Course Materials



Critical Reading and Writings in EthicsDr. Peter Gratton, Dept. of PhilosophyTu/Th 1400-1515 A, 3017Fall 2017Office Hours: T/Th, 15:15-17:00 and by appointment, AA3102Course web site: grattoncourses.e-mail: pgratton@mun.caRequired Texts:Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, Terence Irwin (Indianapolis / Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999).Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, ISBN: 0679724621 (Vintage)Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, ISBN: 087220166X (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett PublishingMill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism (Indianapolis / Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1995).Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish (New York: Vintage, 1979), ISBN: 0679752552.Strunk, William, and E.B. White, The Elements of Style (New York: Longman, 2000).General Course Description: As a Critical Reading and Writing course, this course will focus on learning and practicing the fundamental skills required for university-level critical reading and writing that will prepare students for other Arts courses regardless of discipline. Students are therefore encouraged to take this course within their first year of their BA program. focused focused Critical Reading and Writing skills that students will demonstrate competence in include:reading to understand a text, effective note-taking, analysis of evidence, writing to present and critique argumentsappropriate and accurate usage of secondary sourcespresenting ideas in clear, direct, precise, and proper Englishwriting in a style appropriate for university-level academic communicationdrafting, revising, editing, and peer-reviewingavoiding plagiarismIn twelve weeks, we will cover centuries’ worth of work in ethics. How ought we to live? What is the difference between an ethical claim and any other? Is there a difference between ethics and morality? If so, what is it? We will begin with Hannah Arendt’s essay, “What is Authority?” A mid-twentieth-century author writing in the wake of World War II and its horrific calamities, Arendt argues that the modern age—we philosophers talk of “modernity” in terms of centuries, basically the last three to four or so—has lost the thread of tradition and with it any notion of authority. I’m going to use this essay to set up the course since I think there is much to be gained from this essay: we no longer take it for granted that we follow the morals of our religion or of those in power—at least unquestioningly. This has the upshot that we live in a more democratic age: we are to think for ourselves, often critically using our own ethical values to challenge those in power, even if they are those in power in our churches, synagogues, and mosques. But it also means, Arendt believes, that we are to think, each of us, without banisters, without guiderails that early generations had to tell them what was right and what was wrong. To paraphrase a quotation we’ll see later in the semester, however, after tradition is lost, all is possible, even the worst forms of evil. Nothing better could help us to situate our own investigations of ethics this semester.From there, though, we must look to a certain canon in Western ethics, beginning with Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, which argues that happiness, as he means the term, is nothing other than acting ethically. Instead of thinking of happiness as pleasure—a mistake that he saw people making in his own day in the 4th century BCE—we should instead see that our function as human beings, having been born in a community with others, is to act virtuously toward others. We can only do so if we are given an education that provides us with the tools, the habits, to perform virtuous acts, such as bravery, magnanimity, and generosity. The type of ethics offered by Aristotle is thus called virtue ethics. But just as importantly, we will look at how Aristotle makes his arguments to his own students (what he have of this text is likely notes he used for his own teaching) as well the different types of reasoning Aristotle discusses. After Aristotle, we will study the difficult, though not impossible, to read work of Immanuel Kant, whose Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals in the 18th century is still very influential on contemporary ethical inquiry. For Kant, ethics is not based in one’s character, as Aristotle believed, but in aligning one’s will or desires with what reason tells us to do. Kant argues, in what is called a deontological ethics, that ethical rules follow from the laws of reason, such as the categorical imperative. According to Kant, ethics is not a messy affair as it is in Aristotle, for whom one’s ethical stand is often based on context; it is rather a set of rules to follow if one is to be a reasoning human being. To help us understand Kant’s difficult