Fall 2007 Syllabus
PHI 232 Ethics
Syllabus
Lakeland College Wisconsin
Fall 2007
Tuesday and Thursday, 11:00-12:25pm
Lecturer: Dr. Geoffrey Roche (PhD. Auckland)
Office Hours: Tuesday and Thursday. 4.00- 5.00 pm.
Webpage: http://unblinking-gaze.blogspot.com/
1. Course Description
This course will provide an introduction to some key ethical concepts and approaches, and will discuss questions such as the following: How should we decide what is best to do, and how to best lead our lives? Are our value judgments on such questions objective, or do they merely reflect our subjective viewpoints and preferences? Are ethical decisions merely an expression of our culture? In the first part of the course we will examine a variety of central ethical concepts, such as justice, rights, equality, and happiness, which are widely used in moral, legal and political argument. In the second part of the course we will investigate three practical ethical questions: can war be waged justly? Should Japan retain the death penalty? And should genetic information be used to decide on who will be born?
2. Course Objectives and Goals
i. Subject specific outcomes
• The student will demonstrate the ability to utilize and evaluate key concepts in
ethical theory.
• The student will develop an understanding of some traditional models of ethical
decision-making.
• The student will acquire a commonly shared language and set of conceptual skills, including logical and critical thinking abilities for analyzing moral issues.
• The student will be able to reflect on and articulate their own set of values and be able to articulate them to others.
Understanding and skill in philosophical analysis of major ethical theories and problems will be demonstrated in two coursework essays and two examinations.
3. Transferable skills
•The student will demonstrate the ability to debate (ethical topics) in a clear and structured manner.
•The student will demonstrate the ability to assess the ethical arguments, viewpoints
and doctrines of others.
4. Course Methodology and Format
The course will be comprised of twenty- six one- and – a half hour classes, roughly grouped into two – class units. The first class of the week will be a lecture, whereas the second class of the week will be either a tutorial or (in the case of coursework presentations) a guided discussion or debate. The first half of the course will be theoretical, with an eye to the real- world implications of the ideas under discussion. The second half of the course will address real world problems that are regularly addressed in politics, policy analysis and in daily life. The two halves of the course will be integrated, in the sense that students are expected to see the connections between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ theory.
5. 1 Required Reading
James Rachels, Stuart Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 5th Edition. New York: Random House, 2007.
James Rachels, Stuart Rachels The Right Thing to Do: Readings in Moral Philosophy. 4th Edition. New York: Random House, 2007.
5.2 Recommended Reading
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online
http://www.plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
Victor Grassian Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and some Contemporary Moral
Problems New York: Prentice Hall, 1992
6.1 Assessment Process.
(i). Submit essays to the Lakeland College office, on the second floor. Essays must be on time (before 5pm). Submission after this time will be considered a day late. Email submissions will only be accepted in extraordinary circumstances (such as illness). DO NOT hand in the only copy: always keep another copy.
(ii). Your work will be marked and ready to return to you within two weeks of the due date. You should collect your marked work in class or from the lecturer in person. It will be given enough commentary that you can understand how to improve your grade.
(iii). If you have any questions or concerns about the marking of your work, please discuss these with the lecturer in the first instance.
6.2 Assessment: Grade System
A (>92.5%): 4.0
AB (87.5%-92.5%): 3.5
B (82.5%-87.5%): 3.0
BC (77.5%-82.5%): 2.5
C (72.5%-77.5%): 2.0
CD (67.5%-72.5%): 1.5
D (60%-67.5%): 1.0
F (<60%): 0.0
6.3 Interpretation of Grades.
The marks can be interpreted as follows:
A range: essay showing analytical and argumentative power, with good command of the relevant facts and/ or arguments, and with evidence of the ability to organize them with clarity and insight.
AB range: essay showing analytical and argumentative power, with good command of the relevant facts and/ or arguments, but with less analytical or argumentative skill or less clarity of organization.
B-C range: competent work with no major problems, but misses important aspects of the discussion, or is inaccurate; has lapses in (but not without lacking) analytic and argumentative skills.
CD-D range: very poor quality work, showing little evidence of study or research.
0: Any script which fails to address the essay question or the objectives of the essay exercise.
One of the most common reasons for essays getting bad grades is irrelevance. Answer the essay question which was actually asked in the essay question (or, in the case of writing classes, the actual essay question you have chosen for yourself).
6.4 Plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a serious academic offense. Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty that occurs when a person passes off someone else’s work as his or her own. This can range from failing to cite an author for ideas incorporated into a student's paper to cutting and pasting paragraphs from different websites to handing in a paper downloaded from the internet. It also includes the act of running a non- English text through translation software. All are plagiarism.
There are three central things all Lakeland students should know about the consequences of plagiarism:
1) Plagiarism is a college offense. Students who plagiarize must also deal with the College and its policies.
