the semester will be to:

1. Understand (and being able to reproduce) each author’s position, and the arguments that lead him to that position.

2. Critique, and ultimately weigh in on, each author’s project.3. Understand (and be able to articulate) how each of the works we

study relate to one another as a single narrative.

Course Structure

34

Each week, we will have two lectures and one discussion section. Attendance and participation are mandatory (not to mention the only way to get good at doing philosophy). Students will be expected to have completed the reading by Monday of the week for which it is assigned, and to have retained at least enough to say something interesting about the arguments and core theses (of course, you will not be expected to have mastered it prior to any instruction. This stuff is hard!).

Grades

There will be five elements to your grade in this class.

3 short written assignments (3-5 pages) – 20% each1 longer essay (6-8 pages) – 30%Participation – 10%

Assignments

For the most part, we will be focusing on the work of four major figures: Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant. For three of these authors (students’ choice), students will write a short paper reconstructing one of the major arguments we discuss, and critiquing the argument by giving an objection (and, if you think the argument can meet this objection, a reply).

The fourth paper will be longer, and will require a more in-depth discussion (it will also count for more of the final grade). It need not begin with a reconstruction of one of the arguments that we discuss, but it must substantively engage with significant points in the texts. It will also differ from the shorter papers in that students will be expected to incorporate ideas from more than one of our authors, and explain how those ideas relate to one another in the context of the broader narrative (e.g. how is one author’s argument really a response to a previous author’s work?). Then you will be expected to weigh in with your own thoughts, and give good reasons for endorsing your position.

It is up to each student which authors get the short treatment, and which combination of authors gets the longer treatment. Two points are worth stressing, however: (1) if a student decides to discuss topics in the longer paper that he/she has already discussed in a shorter paper, the longer paper should reflect substantive revisions and elaborations on the earlier thoughts (it should not be redundant); (2) students who choose to write at length about Kant will have less time in which to work (and it would not be out of line to say that Kant’s work is the hardest to really understand).


35




University Policies





Reading

Primary / Required Reading:

We will be focusing on four significant works in metaphysics and epistemology:

Rene Descartes Meditations on First PhilosophyGeorge Berkeley A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human

KnowledgeDavid Hume An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

36




Immanuel Kant Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics

Supplementary Reading:

It will, however, be useful to complement the regular readings with excerpts from other texts from these and other philosophers. These texts might include:

George Berkeley Three Dialogues Between Hylas and PhilonousDavid Hume A Treatise of Human NatureJohn Locke An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a wonderful resource for anyone interested in further reading on these subjects (and nearly any subject in philosophy). It is here: http://plato.stanford.edu

Stay away from wikipedia. Never, under any circumstances, use wikipedia as a source for a paper (of course, this is not to say that you should take information from wikipedia and then simply omit the citation; that would plagiarism).

Schedule

ThemesReaction to skepticismRelation between mind and world

Descartes – DualismMed 1: Skeptical methodMed 2: Cogito; nature of self; clarity and distinctness of

understanding/intellect (wax)Med 3: God and deception; types and origins of ideas; error

and judgement; formal and objective reality; cosmological argument(s); objections

Med 4: Fallibility; will and understanding; deceitMed 5: Ontological argumentMed 6: imagination and pure intellection; existence of

material objects; mind and body, divisibilityBerkeley – Idealism

37

Introduction: Rejection of Abstract ideas; acceptance of general ideas; how communication and learning work without abstract ideas; mistakes about language

Part One §§1-24: Objects of experience are collections of ideas; esse is percipi; vulgar contradiction results from abstraction about physical objects; common sense (§6); resemblance argument; absurdity of ‘material substance’; attack on primary/secondary distinction; ‘support’ as en empty name for the relation between matter and accidents; master argument

Part One §§25-57: Ideas, Spirit, Understanding, Will; Real things (common sense again 34-38); persistence of objects in other minds; idealist natural science; “think with the learned, and speak with the vulgar”; error theory

Part One §§64, 65, 72, 85-91, 140, 142, 145-148: The regularity of ideas; the role of God; Idealism and scepticism

Hume – Naturalistic Skepticism*§§2, 3: Hume’s epistemology; origins of ideas; blind man;

missing shade; “we need but enquire…”§4: Relations of ideas vs. matters of fact; cause and effect;

problem of induction§5: Custom vs. reasoning; customary correlation; principles of

association§7: Whence the impression of a necessary connection?§8: Compatibilism§12: Varieties of scepticism;

