Syllabus for Introduction to Ethics

Michael Taber

Philosophy 120, section 02 (2:10-3:00)
Fall 2024
St. Mary's College of Maryland
(revised 31 October 2024)


Wednesday 11:30-12:30

and by appointment

web homepage: faculty.smcm.edu/mstaber


Course Description

The views we have about good and bad play a decisive role not only in determining our actions, but in determining how we think of ourselves and others, and how others think of us. Such views are, therefore, of paramount personal and social importance. But how often do we get the opportunity to think explicitly and seriously about our moral beliefs and about what can be said for or against them? This sort of philosophical examination is what we will undertake this semester.

Philosophical enterprise calls not just for clearly stating your position on a certain problem, but also for thinking about what support there is for it in the face of possible objections. That is, to think philosophically is to think an issue through so that you can explain to others (as well as to yourself) what strikes you as sensible about having those views as opposed to having other views. After all, anyone can say that morality reduces to maximizing happiness or that a woman has a right to an abortion, so we will be going deeper to discover what support, if any, such claims have. You all have probably thought some about moral theory and its application to several of the issues we will talk about this semester, but the point of this course is to provide you with an opportunity to think more carefully, more philosophically, about these subjects.

To carry this out, we will be reading what others have said about these issues, not necessarily for the sake of agreeing with them (although there certainly will be readings with which you agree), but rather for the sake of using the readings to get clear on what some of the questions are within each subject, what is at stake in each subject, and what some examples of carefully considered positions look like. So we will be using these readings as crucial springboards for our discussions. And these discussions will be an important component of the course.

If this were a course the point of which was to test on you such items as “Was Aristotle Plato’s teacher or was Plato Aristotle’s teacher?” or “What are the four examples used by Kant to illustrate his categorical imperative?” then attendance would be less important. One could read carefully on one’s own and master that kind of content. But the point of studying philosophy goes beyond factual knowledge (which is not to say that factual knowledge isn’t important).

Because studying philosophy is the development of a skill and not so much the memorization of a body of knowledge, students will need to engage themselves with the readings and with other students’ responses to those readings. To engage oneself in this sense is not merely to pay attention to the material, but to be able to discuss, question, explain, support, or criticize.

Hence, my attendance policy….


Attendance Policy

 

Executive summary: don’t hit the two-week mark!

 

You have sensibly chosen a small college. If you had wanted to be facelessly anonymous, you could have chosen to enroll at Enormous U. Directly relating to each other about matters of (I’m sure you’ll come to agree) great importance to us as individuals and as members of communities is the best of college experiences.

 

This course is structured as a seminar. That means we use real-time, in-person discussions to explore, understand, and even disagree about the text assigned. Even though I have guideposts for the discussions, the presence or absence of individuals in a class on a given day will shape how that day’s conversation unfolds and what new understandings we develop as a class. Missing class isn’t just about missing the content. In this course, it’s not just about “what we go over,” but “HOW” we go over it that’s critical for your learning. That’s why showing up matters.

 

For at least this reason, regular attendance at, and participation in, class are required. (Furthermore, it is impossible to do well in this course without regular attendance, and difficult without regular participation.)

 

For this course, everyone is allowed five absences per semester. (Whether excused or unexcused; that distinction might have been used in your high school, but isn’t used in the College’s attendance policy.) Having a sixth absence—excused or unexcused—will result in failing the course, despite the quality of the rest of the student’s work. (The College policy’s minimum is to allow three—thus, I am out of the gates already 67% more generous than the College requires!)

 

(Students using an approved ADA accommodation for “modified attendance policy” will be granted one extra absence; so the grade wouldn’t be affected even with six absences, but would automatically become an F upon the seventh.)

 

So because this is a MWF class, you get one shy of two weeks’ worth of absences. And you fail the course if you hit the two weeks’ worth. (Or if you hit your seventh class, if you have an approved ADA accommodation for modified attendance policy.)

