Contemporary Ethical Theory
Prof. Patrick Frierson
Office Hours in Olin 151:
Wednesday 2-4, Thursday 10-11.
This course is designed to be an advanced course in ethical theory. You will have the chance to go beyond a basic introduction to ethics and get into some of the most important ethical theories of the recent past, including Christine Korsgaard’s The Sources of Normativity and Elizabeth Anderson’s Value in Ethics and Economics. Both of these books are very influential today, but they do not exhaust the options in contemporary ethics. This is not a survey course, but an intensive look a a few representative debates in contemporary ethics. We will read these books (and articles) together slowly and carefully. While the books are somewhat challenging, they are written clearly, and I hope to spend most of our time discussing the arguments they present rather than simply trying to figure out what each is saying. In this course, you will be expected to think philosophically, rather than merely learning about philosophy. In addition, you will be part of a small community (our class) actively discussing issues that are being hotly discussed by a much wider philosophical community. And you will get to see how philosophers today do ethics.
Requirements (ALL PAPERS SHOULD BE EMAILED TO ME AT FRIERSPR@WHITMAN.EDU BY THE TIME THEY ARE DUE):
Participation: Participation is the most important part of this course. I expect you to come to every class having read the material and thought carefully about it. For some classes, there will be a lot of reading, but you are expected to do this reading closely, carefully, and more than once. You should be ready to participate actively in discussion. While participation does not officially contribute a percentage of your final grade, I will significantly adjust final grades based on participation. In addition to in-class discussion, I have started a listserver for this class, and I encourage you to discuss issues raised in class over the listserver. E-participation may make a difference to your final grade.
Responses (40% of final grade): For each reading, you should bring a brief (1-2 page) response, including the following: (a) a brief statement of the main point of the reading, (b) a summary of the argument used to establish that main point, (c) a reference to the most important passage in the reading and a brief explanation of why that passage is so important, (d) questions you have about the reading (i.e. stuff you don’t understand), and (e) at least one key objection to or extension of arguments or positions in the reading. For days when there are multiple perspectives assigned, you should include all perspectives in your response (i.e., the main issue, the position of each side, the arguments to establish that, etc.) For readings of multiple chapters from a single author, you may write on a single chapter or on multiple chapters, but you should carefully read all chapters. Over the course of the semester, you must turn in 10 of these. These are due on the day of the reading. Because the purpose of these is to enrich our discussion, there are no extensions. The purpose of these responses is to ensure that you are on top of your reading and to make me aware of specific difficulties you are having with it.
The responses will receive a check-plus, check, or check-minus. A check means that your paper shows solid engagement with and comprehension of the text. A check-plus shows that you have dramatically exceeded my expectations for a Whitman student and have written a truly exceptional short response. The best way to get a check-plus is to combine a clear and concise summary of the main argument of the reading with an original and insightful objection to or extension of that argument (along with, of course, a good passage and explanation of that passage). You should not expect to get check-pluses regularly. They are given only for extraordinary responses. A check-minus will be given to any response that fails to show basic comprehension of the text, or fails to engage thoughtfully with the issues in the text, or includes grammatical or spelling errors, or fails to address one of the five points – (a) through (e) – mentioned above.
10 checks is a B. For every check-plus you receive, your grade will improve by 1/3 grade point. Thus to get an A for this portion of the grade, you need 3 check-pluses. Every check-minus lowers your grade by 1/3 grade. A missed paper lowers your grade by 2/3 grade. (Thus if you turn in only 9 papers, or 10 papers that include 2 check-minuses, you get a C+.)
Short Paper (10% of final grade): Due by 6:30 PM on 10/11. This paper should reflect a serious engagement with Anderson and her critics. You can either raise a new sustained objection to Anderson's argument, extend her argument in a significant way, improve on one of the arguments presented in the critics that we read, or show how Anderson might respond to those critics. The primary purpose of this paper is to give you an opportunity to do a significant piece of written work prior to your final paper. My comments on this paper will give you a sense of what I will expect on your final paper. This paper should be at least 1200 words. For these papers, I recommend consulting Joe Cruz's Moral Philosophy Writing Tutor. Though designed for intro courses, it will also help you think about what is involved in writing any philosophy paper.