Kant – Transcendental IdealismPreface: Hume was on to something!Preamble: Analytic / Synthetic; a priori / a posterioriPart One: Copernican revolution; noumena and phenomena;

forms of sensibility.PHL XXX

Philosophy of LawMM/DD/YYYY

38



Course Description

It is one thing to be able to say what the law is, and another thing entirely to be able to say what The Law is. That is to say, if we want to know what the laws of the land say, we can read our constitution, or look up particular statutes, or just ask a lawyer. But if we want to know about the nature of the law – what sort of authority does it have, and where does that authority come from; what is the relation between the law and morality; what criteria must a command meet before it earns the status of a law – we have to do some philosophy.

In this course, students will read and critically assess some of the most influential historical and contemporary efforts to do just that. We will:

1. Learn about these authors’ theories – both their conclusions and the arguments they give in support of their conclusions.

2. Learn how to evaluate and challenge the arguments that are presented.

3. Understand the arguments in their dialectical context (how they fit into a particular debate).

4. Devise original arguments, both negative (that guy is wrong!) and positive (here’s what’s right!).

The topics are split more or less in two. Roughly the first half of the term (everything prior to the first exam) will cover the questions concerning the nature of the law just mentioned. There will be particular emphasis on the debate between Legal Positivism and Natural Law Theory. Roughly the second half of the term (everything between the first and second exams) will cover questions of the proper role of the judiciary in interpreting the law. As we will see, the topics of the second half will be largely informed by the topics of the first half.

Course Structure

Each week, we will have two lectures and one discussion section. Attendance and participation are mandatory (not to mention the only way to

39

get good at doing philosophy). Students will be expected to have completed the reading by Monday of the week for which it is assigned, and to have retained at least enough to say something interesting about the arguments and core theses (of course, you will not be expected to have mastered it prior to any instruction. Some of this stuff is hard!).

Grades

There will be six elements to your grade in this class.

2 mid-term exams – 20% each2 homework assignments (2-3 pages) – 10% each1 term paper (8-10 pages) – 30%Attendance and participation in discussions sections and lecture – 10%

Exams and Assignments

On each exam, you will be asked to write short essays in response to specific questions about the material we read and discuss. You should not expect to see multiple-choice or fill in the blank questions. The second exam will only cover material assigned after the first exam.

For each homework assignment, you will be asked to reconstruct one of the major arguments we discuss. You will be asked to critique the argument by giving an objection (either one that we discuss or one of your own), and, if you think the argument can meet this objection, a reply.

The term paper will require a more in-depth discussion of some topic. It need not begin with a reconstruction of one of the arguments that we discuss, but it must substantively engage with one of the questions/debates/arguments that we consider during the term. You will be expected to present your own view on a topic, and to consider and defuse objections.



40



University Policies





Reading

All of the required readings for this course will be made available online in PDF form. But it would also be wise for students to supplement the required readings with background reading on some of the core topics / debates. By far, the best source online for background on a topic in philosophy is:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: plato.Stanford.edu

It is written entirely by experts, it is thorough, it is free, and each entry comes with a typically extensive bibliography. Under absolutely no circumstances should a student turn to Wikipedia for research purposes. Shame on you for even thinking about it!

Case Study Week: as we read (esp. contemporary authors), we will see our authors appeal to real life court cases in order to illustrate their points. The last week of class will be set aside for students to do the same. Anyone who

41




would like to opportunity to present his or her ideas in front of the class (and receive feedback that will be quite valuable in the paper-writing process) will be given an opportunity to summarize a court case and briefly explain how the case lends support to his or her thesis. This will also contribute to the participation grade of anyone who presents or gives helpful feedback (though more the former than the latter). If no one opts to participate, we will discuss Sunstein’s very similar activities in One Case at a Time, pt. 2.

