GenEd Resources

Catalog Description:
Students will explore the nature of morality in general and examine opposing sides of particular moral debates. Topics may include: abortion, animal rights, the ethics of immigration, genetic enhancement, and euthanasia. This course aims to help students become more reflective and open-minded about morality, while also providing them with the skills to successfully defend their own moral beliefs.

Curriculum Category: Exploring Perspectives (EP) - Humanist

Attribute(s): Writing

Learning Outcomes:

REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will identify the approaches and methodologies of Humanists, using evidence to critically analyze questions and arguments, and consider contributions of this perspective to finding solutions to global and/or local challenges. (EP Humanist)

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development. (Writing)

REQUIRED Philosophy program learning outcomes (must include one):

• Outcome 1: Write a sound philosophy paper. Write a clear, logical, and mechanically sound philosophy paper.
• Outcome 2: Analyze a philosophical text.
• Outcome 3: Demonstrate critical thinking. 

OPTIONAL:

Being able to describe and discuss the various moral perspectives featured in the course, including perspectives on specific and on general moral issues.

Being able to apply these theories to various moral issues.

Being able to compare the theories and assess their relative merits according to relevant philosophical standards.

Being able to compose a clear and well-structured essay, suitable for the discipline of philosophy.

Course Objectives:

Students will acquire knowledge of some of the central questions, views, and different perspectives in moral philosophy, and they will do this by engaging with those questions in a way that helps them critically reflect about their own views about the issues. They will develop and sharpen their ability to analyze and assess philosophical arguments in a way that will help them reflect about and communicate their own ideas more effectively—an important skill for the study of philosophy, but it is also important for any intellectual pursuit whatsoever.

Students will acquire these skills through both sessions attended by all their peers led by their professor and smaller discussion groups led by their teaching assistant. In the larger sessions they’ll have the opportunity to discuss the main ideas and diverse perspectives presented in the readings, and in the smaller discussion sections they’ll have the opportunity to debate those ideas with their peers in a lot more depth.

Through these means, by the end of the course students will have identified their own views on moral questions, they will have developed them or refine them when needed, and they will have learned how to support them on the basis of reflective and sound reasoning.

Signature Assignment(s):

Here is an example of a Signature Assignment.

The assignment is to write a paper on one of the following topics:

1. During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers and administrators have faced this type of question: How should scarce medical resources (such as vaccines, drugs, ICU beds, and ventilators) be allocated? That is, which patients should be given priority, and on what basis? Think about this question from the perspective of what you have learned in this class in the unit on moral theories (Utilitarianism and Deontology). How would Utilitarians approach this question? How would Deontologists (in particular, those who believe in DDE or DDA) approach it? Would Utilitarians and Deontologists agree or disagree about the answer to this question? Why? [EXTRA-CREDIT: Finally, conclude with your own assessment: What can we learn (if anything) from views like Utilitarianism or Deontology about what we should do in these challenging cases? Do you see yourself better positioned to answer this question after having taken this class? Why?]
2. Pick your own example of a moral disagreement across different cultures (it could be an example that involves cultures that exist at the same time—such as now—or at different times). Explain how Cultural Relativism and Objectivism are different perspectives about the nature of morality, and illustrate the two views with that example. Next, explain how each perspective could account for or explain that particular example of moral disagreement. Which explanation do you think is right, the relativist or the objectivist? Why? [EXTRA-CREDIT: Finally, conclude with a reflection on what you have learned on this topic from having taken this class: Has your perspective on the nature of morality (in particular, on its objectivity/relativity) changed or evolved in any way from having taken this class? How?]

Guidelines for the students: The paper should be around 5 pages long, double-spaced, using 1”margins throughout. It should have a clear structure that follows the different parts of the chosen prompt, preferably in the order suggested. It should be structured into different paragraphs separating the different parts of the prompt. The ideas need to be explained as if you were writing for a peer who’s introduced to the topic for the first time. You should start with a rough outline and draft and then edit it until you reach a polished version. The recommendation is not to quote from the readings or from the class notes, but, instead, to set out the ideas in your own words as much as possible, and to illustrate them with your own examples when appropriate. You should demonstrate in your writing that you are applying the concepts and skills learned in this class. As with other assignments in this class, you won’t be graded on the basis of the views that you defend, but on how well you apply the concepts learned in class, and on how you structure and express your reasoning using the analytic tools learned and applied in class.

