Syllabus
Philosophy 102/Introduction to Ethics
Spring 2006
223 T Building
T, Th 11:05-12:20
Instructor: Tony Doyle, todoyle@jjay.cuny.edu
Office: 325T; office hours: by appointment

Texts:
Rocco Gennaro, A Dialogue on Ethical Issues of Life and Death
James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4th Edition

Course description. This course will begin by covering the fundamentals of logic and reasoning. For the first unit, afer a brief discussion of the nature of morality, we will move on to cover some ethical theories. Ethical theories are an attempt to come up with a standard for distinguishing right actions from wrong actions, as well as to help us figure out what our moral obligations are. Questions we will be asking in this unit include, Is morality relative to culture? Does morality depend on religion or the existence of God? What's the connection between morality human happiness? Do we always have an obligation to choose the action that leads to the most happiness or are there other things that determine whether an action is right or wrong?

In the second unit we will look at the following ethical issues: (1) the death penalty; (2) euthanasia and the right to die; (3) animal ethics and vegetarianism; (4) abortion; and (5) our obligations to aid starving people.

Course objectives. To become acquainted with several of the important ideas that have pre-occupied moral philosophers over the years, as well as how these ideas have been applied to ethical issues; to think critically about the views that we discuss; to be able to defend a point of view against criticisms; to improve your ability to write a critical essay, that is, an essay in which you have to examine carefully at least two sides of a given issue.

Written requirements:
1. Short, unannounced quizzes. To encourage punctuality, from time to time I will begin class with ten minute exercises. These will cover both the reading and topics we have recently covered in class. You'll be able to use your notebooks but not any texts, unless expressly permitted. These exercises will be graded A, C, or F.

2. Midterm. The midterm will cover ethical theory. You'll have the full period to write two essays.

3. Two formal papers (600-800 words), one on ethical theory, the other on an ethical issue. These are not research papers but will give you an opportunity to go beyond the readings and class discussion. What I am mainly interested in seeing in these essays is that you can present the ideas from class and the readings in clear, jargon-free prose and that you can use your own examples to support your case. If you feel you need help with your writing, you should go to The Writing Center (2307 North Hall) for a free tutorial. Their number is 212-237-8569.

4. Final exam, two hours. I will ask you to write two one hour essays. This exam will cover everything we've done for the semester.

Other requirements:
Reading and informed class participation. Philosophy is not a passive discipline. I expect you to come to class prepared to discuss the assigned reading along with relevant material that we've covered in recent classes. In other words you're required to do the reading before the class I've assigned it for. Reading philosophy demands a good deal of attention. I strongly urge you to do the reading twice before class and to take notes while doing so. I expect you to come to class with the assigned readings. (Note: good reading notes will come in handy on the unannounced quizzes.)

Assignment dates and percentage of final grades
Quizzes and class participation: 20%
Two formal papers: paper 1 due February 23; paper 2 due May 4; 15% each
Midterm: March 21; 20%
Final: May 23, 10:15-12:15; 30%

Blackboard. This course will have a Blackboard site (available from the CUNY Portal, cuny.edu). There you will find the complete syllabus followed by a detailed course outline. I will be posting additional readings there. I will also be posting your reading assignments and further information about your two formal essays there. Finally, I will open discussion boards for the two essays and the two exams. You're responsible for checking Blackboard prior to each class.

Class meetings. There will be no class on Tuesday, Feburary 21 (Monday schedule) and Thursday, March 23, when I will be speaking at an academic conference.

Rules:
Attendance. Attendance is required. Be on time. If you're more than fifteen minutes late, I will count you as absent for that day. Lateness within the first fifteen minutes will be counted as half an absence. You will be unable to complete the course if you miss more than four classes. Please note that all absences count toward the total allowable absences in class, including those due to late registration. These restrictions don't apply to those who, due to a disability, illness, or extreme hardship can't make it to class or can't get to class on time. However, in these cases I expected a legitimate, documented excuse.

Make-ups. There will be no make-ups for the unannounced quizzes. If you're late for a quiz, you won't be allowed to take it. I expect you to produce a legitimate, documented excuse to make up the exams. Without one, you won't be able to take a make up.

