Survey in the History of Ancient Philosophy



Topics in Philosophy of Law (Phil 405)

Pennsylvania State University, University Park

Willard Building 067

Tuesday and Thursday 3.05–4.20p, 21 Aug – 06 Dec 2018

Instructor: Christopher Moore

Department of Philosophy

Office: 240E Sparks Building

Email: c.moore@psu.edu

Phone: 814-863-5514

Office Hours: Thursday 1–3p, and by appointment

Required Texts

Ronald Dworkin, Justice in Robes

Linda Greenhouse, The US Supreme Court: A Very Short Introduction

H.L.A. Hart, Law, Liberty, and Morality

Martha Nussbaum, From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation & Constitutional Law

Other texts will be found on the course’s Canvas page

Course

This course addresses the essential philosophical questions connected to constitutional interpretation, among the crucial issue for both law and our democratic life (other key issues, not discussed here, include penal sentencing and administrative regulations). We will focus on the US Constitution and Supreme Court, with close attention to the arguments and justifications articulated in the course of US current affairs. The basic problem is the following: if state and federal laws are valid only if they conform to the US Constitution, how is one to know what counts as conforming to the US Constitution? Three principal philosophical questions arise in this context; all are normative rather than merely descriptive, concerned with publicly-acceptable reasons in favor of doing something rather than the fact whether something is done. (i) What are the sources of the Constitution’s continued normative force – that is, how can contemporary legal validity depend on a short text from several centuries ago? (ii) What kinds of considerations may judges appeal to deciding what the UC Constitution says about any matter proposed by a problematic case – that is, to what extent may they appeal to history, linguistics, personal feelings and moral judgments, political sentiments and ideological vision, economic facts and social mores, and US legal precedent and non-US parallels? (iii) What precisely can we make of the so-called law-making vs. law-discovering dichotomy, especially in the context of the “separation of powers” and the necessarily abstract formulation of any legislated law – that is, how “creative” is “interpretation”? In answering these and other questions, the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment will provide special points of focus, given their centrality to morally and socially urgent jurisprudence.

Texts from leading philosophers of law will guide us, but not to the exclusion of the concrete reality of constitutional interpretation: we will spend much time reading and analyzing a range of provocative recent Supreme Court arguments and decisions, as well as philosophical, legal, and journalistic commentary on the Supreme Court. Thus this class, with its deep and rigorous study of foundational legal reasoning, has the particular goal of helping students think philosophically and speak thoughtfully about the most challenging legal – and thus also political and cultural – problems today.

Class time

Most classes will involve general conversation about the reading, relevant concepts, current events connected to constitutional interpretation, and student work. Sometimes students will engage in small-group directed-reading assignments. On occasion there may be lecture. At all moments, every student should be engaged by talking, listening, taking notes, and being otherwise visibly attentive.

Graded assignments

Memos [100 points possible]

For every class-session before Thanksgiving (excluding the first day and exam days) you will submit, in hardcopy, a “memo” that responds to the prompt including under the day it is due. Memos are ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download