work, we will read Onora O’Neill’s helpful essay, “Kantian Ethics.” Moving from Kant, we will study John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, which offers a theory of consequentialist ethics. For Mill, to put it simply, ethics decisions are to be made based upon the cost and benefits to those around us, not upon abstract rules as found in Kant. We will see how Mill defines “happiness” in different ways than Aristotle. This will give us an opportunity to make a demonstration that often philosophical differences aren’t just about the terms we use, but what we mean by those terms. For example, many people say they believe in God, but may mean very different things by that term. As part of reading Mill, we will explain his major other opponent in ethical theory, namely what is called “deontological” ethics.From there, we get into the heart of the course. We will read three philosophers who take seriously Arendt’s notion of authority. First, we will take up Friedrich Nietzsche, a nineteenth-century philosopher who argued that all ethical notions that we usually use are just making most docile before those who are weak. Nietzsche's view is that, as we'll see, crime and its link to punishment is but a convoluted leftover from the earliest trading: we take something so we must give something in return, and that punishment is not the result of an erudite theory, but because it provides the pleasure of our will to power over others. Whatever we will think of this view, we must not treat, as writers on crime and punishment often do, especially in philosophy, this issues as an abstract armchair discussion: the penitentiaries of our prison landscapes are not just the result of various theories of punishment, but also, perhaps, as authors we will read set out to demonstrate, are the result of labeling some (visible minorities and the poor) as always already guilty of a given crime, and thus always available for punishment. And, in turn, there are those who are always already deemed innocent, or at least non-punishable: we can think here of the various Wall Street CEOs and so on who were involved in the credit default swap frauds that nearly brought down the world economy, though?not one?has faced any jail time (think of that the next time you read of someone getting jail time for minor drug use that affects no one) or the police officers in the U.S. who can kill with impunity, even when caught on tape.When we read from Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, we will read his account of the birth of the prison and we will be forced to ask ourselves troubling questions: why this strange institution of the prison? Why punishment at all? The point is not to think about ourselves as not punishing at all, but why we do so in the first place, and also how new, relatively speaking, the ways that we do are. These questions are central to any thinking of ethics since we think about morality so close to issues of wrong-doing and its punishment. Is this the only model the West will ever have? Is it right?In our last reading, we return to Arendt, as she writes about the case of Adolph Eichmann, hung in 1961 for crimes against humanity by Israel. Arendt charts the case, sometimes controversially, but she focuses on how we can find him responsible for his crimes, when so many others in his country were just following the laws, and finally why he should hang. There is, perhaps, no greater ethical question before any of us than about how we act against our own interests, as Kant suggests, and against what all others around us want. The case of Eichmann should not lead us to easy answers: we too often support the wrongs around us, and ethics is anything but an easy enterprise. And this is a good warning for how we proceed in this class.Philosophical skills that students should demonstrate competence in include:discerning the arguments in a text and explaining them in one’s own wordsreflecting on and comparing different ethical positionsarticulating one’s own default beliefs and moral opinionsresponding critically to ethical ideassupporting an argument with citations and examplesreading and incorporating secondary sources on ethical textsRequirementsReading: You must read the assigned texts prior to class and it is highly recommended that you read any philosophical texts at least twice. Given the breadth of any survey course, but especially one in philosophy, it will be important for you to keep up with the readings and bring to class any questions you have about the text(s). Use a dictionary to look up words that you don’t understand, and come to class with any questions you have. This is a work-intensive class, as you will see below. You should do your best to keep up with the readings and writing assignments from the beginning, since it will be difficult, if not impossible, to catch up later on. Class Participation: You will be expected to attend each class having read the