WEEK 1

Introduction to the course Fuller: The Problem of the Grudge Informer

WEEK 2 The Rule of Law

Fuller: Eight Ways to Fail to Make a Law Raz: The Rule of Law and Its Virtues

WEEK 3 Classical Natural Law and Positivism

Natural Law – Aquinas: Summa Theologica (selections) Positivism – Austin: The Province of Jurisprudence

Determined (selections)

WEEK 4 20th Century Natural Law and Positivism

Positivism – Hart: Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals


Positivism – Hart: Law as the Union of Primary and Secondary Rules


Natural Law – Dworkin: The Model of Rules ASSIGNMENT ONE DUE

WEEK 7

Exam Review EXAM ONE

WEEK 8 Judicial Interpretation – Living Constitution

42

Dworkin: Natural Law Revisited

WEEK 9 Judicial Interpretation - Originalism

Rehnquist: The Notion of a Living Constitution

WEEK 10 Judicial Interpretation – Activism

Dworkin: Constitutional Cases

WEEK 11 Judicial Interpretation – Textualism

Scalia: A Matter of Interpretation

WEEK 12 Judicial Interpretation – Textualism

Scalia: A Matter of Interpretation – Comments and Replies

WEEK 13 Judicial Interpretation – Minimalism

Sunstein: One Case at a Time, CH. 1

WEEK 14 Case Study Week

ASSIGNMENT TWO DUE

WEEK 15

Exam Review EXAM TWO

43

PHL XXXMoral TheoryMM/DD/YYYY



Course Description

We all seem to have the intuition that many of the sentences we utter belong to a special class called ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’. It is not at all easy to say exactly which sentences belong in this class, but we can come up with examples: “murdering innocent children for fun is wrong” clearly does belong, and “the American flag has 50 stars” clearly does not. It is plausible to think that these special types of sentences pick out something interesting about our actions and the states of affairs we find ourselves in which deserves careful study. This course will be an introduction to some of the more influential attempts to do this.

Here are some of the broad questions we will be asking over the course of the term:

What is the nature of the core concepts of ethics? When we call something ‘good’ or ‘right’, what is it that we are saying about that thing?

What is the relationship, if there is one, between ‘right’ and ‘good’? What makes right actions right? How can I act rightly? What should I do?

Course Structure

Each week, we will have two lectures and one discussion section. Attendance and participation are mandatory (not to mention the only way to get good at doing philosophy). Students will be expected to have completed the reading by Monday of the week for which it is assigned, and to have

44

retained at least enough to say something interesting about the arguments and core theses (of course, you will not be expected to have mastered it prior to any instruction. Some of this stuff is hard!).

Grades

There will be six elements to your grade in this class.

2 mid-term exams – 20% each2 homework assignments – 10% each1 final exam (which will be cumulative, but with heavy emphasis on the later readings) – 30%Attendance and participation in discussions sections and lecture – 10%

Exams and Assignments

On each exam, you will be asked to write paragraphs / short essays in response to specific questions about the material we read and discuss. You should not expect to see multiple-choice or fill in the blank questions.

For each homework assignment, you will be asked to reconstruct one of the major arguments we discuss. You will be asked to critique the argument by giving an objection (either one that we discuss or one of your own), and, if you think the argument can meet this objection, a reply.





45

University Policies





Reading

All journal articles are available via JSTOR or The Philosopher’s Index. Copies of all other readings will be made available on Blackboard.


WEEK 1 (no readings) Introduction to the course Some basics of logic and argument

WEEK 2 Plato – Euthyphro Aristotle – Nicomachean Ethics, Bks. 1&2

WEEK 3 Aristotle – Nicomachean Ethics, Bks. 1&2 (cntd)

WEEK 4 David Hume – Enquiry concerning the principles of morals, §§ 1-2, 9,

A1

46




WEEK 5 Immanuel Kant – Groundwork for the Metaphysics of

Morals (selections)

WEEK 6 Exam Review FIRST EXAM

WEEK 7 J. S. Mill – Utilitarianism

WEEK 8 FIRST ASSIGNMENT DUE G. E. Moore – Principia Ethica, Chs. 1-2

WEEK 9 W. D. Ross – The Right and The Good, Ch. 2

WEEK 10 Alan Gibbard – Thinking How to Live, Ch. 1 Handout – the “Frege-Geach” problem

WEEK 11 Exam Review SECOND EXAM

WEEK 12 J. L. Mackie – Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong Pt. 1, §1