Book Review (20% of final grade): Due by 6:30 PM on 11/8. Each of you should choose one recent scholarly book in ethics that we will not read as a class. (A "recent" book is any book published in the past 25 years. For help discerning whether a book is "scholarly," ask me. Generally, books published by Routledge, Blackwell, or a University Press are scholarly.) You should write a 2000-3000 word book review of this book. The review should include a substantial explanation of the overall argument of the book, including a brief discussion of how it relates to the texts we are reading together as a class. You should also include one or two significant objections, challenges, or extensions of the argument. Finally, you should give an overall assessment of the book as a possible book for the last two weeks of this course. These book reviews will be collected, copied, and distributed to your classmates. The purpose of this book review is threefold. First, it will expose you in depth to an ethical theory different from the ones we study as a class. Second, it will give you at least some exposure to several other ethical theories, through the reviews of your peers. And finally, it will develop your ability to read and digest challenging works in contemporary ethical theory on your own. For some good examples of philosophical book reviews, see the reviews at http://ndpr.icaap.org/.
Final Paper (30% of final grade): Due by 6:30 PM on 12/11. The final paper should be a substantial piece of original philosophical work in ethical theory. It is appropriate to do additional reading beyond the texts in the course, but this is not necessary. You should think of this paper as a “mini-thesis.” The paper must show a thorough understanding of any arguments that relate to the topic about which you chose to write from the texts we have read this semester. In addition, you must present your own ideas and defend them with appropriate and effective argument. The final version of this paper should be 3000-6000 words. I strongly encourage you to turn in a rough draft of your final paper (the draft due date is Dec. 4). I will get comments on this draft back within three days, and you will then have time to revise the draft before turning in the final version. The purpose of this paper is to give you the opportunity to develop your own views about an important issue in contemporary ethical theory and to engage in a sustained philosophical defense of those views.
Books:
Christine Korsgaard, Sources of Normativity, Cambridge University Press (1996)
Elizabeth Anderson, Value in Ethics and Economics, Harvard University Press (1997)
Selected articles, available at the links below.
Timeline:
Aug. 30 Introduction. Prior to the first class, you should read Korsgaard, pp. 1-5
Sept. 6 Korsgaard, pp. 7-48; Russ Schafer-Landau, "Precis of Moral Realism: A Defense," Philosophical Studies 126 (2005): 263-267
and "Replies to Critics" Philosophical Studies 126 (2005): 313-329; Robert Adams, "A Modified Divine Command Theory of Ethical Wrongness." (Optional: Students may read at least one criticism of Shafer-Landau in Philosophical Studies 126 (2005): 269-311. The above link on "Precis" has links to all of these articles. If you do read one of these criticisms, please email me by the beginning of the day on Wednesday, letting me know which criticism you read.)
13 Jan Crouter's informal explanation of value in economics; Anderson, pp. 1-43; John Rawls, "Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory," The Journal of Philosophy 77 (1980): 515-72. In Rawls, focus on Part One ("Rational and Full Autonomy"), sections I-III and Part Three ("Construction and Objectivity"), sections I, V, and VI (pp. 515-524, 557-560, and 567-572).
20 Anderson, pp. 1-43; "The Strike of the Demon: On Fitting Pro-attitudes and Value" by Rabinowicz and Ronnow-Rasmussen, in Ethics 114 (2004): 391-423; and "The Moralistic Fallacy: On the 'Appriopriateness' of Emotions" by D'Arms and Jacobson in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2000): 65-90.
Come to class with an idea of which chapter you would like to focus on for next class.
27 Anderson, pp. 44-140 (which chapter we focus on will depend upon student interest).
For this day, there will also be a reading of an "alternative perspective" relevant to the issue on which we focus. Thus, this second reading will be determined based on student interest.
By this date, you should tell me what book you will be reviewing.
Oct. 4 Anderson, pp. 141-222.
11 Korsgaard, 49-89.
18
25 Korsgaard, 131-66, and selections from 167-258 (which selections we focus on will depend upon student interest).
Nov. 1 Catch-up and Review.
8 Jonathan Dancy, "The Particularist's Progress," in Moral Particularism (Oxford University Press, 2003).
Jacques Derrida, “The Force of Law,” in Acts of Religion (Routledge, 2001).
BOOK REVIEW DUE.
15 Catch up, discuss book reviews, and decide on post-Thanksgiving plans.
Thanksgiving
Nov. 29 Open (we will read material decided upon on Nov. 15th)
Dec. 6 Open (we will read material decided upon on Nov. 15th)
11 FINAL PAPERS DUE. End of semester (ethical) party?