2) Plagiarism in most instances is easy to identify and expose. The very force that makes plagiarism easy and tempting to some students--the internet--makes its detection extremely easy. Most professors can locate the source of suspected plagiarism within minutes of searching the web. In this context, plagiarism is as much stupidity as it is dishonesty.
3) All parties to plagiarism are considered equally guilty. If you share your coursework with another student and he or she plagiarizes it, you are considered as guilty as the one who has plagiarized your work, since you enabled the plagiarism to take place. Under no circumstances should a student make his or her coursework available to another student unless the professor gives explicit permission for this to happen.
6.5 Attendance Policy:
Five unjustified absences will result in a fail.
6.6 Assessment: policy on late assignments
6.6.1. In principle it is unfair to students who submit work on time to allow other students extra time to complete their work. Extensions are therefore granted only in
exceptional circumstances (bereavement or illness. Club activities do not qualify).
Extensions will be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as sickness (a medical certificate must be provided) or bereavement. Application should be made to the lecturer.
6.6.2. It is the responsibility of students to organize their workload and to ensure that their data is backed up. Therefore, extensions will not be granted for reasons such as
disorganization, pressure of work in other subjects, or malfunction of computer or
printer. Topics and deadlines are announced well in advance. Students should plan
their assignment schedule carefully and begin work well before the deadline. I.e. now.
6.6.3. Essays handed in late when no extension has been granted will be penalized by 20 per cent for every working day that the work is late. For this purpose
the day is defined as ending at 5pm. The lecturer may choose to mark but not provide
comments on late assignments.
6.7. Assessment and Coursework.
Course objectives are fulfilled through coursework and exams.
Essay 1
Deadline: 5pm, Friday October 12th, Lakeland College office 2F.
Topic: See below (page 12) for essay questions.
Word Limit: 1000 words.
Essay 2
Deadline: November 30th, 5pm, Lakeland College office 2F.
Topic: See below (page 13) for essay questions.
Word limit: 1000 words.
Percentage of Assessment: Coursework: 40%.
PLUSSAGE: Your coursework grade is the higher of the two essays that you submit.
(So, if your first essay receives 68% and the second essay receives 75%, your coursework grade will be 75% overall). If you only write one essay of acceptable (that is, pass) standard, your grade will be half its mark.
Examination 1: Thursday October 10th.
Percentage of Assessment: 30%
Exam type: write TWO essay answers.
Examination 2: Monday December 3rd.
Percentage of Assessment: 30%
Exam type: write TWO essay answers.
7.1 Schedule of Topics and Core Readings
Week I. Introduction
The first task of the course will be to clarify what we mean by `morality,' the three main branches of ethical inquiry ( practical, normative, and meta-ethics) and what purpose its study serves.
9/4 What is philosophy? What is ethics?
9/6 Moral Dilemmas.
Reading: James Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy (hereafter EMP) pp.1-15; James Rachels The Right Thing to Do (hereafter RTD) pp.1-28.
Discussion: The Lifeboat Case: United states vs. Holmes (1841)
Were you the captain of a lifeboat, and you had to make some tough decisions as to who should live, what decisions would you make, and what explanation would you give to justify those decisions?
PART ONE: ETHICAL THEORY
Week II. Ethical Subjectivism
We will discuss the view that ethics is merely subjective, or relative to a particular culture. Two distinct arguments have been offered as to why one should adopt this view, which is termed Moral Relativism; a). the view that a relativist view best serves tolerance, and b). the view that all cultures have, ultimately, different moral frameworks, implying that a universal morality does not exist. The nuts and bolts- the specific premises ⎯ of these arguments will be discussed. Of central concern is the possibility that certain practices simply cannot be tolerated.
9/11 The Cultural Differences Argument
9/13 The Argument from Tolerance
Reading: EMP: Chapter 2, 16-34; Chapter 3, 35-51; David Hume “Morality as based on Sentiment” in RTD: 65-69; William H. Shaw “Relativism in Ethics.”
Discussion: Is being a cultural relativist really justifiable on the grounds that it promotes tolerance?
Week III. The Utilitarian Approach.
Here we will discuss the Utilitarian approach to ethics (The ‘principle of Utility’ is simply the doctrine that we should act so as to maximize happiness). This approach forces us to consider whether all `good' can be reduced to a single principle that should be maximized- in the case of the Utilitarians ⎯ to happiness (this is called the hedonistic assumption). Is it really the case that happiness is all that matters? Further, is it simply the consequences of our actions that matter in our decision- making?
9/18 Utilitarianism Explained
9/20 Problems with Utilitarianism.
Reading: EMP: 89-116; RTD: 64-75. John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism (excerpt) in Rachels RTD: 70-81; Douglas Husak “The Immorality of SUV’s and Trucks” in Rachels RTD: 190-203; Jeremy Bentham “from An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” (1789), Victor Grassian “Hedonism” in Moral Reasoning pp.59- 72.
