Philosophy 231, Knowing, Being, and Doing:
Philosophical Method and its Applications
Fall 2006, Mondays and Wednesdays,
8:15-9:30
Instructor: Tony Doyle, todoyle@jjay.cuny.edu
Office:
325T; office hours: Mondays, 9:30-10; Thursdays,
7:40-8:10
Course
Description:
This
is a general introduction to philosophy. The course is divided into four units:
(1) knowledge and skepticism; (2) the existence of God; (3) ethics; and (4)
justice and political philosophy. After a brief introduction to philosophy we
will begin with a discussion of what, if anything, we can know in the context of
the work of the famous seventeenth century philosopher, René Descartes. Next we
will cover several traditional arguments for God’s existence and their
criticisms. Then we will move on to the main reason that atheists have offered
against God's existence: How could God have created a world with so much
apparently pointless suffering? In the third unit we will be looking at the
nature of morality and at several theories that philosophers have proposed for
distinguishing right and wrong. We will be asking some of the following
questions: Is morality relative to cultures? How might morality and religion be
related? Might moral standards be independent of religion? We will then look at
the morality of euthanasia in the light of ethical theory. In unit 4 we will
focus on the relationship between justice and punishment, examining
two different reasons that philosophers have offered to justify
punishment. Then we will look at arguments for and against the death
penalty.
Required
texts:
Descartes,
Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy.
Translated by D. Cress.
Gennaro, Rocco. A
Dialogue on Ethical Issues of Life and Death
Moody,
Todd. Does God Exist? A Dialogue
Other reading will be on E-Res
and on Blackboard.
Written requirements:
1. Short,
unannounced quizzes. As you’ve probably noticed, this class meets early. To
encourage punctuality, from time to time I will begin class with ten to fifteen
minute exercises, graded A, C, or F. These will cover both the reading and
topics we have recently done in class. You’ll be able to use your notebooks
but not any texts, unless expressly permitted.
2. Hour exam. Two essays.
3. Two
formal papers (600-800 words), one on Descartes, the other on God’s existence or
ethics (you’ll have a choice). What I am mainly interested in seeing in these
essays is that you can present the ideas from class and the readings in clear
prose and that you can use your own examples to support your case. I am happy to
accept drafts, as long as you get them to me five days before the deadline. If
you feel you need further help with your writing, you can go to The Writing
Center (2307 North Hall) for a free tutorial.
4.
Final exam, two hours. Two essays. This exam will cover everything we’ve done
for the semester.
Other requirements:
Assignment dates and percentage of
final grades
Quizzes and class participation: 20%
Two formal papers: paper 1 due September 27; paper 2
due November 20; 15% each
Midterm: October 30: 20%
Final: 30%
Blackboard. This course will have a Blackboard site (available from
the CUNY Portal, cuny.edu). There you will find the complete syllabus. 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 the following days: Monday,
September 4; Monday, October 2; and Wednesday, November 22. There will be an
additional class on Tuesday, October 3, which is a Monday schedule for
CUNY.
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.
Turn-it-in.
I require both essays to be submitted through Turn-it-in. I'll provide details
as the deadline for the first essay approaches.
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 school.
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
Part 1:
Descartes
I.
Introduction to Descartes’s Meditations
Blackburn,
15-18 (In Blackboard, under Readings); Meditation 1, paragraphs 1-5
Recommended: Sorell, Descartes, 63-66 (top)
(e-reserve); Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Ref B41.E5), Volume 2, 354-61;
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Ref B 51.R68), Volume 3,
6-13.
II. Extreme
doubt
A. Why Descartes has decided to try to place
all of his beliefs in doubt: Meditation 1, paragraph 1
B. Why offer skeptical arguments at all? 1.2
C. Sense deception argument
1. D’s
presentation: 1.3
2. D’s rejection:
1.4
D. Dream argument
1.
