Philosophy 21001, section 030, Summer III, 2008; MTWR 12:00-1:55; Bowman 219
Jeffrey Wattles, instructor
A person can have good looks, money, knowledge, and skill, yet still be foolish. This observation may prompt a quest for wisdom, in other words, philosophical inquiry. A branch of philosophy is ethics, considering what we ought to do morally and what kind of character is good to cultivate. The student will learn some highlights of the history of Western philosophical ethics and be exposed to something of philosophy’s logical skills. In addition, philosophy does not get real unless put into practice, and there is an experiential component of the course (without pressure to accept or try out any unwelcome view).
Diversity Element: Philosophy specializes in intellectual diversity; in addition the class considers religious and non-religious alternatives and samples feminism and a non-Western tradition. This course satisfies Kent's diversity requirement.
Text: Steven M. Cahn, ed., Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-19-514091-5, paper).
Evaluation. Evaluation is based on participation (10 points): We are a community of inquiry, and our interaction has a life of its own; so you are expected to attend regularly, be on time (including after the break), have the reading done, and be ready to participate. More than four absences may affect the grade. If you miss seven classes, how can I pass you? Second, there are various written assignments (60 points total). The projects facilitate growth by nudging you to let your study illuminate your experience and vice-versa. If you feel you have a reason to request an alternative to any of the projects, please speak with the instructor. One more thing about the papers. Writing is so important for your future role; English well used is important for our world, especially when so much communicating is mediated by machines; and it is a vital skill that school sometimes fails to teach. If I don’t fuss about writing, you should see what some folks hand in! So I fuss, and I generally get quite decent writing. Thus papers must be well written to receive a C or above. It’s a good idea to familiarize yourself with the Writing Center’s services and its website: http://dept.kent.edu/english/WritingCent/writngcenter.htm . Speaking of communication, the University obliges you to check your KSU e-mail address. If I have messages to send to the whole class, e.g., about changing a syllabus assignment, or keeping in touch in the case of an epidemic, I will use those addresses. Third, there are three quizzes (including the final--10 points each), mostly multiple-choice; later quizzes will touch on material covered in earlier quizzes.
My office hours are MTWR, 9:30-45 and 2:00-3:00 (Bowman 320H) and by appointment (330-672-0276; e-mail: jwattles@kent.edu ).
Additional materials are posted at http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jwattles/classes.htm. For other web links (but don’t forget the library), consider starting with http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/asp/guides.asp (through the American Philosophical Association). Rather than simply going to Google, consider academic sites: http://www.searchedu.com/ (now one of the Google search engines). There’s also the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/
In accordance with University policy, if you have a documented disability and require accommodations to obtain equal access in this course, please contact the instructor at the beginning of the semester or when given an assignment for which an accommodation is required. Students with disabilities must verify their eligibility through the Office of Student Disability Services (SDS) in the Michael Schwartz Student Services Center (672-2972).
The Philosophy Department Grievance Procedure for handling student grievances is in conformity with the Student Academic Complaint Policy and Procedures set down as University Policy 3342-4-16 in the University Policy Register. For information concerning the details of the grievance procedure, please see the Departmental Chairperson.
July
14 Introductions. Groups of four: what should the instructor do with his three extra copies of the text (if he gives them away or sells them)? Classical Greek philosophic concepts of virtue (aretē, excellence). Seen on a T-shirt: “We are what we do regularly. Therefore, excellence is not an act, but a habit.” Take notes, and get in the game.
15 Plato’s Crito (p. 23-31 in the text). Be sure to read this very carefully for today’s class, and be ready to discuss it. Also prepare by going to my classes page: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jwattles/classes.htm and scroll down to the Plato section, then read the document on the Crito. Written Exercise due: a one-page account (typed, double-spaced, proof-read) of a significant ethical decision that you have made (5%). In the first paragraph, state the facts of the case, and interpret their meaning as they are relevant to your decision. In the second paragraph, state the main value to be actualized and unfold the implications of that value for your situation.