 

The one exception to the preceding paragraph is for students who are forced by quarantine rules to stay away from classes. In such cases, the student should contact the instructor ASAP—and in any case, prior to the first class missed due to quarantine.

 

The first recourse students should use for catching up when absent—for any reason—is to look for a communication from their Back-Up Buddy, a system to be explained and signed up for in class. Students can also contact the instructor for added assistance, of course.

 

As I hope is obvious—or soon will be once the semester starts—the fact that you are ­allowed these absences without any automatic loss of grade should not be interpreted as a recommendation to actually use said absences. Not only do you want to avoid imprudently and prematurely emptying your bank account only to find out that you’re getting walloped with some virus near the end of the semester, but your ability to make sense of the material, your ability to become fluent in philosophically informed ways of thinking, and your ability to succeed in your assignments would be unhappily compromised in proportion to your number of absences.


Course learning outcomes

At the completion of PHIL120, students will be able:

1.     to apply views of ethical theorists to issues of continuing relevance as demonstrated by applying them to issues relevant to society or to them personally;

2.     to situate how thinkers about ethics are responding to other such thinkers as demonstrated by explaining their similarities and divergences from other thinkers;

3.     to construct a critique of the reasoning used for various arguments in ethics as demonstrated by being able to object to thinkers' reasoning in support of their positions;

4.     to ground in primary sources claims about  thinkers in ethics as demonstrated by anchoring their attributions to thinkers by citing relevant texts;

5.     to demonstrate effective oral communication of ideas in ethics as demonstrated by contributing to class discussion or giving class presentation;

6.     to demonstrate effective written communication of ideas in ethics as demonstrated by writing well-organized essays.

 

Land acknowledgment pledge

We acknowledge that the land on which we are learning, working, and gathering today is the ancestral home of the Yacocomico and Piscataway Peoples. We also acknowledge that St. Mary’s City was partly built and sustained by enslaved people of African descent. Through this acknowledgment, we recognize these communities and all those who have been displaced and enslaved through colonization.

The goal of the land acknowledgment pledge is not only to respect and honor the contributions of Indigenous Peoples and enslaved people of African descent, but to support and learn from all diverse communities in order to build a more sustainable future.


Course Requirements

The evaluation for the course will be based on these items, out of a semester total of 200 points:

  1. paper #1, 2-3 pages (10 points)
  2. paper #2, 3-4 pages (25 points)
  3. paper #3, 4-5 pages (30 points)
  4. mid-term essay exam (40 points)
  5. leading a full class period in pairs (20 points)
  6. Teach Your Family exercise (5 points)
  7. final essay exam (40 points)
  8. your Perusall grade for your comments and questions on the readings (30 points).

There will be one opportunity to write an extra-credit paper, due after Thanksgiving.

Work due on a given day is due at the beginning of class, unless otherwise noted. Late (even barely late) work loses the point equivalent of one full grade (10%), and a further grade (10%) for each additional twenty-four hours of lateness. (Except for the assignment due during finals week, for which no late submission is allowed.) Keep in mind this cost when deliberating about taking more time in which to complete a paper.

Final letter grades for the course will correspond to the following percentages:

A- 90–92         A 93–100        A+ **

B- 80–82         B 83–86          B+ 87–89       

C- 70–72         C 73–76          C+ 77–79

D- **               D 60–66          D+ 67–69                   

F 0–59             ** = doesn’t exist at SMCM

 

Perusall

Students can expect the Engaged Learning element of this course to focus on collaborative skills by using the Perusall platform outside of class to comment on the texts and on other students’ annotations. These will be discussed in class.

In order to access and annotate the readings on Perusall, each student will need to create a Perusall account, and after registering there, enter this course code for my Phil 120: TABER-UA472

Once you have an account set up, you can use this direct link.