Late work. Assignments are due during class meeting time of the due date. You will lose a third of a grade for every class day that your work is late. For instance, if an assignment is due on Tuesday and you hand it in on the anytime after class on that day until class time on Thursday, an A becomes an A-, and A- a B+ and so on. I will accept nothing by email.

Plagiarism and cheating. Cheating on an exam will result in an automatic F for the exercise. I will also pass your name along to the college's student disciplinary committee for possible further sanctions. Plagiarism is any attempt to pass someone else's ideas or research off as your own, through either unattributed direct quotation or paraphrasing. It's a kind of theft. Plagiarism on either of the essays will also result in an automatic F for the assignment, and I will again pass your name along to the student disciplinary committee. Plagiarism doesn't pay: if you try it, you will almost certainly get caught. For the John Jay policy on plagiarism, cheating, and academic integrity see http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/disclaimer/academicintegrity.pdf.

Classroom rules. CUNY's rules and regulations for the maintenance of public order apply at all times. Also, no eating in class. Please shut off all cell phones and other electronic gadgets during class. Please seek my permission if you'd like to record a class. Any student violating these rules will be subject to the following range of sanctions: absent mark, warning, expulsion from class, over-all grade reduction, or suspension from class.




CUNY POLICY ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/english2/plagiarism.html

Academic Dishonesty is prohibited in The City University of New York and is punishable by penalties, including failing grades, suspension, and expulsion.
Cheating is the unauthorized use or attempted use of material, information, notes, study aids, devices or communication during an academic exercise.
The following are some examples of cheating, but by no means is it an exhaustive list:
o Copying from another student during an examination or allowing another to copy your work.
o Unauthorized collaboration on a take home assignment or examination.
o Using notes during a closed book examination.
o Taking an examination for another student, or asking or allowing another student to take an examination for you.
o Changing a graded exam and returning it for more credit.
o Submitting substantial portions of the same paper to more than one course without consulting with each instructor.
o Preparing answers or writing notes in a blue book (exam booklet) before an examination. Allowing others to research and write assigned papers or do assigned projects, including use of commercial term paper services. o Giving assistance to acts of academic misconduct! dishonesty
o Fabricating data (all or in part).
o Submitting someone else's work as your own.
o Unauthorized use during an examination of any electronic devices such as cell phones, palm pilots, computers or other technologies to retrieve or send information.
Plagiarism is the act of presenting another person's ideas, research or writings as your own.
The following are some examples of plagiarism, but by no means is it an exhaustive list:
o Copying another person's actual words without the use of quotation marks and footnotes attributing the words to their source..
o Presenting another person's ideas or theories in your own words without acknowledging the source.
o Using information that is not common knowledge without acknowledging the source.
o Failing to acknowledge collaborators on homework and laboratory assignments.

Internet plagiarism includes submitting downloaded term papers or parts of term papers, paraphrasing or copying information from the internet without citing the source, and "cutting & pasting" from various sources without proper attribution.

Obtaining Unfair Advantage is any activity that intentionally or unintentionally gives a student an unfair advantage in his/her academic work over another student.
The following are some examples of obtaining an unfair advantage, but by no means it is an exhaustive list:
o Stealing, reproducing, circulating or otherwise gaining advance access to examination materials.
o Depriving other students of access to library materials by stealing, destroying, defacing, or concealing them.
o Retaining, using or circulating examination materials which clearly indicate that they should be returned at the end of the exam.
o Intentionally obstructing or interfering with another student's work.
Adapted with permission from Baruch College: A Faculty Guide to Student Academic Integrity.

 

Part 1: Ehtical Theories
Background

I. Logic and Argument
A. Premises and conclusion
B. Truth, validity, and soundness

Unit 1
Ethical Theories

I. What is ethics?
A. Ethical egoism
B. Psychological egoism
C. Problems with these views
Reading: Gennaro, 1-7; Rachels, Chapter 1; Nagel (eres) From What Does it All Mean?, 59-75.

