Syllabus/course webpage
Western Michigan University -- Fall 2018
Instructors and how to find us
Charlie Kurth
Click to email (best way to contact me)
Office Location: Moore 3010
Office Hours: Tuesdays, 3:00-4:00pm and by appointment (just email me to set up a time to meet)
C.J. Oswald (section 545, Wed 10:00-10:50am & section 550, Wed 9:00-9:50am)
Click to email
Office Location: Moore 3012
Office hours: Fridays, 1:00-3:00pm and by appointment
Ian Everitt (section 540, Wed 2:00-2:50pm & section 555 Wed 11:00-11:50am)
Click to email
Office Location: Moore 3020
Office Hours: Thursdays. 12:30-2:30pm & by appointment
Ethical questions are everywhere. Some of these questions are concrete: Is it always wrong to break a promise? What limitation on free speech are morally permissible? But other questions are more theoretical. For instance, you might have wondered where moral rules come from. Do they come from God or are the grounded in something else—say, human nature or our cultural practices?
This course will provide you with an introduction to the philosophical study of moral questions like these. The readings, lectures, and assignments will not only introduce you to important ethical issues, but will also help you develop the critical thinking skills you will need to understand and assess them.
To this extent, our investigation will focus on four central puzzles in moral philosophy:
- How much are we obligated to give to those in need?
- Is physician assisted suicide ever morally permissible?
- Should governments or institutions like Facebook and You Tube censor what people say?
- Is moral relativism true?
As we will see, there are no settled answers to the ethical questions that we will be exploring. So in order to sort out which proposals might be better, we will need to investigate the associated arguments. What answers have philosophers given to these questions and what reasons do they give to support their answers? Is their reasoning plausible? Asking critical questions like these is crucial: if we don’t understand the reasoning given to defend a particular answer to an ethical issue, we will be unable to understand whether that answer makes any sense.
Selected readings available from the course webpage
This course will have four graded components:
- Participation (20%). You are expected to come to the lectures and discussion sections having read—and thought about—the assigned readings. You are also encouraged to participate in the group and class discussions. To help you work though the readings and prepare for our class discussion, we have provided a set of reading questions of each paper.
- Short writing assignments (20%). You will be asked to complete four short writing assignments (two double-spaced pages each) throughout the semester. These assignments are designed to allow you critically engage with the readings and our class discussions. These short papers will be combined to determine your performance for this portion of the course (so it’s 5% for each paper). These papers will be due at noon on the Sunday after classes that discussed the targeted reading assignment.
- First long writing assignment (30%). The first long writing assignment will give you’re the opportunity to think more about Puzzles 1 and 2. The assignment will be due at noon on Sunday, October 21.
- Second long writing assignment (30%). The second long writing assignment will give you’re the opportunity to think more about Puzzles 3 and 4. It will be due at noon on Wednesday, December 12.
The details for the writing assignments (including instructions and grading rubrics) will be made available through the course webpage. You will have approximately a week to work on each Short Writing Assignment and two weeks to work on the Long Writing Assignments.
To the extent that it’s possible, we aim to grade the papers in the course anonymously. So please put only your WIN/Student ID number—not your name—on your papers (see the assignment prompts for further details).
Doing philosophy. Many of the reading assignments for this course are short. But don’t let that fool you—philosophy is hard. How do you deal with this? Well, here are some suggestions: (i) Read the material more than once. (ii) Use the reading question as a guide for what parts of the paper to focus on. After reading an essay, try and summarize the main claims and arguments in your own words—this will help you come up with questions and objections. (iii) Start the written assignments early (doing this will help you review your answers with a clear head). (iv) Most importantly, if you’re puzzled about something, ask questions in class or come visit us during office hours! For more resources on doing philosophy, see:
Academic resources. The Academic Resource Center provides valuable academic resources including College Success Seminars, Academic Coaching, and Supplemental Instruction. The Writing Center provides students with help on papers and writing assignments.