This is the COURSE code, for getting registered for the Perusall page for this course. Once you’re registered, Perusall will ask you to pay money to rent the book or to enter an ACCESS code, for getting access to the readings. There is no ACCESS code for this course. Students can access the readings only by paying Perusall to rent the book. (That's the deal that the publishers make with Perusall. An "access code" for getting the readings is used only when there's no copyrighted material that an instructor is using for a course.)

So use the course's "course code" to get yourself in at Perusall. Then pony up the greenbacks to rent the book.

Writing

The second and third papers will be run as paired online tutorials, You will be scheduled in pairs for an hour-long tutorial session in which you read your paper to me and to the other student. We will discuss your paper, interrupting you more than once. Then the other student will read their paper in the same way. So that we may follow along as you read, you will need to provide the other student in your tutorial with a copy of your paper. Realize that it is your paper which will be graded, not your reading of it or your answering any questions which I or the other student may bring up. This is not an oral exam. The purpose of having you read the paper to me is that I can give you comments directly and suggest ways to improve your future work. This is much easier for me to do and much more helpful to you than having you decipher my comments in dried ink on a dead piece of paper. Also, you benefit by seeing in detail how another student approached the same topic.

Since writing is central to the course, both in reading others' and in creating your own, respect for writing will manifest itself even at the level of writing mechanics. You will be expected to take stylistic and mechanical concerns most seriously in your papers. As a motivational aid to this end, you will be allowed two grammatical, spelling, or punctuation mistakes per page (partial pages counting as full), after which you will lose one point for each mistake. For example, if you have a 24-point paper of five pages, and you have made thirteen mechanical errors, then you will receive a 21 for the paper. N.B.: the same mistake (not just similar) repeated will count as one mistake. You will be allowed to submit a revised version with the mechanical errors corrected, and in these cases you will be assigned the average of your original and revised grade.

For help on writing, see the folks as the Writing and Speaking Center early in the writing process. Located on the first floor of the main Library (pond side), the Writing & Speaking Center offers free tutorials in writing and speaking. The peer tutors are students themselves, so they are already familiar with many of the assignments that students bring to the Center, but they have also completed extensive hands-on training to learn how to assist their peers at any step of the process (planning, drafting, or revising) for any assignment. Although the peer tutors cannot diagnose issues or make revisions for you, they can work collaboratively with you to discuss ideas, consider options, and find solutions so that you can continue solo. This collaborative approach is one of the best ways to help students develop their abilities because all writers and speakers need audiences—just as the peer tutors, who often schedule tutorials with each other.

If you’d like to work with a tutor on any of your writing or speaking assignments this semester, please visit www.smcm.edu/writingcenter and click the “Make an Appointment” button. The Center’s website also has videos of sample tutorials, helpful handouts on different writing elements, an FAQ section with more information, and information on how to become a tutor. If you need assistance scheduling or have additional questions, please stop by the Center.

You also might consider spending a bit of time at my writing site. Few would fail to benefit. (Hint, hint….)


Discussion leading

Each of you will lead a 50-minute class session. This is not a lecture, for the 50 minutes should instigate and incorporate discussion among the other students—even if you have to spend five minutes giving a mini-lecture about this, or ten minutes about that.

 

We all will have read the piece you have selected, so your job is not to provide us with a review of the reading. You might, however, make explicit for us what the problem is that the author is trying to solve, what the author’s proposed solution is, what some objections are (whether addressed by the author, or not) to that proposed solution, what some tie-ins are to readings we have done or to other discussions we will have had, etc.

 

In planning the arc of your discussion, you are free to use an excerpt from the article, a video, a podcast excerpt, a poem, a PowerPoint, a song, group work, etc.

 

Your leading should not consist of simply reading notes, reading off PowerPoint slides (shudder!), reading off Perusall comments, or something similar. Nor is this an oral book report. That’s what middle school was for. You have to remain true to the material, while at the same time respecting your audience (which requires, at the very least, keeping them awake!).

 

The sessions that are available for paired leading are marked with asterisks on the course schedule. See the key at the top of the course schedule section below.