D’s presentation: 1.5
2. D’s rejection: 1.6-1.8
E. Deceptive God argument: 1.9-1.11
F. The evil demon: 1.12
Additional
reading: Blackburn, 18-19; 22-28 (
III. Initial absolute
(“metaphysical”) certainties: Meditation 2
A. Summary
of the results of Med 1: 2.1-2.2
B. The cogito:
2.3
C. Related beliefs that survive extreme doubt:
2.4-2.9
Additional reading: Blackburn, 19-20; 28-30.2
(
IV. God’s existence and the attempt
to remove extreme doubt: Meditation 3
A. Summary of
Meds 1 and 2: 3.1-3.4
B. D’s criterion of truth: 3.2;
Blackburn, 32-33 (
C. God’s
existence and the removal of extreme doubt: 3.4 (See also
5.12-5.16)
D. The attempt to show that some of D’s
ideas must be caused by something other than himself or the
demon
1. First effort: 3.5-3.12
2. Second effort; appeal to the causal principle:
3.13-3.21
E. D’s (first) proof for God's existence
(The Trademark Argument): 3.22-3.24;
V. Why
God isn't a deceiver: Med 4
A. Summary of the results
of Meds 1-3
B. The "problem of error:"
4.2-4.4
C. D's proposed solution to the problem of
error
1. Appeal to the notion of the best of all
possible worlds: 4.5-4.7
2. Explanation of the cause
of error: 4.8-4.11
3. Explanation of why God isn't
responsible: 4.12-4.17
D. Arnauld’s objection (The
Cartesian Circle)
VI. Assessment of Descartes
Reading:
Blackburn, 40-48 (
Suggested Listening: Ronald Rubin,
"Descartes"
(http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/Descartes.htm).
Questions to bear in mind as you read Descartes
1. What are D’s overall goals in
the Meditations?
2. What role does extreme doubt play
in D’s project?
3. What role do skeptical arguments
play in the execution of extreme doubt?
4. What are
the main skeptical arguments that D presents in Meditation 1 and what does he
make of them?
5. What is it about D’s existence in
particular that resists extreme doubt?
6. Given that
D can be absolutely (“metaphysically”) certain that he exists, what else does he
think that he can be absolutely certain of? (See Meditation
2.4-2.9.)
7. What criterion of truth does D claim to
discover? What's the relationship between D’s acceptance of this criterion and
the existence of a non-deceiving God?
8. What is D’s
(first) proof for the existence of God? How does Arnauld criticize
this?
9. Is the moral of Descartes’s “story” that
there is no way to overcome complete skepticism?
First paper due: Thursday,
September 28
Part 2: Arguments for and against the existence of God
Note about class meetings: We have no class on Monday, October 3; that class will meet on Tuesday, October 4.
I. Background:
A. The concept of God; why there has to be some consensus
at the outset
B. The Burden of proof
C. Logic and Argument (again)
1. Premises and
conclusion
2. Truth, validity, and soundness
Reading: Moody, 1-9; Times letters, atheism and faith
(
Suggested listening: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, "The
Existence of God" (http://www.philosophytalk.org/ExistenceofGod.htm)
II. The first cause argument
A. What’s the one thing that the
theist claims that the atheist can’t satisfactorily explain?
B. The argument itself
C. Objections
1. Hume’s contention that the
universe isn’t a thing
2. What caused God?/Why assume
that the universe must have had a cause?
3. The theist left with two
mysteries, the atheist only with one
4. Even if universe had a cause,
no reason to suppose that it=God
Reading: Moody, 11-18; “Hume on
the First Cause Argument” (Readings)
III. The argument from design (the
teleological argument)
A. The argument itself
1. What analogy does the argument
try to establish between human-made machines on the one hand and components of
the universe on the other?
a. Cleanthes
b. Paley
2. Why does the defender of the
argument claim we have to appeal to God?
B. Darwin’s theory of evolution and the argument from
design
1. Why before Darwin there was no
serious explanation for the appearance of intelligent design in the organic
world
2. The fundamentals of Darwin’s
theory
a. Random, heritable
mutations
b. Natural selection
3. Why Darwin’s theory makes
appeal to any kind of a designer unnecessary in explaining the variety of
species or how well adapted individuals are to their environments
Reading: Moody: 31-45; William Paley, from Natural Theology (Readings) Richard
Dawkins, from The Blind Watchmaker 3.3-6.1
(e-reserve)
Recommended reading: The Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Ref B51.R68), Volume 1, 533-34.
C. Hume’s objections
1. Why select thought as a model
for the universe?
2. The universe doesn’t seem to be
perfect.
3. Even if the universe is
perfect, no proof that God is
4. Philo's challenge to the
machine analogy: the universe at least as much like an animal or vegetable as
like a machine
5. Many gods more likely than one
god
6. No reason to prefer any of the
following designer hypotheses
a. God
b. Infant god
c. Subordinate god
d. Senile god
Recommended reading: The Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Ref B41.E5), Volume 8, 85-87; The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Ref B51.R68), Volume 4, 89-91; Richard Dawkins, "The Path to complex life is
one of the greatest human insights in history." New Scientist, September
17, 2005.
Also, there was a lot of discussion in the news last
year about intelligent design theory, which is a version of the argument
from design. Here are some articles on the topic from that time: Jerry Coyne,
“The Faith that dare not speak its name: the case against intelligent design.”