Catalog Description:
This course examines fundamental questions about the ethical organization of society and social life. These questions include: What is the basis of the state? What is the nature of social justice? What are our obligations to others around the world? We will aim to develop clear thinking about issues that are of great importance to the contemporary world and that each of us will face as a citizen of a modern democratic state.

Curriculum Category: Building Connections (BC)

Attribute(s): Diversity and Equity, Writing

Learning Outcomes:
REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will demonstrate the ability to utilize multiple perspectives and make meaningful connections across disciplines and social positions, think conceptually and critically, and solve problems. (BC)

Students will demonstrate knowledge of how historical and contemporary populations* have experienced inequality, considering diversity, power, and equity through disciplinary perspectives to reflect upon how various communities experience privilege and/or oppression/marginalization and theorize how to create a more equitable society. (Diversity & Equity Attribute)
*populations including, but not limited to: people from racial/ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQIA+ people, disabled people, people from marginalized communities and societies, socioeconomically disadvantaged communities and/or people from colonized societies.

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development. (Writing)

OPTIONAL:

Students will demonstrate competency in analyzing a philosophical text, critical thinking, and writing a sound philosophy paper.

Course Objectives:

Utilize prior knowledge and experience to reflect on morality, the basis of political authority, social justice, and the institutions and social processes that impact social justice.

Understand the diversity of contending ideas and arguments that support opposing positions on justice and political morality.

Appreciate the centrality of social science to reasoning in political philosophy.

Understand and critically evaluate the social scientific models that underlie normative theorizing in political philosophy.

Clarify basic moral and political concepts and the philosophical theses that use them.

Clarify and analyze philosophical arguments that support conceptions of justice and political morality.

Assess critically the validity and soundness of the diverse arguments and ideas they study.

Draft and revise rigorously structured papers that lay out ideas and arguments and critically asses them.

Clarify, analyze, and critically assess arguments regarding institutions and social processes that impact economically disadvantaged individuals and groups.

Clarify, analyze, and critically assess arguments regarding group oppression, gender and racial injustice, and institutions and social processes that may facilitate, enact, or contribute to injustice.

Discuss diverse ideas and arguments about social processes, social justice and political authority.

Collaborate with other students to develop a critical analysis of some aspect of social justice or political morality.

Signature Assignment(s):

The course will have 3 signature assignments.

Signature Assignments 1 and 2

The first two signature assignments are 2 page papers on main questions for the course.

Diversity and Equity Attribute

• These assignments focus on issues of socioeconomic justice and race/gender justice.  
• In the first signature assignment, students explain and critically analyze Marxist, egalitarian, and/or libertarian conceptions of justice.
• In the second signature assignment, students explain and critically analyze Iris Marion Young’s conception of group oppression or Tommie Shelby’s analysis of race, racism, and the significance of racism for social justice.

Writing Attribute:

• Writing as an iterative process will be emphasized for these assignments.  Students will engage in reflective writing on socio-economic justice and race/gender justice to draw on prior knowledge and experience.  Students will compose drafts of their ideas, exchange these with members of their writing group, and revise their papers in light of this feedback.

Building Connections:

• In these assignments, students will identify and apply the tools and methodologies of the social scientist by explaining and critically assessing the models of society underlying the normative perspective of the theorists they consider.  And, students will identify and apply the tools of the philosopher by clarifying ideas and critically assessing the normative conception developed by the theorists.  Students will build connections between these disciplinary perspectives (social science and philosophy) by reconciling conceptions of social justice and political morality with defensible models of how society works.