Discussion:
a). Are you a Utilitarian? We will discuss the case of a doctor who has the opportunity to `harvest' the organs of someone- without explicit consent ⎯ for the benefit of others. Even if the doctor can `maximize happiness,' is it truly the morally best thing to do?
b). Is it ethical to own a Sports Utility Vehicle?
Week IV. Deontology
Are there absolute, universal moral rules and principles to ethics, and if so, what are they? Does the famous ‘Golden Rule,’ which appears in Christian, Jewish, Chinese and Buddhist thought, provide a complete ethical theory? We will consider the approach of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who considered human freedom, and its protection, as being fundamental to ethics.
9/25 Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative.
9/27 Problems with Deontology
Reading: EMP: 117-140; Immanuel Kant “The Categorical Imperative” in RTD: 81-86; Immanuel Kant “The Metaphysics of Morals” (excerpts); Victor Grey “Kantian Ethics.”
Discussion: a). What do you think of the claim “let justice be done though the heavens fall”? (in less poetic language- “When justice and utility conflict, as they may, always choose justice over utility”). b). Consider the case of a captain in command of a lifeboat, who is forced to abandon some in order to ensure the survival of others. Firstly, what possible decisions may he make? Secondly, what (moral) reasons would he offer to explain why he made his decision? Of central importance here is the issue of individual rights, and the duties that the captain must (assumedly) fulfil.
Week V. Egoism
Since the beginning of moral philosophy, there have been those who have rejected the most basic tenets of moral thought. Three such counter-morality figures will be discussed here; Glaucon, the semi- fictional figure in Plato’s Republic, Max Stirner (1806-1856), who declared that individuals have no moral responsibilities to others, and Ayn Rand (1905-1982), who famously declared selfishness a virtue.
10/2 Ethical Egoism: Glaucon and Thrasymachus in The Republic
10/4 Max Stirner.
Reading: Ayn Rand The Virtue of Selfishness (excerpt)
Max Stirner The Ego and Its Own (excerpt)
EMP: 68-81.
Discussion: Do you agree with Ayn Rand that selfishness is a virtue? Does it commit any fallacies? What are the implications of taking Rand’s theory seriously?
Week VI. Test I
10/9 Review Tutorial/ Discussion Session.
10/11 Test I.
Week VII: The Social Contract
Here we consider the ‘Social Contract’ theory of ethics ⎯ that is, the view that ethics is to be understood as a social contract between rational agents. Other moral theories, as we have seen, attempt to ground a framework in morality in some absolute moral principle or value. Social Contract theory, by contrast, defines morality in terms of an agreement reached between rational individuals. Here we assess this notion of morality, in particular its description of morality as a mutually beneficial behavioral strategy.
10/16 Social Contract Theory.
10/18 Social Contract Theory: Criticisms.
Reading: RTD:8-10,50-59; EMP141-155
Sharon A. Lloyd “Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy,” in Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.Stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
Discussion: Does social contract theory successfully deal with the ‘why be moral’ problem posed by Stirner, Glaucon and Thrasymachus?
Further, does it matter that the Social Contract is based on an historical fiction?
Week VIII. Religion and Morality
It is traditionally assumed that morality relies upon religious belief. Firstly we will look at a traditional philosophical rendering of this view, called Divine Command Theory. Secondly we will look at Plato’s Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks the question: is “right” that which the Gods command, or do the Gods command certain acts because they are right?
10/23 Divine Command Theory
10/25 Plato’s Euthyphro
Reading: EMP: 52-62; “Divine Command Theory” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Plato Euthyphro.
Discussion: What, for Socrates, is piety? And what is the relationship between piety and the Good?
Week IX: David Hume on Moral Sentiments
Does morality come from reason, as Kant thought? Or is the root of morality in the ‘Sentiments”? Is reason, as David Hume stated, the “slave of the passions?”
10/30 Hume on Moral Sentiments I
11/1 Hume on Moral Sentiments II
Reading: David Hume “Morality as Based on Sentiment” in RTD: 65-69.
Discussion: What is the relationship between reason and morality?
PART II: PRACTICAL ETHICS
Week X. Just War Theory: St. Augustine.
Is it ever morally right to wage war? And if so, what should the rules be? On Tuesday we will look at the philosophy of St. Augustine, who argued that Christians were morally permitted to wage war according to certain principles. Once we have a theory of just war, we may identify violations of these principles as war crimes. On Thursday we will discuss British philosopher A .C. Grayling’s argument that the Allies, in destroying Tokyo and other cities, committed such crimes.
11/6 St. Augustine on Just War
11/8 Grayling on the Destruction of Japanese and German Cities
Reading: A. C. Grayling Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan. Douglas P. Lackey “The Ethics of War and Peace” in TRD: 221-229.
Brian Orend “War” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
Discussion: Was the allied area bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and other cities morally justified? Or was it a war crime?
Recommended viewing: Errol Morris The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the life of Robert S. Macnamara. (2003).