The New Republic, August 22 & 29,
2005; Cornelia Dean, “Scientists speak up on mix of God and science, The New York Times, August 23, 2005; Kenneth Chang, “In explaining
life’s complexity, Darwinists and doubters clash, The New York Times, August 22,
2005; Jodi Wilgoren, “Politicized scholars put evolution on the defensive.” The New York Times, August 21,
2005. Peter Steinfels, “A Catholic professor on evolution and theology: to
understand one, it helps to understand the other. The New York Times, August 21,
2005. More recently there’s “Faith, reason, God, and other imponderables,” by
Cornelia Dean, The New York Times,
July 25, 2006. The full text of The New
York Times is available in Lexis-Nexis (http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/infosources/resources.cfm?letter=L).
IV. Religious experience
A. The argument from religious
experience
1. What is it?
2. How is it supposed to support God’s
existence?
B. The skeptic’s reply: Other things besides God can account for
religious experiences
Reading: Moody, 73-80; Thomas Hobbes
(Readings)
V. The Problem of Evil
A. What is it?
1. Why does the atheist claim that
there would be no evil if an all-good, all-powerful being existed?
2. What does it mean to say that
God’s existence is incompatible with the fact of evil?
B. The theist’s response
1. Free will
2. How does it supposed to solve
the problem of moral evil?
C. The problem of natural evil
D. The theist’s response
1. Natural evil needed for higher
goods
2. Without natural evil there
would be no moral virtues like patience and courage
E. The atheist’s objection to this
F. Theist: Evil has to be seen in
overall context
1. All evil leads to
good
2. All evil necessary to produce
the abundance of good that we find in the universe
G. The atheist’s objection to
this: Why so much?
Reading: Moody, 47-59; Johnson,
“God and the Problem of Evil” (eres), 85-89; “Hume on the Problem of Evil”
(Readings)
Recommended reading: The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Ref B41.E5), Volume 3,
139-40.
VI. Believing in God without proof
Reading: Moody,
81-91
Midterm, Monday, October 30
Unit 3: Ethics
October 25-November November 20
I.
What is ethics?
Gennaro, 1-4; Nagel (eres) From What Does it All Mean?, 59-75; Singer
(eres), 1-8.
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. Majorities can never be wrong
2. Moral
reformers would be acting immorally
3. No moral progress.
Reading:
Bentham, From The Principles of Morals
and Legislation (e-res), 21.3; Gennaro, 15-20
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. Some 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 The Principles of Morals and Legislation
(e-res), 21.3; Gennaro, 15-20
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
B. 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
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. Hitler cases
C.
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?
Reading: Gennaro, 8-12; Mill, from Utilitarianism
(eres)
VII. Euthanasia
A. Active
euthanasia
1. Active voluntary euthanasia:
2. Active involuntary
euthanasia:
B. Arguments against active euthanasia
1. Active vs. passive
euthanasia
a. Killing as inherently worse
than letting die
b. Rachels’ response in “Active
and Passive Euthanasia”
2. Playing God
3. Sanctity of human life
4.
Slippery slope (See Mark and Carol’s claims in Gennaro.)
Reading:
Gennaro, 27-52; Rachels, "Active and Passive Ethanasia" (Readings in
BB).
November 27-December 11
I. Is punishment ever justified?
A.
Retributivism
1. Tenets
2. Criticisms (See "Objections to Retributivism"
in Readings)
a. Generally impossible to find a punishment that fits the
crime
b. Punishment involves harming the undeserving
c. Sometims
impossible to impose the "appropriate" punishment
B. Utilitarianism
1.
Tenets
2. Criticisms
a. Involves treating people as mere means to
society's ends.
b. Implies that "punishment" of innocent is sometimes
justified
3. Utilitarian response to criticisms
a. Why it's sometimes all
right to treat people as mere means
b. Response to innocent punishment
case
i. Punishment of innocent people justified if it's the lesser
evil
ii. 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 (Readings); James Rachels, From The Elements of Moral
Philosophy: 133-140; 105.2-106.1; 111-16.
II. Death penalty
A. Arguments in
favor
1. Retribution
2. Protection
3. Deterrence
4. Save money
B.
Arguments against
1. Not necessary for protection
2. No evidence of
deterrence
3. Is the death penalty discriminatory?
4. Does the death
penalty save money?
Reading: Gennaro, 129-52; Glover (eres); van den Haag
(Readings).
III. The meaning of life (time
permitting)
December 13
Suggested listening: Howard Wettstein, "Meaning of
Life" http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/MeaningofLife.htm