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.
Attendance
Policy
For at least this reason, regular attendance at, and
participation in, class are required, whether in person or via video link.
(Furthermore, it is impossible to do well in this course without regular
attendance, and difficult without regular participation.)
For this course,
everyone is allowed three unexcused absences per
semester. (The College policy is to allow two—thus, I
am out of the gates already 50% more generous than the College!) For this
course, six unexcused absences will result in failing the course, despite the
quality of the rest of the student’s work. (And merely
emailing the professor prior to class to say “I won’t be in class today” does
not automatically suffice for an absence to count as being excused. “Expected”
is not a synonym for “excused.”)
That having been
said, this semester is likely to be a singularly unusual one, and I will be
accessible for us to talk (or “talk”) about needs you might have—whether
consistently throughout the semester or just for certain
stretches within it. I have no interest in incentivizing you to make this
course (although “my baby!”) THE most important concern in your life. Yes, this
will be a rockin’ course, but these days the gods seem to be distracted with
other matters and to have taken their eyes off the road. Hence, we find
ourselves having to balance priorities that would normally be no-brainers.
This attendance
policy holds regardless of whether one is attending in person or online. For
those attending online, the aforementioned rationale for
requiring attendance for this course entails that one’s video be activated.
This preserves the face-to-face engagement with each other. 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, and can’t be subverted by a dinky virus one 8-billionth of a meter
in diameter. (Requests for waivers to this video-on requirement can be made to the instructor on grounds of, for example,
technical obstacles to video streaming.) Otherwise, attending online with video
off counts as an absence.
For the health and
safety of our community, within all academic buildings, including this
classroom, all students are required to wear face coverings over the nose and
mouth and comply with social distancing to the extent possible. Students who
are unable or unwilling to wear a face covering are required to enroll in the
remote option of this course. Failure to comply will result in your being excused from the class session, subsequent class
meetings, and potentially from the residential campus experience.
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.
Course
Requirements
The evaluation for the course will be based on
these items, out of a semester total of 200 points:
Consistent with the “Attendance
Policy” above, here are the point losses for various numbers of unexcused
absences:
0-5:
zero points lost
6
or more: an F for the course.
Don’t
expect to pass a skiing or yoga class (say, for instructor certification) if
you’re absent for the equivalent of two weeks. Philosophy is likewise the
development of a skill, for which one’s presence is required—as opposed to
amassing facts, for which one’s presence wouldn’t be
as irreplaceable.
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.
In order to access and annotate the readings on Perusall,
each student will need to create a Perusall account, and upon registering there, enter
this course code for Phil 120.01: TABER-2JVRA
The September (and maybe the October) paper 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 44-point paper of five pages, and you have made thirteen
mechanical errors, then you will receive a 41 for the paper. N.B.:
the same mistake (not just similar) repeated will count as one mistake. Except
for on the final paper, 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), th 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 contact the
Assistant Director of the Center, Mandy Taylor, at apheatwole@smcm.edu.
You also might consider spending a bit of time at my writing site.
Few would fail to benefit.
Students with documented disabilities
“Students are admitted to St. Mary’s College based on their potential for
academic success, irrespective of physical or learning disabilities.
Administrative staff and faculty work cooperatively to assist students
with disabilities in their educational endeavors and adjustments to the College
community. The Office of Academic Services works to ensure that
educational programs are accessible to all qualified students. Student
with physical or learning disabilities should contact the Office of Academic
Services for specific information and assistance regarding potential special
needs.” --SMCM catalog
Academic integrity
As contagion
Of sickness makes sickness,
Contagion of trust can make trust.
--Marianne
Moore, American poet
from “In Distrust
of Merits” (1943)
Academic integrity: The College’s definitions and policies
on this matter are laid out here. Ignorance of such matters is no excuse.
Good (and short!) tutorials on topics like samples of
acceptable and unacceptable paraphrases can be found
at a page put up by Indiana University: https://plagiarism.iu.edu/
Cornell has a quiz you can take to see how well you
understand what sorts of material needs to be sourced: http://plagiarism.arts.cornell.edu/tutorial/exercises.cfm
(Click on “Introduction” on the left-hand side if you want to see their
discussion leading up to the quiz.)
Course
Materials
We
will be using but one book this semester:
Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology, edited by Steven M.
Cahn, 5th ed. (2019: Oxford
University Press); ISBN:
978-0190887902 ($55 for purchase
as a new paperback; $28 for rental as an ebook.)
The book is available in various formats,
whether for rental or for purchase, but it is imperative that you get the 5th
edition. (Hence the red and underlined font above.)
Previous editions are missing much of the material in the 5th. It is available to purchase
or rent as an ebook from
Redshelf, to purchase in paper from the publisher
(Oxford
University Press), and from
Amazon.
Depending on the path our
discussions take, I may circulate to you as handouts occasional readings not
listed in the Course Schedule.
Course
Schedule
As we go, PowerPoints will be available (from your
smcm.edu account) in this
Google folder.
dates chapters readings
|
Aug. 17 |
1 2 |
Frankena’s
“Morality and Moral Philosophy” Plato’s Crito |
|
Aug.