Week XI. Issues in Medical Ethics: Genetic Screening
Recent advances in genetic testing, such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), make it possible to test embryos for genetic abnormalities known to cause serious diseases and disorders. Genetic testing also allows couples to assess their genetic compatibility before conception, allowing the near elimination of genetic disorders without the destruction of embryos, zygotes or fetuses. However, a number of ethicists and members of the disabled community hold that genetic testing for serious disorders is morally objectionable (the so- called Disability Rights Critique). Are such objections sound? We will look at both sides of the debate.
11/13 The Disability Rights Critique and the Specter of Eugenics
11/15 The Case for Screening
Reading: Gregory E. Pence “Will Cloning Harm People?” in RTD: 114-125. Other handouts will be distributed in class.
Discussion: Should Japan liberalize genetic screening policy? Or does genetic screening for such conditions as Down syndrome violate the rights of handicapped people?
Week XII. Justice and Punishment: The Death Penalty
There are two schools of thought on this question. Firstly, there are those who take the death penalty as the only fitting punishment for murder or treason, on the grounds that the ‘punishment must fit the crime.’ Ernest van den Haag, for one, adds that execution acts as a deterrent; Kant held that executing murderers actually pays the criminal the respect befitting a rational agent. On the other hand, it has been argued that capital punishment is unfair, inhumane and grotesque. The two sides of the debate will be addressed.
11/20 The Case For the Death Penalty
11/22 The Case Against the Death Penalty: Cesare Beccaria
Reading: Ernest van den Haag “In Defense of the Death Penalty,” RTD: 230-236; Hugo A. Bedau” The Case Against the Death Penalty” RTD: 237-247.
Discussion: Should Japan retain the death penalty?
Week XIII. The Kyoto School: Watsuji Tetsuro
The Kyoto School was an early 20th Century Japanese philosophy group, originating at Kyoto University. Their project, broadly construed, was to integrate traditional Japanese thought and Buddhist (in particular Mahâyâna Buddhist and Zen) concepts with Western (typically German) philosophical language and concepts.
One of the Kyoto school philosophers, Watsuji Tetsuro, argued that Western ethics, being too preoccupied with the individual, is incompatible with the Japanese ethics of social harmony. We will critically discuss this approach.
11/27 The Kyoto School in Context
11/29 Watsuji Tetsuro’s Rinrigaku
Reading: Carter, Robert. “Watsuji Tetsurô” in Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. First published 11 November 2004. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/watsuji-tetsuro/
Watsuji, Tetsuro, Watsuji Tetsuro’ Rinrigaku: Ethics in Japan (excerpt).
Discussion: a). Is Watsuji’s criticism of Western thought valid?
b). How does Watsuji’s ethics differ from other ethical models discussed
in this course?
Exam: MONDAY DECEMBER 3RD (Tentative)
8. Coursework Essay Questions :Essay 1 (due 5pm, Friday October 12th, Lakeland College office 2F).
Essay 1
Question 1: Cultural Relativism.
Either a: Choose one of the arguments for cultural relativism. Describe and offer a critical evaluation of that argument.
Or: Relativism is associated with the idea that we should show tolerance towards the values and norms of other cultures. Explain what the connection is and, if there is one, whether it provides a reason to accept relativism. Discuss also what room there is for the idea of tolerance within an objectivist approach. Does objectivism in any way exclude tolerance?
Question 2: Utilitarianism.
Either a). It is sometimes suggested that Utilitarians cannot explain the obligation to keep promises. Why might someone think this? How might a Utilitarian respond?
Or: b). Is it ethical to drive an SUV? Critically discuss the two most serious counterarguments to your position.
Essay 2 (due November 30th, 5pm, Lakeland College office 2F).
Question 1. Kant
Kant thinks that you must have ‘good will’ to be a good person. What does he mean by this? Do you agree with him? In your answer, discuss at least one of the possible counterexamples to Kant’s claim that the good will is necessary for being a good person (i.e. the virtuous person, the self interested person, the person who always brings about good consequences or the naturally kind- hearted person).
Question 2. Social Contract Theory.
In what ways is Social Contract Theory different from Kantianism or Utilitarianism? In your view, are these distinctive features advantages or disadvantages for a moral theory? In your answer, focus on no more than two features, and include a critical discussion of at least one objection to Social Contract Theory.
Questions 3. Egoism.
Critically discuss the two strongest counterarguments against Ayn Rand’s ‘Virtue of Selfishness.’ How might she respond?
Question 4. Religion and Morality
Why, according to Divine Command theory, are we obligated to obey Divine Commands? Critically discuss at least one counterargument to this view.
Question 5. Just War.
Does Japan have the moral right to wage war? If so, under what conditions? Critically discuss at least one counterargument.
Question 6. Hume
What are Hume’s arguments for the view that reason alone cannot motivate action? Are they good arguments?
Students may write an essay on their own question for the second essay, ONLY after consultation with the lecturer.