relevant materials and able to comment upon them to other members of the class. Your participation grade will be assessed with the following in mind: (1) attendance (no more than three absences during the semester, no exceptions) and (2) level and quality of participation. Each student is required to write a two-page, single-spaced protocol for one of the days’ reading assignments listed below. The handouts can be a summary of the material, a response to one of the ideas contained in the reading, or some combination thereof. Since you will be writing these handouts on readings that we have not gone over, you are not expected to have mastered the material. Rather, it is more than fair to raise in your handout any passages that were particularly difficult and that we need to go over. You should send it to me via email so that I can put it up on the front projector. This assignment is worth ? of your participation points in the course.If you suffer from any disabilities, such as a social phobia and/or a physical or mental condition, which you believe may impede your progress and participation in the course, either with regard to the class itself or quizzes and exams, please let me know as soon as possible. I have worked with students with special circumstances before and I will be glad to do so again to make this classroom as inclusive as possible.Writing Assignments: There will be weekly writing assignments and a mid-term paper, with intermittent drafts due, all to lead to a final paper on ethics at the end of the course.Evaluation:In class quizzes 20%1st short paper10%2nd short paper10%3rd short paper15%Participation (including homework)10%Take home essay examination35%Class Cancellations: If class is cancelled for any reason, the cancellation will be posted under the cancellations section of the main page of the Memorial University website.Intellectual Honesty: Students are reminded of the University policy on intellectual honesty, especially that part which pertains to plagiarism and self-plagiarism (see the Memorial University Calendar). Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are forms of academic fraud; complaints or allegations of such are subject to the adjudication of the Senate Discipline Committee. Cheating includes but is not limited to allowing another student to copy from your work, presenting someone else’s work as your own including through failure to credit the source of ideas, consulting electronic devices such as mobile phones, and/or interacting with others while a test is ongoing. Any submission in this course that is similar to another author’s work, beyond chance, will be treated as plagiarism. Information about procedures and penalties for academic misconduct is outlined in the University Calendar.Statement on Students with Special Needs: Students with permanent or temporary disabilities who would like to discuss classroom accommodations are asked to see the instructor as soon as possible.Schedule of Readings:Thursday, Sept. 71.???? Introduction to Ethics.2.???? Overview of normative versus ontological claims.Tuesday,Sept. 121. ? ? Read:?Arendt’s “What is Authority” (available at course website), pp. 91-120.Assignment:?What is a Thesis Statement? Read Harvard University's Writings Center's?Guide to Developing a Thesis Statement.Thursday, Sept. 141. ? ?Read:?Arendt’s “What is Authority?” (available at course website), pp. 120-end.Assignment: Write 0ut what you believe is Arendt's thesis in “What is Authority”? Use two sentences at most. Bring with you to class.Tuesday, Sept. 191. ? ? Read: Aristotle,?Nicomachean Ethics, Book I2.???? Begin informal fallacies (subchapter for all discussions of fallacies here from Patrick Hurley's?A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11th edition)Assignment:?3.2, Fallacies of Relevance, pp. 122-133. Do questions for part I, # 1-15. Hand in answers at the beginning of class.Resources for Aristotle:1. BBC?In Our Time:?Virtue?(podcast)2. Nigel Warburton, Philosophy Classics,?Aristotle’s?Nicomachean Ethics?(podcast)?3.?Table of Virtues?(MS Word File)4. Aristotle Prof’s?opening lecture and overview.Thursday, Sept. 211. ? ? Read: Aristotle,?Ethics, Book II.2. ? ?Continue informal fallacies (subchapter for all discussions of fallacies here from Patrick Hurley's?A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11th edition)Assignment:?3.3, Fallacies of Weak Induction, pp. 138-149. Do questions for part I, # 1-15. Hand in answers at the beginning of class.Tuesday,Sept. 261. ? ? Read: Aristotle,?Ethics, Book III2. ? ?Continue informal fallacies (subchapter for all discussions of fallacies here from Patrick Hurley's?A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11th edition)Assignment:?3.4, Fallacies of Presumption, etc., pp. 156-170. Do questions for part I, # 1-20. Hand in answers at the beginning of class.Thursday, Sept. 281. ? ? Reading: Aristotle,?Ethics, Book VI, chapters I-XFirst Writing Assignment?Due?