19 |
3 |
Plato’s Phaedo (as excerpted in our
book) |
|
Aug.
21 |
Dr. Martin Luther King’s
“Letter from Birmingham Jail” |
|
|
Aug.
24 |
4 5 |
Driver’s “Subjectivism” Cahn’s “God and Morality” |
|
Aug.
26 |
6 7 |
Rachels’
“The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” Nagel’s “Right and Wrong” Taber’s “The Euthyphro Objection to the Divine
Command Theory of Morality” |
|
Aug. 28 |
8 |
Rachels’
“Egoism and Moral Skepticism” |
|
Aug.
31 |
9 |
Cahn & Murphy’s “Happiness
and Immorality” |
|
|
||
|
Sept. 2 |
2-3 page paper due emailed by
start of class; no new reading for today’s class, as we’ll
prepare for the next part of the course. |
|
|
|
||
|
Sept.
4 |
12 13 |
Kant’s “The Categorical
Imperative” O’Neill’s “A Simplified
Account of Kant’s Ethics” |
|
Sept.
7 |
Labor Day…no classes. |
|
|
Sept.
9 |
14 15 |
Mill’s “Utilitarianism” Pojman’s
“Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism” |
|
Sept. 11 |
16 17 |
Aristotle’s “The Nature of
Virtue” (And this 9-minute
video.) Driver’s “Virtue Ethics” (And this.) |
|
Sept.
14 |
18 19 |
Held’s
“The Ethics of Care” Hobbes’s “The Social Contract” |
|
Sept.
16 |
20 |
Rawls’s “A Theory of Justice” 2 videos about Rawls: a 7-minute overview from
The School of Life & Matt Deaton’s 19-minute explanation,
from Hanover, MD |
|
Sept.
18 |
22 23 |
Singer’s “Famine, Affluence,
and Morality” Timmerman’s “A Reply to
Singer” |
|
|
||
|
Sept.
21 |
3-4 page paper due emailed by
start of class; no new reading for today’s class, as we’ll
prepare for the next readings in the course. |
|
|
|
||
|
Sept.
23 |
24 |
Miller’s “Immigration: The
Case for Limits” |
|
Sept.
25 |
25 |
Huemer’s
“Is There a Right to Immigrate?” |
|
Sept.
28 |
26 |
Appiah’s “Racisms” |
|
Sept.
30 |
27 |
Cudd
& Jones’s “Sexism” |
|
Oct.
2 |
28 29 |
Anderson’s “Value and the Gift
of Sexuality” Nussbaum’s “Taking Money for
Bodily Services” |
|
Oct.
5 |
30 |
Satz’s
“Markets in Women’s Sexual Labor” |
|
Oct. 7 |
31 32 |
Longino’s
“Pornography, Oppression, and Freedom” Feinberg’s “The Case Against Pornography:
An Assessment” |
|
|
||
|
Oct. 9 |
3-4 page paper due emailed by
start of class; no new reading for today’s class, as we’ll
prepare for the next readings in the course. |
|
|
|
||
|
Oct. 12 |
33 |
Singer’s “Equality for
Animals?” |
|
Oct. 14 |
34 |
Steinbock’s
“Speciesism and the Idea of Equality” |
|
Oct.
16 |
35 36 |
Korsgaard’s
“Getting Animals in View” Warren’s “Speaking of Animal
Rights” |
|
Oct.
19 |
37 |
Sober’s
“Philosophical Problems for Environmentalism” |
|
Oct.
21 |
38 |
Jamieson’s “Ethics and Global
Change” |
|
Oct.
23 |
39 |
Thomson’s “A Defense of
Abortion” |
|
Oct.
26 |
40 |
Warren’s “On the Moral and
Legal Status of Abortion” |
|
Oct.
28 |
41 |
Marquis’ “Why Abortion is
Immoral” |
|
Oct. 30 |
42 |
Hursthouse’s
“Virtue Theory and Abortion” |
|
Nov. 2 |
43 |
Rachels’
“Active and Passive Euthanasia” |
|
|
||
|
Nov.
4 |
No class today, as 5-6 page
paper due emailed by 4:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
||
|
Nov.
6 |
44 |
Steinbock’s
“The Intentional Termination of Life” |
|
Nov.
9 |
45 |
Nagel’s “Death” |
|
Nov. 11 |
46 |
Kagan’s “The Badness of Death” |
|
Nov. 13 |
47 |
Camus’ “Myth of Sisyphus” Taylor’s “The Meaning of Life” |
|
Nov.
16 |
48 49 |
Wolf’s “Meaning in Life” Vitrano’s
“Meaningful Lives” |
|
Nov.
18 |
50 51 |
Thomson’s “The Trolley
Problem” Thomson’s “Turning the
Trolley” |
|
Nov.
20 |
52 |
Wolf’s “Moral Saints” |
|
|
||
|
Thurs. Dec.
03 |
final
paper or take-home exam (tbd) due emailed by end of
our scheduled final exam slot, which is 9:00-11:15 a.m. ET. |
|