Syllabus
Lakeland College Wisconsin
Fall 2007
Tuesday and Thursday, 11:00-12:25pm
Lecturer: Dr. Geoffrey Roche (PhD. Auckland)
Office Hours: Tuesday and Thursday. 4.00- 5.00 pm.
Webpage: http://unblinking-gaze.blogspot.com/
1. Course Description
This course will provide an introduction to some key ethical concepts and approaches, and will discuss questions such as the following: How should we decide what is best to do, and how to best lead our lives? Are our value judgments on such questions objective, or do they merely reflect our subjective viewpoints and preferences? Are ethical decisions merely an expression of our culture? In the first part of the course we will examine a variety of central ethical concepts, such as justice, rights, equality, and happiness, which are widely used in moral, legal and political argument. In the second part of the course we will investigate three practical ethical questions: can war be waged justly? Should Japan retain the death penalty? And should genetic information be used to decide on who will be born?
2. Course Objectives and Goals
i. Subject specific outcomes
• The student will demonstrate the ability to utilize and evaluate key concepts in
ethical theory.
• The student will develop an understanding of some traditional models of ethical
decision-making.
• The student will acquire a commonly shared language and set of conceptual skills, including logical and critical thinking abilities for analyzing moral issues.
• The student will be able to reflect on and articulate their own set of values and be able to articulate them to others.
Understanding and skill in philosophical analysis of major ethical theories and problems will be demonstrated in two coursework essays and two examinations.
3. Transferable skills
•The student will demonstrate the ability to debate (ethical topics) in a clear and structured manner.
•The student will demonstrate the ability to assess the ethical arguments, viewpoints
and doctrines of others.
4. Course Methodology and Format
The course will be comprised of twenty- six one- and – a half hour classes, roughly grouped into two – class units. The first class of the week will be a lecture, whereas the second class of the week will be either a tutorial or (in the case of coursework presentations) a guided discussion or debate. The first half of the course will be theoretical, with an eye to the real- world implications of the ideas under discussion. The second half of the course will address real world problems that are regularly addressed in politics, policy analysis and in daily life. The two halves of the course will be integrated, in the sense that students are expected to see the connections between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ theory.
5. 1 Required Reading
James Rachels, Stuart Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 5th Edition. New York: Random House, 2007.
James Rachels, Stuart Rachels The Right Thing to Do: Readings in Moral Philosophy. 4th Edition. New York: Random House, 2007.
5.2 Recommended Reading
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online
http://www.plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
Victor Grassian Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and some Contemporary Moral
Problems New York: Prentice Hall, 1992
6.1 Assessment Process.
(i). Submit essays to the Lakeland College office, on the second floor. Essays must be on time (before 5pm). Submission after this time will be considered a day late. Email submissions will only be accepted in extraordinary circumstances (such as illness). DO NOT hand in the only copy: always keep another copy.
(ii). Your work will be marked and ready to return to you within two weeks of the due date. You should collect your marked work in class or from the lecturer in person. It will be given enough commentary that you can understand how to improve your grade.
(iii). If you have any questions or concerns about the marking of your work, please discuss these with the lecturer in the first instance.
6.2 Assessment: Grade System
A (>92.5%): 4.0
AB (87.5%-92.5%): 3.5
B (82.5%-87.5%): 3.0
BC (77.5%-82.5%): 2.5
C (72.5%-77.5%): 2.0
CD (67.5%-72.5%): 1.5
D (60%-67.5%): 1.0
F (<60%): 0.0
6.3 Interpretation of Grades.
The marks can be interpreted as follows:
A range: essay showing analytical and argumentative power, with good command of the relevant facts and/ or arguments, and with evidence of the ability to organize them with clarity and insight.
AB range: essay showing analytical and argumentative power, with good command of the relevant facts and/ or arguments, but with less analytical or argumentative skill or less clarity of organization.
B-C range: competent work with no major problems, but misses important aspects of the discussion, or is inaccurate; has lapses in (but not without lacking) analytic and argumentative skills.
CD-D range: very poor quality work, showing little evidence of study or research.
0: Any script which fails to address the essay question or the objectives of the essay exercise.
One of the most common reasons for essays getting bad grades is irrelevance. Answer the essay question which was actually asked in the essay question (or, in the case of writing classes, the actual essay question you have chosen for yourself).
6.4 Plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a serious academic offense. Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty that occurs when a person passes off someone else’s work as his or her own. This can range from failing to cite an author for ideas incorporated into a student's paper to cutting and pasting paragraphs from different websites to handing in a paper downloaded from the internet. It also includes the act of running a non- English text through translation software. All are plagiarism.
There are three central things all Lakeland students should know about the consequences of plagiarism:
1) Plagiarism is a college offense. Students who plagiarize must also deal with the College and its policies.
