Ethics (PHIL 103)
Description | Schedule | Cartoon | Alarm Clock
Study Helps & Philosophy Links
Fall 2014
MWF 9:10-10:10
Miller Center 105
Email: fritzman@lclark.edu
Class email: 14sp-phil-103-01@lclark.edu
Phone: 503-768-7477
Office: Howard 223
Hours: MW 11:30-1:30, MW 3:00-4:30, and by appointment
COURSE DESCRIPTION
Oscar Wilde: "Modern morality consists in accepting the standards of one's age. I consider that for any man of culture to accept the standards of his age is a form of the grossest immorality."
This is an introductory course in normative ethical theory. There is one required text in this course:
Ethical Theory: An Anthology, Second Edition,
edited by Russ Shafer-Landau.
Wiley-Blackwell, 2013
Paperback
ISBN-10: 0470671602
ISBN-13: 978-0470671603
Retail: $69.95
New: Starting at $36.66
Used: Starting at $34.87
Ethical Theory is available through the College Bookstore, Amazon.com, or Barnes & Noble.
In this course, you will learn about normative ethical theory.
There are also learning outcomes for students who graduate with a major in Philosophy.
In preparation for each class meeting, you should have read the assigned material. You should arrive in class with prepared questions or comments about something in the assigned reading.
In addition to learning about normative ethical theory, a major goal of this course is to cultivate intellectual abilities which have general application. This course aims to provide the resources which will enable you to develop intellectual survival skills, question what passes as common knowledge and accepted wisdom, evaluate your own and others' positions, and formulate new ideas. Such skills consist in the ability to summarize the assigned material, and to write pieces in which ideas and arguments are articulated, criticized, defended. Such skills also involve developing the ability to think critically about the views of ourselves and others. Critical thinking consists in understanding several sides of a debate, and seeing both the advantages and limitations of an opinion. Learning to question your opinions is as crucial as arguing for them. If you only learn to give reasons for opinions already held, you merely are giving rationalizations for prejudices. You need to learn to think for yourself, developing, defending, and criticizing your beliefs.
In this connection, I am especially concerned that you develop the ability to discuss issues cogently and to write intelligent, reflective pieces in clear, grammatical English. It is important that you learn to think, in a disciplined way, about the books and issues they raise. Part of that discipline consists in being able to analyze, evaluate, and formulate arguments. This involves knowing how to identify basic assumptions, develop a line of reasoning, recognize the steps that lead to a conclusion, and determine whether an argument is sound. In this way, hopefully, you will develop intellectual curiosity and the competencies to reason logically, evaluate critically, communicate effectively, imagine creatively, and appreciate aesthetic and creative expressions of humanity.
You are encouraged to share your questions and observations with the rest of the class, and to engage critically with the material, myself, and each other. By participating in class discussions, you will encounter directly differing interpretations of the material, become aware of the history of these views, and be encouraged to develop your own critical perspectives. In interacting with the material and each other, you will acquire a knowledge and appreciation of self, society, human cultures, and the natural world. I intend that you discover what has been written and said concerning, in the words of Socrates, "the most important things" -- questions about human character and the conduct of life. Such skills will enable you to succeed in subsequent courses and in endeavors outside of the classroom. Those abilities also will contribute to your development as educated citizens in a democratic society.
Each student will write a précis for almost every reading assignment, complete various research exercises that teach research skills, and write and present in class one assessment on a specific reading assignment. There also will be one argumentative research paper (which includes a prospectus, an outline, a draft, and a mandatory rewrite). And a class presentation of the argumentative research paper on the Final Exam Day.
The précis, research exercises, and class participation will be weighted together and will count for 20% of your final grade. The assessment will count for 20% of your final grade. The prospectus will count for 5%, the outline will count for 10%, the draft will count for 15%, and the argumentative research paper will count for 25% of your final grade. The presentation will count for 5% of your final grade. The grading scale is as follows:
A = 93%-100%
A- = 90%-92%
B+ = 86%-89%
B = 83% 85%
B- = 80%-82%
C+ = 76%-79%
C = 73%-75%
C- = 70%-72%
D+ = 66%-69%
D = 60%-65%
F = 0%-59%.
A précis will be due almost every class session. Each précis will be one typed page -- never longer -- double-spaced, with 1 inch margins on the right & left sides and the top & bottom. It must be at least 3/4 of a page in length. Use a 12-point Times or Times Roman font. There will be no spelling or grammatical errors in your précis. Your name will be typed in the upper right-hand corner. In each précis, you will summarize -- in your own words, without using any quotes -- the assigned reading's mainclaims, as well as the reasons which are given to support those claims. You will not include any opinion, evaluation, or commentary. At the bottom of each précis, or on the back, you will write one question that you have about the reading. This question must written prior to, not during, class. I never will accept a late précis, but I will allow you to drop one.