 

Evaluation of the discussion leading is based on:

·       evidence of preparation—e.g., does your leading seem well organized? Does the timing and sequencing indicate practice? (4 points)

·       command of the material—e.g., do you correctly understand the author’s points? Does that come through? (8 points)

·       quality of the manner of your leading—e.g., is your leading clear? Did you exert the leadership needed to avoid becoming a mere traffic cop (“Next!”)? If there were available tie-ins (internal tie-in: to a comment someone made 20 minutes ago; external tie-in: to a reading from last week), did you avail yourself of them? (8 points)

 

Personal electronics

This seminar requires a free-flowing exchange of ideas, between you and the authors, as well as among us. The presence of electronic devices, replete with their glowing notifications, creates a barrier to this flow. Therefore, the use of electronics is allowed in class only for accessing the readings online or by those with documented needs of which I’ve been notified by the Office of Academic Services. You’ll need a laptop or tablet for accessing the Perusall site during class.

 

Cell phones should be stowed away in any case, and not simply on the table—even if turned upside down—even if powered completely off. “Why,” you ask? Well, recent studies indicate the distracting effect of even a cell phone not one’s own, laying on a nearby table. In fact, of even a drawing or a thought of a cell phone.  So I hereby prohibit you during class even to think of a cell phone! (I’ll keep mine away, too.)

 

(If a phone is the only way you have of accessing the readings in class, fine…just give me a heads-up so I know not to bark at you.)

 

And even with a laptop or a tablet, you have a responsibility to stay on task during class time. This provides a nice summary of some of the recent research on the effects of off-task use of electronics in the classroom. Treat your seat in class as if it were the driver’s seat in a car. Steer responsibly.


As for note-taking, consult
this study, which found superior recall in students who took notes by hand compared to those who took them by typing, and this recent article sums up some of the research findings.


Students with documented disabilities
“Following the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and applicable state law, St. Mary’s College of Maryland (SMCM) does not discriminate against any individual on the basis of handicap or disability. As a result, SMCM will consider requests for reasonable accommodations for students who self-disclose a disability or disabling health conditions. Accessibility Services works with students, faculty, and staff to promote access on our campus.”

The SMCM Office of Accessibility Services


Academic integrity

As contagion

Of sickness makes sickness,

Contagion of trust can make trust.

                                                                        --Marianne Moore, American poet

                                                                           from “In Distrust of Merits” (1943)

The College’s definitions and policies about academic misconduct are laid out here.  Ignorance of such matters is no excuse. Academic misconduct can result in automatic failure of the course, regardless of how well a student has been doing on other assignments. In addition, extra-course penalties may be pursued, like being prohibited from ever re-taking the class.

 

“So, what about using a chatbot?”

Using AI, including platforms like ChatGPT or Bard, can be helpful as a tool in studying for exams. There’s no guarantee that the info you get from it will be accurate or to the point of the question. So you have to refuse to surrender your good judgment. It’s ill-advised to parrot what a chatbot tells you the answer is, just as it is to assume that the first hit on a Google search for “best Thai restaurant near me” will delight your palate.

 

            “OK, but what about for writing papers?

AI can also be useful as a resource for getting clear on some issues that you would need to understand in order to write the paper, as would consulting Wikipedia or YouTube videos. In order, that is, for YOU to write the paper.

1.     It’s fine by me for you to use AI as a RESOURCE, pre-writing.

 

AI can also be helpful as an editor, to do proofreading and grammar- and spell-checking, and to improve the organization of a paper. I’m not saying that the suggestions you get will always be correct, of course. Don’t outsource your common sense. Also, be wary of missing an opportunity to *learn* how a proposed revision of, say, a given wording is an improvement. (Assuming, of course, that it is an improvement.)

2.     It’s fine by me for you to use AI as an EDITOR, post-writing.

 

Where AI software should NOT be used is as an author. For YOU are the author, and to represent the work of another (whether of another person or of a software application) as if it were YOUR work is clearly plagiarism. As with using any other source, you should not copy and paste into your paper any content you did not create.