Signature Assignment 3

Writing Attribute

• The third signature assignment will be a formal written assignment that draws on course content (readings/lectures) and builds on earlier writing assignments, discussions, and presentations.
• As the course proceeds, students will have written 4 shorter papers and collaborated on one group presentation.  Each of these assignments will have focused on one of the major questions for the course.
• In the 3^rd signature assignment students will develop one of these earlier assignments (short paper or group presentation) into a longer project, giving special attention to clarifying the ideas in their thesis and responding to possible objections to their line of reasoning.
• The assignment will proceed in stages.
• First, students will reflect on their earlier assignments and engage in prewriting, to generate an outline for the paper.
• Second, one this outline has been approved, by the instructing team, students will develop a draft of their paper.
• Third, in light of appropriate feedback from the instructing team, students will compose a final draft that conforms to the genre conventions of academic philosophy.

Diversity and Equity Attribute

• While the 3^rd signature assignment, need not directly address group oppression or racial/gender injustice, it MAY do so – and in many cases will do so – depending on which earlier assignment in the course a student chooses to develop for their 3^rd signature assignment.

Building Connections Attribute:

• As with signature assignments 1 and 2, students will identify and apply the tools and methodologies of the social scientist by explaining and critically assessing the models of society underlying the normative perspective of the theorists they consider.  And, students will identify and apply the tools of the philosopher by clarifying ideas and critically assessing the normative conception developed by the theorists.  Students will build connections between these disciplinary perspectives (social science and philosophy) by reconciling conceptions of social justice and political morality with defensible models of how society works. 

Catalog Description: Did you know that killing innocent children is morally wrong? I hope so. But arguably, you can only know things that are true. What kind of truth do moral statements have? Are moral truths universal and necessary like mathematical truths? Or are they contingent and relative to different societies like truths about rules of etiquette? What makes a moral statement true or false? Society? God? Evolution? Rationality?

In this course, we study some of the most ambitious answers in the history of Western philosophy to questions about the relationship between knowledge, truth, and morality. We approach these texts by thinking about two kinds of cases:

1.      How do we explain our knowledge of moral issues that look obvious, for example, our knowledge that genocide is wrong?

2.      And then, how, if at all, can our analysis of the obvious cases help us think about the more controversial cases, for example whether it is permissible to tell a lie to help a friend?  

Curriculum Category: Exploring Perspective (EP) - Humanist

Attribute(s): Writing

Learning Outcomes:
REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will identify the approaches and methodologies of the disciplinary perspective, use evidence and/or knowledge generated within the disciplinary perspective to critically analyze questions, ideas, and/or arguments, and describe contributions of this perspective to finding solutions to global and/or local challenges.

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development.

Signature Assignment(s):

PHIL160D1 contains a series of signature assignments (4 argument maps) that are distributed throughout the semester. These assignments align well with the EP Writing Attribute for the following reasons.

First, students learn how to identify interesting passages and argumentative paragraphs from their reading that are worth writing about.

Second, students are asked to write an outline of the main argument in their selected passages. They are instructed to show “charity of interpretation”. In this way, they learn the basics of writing an expository piece.

Third, students are asked to write a counter-argument against the original passage that they have selected. The assignment is designed in such a way that forces students to think about focused and creative ways of engaging in a dialogue. They are asked to narrow their focus and object to one and only one premise from the original passage. They are then asked to develop an argument on their own which would entail the rejection of the targeted premise.

Fourth, students are asked to write a possible objection to their own counter-argument. This is something that will become very important when they turn to writing papers since they will be asked to anticipate objections against their own preferred view, and address some of them.

Finally: the four argument maps culminate with a paper proposal (which is the paper proposal for their final paper). The paper proposal has the same structure as an argument map: (1) a charitable exposition of the view they are talking about; (2) their own original argument; and (3) possible objections and replies. After receiving feedback from the instructor on their paper proposal, students write their final paper by turning the argument map 4 into a complete paper.

I believe that by going through these steps they both learn the analytic style of writing that is very useful for many sub disciplines in the humanities. But perhaps more importantly, they learn how various philosophical dialogue between rival viewpoints should take the stages of offering a charitable interpretation one’s rival, careful and modest counter-argumentation, and then an honest and frank acknowledgment of the shortcomings of one’s own viewpoint.     

Catalog Description:
This course introduces students to the philosophical conceptions of mind, matter, and God that have shaped the Western intellectual tradition. