General Syllabus
Philosophy 231.17 and 231.27 Knowing, Being, and Doing:
Philosophical Method and its Applications
Spring 2007, Tuesdays and Thursdays 8:15-9:30 and 6:25-7:40
Instructor: Tony Doyle, todoyle@jjay.cuny.edu
Office: 325T; office hours: Thursdays, 9:30-10 AM and
7:40-8:10 PM
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. Discourse on Method and
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
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
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 essays: essay 1 due March 1; essay 2 due April 26;
15% each
Midterm: March 29: 20%
Final: to be announced
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: Thursday, February 15
(Monday schedule), and Thursday, March 22 (I will be at a confernce).
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 aks 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
January
30-Feburary 20
Please note: There is no class on February 15 (Monday schedule)
I. Logic and argument
A. Argument
1. Premises
2. Conclusion
B. Validity
C. Soundness
II. Introduction to Descartes’s Meditations
Reading: 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.
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: Blackburn, 18-19; 22-28 (
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: Blackburn, 19-20; 28-30.2 (Readings)
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; Blackburn, 32-33 (Readings)
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
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 essay due: Thursday, March 1
The Existence of
God
Unit 2: The Existence of God
February 21-March 20
Please note:
There is no class on March 22. (I will be at a conference.)
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)
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
C. David on order
1. The universe is an orderly place
a. Examples
b. Second law of thermodynamics/entropy
2. Why we need to invoke God to account for the order
3. Sophie's objection: maybe the order we experience is just a
fluke.
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 in 2005 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 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 it 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
Suggested listening: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong,
"The Existence of God" (http://www.philosophytalk.org/ExistenceofGod.htm
)
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?
Reading: Perry, 60-69
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
Reading: Moody, 73-80; Thomas Hobbes (
VI. Believing in God without proof (time permitting)
Midterm, Thursday, March 29
Unit 3: Ethics
March 27-April 24
I. What is ethics?
Gennaro,
1-4; Nagel (eres) From What Does
it All Mean? 59-75; Rachels, 11-15;
47-51; Singer (eres), 1-8.
II. Cultural Relativism
Recommened: Rachels, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,"
16-34
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
d. In order to know whether something is permitted (or
forbidden) by God we first have to know whether it's right (or wrong).
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
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. Criticisms
1. Is pleasure all that matters?
2. Are consequences alone relevant to the rightness/wrongness
of actions?
a. Rights
b. Peeping Tom case
3. Is utilitarianism too demanding?
D. The utilitarian response.
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.)
Second essay due: May 1
Justice and
Punishment
May 1-May 15
I. Is punishment ever justified?
A. Retributivism
1. Tenets
2. Criticisms (See "Objections to Retributivism" in
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.
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?
III. The meaning of life (time permitting)
May 15
Suggested listening: Howard Wettstein,
"Meaning of Life" http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/MeaningofLife.htm
IV. Review
May 17