3.     It’s def NOT fine by me for you to use AI as an AUTHOR, doing the writing.

So as RESOURCE: fine

As EDITOR: fine

As AUTHOR: very not fine

 

Good (and short!) tutorials on topics like samples of acceptable and unacceptableparaphrases can be found at a page put up by Indiana University:  https://plagiarism.iu.edu/


Course Materials

 

We will be using but one book this semester:

College Ethics: A Reader on Moral Issues That Affect You, edited by Bob Fischer, 2nd ed. (2021: Oxford University Press); ISBN: 978-0190063337--$43 for a 180-day rental from Perusall.

Everyone will need to rent an electronic copy from Perusall in order to complete the daily multiple Perusall assignments. See the Perusall link and our course code above.


Depending on the path our discussions take, I may circulate to you as handouts occasional readings not listed in the Course Schedule.

 

Some of the readings in the schedule below are links to New York Times articles, to which you can subscribe at no additional charge because our library has worked out a deal with the NYT whereby all SMCM students, faculty, and staff can activate a subscription at no additional charge. (Your tuition $$ at work.)


Course Schedule

 

As we go, PowerPoints, and some occasional supplementary material, will be available (from your smcm.edu account) in this Google folder.

 

* = sessions available for you, in pairs, to lead for 50 minutes

 

dates         pages                               readings

Aug. 26

32 pp.

A. Introduction, pp. 1-30

B. Taber’s “The Euthyphro Objection to the Divine Command Theory of Morality”

Aug. 28

23 pp.

A.  remainder of Introduction, pp. 30-52

B.  Test yourself here about the Euthyphro objection to the divine command theory of morality.

Aug. 30

7 pp.

Timmons’ “Why I Am Not a Relativist (and Neither Are You)”

Aug. 31

Saturday: 500-750-word paper #1 (= 2-3 pp. with standard font and margins) due at 5:00 p.m..

I.                Sex and Relationships

Sep. 02

Labor Day: no classes

Sep. 04

11 pp.

1.     Corvino’s “We Shouldn’t Even Be Having This Discussion”

Sep. 06

13 pp.

2. Dular’s “Boy Bye: A Feminist Defense of Ghosting”

And Malia Wollan’s short NY Times piece “How to Recover from Being Ghosted,” with advice from SMCM’s Professor Freedman

Sep. 09

13 pp.

3.  Abbate’s “It’s Not Just a Personal Preference: Racialized Discrimination in the Tinder Context”

Sep. 11

11 pp.

+ 25 mins.

5.  Kelly’s “Sexism in Practice: Feminist Ethics Evaluating the Hookup Culture”

“Just Sex,” a 2017 episode of the NPR podcast Hidden Brain, is a 25-minute discussion between the host Shankar Vedantam and his guest, sociologist Lisa Wade

Sep. 13

10 pp.

6.     Roiphe’s “Date Rape’s Other Victim”

Sep. 16

8 pp.

7.     Dixon’s “Alcohol and Rape”

Sep. 18

13 pp.

8.     McPherson’s “Consent Is Not Enough: A Case against Liberal Sexual Ethics”

Sept. 19 & 20

3-4-page paper #2 due at noon on Thursday the 19th; tutorials will be scheduled today and tomorrow, so no class on the 20th

II.             Abortion

Sep. 23

13 pp.

9.     Grob & Nobis’ “Defining ‘Abortion’ and Critiquing Common Arguments about Abortion”

& this short video by Trevor Noah

Sep. 25

15 pp.

10.  Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”

Paper #2 will be returned to you by today; commence rewriting.

Sep. 27

9 pp.

11.  Marquis’ “Why Abortion Is Immoral”

Sep. 30

10 pp.

12.  Hursthouse’s “Virtue Theory and Abortion”

III.            Feminism, Trans Identities, and Race

Oct. 02

12 pp.