An assessment should be approximately 1500 words, typed, double-spaced. Except for the length, the assessment should follow the same format requirement as the précis. You will sign up for a dates on which you will present your assessments. On the day you present, you will distribute copies to all of the persons in this class. This will require, of course, that you have enough copies made so that each member of the class has one. You first will read your assessment, and then you and I will serve as the main resource persons for fielding questions concerning the material. Since the class discussion will be centered around the assessment, it is crucial that you distribute the assessment the class session when you present it, and that you actually be in class to read your assessment.
The primary purpose of the assessment is to summarize, consolidate, and explicate the central issues, main points, and key motifs of the assigned reading in order to facilitate class discussion of the material. It is important that the assessment contextualize the reading by describing briefly both how the reading is a continuation and development of material which has come before, and how it contributes to the overall trajectory of the thinker's thought.
It is crucial that you critically engage the reading. You might argue that a claim that the author makes is incorrect, for example, or that a criticism in the secondary literature is incorrect. Alternatively, you might argue that an interpretation advanced in the secondary literature is incorrect. The assessment should reflect an acquaintance with the requisite secondary literature. This means that you must incorporate at least three secondary sources you consulted while writing your assessment.
A student presenting an assessment will not submit a précis of that material too.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will be useful.
The Philosopher's Index will be vital for the Assessment and Argumentative Research Paper.
The Chicago Manual of Style's Citation Quick Guide is online.
There will be an argumentative research paper, 2000 words, typed, double-spaced. It will be on the same topic as your assessment.
You're welcome to consult the Writing Center, located on the main floor of Watzek Library.
Also useful is the Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University.
If you would find it useful to create concept maps, to help write your assessment or argumentative research papers, you can download the software to create them from IHMC Cmap Tools.
All work must be submitted when it is due. Late work -- précis, assessments, papers -- will not be accepted and will receive no credit.
This class will be successful only if there is a high degree of participation and attendance, and so I want you in class participating. The final grade for the course will be lowered by a full-letter grade if you miss four class sessions, the final grade will be lowered by two full-letter grades if you miss five class sessions, and you will be withdrawn from the course if you miss six or more class sessions. I will not accept make-up work unless you can document the reason for your absence. Documenting the reason for your absence means providing a note from, for example, your doctor explaining why you were absent. Serious illnesses and emergencies will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Throughout the course you are expected to read carefully the assigned material. It is impossible to do well in this course without reading and studying the books. You should spend a minimum of three hours preparing for each class session. Read the assigned material at least twice and take notes on what you read. You are expected to attend all class sessions, come to class having read thoroughly the assigned material, and to contribute to the discussions.
Gorgias of Leontini maintained that "those who neglect philosophy and spend their time on ordinary studies are like the suitors who desired Penelope but slept with her maids." In philosophy, unlike ordinary studies, there are few right and wrong answers. There are better and worse arguments and ideas, however, usually in direct proportion to thoughtfulness and care. What is important is that you think for yourself, and that you develop and defend your own ideas. It would be an excellent idea to write drafts or outlines of your précis and papers, and to have a comrade read them to check on spelling, grammar, development of arguments, and so forth.
You are strongly encouraged to discuss the class material, your ideas, your puzzles and difficulties with each other. A word to the wise: Find a study partner to discuss things with outside of class. (To see why this is effective for creativity and learning, read Malcolm Gladwell's article, Group Think: What Does "Saturday Night Live" Have in Common with German Philosophy?, The New Yorker, 2 December 2002, pages 102-107).
There's a Bollwood tune for every occasion. Click here.
When it comes to finally writing your précis and essays, though, do your own writing. That is the only way you will get the full benefit of your own efforts. I will be happy to discuss ideas with you, read outlines and rough drafts, and so forth. That is partly why I keep office hours.
A final word to the wise. It is not difficult to do well in this class, but it also is easy to do badly. Let me talk about the bad stuff first. You will receive a major grade reduction -- or fail this course -- if you do not read the material, seldom participate in class discussions, do not write your précis, assessment, or argumentative research paper, plagiarize, cheat, and so forth.
About plagiarizing and cheating. All students are expected to follow Lewis & Clark College's Academic Integrity Policy. Plagiarizers and cheaters will be given an "F" for the entire course (they will not be allowed to drop or withdraw from the course). I also will turn their cases over to the Honor Board; I will recommend that disciplinary penalties be assessed. It is never in your interest to plagiarize or cheat!
Now for the good stuff. With a concerted effort, you will do well in this class. To do well, you must participate in class discussions, read and study the assigned material, write the précis, assessment, argumentative research paper, be in class (almost) all of the time, etc. I do not grade on a curve, and so there is no good reason why you should not get an "A" for the course!