16 Find the link from the classes page for the document on Aristotle, print it out, and read these notes through Book III discussion of courage and self-mastery (temperance). Do not expect to understanding everything easily; do your best, and don’t worry about the rest. Clarity comes through (1) your effort and (2) my explanations in class—and you must ask questions to attain the goal. I’ll use today to discuss self-mastery and courage, whose accounts are not included in the text, except for this reading: pp. 212-15 in the text. Pick a virtue that you want to develop during the coming week and beyond.
17 Exercises contributing to the project and paper plus continuing exploration of the webnotes on Aristotle.
21 Read Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book I (182-189), reviewing your webnotes and preparing to discuss. Tip: reviewing your notes immediately before and after class leverages your learning. Book I gives the basics of his theory.
22 Text, pp. 189-212 (except for the discussion of justice, 202-05). This is a day of heavy reading., covering Book II (most important), III (somewhat less important), and VI (rely mainly on the webnotes).
23 Read the text, 202-205 on justice plus the webnotes on Book V; and 216-21 on contemplation (plus the webnotes on Book X.
24 Hand in a three-page report of your experience of cultivating the virtue that you chose to work on, plus a three-page commentary on your experience report from an Aristotelian perspective (15%). Quiz #1 (10%).
28 Print out and read the webnotes on Kant’s ethics through Section 1. Read the text through Section 1: 731-46.
29 Read from the Second Section, pp. 746-55, and hand in a statement of a maxim that you would act on in a particular situation. This should be a maxim that a Kantian would be prepared to universalize. Spell out the situation-type, the action type, and the motive.
30 Read from the text pp. 755-62, and complete reading the webnotes on Kant, with special attention to the discussion of politics and history as well as to the discussion of the rest of Section Two.
31 Finish the Grounding, pp. 762-73.
August
4 More time to complete our study of the Kant. Hand in a three-page report of your efforts to act in accord with principle, plus a three-page commentary on your experience report from a Kantian perspective (20%). Quiz#2 (10%).
5 John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, 890-906 plus the web notes on Mill (read through chapter 2).
6 Mill, chapters 3 and 4.
7 Mill, chapter 5 on justice (with close attention to the web notes). Hand in a one-page analysis of a utilitarian analysis of your present career choice contrasted with the best alternative (or simply contrast two alternatives if you have no current career preference.)
11 Mill, On the Subjection of Women (997-1012). Hand in a six page paper, structured like the paper on Kant, focusing on an action, taken during the past week, in which you pursued the (long-term) good of the whole (15%).
12 Martha C. Nussbaum, “The Feminist Critique of Liberalism,” 1132-61 (heavy reading). See the notes on the course page (after the syllabus)—there is no direct link from the classes page.
13 Read the chapter on Confucianism (a Chinese tradition) from my book, The Golden Rule: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jwattles/Confucin.htm (you can go to the golden rule part of my website for the link).
14 Review and final quiz (10%).
Project on Character Growth in Conversation with Aristotle
Introduction to Ethics, Summer III 2008; Jeffrey Wattles, instructor
Project on Character Growth in Conversation with Aristotle
The first project is to choose a virtue (or, as you may discover, an interrelated complex of virtues) and pursue growth in a philosophically thoughtful way. Since the time available is short, expectations are adjusted accordingly, and it is the sincerity of your engagement in the various aspects of the project that will shine. In other words, do your best, but don’t strain for any dramatic advancement.
Virtues set forth by Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas are discussed in class, but it is not necessary to pick one of these. Chose one that would help you.
Here is the structure to follow in your paper. Be sure the divisions are clear to the reader.