Accommodations for disabilities. I am happy to make accommodations to assist students with documented disabilities (e.g., physical, learning, psychiatric, vision, hearing, etc.). Those wishing to arrange accommodations must contact Disability Services for Students. A disability determination must be made by this office before we can provide any accommodations. More information can be found here.
Sexual Harassment, Assault, Contact, Exploitation. Federal law and WMU policy prohibit sexual harassment, sexual assault, non-consensual sexual contact, sexual exploitation, harm to others, stalking, intimate partner violence and retaliation. By law, when campus officials are aware that such behavior occurs, they must investigate and take action to protect students’ safety. According to WMU’s new sexual assault policy, most WMU employees are not confidential resources, which means that information you reveal may be shared with campus investigators, whether you want this to happen or not. Many victims/survivors prefer to seek confidential support and services. The YWCA offers 24/7, free support, which will inform and empower you to decide what options to pursue—emotional support, evidence collection (rape kit), pregnancy and STI tests, emergency contraception, counseling, filing a police report, seeking a protection order, initiating criminal prosecution, and/or reporting to WMU. The YWCA crisis line, available 24 hours, is (269) 385-3587. If you’ve experienced sexual or gender-based violence, and wish to have WMU investigate and take action, you may contact the Office of Institutional Equity directly at (269) 387-6316, or ask someone (preferably someone you trust) to report on your behalf.
Mental Health. WMU’s Mental Health Services’ professional staff members work with students to resolve personal and interpersonal difficulties, many of which can affect the academic experience. These include conflicts with or worry about friends or family, concerns about eating or drinking patterns, and feelings of anxiety and depression.
In order to help ensure a successful class, please heed the following rules and policies:
- Due Dates & Late Papers. Baring unusual circumstances, the due dates on the syllabus are non-negotiable. If you need to miss an assignment (for religious observances, illness, etc.), it is best to inform me in advance. Late papers will be subject to a grade penalty.
- Religious Observances. The University is a diverse, multicultural enterprise and—as a community—we jointly embrace both individual responsibility and dignified respect for our differences. It is our general policy to permit students to fulfill obligations set aside by their faith. It is our intent that students who must be absent from scheduled classes to fulfill religious obligations or observe practices associated with their faith not be disadvantaged. However, it is the student’s responsibility to make arrangements with his or her instructors in advance. It is in the student’s best interests to approach each instructor expeditiously and with sufficient notice that the rights and responsibilities of the instructor are not disrupted.
- Civility Policy. Each member of our academic community is encouraged to be thoughtful and sensitive in their choice of words and behaviors. We should be aware of how our behavior affects others. Furthermore, we carry a responsibility to challenge those who communicate intolerance, hatred, and bigotry. Words and actions matter. Everyone is asked to do their part in creating a healthy and positive university community and a culture that truly values each member’s uniqueness, experiences, and perspectives.
- Classroom Environment. In order to maintain a classroom environment that promotes learning and discussion, we ask that you arrive to class on time. Additionally, research indicates that the use of computers, tablets, cell phones, and the like undermine attention, note taking, and learning. So please leave these devices at home or out of reach; please also bring hard copies of readings to class.
- Cheating & Academic Honesty. As a student at WMU, you are responsible for making yourself aware of the University policies that pertain to Academic Honesty. These policies include cheating, fabrication, falsification and forgery, multiple submission, plagiarism, complicity, and computer misuse. In this class, you will be expected to abide by these obligations. This means that all work presented as original must, in fact, be original; the ideas and contributions of others (be they quotes, summaries, or paraphrases) must be appropriately acknowledged. More information about the WMU Academic Honesty rules, as well as the rights of accused students, can be found here.
Tentative Schedule of Readings and Assignments
Unless otherwise noted, the readings should be done before our Tuesday class meeting
Week 0 (Aug 30)
- Read course syllabus/webpage
Puzzle 1: Are you morally required to give all your money to charity?