II. Cultural Relativism
A. What is it?
B. Argument for: the argument from cultural diversity
C. Objection to the argument from cultural diversity: disagreement about moral standards doesn't show that neither society is correct.
D. General criticisms: Consequences of taking CR seriously (reductio ad absurdum)
1. We can't say that the moral practices of some cultures are superior or inferior to our own.
2. We could tell whether an action was right or wrong just by looking at the standards a given culture.
3. We have to deny that there could be moral progress.

E. Why there's less disagreement than there seems
1. Inuits and infanticide
2.
Inuits and the elderly


F. Criticizing other cultures
1. Female genital mutilitation (FGM)
2. How do cultures practicing FGM claim that it's beneficial to their society?
3. Criticizing FGM
a. Is it beneficial?
b. Is it more beneficial than some alternative social arrangement that doesn't involve FGM?
4. Why some people are reluctant to criticize FGM
a. Reluctant to “interfere” in other cultures
b. Feel that they should be tolerant of other cultures
5. Wife-beating in Africa

G. Values that all cultures have in common
1.
Care for young

2. Rules against lying and deception
3.
Stern prohibitions against murder


Reading: Gennaro, 21-26; Rachels, ch. 2; “Entrenched Epidemic: Wife-Beatings in Africa.” The New York Times, August 11, 2005 (Course Documents in Blackboard).

III. The Divine Command Theory
A. What is it?
B. Reason in favor
C. Criticisms
1. Plato's criticism
a. Problem with claiming that actions are right or obligatory because God commands them
b. Problem with claiming that God commands us to do certain things because he can see that they're obligatory.
2. Other problems
a. Theory only as good as the evidence in favor of God's existence.
b. Given God's existence, how do we know what he has commanded?
c. Assume that the Ten Commandments are divinely commanded
i. They don't cover all cases (Bentham)
ii. They seem wrong
iii. No way to resolve conflicts between them
d. In order to know whether something is permitted (or forbidden) by God we first have to know whether it's right (or wrong).

Reading:
Bentham, From Principles of Morals and Legislation (e-res), 21.3; Gennaro, 15-20; Rachels, ch. 4.1-4.2; 4.4; 3.7; recommended, 4.3.

IV. Two types of moral theory
A. Deontology
B. Utilitarianism

V. Deontology
A. Kant's theory
1. The Categorical Imperative
a.
First interpretation
b.
Second interpretation; persons
2.
Problems with Kant's theory
a.
Can't resolve conflicts between absolute duties
b.
Is lying or promise breaking always wrong?


Reading: Gennaro, 13-15; Rachels, ch 9; ch. 10.1.

B. Ross's theory
1. Why is Ross is a deontolgist?
2. Prima facie duties
a. Some examples of prima facie duties
b. Prima facie duties as exceptionless
c. Prima facie duties as self-evident
3.
Prima facie duties vs. actual duties
a.
What's the difference?

b. How do we determine what our actual duty is when more than one pf duty has a claim on us?
4. Ross's criticisms of utilitarianism
a. Why Uism distorts the way we think about our ordinary moral obligations like keeping a promise or paying back a debt.
b. Why Uism can't account for morally significant relations: trolley case
5. Criticism of Ross
a.
No way to rank our prima facie duties

b. No way to be certain what our prima facie duties are

Reading: Blanshard (eres), 140-42; Frankena(eres), 26.2-27.1; Ross(eres), 17.3-19; 22.2; Rachels, 108.2-109.1; 110.2-110.3.

VI. Mill and Utilitarianism
A. Fundamentals of the theory
1. The principle of utility
2.
The principle of equal consideration of interests
3.
Rules of thumb
4.
The right action vs. good actions; the wrong action vs. bad actions: Hitler cases

B. Questions on Mill's Utilitarianism
1. What does Mill mean when he says that “as between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested spectator”?
2. What does Mill mean when he claims that “utility would enjoin...that laws and social arrangements should place the happiness or...interest of every individual as nearly as possible in harmony with the interests of the whole.
3. How does Mill respond to the objection to utilitarianism “that there is not time, previous to action, for calculating and weighing the effects of any line of conduct on the general happiness”? What role do so-called rules of thumb play in Mill's response? What role do the traveling and navigational analogies play in his response?
4. How could the last paragraph in the reading be interpreted as a response to deontologists?
C. Utilitarianism and morally significant relations
1. The deonologist's claim that utilitarianism can't account for morally significant relations: the trolley case
2. The utilitarian's response

Reading: Gennaro, 8-12; Mill, from Utilitarianism (eres); Rachels, ch. 7.1; ch. 8.1; 112.4-116.