2) Plagiarism in most instances is easy to identify and expose. The very force that makes plagiarism easy and tempting to some students--the internet--makes its detection extremely easy. Most professors can locate the source of suspected plagiarism within minutes of searching the web. In this context, plagiarism is as much stupidity as it is dishonesty.
3) All parties to plagiarism are considered equally guilty. If you share your coursework with another student and he or she plagiarizes it, you are considered as guilty as the one who has plagiarized your work, since you enabled the plagiarism to take place. Under no circumstances should a student make his or her coursework available to another student unless the professor gives explicit permission for this to happen.
6.5 Attendance Policy:
Five unjustified absences will result in a fail.
6.6 Assessment: policy on late assignments
6.6.1. In principle it is unfair to students who submit work on time to allow other students extra time to complete their work. Extensions are therefore granted only in
exceptional circumstances (bereavement or illness. Club activities do not qualify).
Extensions will be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as sickness (a medical certificate must be provided) or bereavement. Application should be made to the lecturer.
6.6.2. It is the responsibility of students to organize their workload and to ensure that their data is backed up. Therefore, extensions will not be granted for reasons such as
disorganization, pressure of work in other subjects, or malfunction of computer or
printer. Topics and deadlines are announced well in advance. Students should plan
their assignment schedule carefully and begin work well before the deadline. I.e. now.
6.6.3. Essays handed in late when no extension has been granted will be penalized by 20 per cent for every working day that the work is late. For this purpose
the day is defined as ending at 5pm. The lecturer may choose to mark but not provide
comments on late assignments.
6.7. Assessment and Coursework.
Course objectives are fulfilled through coursework and exams.
Essay 1
Deadline: 5pm, Friday October 12th, Lakeland College office 2F.
Topic: See below (page 12) for essay questions.
Word Limit: 1000 words.
Essay 2
Deadline: November 30th, 5pm, Lakeland College office 2F.
Topic: See below (page 13) for essay questions.
Word limit: 1000 words.
Percentage of Assessment: Coursework: 40%.
PLUSSAGE: Your coursework grade is the higher of the two essays that you submit.
(So, if your first essay receives 68% and the second essay receives 75%, your coursework grade will be 75% overall). If you only write one essay of acceptable (that is, pass) standard, your grade will be half its mark.
Examination 1: Thursday October 10th.
Percentage of Assessment: 30%
Exam type: write TWO essay answers.
Examination 2: Monday December 3rd.
Percentage of Assessment: 30%
Exam type: write TWO essay answers.
7.1 Schedule of Topics and Core Readings
Week I. Introduction
The first task of the course will be to clarify what we mean by `morality,' the three main branches of ethical inquiry ( practical, normative, and meta-ethics) and what purpose its study serves.
9/4 What is philosophy? What is ethics?
9/6 Moral Dilemmas.
Reading: James Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy (hereafter EMP) pp.1-15; James Rachels The Right Thing to Do (hereafter RTD) pp.1-28.
Discussion: The Lifeboat Case: United states vs. Holmes (1841)
Were you the captain of a lifeboat, and you had to make some tough decisions as to who should live, what decisions would you make, and what explanation would you give to justify those decisions?
PART ONE: ETHICAL THEORY
Week II. Ethical Subjectivism
We will discuss the view that ethics is merely subjective, or relative to a particular culture. Two distinct arguments have been offered as to why one should adopt this view, which is termed Moral Relativism; a). the view that a relativist view best serves tolerance, and b). the view that all cultures have, ultimately, different moral frameworks, implying that a universal morality does not exist. The nuts and bolts- the specific premises ⎯ of these arguments will be discussed. Of central concern is the possibility that certain practices simply cannot be tolerated.
9/11 The Cultural Differences Argument
9/13 The Argument from Tolerance
Reading: EMP: Chapter 2, 16-34; Chapter 3, 35-51; David Hume “Morality as based on Sentiment” in RTD: 65-69; William H. Shaw “Relativism in Ethics.”
Discussion: Is being a cultural relativist really justifiable on the grounds that it promotes tolerance?
Week III. The Utilitarian Approach.
Here we will discuss the Utilitarian approach to ethics (The ‘principle of Utility’ is simply the doctrine that we should act so as to maximize happiness). This approach forces us to consider whether all `good' can be reduced to a single principle that should be maximized- in the case of the Utilitarians ⎯ to happiness (this is called the hedonistic assumption). Is it really the case that happiness is all that matters? Further, is it simply the consequences of our actions that matter in our decision- making?
9/18 Utilitarianism Explained
9/20 Problems with Utilitarianism.
Reading: EMP: 89-116; RTD: 64-75. John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism (excerpt) in Rachels RTD: 70-81; Douglas Husak “The Immorality of SUV’s and Trucks” in Rachels RTD: 190-203; Jeremy Bentham “from An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” (1789), Victor Grassian “Hedonism” in Moral Reasoning pp.59- 72.