Most people would agree that if you can help someone in need at little cost to yourself, you should do it. But why? What grounds our obligation to help others? Relatedly, when is it morally permissible to say, “I’ve done enough”? That is, how much of a sacrifice are we required to make to help with things like famine relief? In this section of the course, we will look at the ethics of altruism in an effort to better understand what morality demands that we do for others.
Week 1 (Sept 4 & 6). Answer 1: Morality requires extreme altruism
- Jim Pryor, “How to Read a Philosophy Paper”
- Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
- Q: What do you see as the main claim that Singer is defending in his paper (hint: look at the bottom of p. 230)? On p. 231, Singer introduces the two central premises of his core argument. What are they? Do you find them plausible? What conclusion does Singer take to follow from the combination of (i) his two central premises and (ii) the existence of massive famine in places like Bengal (look at p. 234, 235, 241)? On p. 233, Singer gives an example of a drowning baby. How does the example work and what point does he use it to make? Do you agree?
Week 2 (Sept 11 & 13): Answer 2: Morality permits extreme altruism
- Andrew Cohen, “Famine Relief and Human Virtue” (focus on pp. 431-440)
- Q: What do you see as the main claim that Cohen is defending in his paper? How is his view different than Singer’s? According to Cohen, how does the drowning baby case differ from the famine case? Why does he think these differences matter? Cohen takes charity to be a virtue. What does this mean? What, for instance, are the characteristic features of a charitable person? How does someone develop them? What does Cohen mean in saying we have a right to do the wrong thing (pp. 435-6)?
- Short writing assignment 1 -- Due Sept 16
Week 3 (Sept 18 & 20): Answer 3: Morality forbids extreme altruism
- Jean Hampton, “Selflessness and Loss of Self” (Section II can be skipped, as can pp. 14-16 of Section V)
- Q: Why does Hampton think that selflessness is a problem and how does she illustrate this with her example of Terry? What are the two conceptions of morality that Hampton draws out through the discussion of Jake and Amy? What do these two view say about altruism (see p. 5)? When does Hampton think that altruistic actions are morally wrong and why does she think this conclusion is plausible? Hampton identifies three ways in which morality involves “self-regard” (pp. 8-9)—what are they? What is “self-authorship” (p. 9) and why does Hampton think it is important (look at the clown/MBA example on pp. 11-12)?
Puzzle 2: Is physician assisted suicide permissible?
In many countries in Europe, as well as in some parts of the United States, individuals with severe illnesses or chronic pain are permitted to end their lives with the assistance of their doctor. This is Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). But even if PAS legal in some places, the question of whether it is morally permissible remains highly controversial. In this section of the course, we will explore issues concerning the ethics of PAS. Is it something that doctors are morally permitted to do? If so, under what conditions? How do medical conditions like dementia complicate these issues?
Week 4 (Sept 25 & 27) Case for PAS
- John Lachs, “Physician Assisted Suicide is Permissible”
- Q: What do you see as the basic structure of Lachs's argument? In what ways does Lachs think human life is valuable? Does he think human life is morally special (in comparison to, say, apes or dogs)? Why does Lachs think doctors have a special obligation to help individuals die? Under what conditions does Lachs think PAS is permissible? Do you agree?
- Short Writing Assignment 2 -- Due Sept 30
Week 5 (Oct 2 & 4) Case against PAS
- Patrick Lee, “Physician Assisted Suicide is not Permissible” (for Oct 2)
- Charles Lane, “Europe’s Sinister Expansion of Euthanasia” (for Oct 4)
- Q: What do you see as the core of Lee's objection to PAS? What does Lee mean by "dignity" and how does it relate to his claim that (human) life is morally special? What concerns does Lane raise about PAS? Do think his concerns justify an across the board prohibition on PAS or do they just narrow the range of cases in which PAS is permissible?