Course policy on disability accommodation. If you have a disability or learning difference that may impact your academic performance, you may request accommodations by submitting documentation to Student Support Services, located in Albany 206 (access@lclark.edu, 503-768-7156). They will notify me of the accommodations for which you are eligible.
COURSE SCHEDULE
Oscar Wilde: "The supreme vice is shallowness. Everything that is realised is right."
Week 1
Wednesday, 9/3:
Introduction to the course.
Read:
Malcolm Gladwell's article, Group Think.
Jim Pryor's essay, Guidelines on Reading Philosophy.
The Status of Morality
Pages 3-6
Friday, 9/5:
David Hume, "On the Influencing Motives of the Will" and "Moral Distinctions Not Derived from Reason," pages 7-15; précis.
Also read Rachel Cohon's Hume's Moral Philosophy in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Week 2
Discussion of (annotated) bibliography, footnotes, reasons for citations, proper quoting (block or in-line).
M, 9/8:
A. J. Ayer, "A Critique of Ethics," pages 16-21; précis.
Also read Graham Macdonald's Alfred Jules Ayer in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Sign-up for Assessments.
Wednesday, 9/10:
J. L. Mackie, "The Subjectivity of Values," pages 22-30; précis.
Also read Richard Joyce's Mackie's Arguments for the Moral Error Theory in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Friday, 9/12:
Gilbert Harman, Ethics and Observation," pages 31-34; précis.
Also read James Lenman's Moral Naturalism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Research Exercise for Monday: Find one book and one article that will be relevant to your Assessment. Provide one block quote from the book and one in-line quote from the article. List the book and the article in proper formats for footnote and bibliography.
Week 3
Discussion of search procedures for articles and books.
Monday, 9/15:
Gilbert Harman, "Moral Relativism Defended," pages 35-43; précis.
Also read Chris Gowans' Moral Relativism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Wednesday, 9/17:
Harry Gensler, "Cultural Relativism," pages 44-47; précis.
Also read Emrys Westacott's Moral Relativism in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Friday, 9/19:
G. E. Moore, "The Subject Matter of Ethics," pages 48-53; précis.
Also read Thomas Hurka's Moore's Moral Philosophy in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Research Exercise for Monday: in proper bibliographical format, list three articles and two books that are relevant to your Assessment.
Saturday, 9/20:
Dinner, 7:00 PM
Week 4
Discussion on using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and the Philosopher's Index.
Monday, 9/22:
Russ Shafer-Landau, "Ethics as Philosophy: A Defense of Ethical Nonnaturalism," pages 54-62; précis.
Also read Michael Ridge's Moral Non-Naturalism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Wednesday, 9/24:
Michael Smith, "Realism," pages 63-67; précis.
Also read Geoff Sayre-McCord's Moral Realism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Virtue Ethics
Pages 611-614
Friday, 9/26:
Aristotle, "The Nature of Virtue," pages 615-629; précis.
Also read Richard Kraut's Aristotle's Ethics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Research Exercise for Monday: In proper bibliographical format, list three new articles that you found through the Arts & Humanities Citation Index or the Philosopher's Index that are relevant to your Assessment.
Week 5
Discussion of annotated bibliography and reliability of sources.
Monday, 9/29:
Martha Nussbaum, "Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach," pages 631-644; précis.
Also read Ingrid Robeyns' The Capability Approach in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Tanner Hebert.
Wednesday, 10/1:
Rosalind Hursthouse, "Normative Virtue Ethics," pages 645-652; précis.
Also read Rosalind Hursthouse's Virtue Ethics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Laura Wayne.
Friday, 10/3
Michael Slote, "Agent-Based Virtue Ethics," pages 653-663; précis.
Also read Nafsika Athanassoulis' Virtue Ethics in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Annelise Coxeff.
Exercise for Monday: Submit a 3-5 page prospectus of your argumentative research paper in which you:
(1) indicate your topic and thesis.
(2) describe the problem or issue to be treated.
(3) outline your anticipated procedure and probable conclusion.
(4) include an annotated bibliography of works to be consulted (a minimum of six books or articles, with at least a paragraph discussing the relevance of each work to your project.
Week 6
Discussion of note taking and perusing for content.
Monday, 10/6:
Due: Prospectus of Argumentative Research Paper.
Wednesday, 10/8:
Christine Swanton, "A Virtue Ethical Account of Right Action," pages 664-675; précis.
Assessment: Schuyler Schwartz.
Friday, 10/10:
Fall Break
Week 7
Discussion of formulating a thesis: outlines, drafts, revisions.
Monday, 10/13:
Julia Annas, "Being Virtuous and Doing the Right Thing," pages 676-685; précis.
Assessment: Sydney Seabrook.
Deontology
Pages 479-484
Wednesday, 10/15:
Immanuel Kant, "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," pages 485-498; précis.
Also read Robert Johnson's Kant's Moral Philosophy in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Iván Ramos-King.
