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:
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] |
|
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. |
|