WEEK 13 David Brink – Moral Realism and the Skeptical

Arguments From Disagreement and Queerness

WEEK 14 SECOND ASSIGNMENT DUE Mark Schroeder – Slaves of the Passions, Ch. 4

WEEK 15 Jonathan Dancy – Ethics Without Principles Ch. 1

FINAL EXAM SCHEDULE TBD

47

PHL XXXAction TheoryMM/DD/YYYY



Course Description

In addition to questions about which are the right actions and what makes them right, practical philosophers are interested in questions about actions as such. What are they, and how are they to be explained? How do they differ from the ordinary motions of our bodies that we don’t think of as actions? What reasons do we have to act? And what can we say about the difficult cases when our behavior does not seem to cohere with the best answers we can come up with to these questions? This course will be a careful examination of some of the classic work in action theory, as well as some recent attempts to avoid the problems that the classic accounts face.

Course Structure

Each week, we will have two lectures and one discussion section. Attendance and participation are mandatory (not to mention the only way to get good at doing philosophy). Students will be expected to have completed the reading by Monday of the week for which it is assigned, and to have retained at least enough to carry on a discussion of the material (of course, you will not be expected to have mastered it prior to any instruction. Some of this stuff is hard!).

Grades

There will be four elements to your grade in this course:

Two short papers, approximately 1000 words each, 50% (total) A third paper, 2000 words, 40%

48

Attendance and participation in lecture and discussion sections, 10%





Papers

Whether or not you are already familiar with best practices for writing papers in philosophy, a little review never hurts. There are many good sets of guidelines available online. Here is one: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html#Early

Your two short papers should be attempts to solve some problem, point out some new problem, criticize some position, or come up with your own positive argument, having to do with the topics discussed in class and in the readings for unit one (first paper) and unit two (second paper). They should be very focused – you do not have enough space to address more than one specific point.

Your longer paper can be on any topic covered over the course of the term (an expansion of an earlier paper is acceptable if the additions are substantive – see the description of “scholastic dishonesty,” linked in the University Policies section below). It should have more detail than the other two, but I would still caution you against attempting to take on more than one specific task. 2000 words will disappear very quickly.

University Policies

49

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html#Early





Reading

The following schedule of readings is tentative. The questions we will be discussing are inter-related, and many of the readings make important contributions to answering more than one question. For example, the question how best to provide an explanation of intentional action (e.g. in causal terms, or as an inference analogous to theoretical reasoning, or as some special type of knowledge, etc.) will be a theme throughout. To some extent, the pace and order of the reading will be determined by the content and detail of class discussion.

All journal articles are available via JSTOR or The Philosopher’s Index. Copies of all other readings will be made available on Blackboard.

Supplementary Reading: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a wonderful resource for anyone interested in further reading on these subjects (and nearly any subject in philosophy). Some relevant entries will be linked below for each unit.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason-action/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/action/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intention/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-motivation/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weakness-will/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/supplement1.html

Unit One: Agents and Actions

50

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/supplement1.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weakness-will/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-motivation/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intention/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/action/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason-action/




WEEK 1 Donald Davidson – “Agency”

WEEK 2 Jennifer Hornsby – “Agents and Actions”

WEEK 3 Alvarez, M. and Hyman, J – “Agents and Their Actions”

WEEK 4 John McDowell – Amherst Lecture, “Some Remarks on

Intention in Action”

Unit Two: Reasons and Explanation

WEEK 5 Donald Davidson – Actions, Reasons, and Causes

WEEK 6 Jonathan Dancy – Practical Reality, ch. 6

WEEK 7 Pamela Hieronymi – “Reasons for Action”

WEEK 8 G. E. M. Anscombe – Intention (selections)

Unit Three: Practical Knowledge

WEEK 9 Richard Moran – “Anscombe on Practical Knowledge”

WEEK 10 J. David Velleman – Practical Reflection (selections)

WEEK 11 Kieran Setiya – “Practical Knowledge”

WEEK 12 John McDowell – (manuscript) “How Receptive Knowledge Relates to

Practical Knowledge”

Unit Four: Practical Irrationality

WEEK 13

51

Plato – Protagoras (selections) Aristotle – N. Ethics (selections)

WEEK 14 Donald Davidson – “How is Weakness of the Will Possible?”

WEEK 15 David Brink – “Externalist Moral Realism” Michael Smith – “The Argument For Internalism”

52

teaching statement€¦ · web viewstephen davey. auburn university. contents. introduction to...

Documents