General Syllabus
Philosophy 231.15 Knowing, Being, and Doing: Philosophical Method and its
Applications
Spring 2008, Tuesdays and Thursdays 8:15-9:30, Room 2503N
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, on ethics, we will
be looking 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 apply the theories we've discussed by asking whether or
not euthanasia is ever justified. 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. Midterm. Two essays.
3. Two formal papers (approx 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: 15%
Two formal essays: essay 1 due March 4; essay 2 due April 17; 15% each
Midterm: March 25: 25%
Final: May 20, 8 AM – 10 AM: 35%
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 at least 24 hours before each class.
Class meetings. There will be no class on the following days: Tuesday, February
12, Tuesday, April 22, and Thursday, April 24
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.
In class behavior. Show respect
for both your teacher and your fellow students.
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 anytime after
class on that day until class time on Thursday, an A becomes an A-, an 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.
Unit 1: Descartes
January 29-February 26
Jan 29:
I. Introduction to Descartes’s Meditations
Reading: Blackburn, 15-18 (on eres); 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.
Jan 31:
II. Extreme doubt: Meditation 1
A. Why Descartes has decided to try to place all of his beliefs in doubt:
Meditation 1, paragraph 1; Descartes text, page 66.1.
B. Why offer skeptical arguments at all? 1.2
C. Apple analogy: Descartes text, p. 63.1
D. Sense deception argument
1. D’s presentation: 1.3
Feb 5:
2. D’s rejection: 1.4
E. Dream argument
1. D’s presentation: 1.5
Feb 7:
2. D’s rejection: 1.6-1.8
F. Deceptive God argument: 1.9-1.11
G. The evil demon: 1.12
Additional reading:
III. Initial absolute (“metaphysical”)
certainties: Meditation 2
A. Summary of the results of Med 1: 2.1-2.2
B. The cogito: 2.3; Descartes text, p. 68.1 and p. 105.2
Feb 14:
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.
Descartes’s attempt to prove God’s existence
1.
D’s criterion of truth: 3.2;
2.
God’s existence and the removal of extreme doubt: 3.4 (See also 5.12-5.16)
Feb 19:
3.
The attempt to show that some of D’s ideas must be caused by something other
than himself or the demon
a.
First effort and why it fails: 3.7-3.12
b.
Second effort
i.
Ideas vs. what they represent: 3.13
ii.
Why D thinks God must exist (the Trademark Argument): 3.22 and 3.23; 3.37 and
3.38;
(a).
What characteristics must God have if he exists?
(b).
Why does Descartes think he couldn’t have invented the idea of God? Descartes
text, p. 83.2
4.
Why God isn't a deceiver: 3.37 and 4.2; Descartes text, p. 104.1-104.2
V. Why God isn't a deceiver: Meditation 4
A. Summary of the results of Meds 1-3: 4.1
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; Descartes text, p.
104.1-104.2
Feb 21:
VI.
Arnauld’s criticism (The Cartesian Circle), Descartes text, 106.2-106.3;
A.
What is it?
B.
Why does it raise serious problems for Descartes’s attempt to discover truths
beyond his own existence?
C. Blackburn’s coffee analogy;
VII. The External World (6.10 and 6.23)
Feb 26:
VIII. Assessment of Descartes
Reading:
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:
March 4
Unit 2: The Existence of God
February
26-March 20
Feb 28:
A.
The concept of God; why there has to be some consensus at the outset
B.
The Burden of proof
C.
Logic and Argument
1.
Argument
a.
Premises
b.
Conclusion
2.
Validity
3.
Soundness
March 4:
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 (Hume)
March 6:
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
March 11:
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)?
3.
How did God acquire his sense of right and wrong?
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. “Life: One side can be wrong: Accepting 'intelligent design' in science
classrooms would have disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry
Coyne: Cover story: Arguments worth having...: One side can be wrong.”
The Guardian, September 1,
2005, Guardian Science Pages, Pg. 4, 2448 words, Richard Dawkins
and Jerry Coyne. 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 and The
Guardian is available in Lexis-Nexis from the John Jay Library website at 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?
March 13:
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?
March 18:
4.
Animal suffering
5.
Why call God good?
H.
Sophie's attempt to solve the problem of evil
Reading:
“Hume's architecture analogy” (Readings); Moody, 47-59; Perry, 1-36; 45,
bottom-60
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
Suggested
listening: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, "The Existence of God"
Recommended
reading: The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Ref B41.E5), Volume 3, 139-40. “Hume
on the Problem of Evil” (Readings); Johnson, “God and the Problem of Evil”
(eres), 85-89; Perry, 37-45.
V.
Religious experience
A.
The argument from religious experience
1.
What is it?
2.
How is it supposed to support God's existence?
March 20:
B.
The skeptic's reply: Other things besides God can account for religious
experiences
Reading:
Moody, 73-80; Thomas Hobbes (Readings)
VI.
Believing in God without proof
Reading
: Moody, 81-91
Midterm:
March 25
Unit 3: Ethics
March
27-April 29
March 27:
I.
What is ethics?
Rachels,
11-15; 47-51; Singer (eres), 1-6.
II.
Cultural Relativism
Reading
: Rachels, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism," 16-34
April
1:
III. The Divine Command Theory
A.
What is it?
B.
Reason in favor
April 3:
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).
Reading:
Bentham, From The Principles of Morals
and Legislation (e-res), 21.3; Rachels, 52-58; 50.2-51; 62-67
April 8:
IV.
Two types of moral theory
A.
Deontology
B.
Utilitarianism
V.
Deontology
A.
Kant's theory
1.
As a version of deontology
2.
Hypothetical imperatives
3.
The Categorical Imperative
a.
Second interpretation
b. Persons
c. Animals
April 10:
B.
Problems with Kant's theory
1.
Can't resolve conflicts between absolute duties
2.
Is lying or promise breaking always wrong?
3. Animals and morality
Reading:
Rachels, 117-33.2
VI.
Mill and Utilitarianism
A.
Fundamentals of the theory
1.
The principle of utility
2.
Equal consideration of interests
3.
Rules of thumb
April 15:
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?
Reading:
Mill, from Utilitarianism (eres); Rachels, 89-99
April 17/April
29:
C.
Criticisms
1.
Is pleasure all that matters?
2.
Are consequences alone relevant to the rightness/wrongness of actions?
3.
Is utilitarianism too demanding?
D.
The utilitarian response.
Reading:
Rachels, 100-110.2; 112.3-116.
VII.
Euthanasia (time permitting)
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
Reading
: Rachels, 1-11.2; 91.3-94.2; Rachels, "Active and Passive Ethanasia"
(Readings in BB).
Second
essay due: April 17
Unit 4: Justice
and Punishment
April 29-May 8
April 29:
I. Is punishment ever justified?
A. Retributivism
1. Tenets
May 1:
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
May 6:
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); Lewis, from God in the Dock, 287-294 (eres); Menniger, “The Crime
of Punishment,” 253-261 (eres); Rachels, 103.3-104.2.; 133.2-40.
May 8:
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 : Primoratz, "A Life for a Life," 125-130 (in Readins in BB)
Glover, "Execution and Assassination, 228-240 (Readings in BB) van den
Haag, "On Deterrence and the Death Penalty," 146 (bottom)-147 (Readings
in BB)
Suggested listening: Robert Weisberg, “Capital Punishment”
http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/CapitalPunishment.html
III. The meaning of life
May 8 and May 13
Reading: Rachels, 191-92.2
Suggested listening: Howard Wettstein, "Meaning of Life"
http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/MeaningofLife.htm