Friday, 10/17:
Socrates: A Conference in Honor of Nicholas D. Smith
Week 8
Discussion of articulating a thesis: arguments, objections, replies.
Monday, 10/20:
Christine Korsgaard, "Kant's Principle of Universal Law," pages 499-509; précis.
Assessment: Zoë Pittman.
Wednesday, 10/22:
Onora O'Neill, "Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems," pages 510-520; précis.
Assessment: Caia Jaisle.
Friday, 10/24:
Robert Nozick, "The Rationality of Side Constraints," pages 521-523; précis.
Also read Eric Mack's Robert Nozick's Political Philosophy in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Isabella Batten.
Week 9
Monday, 10/27:
Alan Gewirth, "The Golden Rule Rationalized," pages 524-535; précis.
Also read Bill Puka's The Golden Rule in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Natalie Diamond.
Wednesday, 10/29:
Philippa Foot, "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect," pages 536-542; précis.
Also read Alison McIntyre's Doctrine of Double Effect in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Kyle Brown.
Friday, 10/31:
Judith Jarvis Thomson, "Killing, Letting Die, and The Trolley Problem," pages 543-551; précis.
Also read Frances Howard-Snyder's Doing vs. Allowing Harm in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Also:
Can Bad Men Make Good Brains Do Bad Things?
Assessment: Sari Berger.
Week 10
Monday, 11/3:
Due: Outline of Argumentative Research Paper
Consequentialism
Pages 411-416
Wednesday, 11/5:
John Stuart Mill, "Utilitarianism," pages 417-422; précis.
Also read Fred Wilson's John Stuart Mill in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Max Clary.
Friday, 11/7:
J. J. C. Smart, "Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism," pages 423-427; précis.
Also read Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's Consequentialism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Walter Cardillo.
Week 11
Monday, 11/10:
Brad Hooker, "Rule Consequentialism," pages 428-440; précis.
Also read Brad Hooker's Rule Consequentialism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Creagan Lydon.
Wednesday, 11/12:
Peter Railton, "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," pages 441-457; précis.
Assessment: Emma Holiva.
Friday, 11/14:
John Harris, "The Survival Lottery," pages 474-478; précis.
Assessment: Madison Hollenbeck.
Week 12
Monday, 11/17:
Peter Singer, "Famine, Affluence and Morality," pages 466-473; précis.
Also read
Tom Beauchamp's The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics (especially his discussion of The Problem of Over-Demanding Beneficence)
and
Diane Jeske's Special Obligations in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Griffin Carey.
Wednesday, 11/19:
Peter Singer, "All Animals are Equal," pages 361-371; précis.
Also read
Lori Gruen's The Moral Status of Animals in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
and
Scott D. Wilson's Animals and Ethics in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Justin Schaefer.
Friday, 11/21:
R. M. Hare, "What is Wrong with Slavery," pages 458-565; précis.
Also read Anthony Price's Richard Mervyn Hare in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Sarah Lowenstein.
Week 13
Monday, 11/24:
Due: Draft of Argumentative Research Paper
Submit a copy to Fritzman and to a Peer Evaluator
Feminist Ethics
Pages 687-691
Wednesday, 11/26:
Carol Gilligan, "In a Different Voice," pages 692-698; précis.
Also read Rosemarie Tong and Nancy Williams' Feminist Ethics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Karley Pate.
Friday, 11/28:
Week 14
Monday, 12/1:
Nell Noddings, "An Ethics of Care," pages 698-712; précis.
Also read Maureen Sander-Staudt's Care Ethics in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Wednesday, 12/3:
Cheshire Calhoun, "Justice, Care, and Gender Bias," pages 713-720; précis.
Also read Anita Superson's Feminist Moral Psychology in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Lindsey Milgrom.
Friday, 12/5:
Annette Baier, "The Need for More than Justice," pages 721-728; précis.
Also read Michael Slote's Justice as a Virtue in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Nikki Hayton.
Week 15
Monday, 12/8:
Marilyn Frye, "Sexism," pages 729-734; précis.
Also read Sally Haslanger, Nancy Tuana, and Peg O'Connor's Topics in Feminism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Assessment: Anita Williams.
Wednesday, 12/10:
Margaret Urban Walker, "Feminist Skepticism, Authority, and Transparency," pages 733-750; précis.
Also read Richmond Campbell's Moral Epistemology in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Week 16
Wednesday, 12/17:
Due: Rewrite of Argumentative Research Paper, 8:30 AM
Submit four items:
(1) the final rewrite.
(2) the draft on which I wrote comments.
(3) the draft on which your peer evaluator wrote comments.
(4) the peer evaluation form.
Presentation of papers.
Home
J. M. Fritzman
0615 SW Palatine Hill Road
Portland, OR 97219-7899
USA
503-768-7477