|
Course
Information |
PHL 118 3 Credits Offered Every Semester Meets UP Requirement |
|
Overview
|
One
interesting implication of living in a relatively free and open society such
as ours is the fact that we can freely and openly express both our agreement
and our disagreement with the views of others regarding the important moral
issues of our day. Although it seems that we all basically agree about many
ethical prescriptions (e.g. that it is morally wrong to hurt your best
friend’s feelings for no reason whatsoever, that it is morally wrong to
torture your dog just for the hell of it, and that one should in general
demonstrate respect towards one’s parents), it nevertheless remains the
case that we just as often disagree over other more controversial issues.
Over the course of the semester, we will discuss the following controversial
moral questions:
A Note About the Readings Weekly reading assignments
are drawn from anthologized articles written by ethicists, journalists,
lawyers, and philosophers. In addition to short introductory lectures on
various topics in applied ethics, class time will be primarily devoted to
discussing the content of these articles. For this reason, it is vitally
important that you carefully read and digest the assigned material so that
you can benefit from (and participate in) the class discussions. Philosophical Writing
Philosophical writing is, by nature, argumentative writing. A philosophical essay is designed to rationally persuade you through the use of argument to adopt a particular position on a substantive and controversial issue; for example, to rationally persuade you to believe that unnecessarily harvesting animals for food is not morally acceptable. Obviously, after reading a philosophical essay, you may not be rationally persuaded by the author’s reasoning and, therefore, might reject their conclusions. Nevertheless, the author in writing the essay assumes that it is at least possible to rationally convince you to adopt the position that they are advocating; that is, the author assumes that you could be convinced to adopt their view, if they present you with a strong enough case for doing so. If you are certain that it is not even possible to convince you to change your position on substantive ethical questions, then taking this course will be a waste of your time. If, for example, you are certain that no one could ever rationally convince you to change your position on, for example, the abortion question, euthanasia, the moral status of homosexuality, etc., then you will find this course either pointless, exasperating, or boring. Materials
For
this class, you
will need to purchase: Thomas
Mappes and Jane Zembaty, Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy,
Sixth Edition (New York: McGraw Hill, 2002). The book is available at the campus bookstore and through various on-line sources such as Amazon.com and bn.com. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Environmental Ethics | Animal Issues
Singer's "All Animals
Are Equal" Environment and Human Nature Matt Ridley and Bobbi S.
Low, "Can
Selfishness Save the
Environment?"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brief
Syllabus
(Week By Week) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Links |
Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names Ethics Updates The Ethics Center The Association for Practical and Professional Ethics |