Discussion:
a). Are you a Utilitarian? We will discuss the case of a doctor who has the opportunity to `harvest' the organs of someone- without explicit consent ⎯ for the benefit of others. Even if the doctor can `maximize happiness,' is it truly the morally best thing to do?
b). Is it ethical to own a Sports Utility Vehicle?
Week IV. Deontology
Are there absolute, universal moral rules and principles to ethics, and if so, what are they? Does the famous ‘Golden Rule,’ which appears in Christian, Jewish, Chinese and Buddhist thought, provide a complete ethical theory? We will consider the approach of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who considered human freedom, and its protection, as being fundamental to ethics.
9/25 Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative.
9/27 Problems with Deontology
Reading: EMP: 117-140; Immanuel Kant “The Categorical Imperative” in RTD: 81-86; Immanuel Kant “The Metaphysics of Morals” (excerpts); Victor Grey “Kantian Ethics.”
Discussion: a). What do you think of the claim “let justice be done though the heavens fall”? (in less poetic language- “When justice and utility conflict, as they may, always choose justice over utility”). b). Consider the case of a captain in command of a lifeboat, who is forced to abandon some in order to ensure the survival of others. Firstly, what possible decisions may he make? Secondly, what (moral) reasons would he offer to explain why he made his decision? Of central importance here is the issue of individual rights, and the duties that the captain must (assumedly) fulfil.
Week V. Egoism
Since the beginning of moral philosophy, there have been those who have rejected the most basic tenets of moral thought. Three such counter-morality figures will be discussed here; Glaucon, the semi- fictional figure in Plato’s Republic, Max Stirner (1806-1856), who declared that individuals have no moral responsibilities to others, and Ayn Rand (1905-1982), who famously declared selfishness a virtue.
10/2 Ethical Egoism: Glaucon and Thrasymachus in The Republic
10/4 Max Stirner.
Reading: Ayn Rand The Virtue of Selfishness (excerpt)
Max Stirner The Ego and Its Own (excerpt)
EMP: 68-81.
Discussion: Do you agree with Ayn Rand that selfishness is a virtue? Does it commit any fallacies? What are the implications of taking Rand’s theory seriously?
Week VI. Test I
10/9 Review Tutorial/ Discussion Session.
10/11 Test I.
Week VII: The Social Contract
Here we consider the ‘Social Contract’ theory of ethics ⎯ that is, the view that ethics is to be understood as a social contract between rational agents. Other moral theories, as we have seen, attempt to ground a framework in morality in some absolute moral principle or value. Social Contract theory, by contrast, defines morality in terms of an agreement reached between rational individuals. Here we assess this notion of morality, in particular its description of morality as a mutually beneficial behavioral strategy.
10/16 Social Contract Theory.
10/18 Social Contract Theory: Criticisms.
Reading: RTD:8-10,50-59; EMP141-155
Sharon A. Lloyd “Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy,” in Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.Stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
Discussion: Does social contract theory successfully deal with the ‘why be moral’ problem posed by Stirner, Glaucon and Thrasymachus?
Further, does it matter that the Social Contract is based on an historical fiction?
Week VIII. Religion and Morality
It is traditionally assumed that morality relies upon religious belief. Firstly we will look at a traditional philosophical rendering of this view, called Divine Command Theory. Secondly we will look at Plato’s Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks the question: is “right” that which the Gods command, or do the Gods command certain acts because they are right?
10/23 Divine Command Theory
10/25 Plato’s Euthyphro
Reading: EMP: 52-62; “Divine Command Theory” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Plato Euthyphro.
Discussion: What, for Socrates, is piety? And what is the relationship between piety and the Good?
Week IX: David Hume on Moral Sentiments
Does morality come from reason, as Kant thought? Or is the root of morality in the ‘Sentiments”? Is reason, as David Hume stated, the “slave of the passions?”
10/30 Hume on Moral Sentiments I
11/1 Hume on Moral Sentiments II
Reading: David Hume “Morality as Based on Sentiment” in RTD: 65-69.
Discussion: What is the relationship between reason and morality?
PART II: PRACTICAL ETHICS
Week X. Just War Theory: St. Augustine.
Is it ever morally right to wage war? And if so, what should the rules be? On Tuesday we will look at the philosophy of St. Augustine, who argued that Christians were morally permitted to wage war according to certain principles. Once we have a theory of just war, we may identify violations of these principles as war crimes. On Thursday we will discuss British philosopher A .C. Grayling’s argument that the Allies, in destroying Tokyo and other cities, committed such crimes.
11/6 St. Augustine on Just War
11/8 Grayling on the Destruction of Japanese and German Cities
Reading: A. C. Grayling Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan. Douglas P. Lackey “The Ethics of War and Peace” in TRD: 221-229.
Brian Orend “War” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
Discussion: Was the allied area bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and other cities morally justified? Or was it a war crime?
Recommended viewing: Errol Morris The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the life of Robert S. Macnamara. (2003).