(3 pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman font): This paper will allow you to identify your own background assumptions about morality. In this paper you will explain three virtues that we have in our own society that would be different from Aristotle’s list. Why are they important in our society? Do you agree that these are important virtues? You should have a clear thesis as your first sentence stating what you think ties together our own notions of virtue. (10 pts.)?Tuesday, Oct. 31. ? ? Read: Kant,?Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, pp. 7-15.2. Continue informal fallacies (subchapter for all discussions of fallacies here from Patrick Hurley's?A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11th edition)Assignment:?3.5, Fallacies in Ordinary Language, pp. 178-185. Do question for part II, p. 195. Hand in answer at the beginning of class.Thursday, Oct. 51. ? ? Read: Kant,?Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, pp. 16-30.In-class quiz?on Argumentative Fallacies: Multiple choice and short answer. (10 pts.)Resources for Kant:Paul Guyer,?“Kant’s Ethics”?(.pdf)Nigel Warburton,?“Kant’s?Groundwork?for?the Metaphysics of Morals”?(podcast)L. Alexander and M. Moore, “Deontological Ethics” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Phil.)Tuesday,Oct. 91.???? Thanksgiving BreakThursday, Oct. 121. Read: Kant,?Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, pp. 31-49.2. Discussion of plagiarism. Read MUN?University Calendar Sections 5.11.5.2 and 5.11.5.4.?and the MUN Writing Center's?Guide to Avoiding Plagiarism.Tuesday, Oct. 171. ?Read: Mill,?Utilitarianism?(sections 1-2)2. Read:?Harvard's Brief Guide to Writing a Philosophy PaperResources for John Stuart Mill:Professor’s?Mill Handout?(MS Word)P. Pettit,?“Consequentialism”?(.pdf, a little dark in spots)Nigel Warburton, “Mill’s ‘Utilitarianism’” (podcast)Thursday, Oct. 191. ? ? Read Mill,?Utilitarianism?(sections 3-5)Second Writing Assignment?Due?(3 pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman font): In this exegetical paper, you will provide an overview of Kant’s deontological approach, specifically the basis for the categorical imperative as well as how one applies it. We will discuss in class how to organize this paper. (10 pts.)Tuesday, Oct. 24LAST DAY TO DROP WITHOUT PREJUDICE: You have at least 20% of your grade completed at this time.1. ? ? Read: Nietzsche,?Genealogy of Morals, Section I.In Class Quiz?on plagiarism and key terms in Harvard's Short Guide to Writing a Philosophy Paper. Multiple choice and short answer. (5 pts.)Resources for Nietzsche:Philosophy Now,?“The Thought of Friedrich Nietzsche”?(podcast)Dale Wilkerson,?"Friedrich Nietzsche,"?Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Thursday, Oct. 261. ? ? Read: Nietzsche,?Genealogy of Morals, Section II.Third Writing Assignment (4 pages):?In this paper, you will show how Mill would have critiqued Aristotle had he made more than a passing mention of him in?Utilitarianism. What would his critique be? Why do you think this? Make sure to provide textual evidence for your claims, both from Aristotle and from Mill. (15pts.)Tuesday, Oct. 311. ? ? Read: Michel Foucault,?Discipline?and Punish, pp. 3-32Resources for Foucault:BBC's?Thinking?Aloud?with Stephen Shapiro.The Partially Examined Life?podcast?on Foucault and Punishment, with specific discussion of the chapters of?DP.Gary Gutting,?"Michel Foucault,"?Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Thursday, Nov. 21. ? ? Read Foucault,?Discipline, pp. 32-72.2.???? Discussion of issues in second and third writing assignments.Tuesday, Nov. 71.???? Foucault,?Discipline, pp. 73-103.Thursday, Nov. 91.???? Foucault,?Discipline, pp. 195-230.Tuesday, Nov. 141.???? Foucault,?Discipline, pp. 293-end.Quiz, multiple choice and short answer on Foucault's?Discipline and Punish. (5 pts.)Thursday, Nov. 151. ? ?Arendt,?Eichmann in Jerusalem, "The Accused"Resources on Arendt's?Eichmann in JerusalemThe Guardian's?Big Ideas?podcast?on "The Banality of Evil"Corey Robin,?"The Trials of Hannah Arendt,"?The Nation?magazine (May 12, 2015). (A fair review of the controversies surrounding this polemical book.)Tuesday, Nov. 211. ? ?Arendt,?Eichmann in Jerusalem, ‘Duties of a Law Abiding Citizen‘Thursday, Nov. 231. ?Arendt,?Eichmann in Jerusalem, ‘Epilogue'Final Examination Essay Question?handed out to class. The essay will require at least seven double-spaced pages to answer. Students can and should meet with me to discuss which topic fits best given their preparation in the class as well as prepare an outline for the paper itself. (35 pts.)Tuesday, Nov. 281.???? Discussion on selections from?The Elements of Style?and what to what out for preparing for final papers.Thursday, Nov. 30Final Class.T/B/ATake home written essay examination due, AA 3069, the mailbox of Dr. Peter Gratton ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download