I. Experience report. In the first three pages, tell what you did during the project period, and what happened as you took steps to cultivate the virtue of your choice. What type of situation does your virtue address? What type of action does it call for? Define the virtue you are working on. The definition should not be so broad as to include things that would not belong, and not so narrow as to exclude things that would belong. (40%)
II. Aristotelian commentary. The second part of the paper is a two-page commentary on your narrative from the perspective of Aristotle. Try to find at least three passages where Aristotle says something relevant to your experience. Use brief quotes, followed by your interpretation of the meaning, and show how the quote you selected relates to your experience. You may also use the webnotes for this purpose as well as the text. (50%)
Writing counts 10% unless it is quite poor, in which case it counts more, as discussed in class and indicated on the syllabus.
Typed, double-spaced, proof-read, due July 24.
Rubric
Levels of quality in the experience report.
D or F: Experience reported bears little or no connection to the ethical theory under examination. The report is full of chatty details without focus or philosophic import. The writer gives no evidence of having actually engaged in the project, and the paper looks like a rush job, a last- minute attempt to fake effort.
C: The experience and the understanding of the experience presented in the report are conventional, without communicating a sense of adventure, inquiry, probing, or discovery.
B: The report gives evidence of genuine inquiry and describes the experience in ways that set up the dialogue with Aristotle.
A: The experience report has everything required for a B and in addition shows sustained and sincere engagement in the project. The report expresses insights in a fresh way.
Levels of quality in the constructed commentary.
D or F: The commentary shows poor grasp of Aristotle.
C: In those cases where the text included the relevant material, the commentary relies on the instructor’s notes for summarizing the text rather than on a fresh reading of the text. (In this case, much of the relevant material is not included in the text, and reliance on the webnotes is normal.) Points are few; they are made very briefly and without any penetrating observations. There is no attention to issues raised in class.
B: The commentary makes judicious use of brief quotations, and comments appropriately on their relevance.
A: In addition to the achievements mentioned for a B, the commentary shows an excellent and original use of the text and webnotes.
Projects, privacy, and choices
Over the years, most students, after perhaps some initial hesitation and uncertainty, launch headlong into the project and have a very positive experience.
Maximum growth comes from tacking our front-burner issue—the aspect of our character that most needs attention. In some cases, however, this may not be advisable, and there is no pressure to do this. One may be in a psychologically sensitive time and feel that this is just not the right time to confront a certain issue. The choice is up to the student.
One may prefer not to share a particular issue in writing with the instructor. I heed professional standards of respect for the confidentiality of what is submitted, but there may be aspects of your experience that you will describe only in general terms or not at all. The choice is up to the student.
In some cases, for the purposes of this project and this class, one may choose to focus more on issues that are less personal, less central. One does need to find some aspect of character growth to work on, however. It is always possible to propose a different project altogether and to discuss an alternative with the instructor.
Be sure to read the fuller statement of guidelines, “Writing Papers”—the first link on the my “classes” webpage.
One of philosophy’s central skills is reasoning. The Department of Philosophy offers courses on informal logic (Principles of Thinking) and formal logic, both of which are strongly recommended. In this course we take two steps into that area. First, note the (informal logic) web document on argument analysis. Second, the model of reasoning to be used primarily in this course was developed during the medieval period on the basis of Aristotle’s attempt to respond to a full range of arguments on a particular topic. The most prominent representative of this way of reasoning is Thomas Aquinas. Thomas is a Christian theologian, so some of his considerations fall outside the scope of philosophy, but it is worth noting that he does not appeal to scripture to prove a point, but only to illustrate a point in the course of his reasoning.
In his vast work, the Summa Theologica, Thomas sets forth a rational system with reasoned answers to every important philosophical and theological problem of his time. He also organizes his discussions in a very detailed and carefully thought out sequence, so that each “article” can be small, relying on the work of the previous ones, and contributing to the basis of what follows. To imitate Thomas in this regard, write down all the questions related to your chosen topic and break down complex questions into their simplest components. Then arrange those simplest questions in a logical sequence as best you can. Then begin by answering one or more of these questions, one by one.