Week 6 (Oct 9 & 11) Complications
- Rebeca Dresser, “On Legalizing Physician Assisted Death for Dementia”
- Q: How does dementia complicate our thinking about when, if ever, PAS is permissible? Are there other (mental, physical) conditions that might get us to rethink our views about PAS? Explain.
Week 7 (Oct 16 & 18)
- Tuesday, Oct 16: In class workshop of Long Writing Assignment 1
- Wednesday, Oct 17: No lab sessions – Fall Break
- Thursday, Oct 18: No class – Fall Break
Sunday, Oct 21 – Long Writing Assignment 1 is due at noon (note: this is the Sunday of Fall Break)
Puzzle 3: Is Facebook morally obligated to censor offensive content?
Facebook and other social media companies have recently started aggressively censoring inflammatory content that is aimed at particular religious and ethnic groups. There have been additional calls for companies like Facebook to remove false and misleading content posted by users. But is censoring like this permissible or does it violate our moral right to publically express our ideas? In this part of the course we will use the Facebook controversy as a window on to a set of moral issues concerning freedom of expression and its limits.
Week 8 (Oct 23 & 25) Facebook’s censorship dilemma
Week 9 (Oct 30 & Nov 1) Case against censoring
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (excerpts)
- Q: Does Mill think we are ever morally justified in preventing someone from doing something that we believe is wrong or likely to hurt them? What reasons does give to explain this (hint: look at the discussion of the “permanent interests of man as a progressive being” on p. 311)? In what ways does Mill think our liberty can be inappropriately constrained by government, religion, and social opinion? What does Mill think is the “peculiar evil” of silencing expression – specifically, what does Mill mean when he says that the wrong of censorship is that “it is robbing the human race” (p. 356)? What does Mill see as the cost of censoring the expression of true opinions? What’s the cost of silencing the expression of false opinions? Do you agree?
Week 10 (Nov 6 & 8) Complications: Harmful vs. offensive expression
Puzzle 4. Is moral relativism true?
Is morality culturally relative? To investigate this question, consider that we take it to be true that it's wrong to torture an innocent child just for laughs. We can now ask what grounds this moral rule against torture—that is, we can ask: what makes it the case that torturing innocent people is wrong? A moral relativist (or subjectivist) will say that facts about what’s right and wrong are grounded in facts about the moral rules that are endorsed by particular cultures. Those who reject relativism maintain that moral facts are grounded in something culture independent—say, the commands of God or basic facts of human nature. The readings in this section of the course will introduce us to some of the different—and conflicting—ways philosophers have tried to address this issue.
Week 11 (Nov 13 & 15) Option 1: A Theistic Grounding
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (excerpts)
- Q: What, in a sentence or two, is Lewis’s core point in these chapters? What is the Law of Human Nature and what evidence does Lewis give for its existence? Why does he think the Law’s existence is important? Do you agree?
Week 12 (Nov 20) – No Class, Thanksgiving Break
Week 13 (Nov 27 & 29) Option 2: A Naturalistic Grounding
- David Brink, “The Autonomy of Ethics”
- Q: What features of morality do Brink and C.S. Lewis agree on? What is Brink’s argument against theistic accounts of moral objectivity (e.g., the Euthyphro Problem)? What is his naturalistic alternative and why does he think it’s plausible?
- Short Writing Assignment 4 -- Due Dec 2
Week 14 (Dec 4 & 6) Option 3: Skepticism
- John Mackie, “The Subjectivity of Values” (focus on Sections 1-3, 5, 7-10)
- Q: Mackie maintains that “There are no objective values” (15). What does he mean by this and how does it contrast with the views of Lewis and Brink? How are moral standards different than the standards for “awarding prizes as sheepdog trials” (26) and what does this suggest Mackie means in saying that morality purports to be “objectively prescriptive”? What is the “argument from queerness” (38-42)? What does Mackie think the purpose of morality is (42ff)?
Wed, Dec 12: Long Writing Assignment 2 is due at Noon.