13.  Tuvel’s “The Case for Feminism”

Sophie Haigney’s NYT article about BimboTok

Oct. 04

11 pp.

14.  Eaton’s “A Sensible Antiporn Feminism”

Oct. 07

No classes, due to College’s Fall Reading Days, 7th & 8th

Oct. 09

22 pp.

15.  Chappell’s “How (Not) to Talk about, and to, Trans Women”

16.  Overall’s “Trans Persons, Cisgender Persons, and Gender Identities”

Oct. 11

21 pp.

17.  Bonilla-Silva’s “The Structure of Racism in Color-Blind ‘Post-Racial’ America”

18.  Blum’s “Racism: What It Is and What It Isn’t”

Oct. 14

Optional group study session for exam

Oct. 16

Essay exam in class; eligible questions will have been circulated to you.

IV.           Activism

Oct. 18

11 pp.

21.  Ilea & Janzen’s “Be the Change: Student Activism”

Oct. 21

11 pp.

22.  Blankschaen & Zhu’s “Complacency on Campus: How Allies Can Do Better”

V.              The Internet, Gaming, and Sports

Oct. 23*

12 pp.

23.  Vallor’s “New Social Media and Technomoral Virtues”[Jacob]

Oct. 25 *

15 pp.

+

4 pp.

24.  Surovell’s “The More We Get Together on Social Media the Worse Off We’ll Be (and the Worse Off We’ll Make Our Friends)”

Haidt & Twenge on teenage depression and smartphones

Oct. 28 *

8 pp.

25.  Forcehimes’ “Download This Essay: A Defense of Stealing E-Books”                                                   [Rain & Aurelia]

Oct. 30

No classes due to Wellness Day

Nov. 01

10 pp.

26.  Luck’s “The Gamer’s Dilemma: An Analysis of the Arguments for the Moral Distinction between Virtual Murder and Virtual Pedophilia”                    [Ethan & Alex Matthews]

Nov. 04*

14 pp.

27.  Zema’s “Should Student-Athletes Be Paid?”  [Halimah & Ty]

Nov. 06-Nov. 08

4-5-page paper #3 due at start of class time on Nov. 06; no class on the 6th and the 8th, due to tutorials being scheduled.

Nov. 11*

18 pp.

+ 2 pp.

28.  Leong’s “Against Women’s Sports” with this July 2021 article about women in ultramarathons     [Kyree & Jackson U.]

VI.           Consumer Ethics

Nov. 13*

10 pp.

29.  Doucet’s “Just Say No (for Now): The Ethics of Illegal Drug Use”                                                            [Natalie & Sophia]

Nov. 15*

8 pp.

30.  Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” 

                                                          [Jackson W. & Elian]

Nov. 18*

11 pp.

31.  Norcross’ “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases”                                       [Philip & Sophia]

VII.         Higher Education: Ethics and Policy

Nov. 20*

21 pp.

36.  Dieterle & Koolage’s “Affording Disaster: Concealed Carry on Campus”

37.  Hsiao & Blanchette’s “Guns on Campus: A Defense”

                                                  [Elijah & Alex Morgan]

Nov. 22*

13 pp.

42. Bouville’s “Why Is Cheating Wrong?”   [Hope & Chris]

Nov. 25

Teach Your Family, part I

Thanksgiving recess

VIII.      Being a Student (and a Grad)

Dec. 02 *

11 pp.

46. Garner’s “Are You Morally Responsible for Your Student Loans?”                                                [Joana & Sara]

Extra-credit paper due at start of class on your response to ch. 41, Pynes’ “Seven Arguments against Extra Credit” (3-4 pp., worth up to 10 pts.)

Dec. 04 *

11 pp.

47. Crummett’s “You Are Spider-Man”  [Ashlyn & Mani]

Dec. 06

Teach Your Family, part II

Thursday, Dec 12

Final essay exam in our scheduled final exam slot 2:00-4:15 p.m.; eligible questions will have been circulated to you.