How does one write out the answer to a particular question? First, state the question as clearly as possible. Next, write down the most important objections to the answer you will defend (think of objections arising out of popular culture, out of diverse opinions around the world, opinions based on various interpretations of relevant sciences, and based on various theologies and philosophies). Then (after a brief indication that the objections are not the whole story), set forth in a couple of paragraphs the reasoning behind your answer. Then show how your reasoned answer contains the resources to reply to the objections; for each answer to which the reply is not totally obvious, make is clear in a few sentences why your answer in fact handles the objection.
The Summa Theological is available online at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ . It is organized into three great parts: the first part (“prima pars”), the second part, and the third part.
The second part, central for ethics, is divided into two:
· The first part of the second part (prima secundae, 1a 2ae), which includes discussions of human acts, emotions, and habits, and
· The second part of the second part (secunda secundae, 2a 2ae), which includes discussions of particular virtues—faith, hope, and “charity” (love), plus prudence (practical wisdom), justice, courage, and temperance (self-mastery in pleasure).
In order to have a model to guide you in your writing, you will need to read a few of these articles. Always remember, there is no pressure to agree with any particular position that Thomas advocates. The point is to learn this method of careful and thorough reasoning. There are limits to thinking carried out this way, but we do well to acquire some of this skill before we seek to go beyond it.
To see the values of this method by asking this question: What happens in debates where one or more aspects of this method are overlooked?
Martha C. Nussbaum, “The Feminist Critique of Liberalism”
What is liberalism?
What positions do liberals hold in common? 1137b1
What do liberals oppose? 1138a0
Where do liberals disagree? 1138a last few lines
What is the communitarian critique of liberalism?
Liberalism presupposes psychological or normative egoism.
Liberalism tends to assert self-sufficiency as normative. 1140b1
Liberals are accused of an essentialism that “disregards the extent to which people are deeply identified with their religious heritage, their ethnicity, and to forth, and the extent to which these social and historical differences shape people.
Communitarians criticize liberalism for holding an abstract idea of persons, rather than a concrete one.
Nussbaum’s reply
Communities are formed out of individuals, and the demands of a relation or community should not be made the basic goal of politics. 1141b0 [Utilitarianism can justify “stepping on some people’s toes” when necessary—think of the right of eminent domain.]
Liberalism cares “how well each and every one of them is doing.” 1142a0
Historically, liberals have often “failed to notice the extent to which law and institutions shape the family and determine the privileges and rights of its members” (1142b1).
Liberalism needs to learn about the ways in which women are disadvantaged and abused and to correct these facts “by laws and by moral education” (1143b2).
[Even if a woman chooses—motivated by love—to serve family members greatly, that must be a voluntary choice, not coerced.]
International organizations working for women’s rights argue effectively on the basis of liberal premises. 1144b
“Liberal individualism, consistently followed through, entails a radical feminist program.
Though in some situation types it is acceptable to use revolutionary collective action, “in the long run . . . it is unlikely that liberal ends will be effectively served by collectivist means. Any noble ideal, furthermore, can be used as a screen by those who wish to do harm. The right response is to expose the abusers, not to discard the ideal” (1145a1).
Those who are committed to making equality of opportunity effective and realistic must take into account how historical patterns of prejudice have compromised the ability of persons to take advantage of formal equality of opportunity, making affirmative action necessary (though liberals differ on this issue).
“If women are understood to be, first and foremost, members of families, or members of religious traditions, or even members of ethnic groups—rather than, first and foremost, as human centers of choice and freedom—is this likely to be in any way better for women than is the “abstract individualism” of liberalism?” 1147b2
There is a human essence or core.
Two philosophical points not explicit in this article
[Ethical theories differ on the comparative emphasis they give to the individual, to relationships, and to systems of three or more. 1141a2]
[A value judgment or a conclusion about what one ought to do cannot validly be inferred on the basis of statements about matters of fact alone. “You can’t derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’” (David Hume, Scottish skeptic, 1711-1776) 1141a1]