Week XI. Issues in Medical Ethics: Genetic Screening
Recent advances in genetic testing, such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), make it possible to test embryos for genetic abnormalities known to cause serious diseases and disorders. Genetic testing also allows couples to assess their genetic compatibility before conception, allowing the near elimination of genetic disorders without the destruction of embryos, zygotes or fetuses. However, a number of ethicists and members of the disabled community hold that genetic testing for serious disorders is morally objectionable (the so- called Disability Rights Critique). Are such objections sound? We will look at both sides of the debate.
11/13 The Disability Rights Critique and the Specter of Eugenics
11/15 The Case for Screening
Reading: Gregory E. Pence “Will Cloning Harm People?” in RTD: 114-125. Other handouts will be distributed in class.
Discussion: Should Japan liberalize genetic screening policy? Or does genetic screening for such conditions as Down syndrome violate the rights of handicapped people?
Week XII. Justice and Punishment: The Death Penalty
There are two schools of thought on this question. Firstly, there are those who take the death penalty as the only fitting punishment for murder or treason, on the grounds that the ‘punishment must fit the crime.’ Ernest van den Haag, for one, adds that execution acts as a deterrent; Kant held that executing murderers actually pays the criminal the respect befitting a rational agent. On the other hand, it has been argued that capital punishment is unfair, inhumane and grotesque. The two sides of the debate will be addressed.
11/20 The Case For the Death Penalty
11/22 The Case Against the Death Penalty: Cesare Beccaria
Reading: Ernest van den Haag “In Defense of the Death Penalty,” RTD: 230-236; Hugo A. Bedau” The Case Against the Death Penalty” RTD: 237-247.
Discussion: Should Japan retain the death penalty?
Week XIII. The Kyoto School: Watsuji Tetsuro
The Kyoto School was an early 20th Century Japanese philosophy group, originating at Kyoto University. Their project, broadly construed, was to integrate traditional Japanese thought and Buddhist (in particular Mahâyâna Buddhist and Zen) concepts with Western (typically German) philosophical language and concepts.
One of the Kyoto school philosophers, Watsuji Tetsuro, argued that Western ethics, being too preoccupied with the individual, is incompatible with the Japanese ethics of social harmony. We will critically discuss this approach.
11/27 The Kyoto School in Context
11/29 Watsuji Tetsuro’s Rinrigaku
Reading: Carter, Robert. “Watsuji Tetsurô” in Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. First published 11 November 2004. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/watsuji-tetsuro/
Watsuji, Tetsuro, Watsuji Tetsuro’ Rinrigaku: Ethics in Japan (excerpt).
Discussion: a). Is Watsuji’s criticism of Western thought valid?
b). How does Watsuji’s ethics differ from other ethical models discussed
in this course?
Exam: MONDAY DECEMBER 3RD (Tentative)
8. Coursework Essay Questions :Essay 1 (due 5pm, Friday October 12th, Lakeland College office 2F).
Essay 1
Question 1: Cultural Relativism.
Either a: Choose one of the arguments for cultural relativism. Describe and offer a critical evaluation of that argument.
Or: Relativism is associated with the idea that we should show tolerance towards the values and norms of other cultures. Explain what the connection is and, if there is one, whether it provides a reason to accept relativism. Discuss also what room there is for the idea of tolerance within an objectivist approach. Does objectivism in any way exclude tolerance?
Question 2: Utilitarianism.
Either a). It is sometimes suggested that Utilitarians cannot explain the obligation to keep promises. Why might someone think this? How might a Utilitarian respond?
Or: b). Is it ethical to drive an SUV? Critically discuss the two most serious counterarguments to your position.
Essay 2 (due November 30th, 5pm, Lakeland College office 2F).
Question 1. Kant
Kant thinks that you must have ‘good will’ to be a good person. What does he mean by this? Do you agree with him? In your answer, discuss at least one of the possible counterexamples to Kant’s claim that the good will is necessary for being a good person (i.e. the virtuous person, the self interested person, the person who always brings about good consequences or the naturally kind- hearted person).
Question 2. Social Contract Theory.
In what ways is Social Contract Theory different from Kantianism or Utilitarianism? In your view, are these distinctive features advantages or disadvantages for a moral theory? In your answer, focus on no more than two features, and include a critical discussion of at least one objection to Social Contract Theory.
Questions 3. Egoism.
Critically discuss the two strongest counterarguments against Ayn Rand’s ‘Virtue of Selfishness.’ How might she respond?
Question 4. Religion and Morality
Why, according to Divine Command theory, are we obligated to obey Divine Commands? Critically discuss at least one counterargument to this view.
Question 5. Just War.
Does Japan have the moral right to wage war? If so, under what conditions? Critically discuss at least one counterargument.
Question 6. Hume
What are Hume’s arguments for the view that reason alone cannot motivate action? Are they good arguments?
Students may write an essay on their own question for the second essay, ONLY after consultation with the lecturer.
posted by G. Roche at 4:57 PM
<< Home