 

Part 2: Ethical Issues
Ethical issues

I.
Punishment and the Death Penalty
A. Is punishment ever justified?
1. Retributivism
a. Tenets
b. Criticisms (See "Objections to Retributivism" in Course Documents.)
i. Generally impossible to find a punishment that fits the crime
ii. Punishment involves harming the undeserving
iii. Sometims impossible to impose the "appropriate" punishment
2.
Utilitarianism
a. Tenets
b. Criticisms
i. Involves treating people as mere means to society's ends.

ii. Implies that "punishment" of innocent is sometimes justified
c. Utilitarian response to criticisms
i. Why it's sometimes all right to treat people as mere means
ii. Response to innocent punishment case
a) Punishment of innocent people justified if it's the lesser evil
b) Utilitarianism would never endorse a legal system that permitted the deliberate punishment of the innocent.

Reading: Bentham, from The Principles of Morals and Legislation, 170 (handout); Rachels, ch. 10.2 and 10.3; 105.2-106.1; 111-16.

B. Death penalty
1. Arguments in favor
a. Retribution
b. Protection
c. Deterrence
d. Save money
2. Arguments against
a.
Not necessary for protection

b. No evidence of deterrence
c. Is the death penalty discriminatory?
d. Does the death penalty save money?

Reading: Gennaro, 129-52; Glover (eres); van den Haag (Blackboard; Course Documents).

II. Euthanasia
A. Voluntary vs. involuntary
B. Active vs. passive Euthanasia
1. Commision vs. omission
2.
Killing vs. letting die
C. Arguments against euthanasia
1.
Impossible to give informed consent
2.
Playing God
3.
Sanctity of human life
4.
Slippery slope


Reading: Gennaro, 27-52; Rachels, Ch. 1.2-1.4; 7.2; Rachels, "Active and Passive Ethanasia" (eres).

III. Abortion
A. The law
B. Fetal development
C. Persons vs. human beings
D. persons vs. potential persons
E. Rape, incest, and risk to the woman's health
F. Feminism and oppression
G. Abortion and infanticide
Reading: Gennaro, 53-95.

IV. Animals and vegetarianism
A. Bentham: Do we have any moral obligations to animals?
1. Consciousness
2. Pain
3.
Racism and speciesism
B.
Do animals have a right to life?

C. Experiments performed on animals
Reading: Gennaro, 97-119; Rachels, ch. 7, “Nonhuman Animals”.
D. Is eating meat morally defensible?
Reading: Gennaro, 119-27; Singer, from Animal Liberation.

Recommended: Lori Gruen on animal rights from Philosophy Talk: http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/AnimalRights.htm

V. Singer and our obligations to help the starving.
A. What point is Singer trying to make with his Concorde and Sydney Opera House examples?
B. What conclusion does Singer propose to argue for in this essay?
C. Singer makes two main assumptions. What are they? Are they correct?
D. How do you think Singer would respond to the claim that we should “help our own” before we help those who are suffering halfway around the world?
E. What does Singer say about the view that “numbers lessen obligation?”
F. Why does Singer deny that the traditional distinction between duty and charity can be drawn as we normally draw it?
G. What does Singer say about the consequences that our philosophical conclusions should have for action?
H. Killing vs. letting die
1. Why does Singer claim that there's no intrinsic difference between killing and letting die?
2. What bearing does this have on his claim that indulging luxury in a world in which people die of malnutrition isn't morally justified?
I. Criticism of Singer and utilitarianism
1. Uism seems to demand too much from people.
2. How is this a criticism of utilitarianism?

Reading: Rachels, ch. 6.1; Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (on Blackboard).

Listen to Singer, "Global Poverty and International Aid," on Philosophy Talk http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/GlobalPovertyandInternationalAid.htm
Also a podcast at http://www.philosophytalk.org