General Syllabus
Philosophy 231.15 Knowing, Being,
and Doing: Philosophical Method and its Applications
Fall 2007, Tuesdays and
Thursdays 8:15-9:30
Instructor: Tony Doyle, todoyle@jjay.cuny.edu
Office: 325T; office hours: by
appointment
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 some 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: How might morality and religion be
related? Might moral standards be independent of religion? Are some kinds of
actions always wrong or does whether or not a kind of action is wrong depend on
the circumstances in which it was performed? 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 J. Cottingham.
Moody, Todd. Does God Exist? A
Dialogue
Perry, John. Dialogue on Good,
Evil, and the Existence of God
Rachels, James, and Stuart
Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy
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 at least four 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 essays: essay 1 due
September 27; essay 2 due November 21; 15% each
Midterm: March 29: 20%
Final: December 18, 8:00-10:00
AM: 30%
Blackboard. This
course has 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. You’re responsible for checking Blackboard prior
to each class.
Class meetings. There will be no
class on the following days: Thursday, September 13, Tuesday, September 18, and
Thursday, November 22.
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. If I
suspect plagiarism I will ask that you submit your essay to Turn-it-in.
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:
* Copying from another student
during an examination or allowing another to copy your work.
* Unauthorized collaboration on a
take home assignment or examination.
* Using notes during a closed
book examination.
* Taking an examination for
another student, or asking or allowing another student to take an examination
for you.
* Changing a graded exam and
returning it for more credit.
* Submitting substantial portions
of the same paper to more than one course without consulting with each
instructor.
* 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
* Fabricating data (all or in
part).
* Submitting someone else's work
as your own.
* 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:
* Copying another person's actual
words without the use of quotation marks and footnotes attributing the words to
their source..
* Presenting another person's
ideas or theories in your own words without acknowledging the source.
* Using information that is not
common knowledge without acknowledging the source.
* 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:
* Stealing, reproducing,
circulating or otherwise gaining advance access to examination materials.
* Depriving other students of
access to library materials by stealing, destroying, defacing, or concealing
them.
* Retaining, using or circulating
examination materials which clearly indicate that they should be returned at
the end of the exam.
* Intentionally obstructing or
interfering with another student's work.
Adapted with permission from
Unit 1: Descartes
August 28-September 25
I. Logic and argument
A. Argument
1. Premises
2. Conclusion
B. Validity
C. Soundness
II. Introduction to Descartes’s Meditations
Reading:
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.
III. 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:
IV. Initial absolute (“metaphysical”)
certainties: Meditation 2
A. Summary of the results of Med
1: 2.1-2.2
B. The cogito: 2.3; Discourse
4.1-4.3
C. Related beliefs that survive
extreme doubt: 2.4-2.9
Additional reading:
V. 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;
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; Discourse 4.4-4.8.
VI. 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)
VII. Assessment of Descartes
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 essay due: Thursday,
September 27
Unit 2: The Existence of God
September 27-October 18
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)
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. Criticism: What caused
God?/Why assume that the universe must have had a cause?
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
2. The fundamentals of
a. Random, heritable mutations
b. Natural selection
3. Why
D. Sophie’s defense of the
argument from design
1. Natural selection can’t
account for . . .
a. Human intelligence
b. Consciousness
2. Therefore they need a
supernatural explanation
E. Criticism of Sophie’s
position: it raises more questions than it answers
1. How did God confer
consciousness (or intelligence) on us?
2. How did God acquire his
consciousness (or intelligence)?
Recommended reading: The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Ref B41.E5), Volume 8, 85-87; The Routledge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Ref B51.R68), Volume 1, 533-34, and Volume 4,
89-91
Also, there was a lot of
discussion in the news a couple of years ago 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-Nexus (http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/infosources/resources.cfm?letter=L).
IV. 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?
3. Burden of proof for the
theist: God’s existence is consistent or compatible with the problem of
evil.
[a. Perry’s (Weirob’s) barber
analogy
b. How to resolve the apparent
contradiction
B. The theist’s response]
1. Free will: what is it?
2. The risk inherent in free will
3. How is free will supposed to
solve the problem of moral evil?
4. The atheist’s criticism
a. Why didn’t God make human
nature better?
b. Is free will compatible with
divine omniscience?
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. Analogies: a painting; music;
chilly, early morning of a day of fishing.
2. All evil leads to good
3. All evil necessary to produce
the abundance of good that we find in the universe
G. The atheist’s objection to
this:
1. The problem with the theist’s
analogies
2. Why is there any natural evil?
3. Given natural evil, why is there so much?
4. Animal suffering
5. Why call God good?
H. Sophie’s attempt to solve the
problem of evil
Reading: “Hume’s architecture
analogy” (
I. Perry (Weirob) on pleasure and
pain.
1. The evolutionary purpose of
pleasure and pain.
2. How the theory of evolution
can explain why there’s unnecessary pain: car alarm analogy
3. How the theory of evolution
can explain unhealthy pleasures
4. God’s role?
Recommended reading: The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Ref B41.E5), Volume 3, 139-40. “Hume on the
Problem of Evil” (
V. Religious experience (time
permitting)
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
VI. Believing in God without
proof (time permitting)
Midterm, Tuesday, October 23
Unit 3: Ethics
October 25-November 20
I. What is ethics?
Nagel (eres) From What Does it
All Mean? 59-75; Rachels, 11-15; 47-51; Singer (eres), 1-8.
II. Cultural Relativism
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) (Bentham).
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?
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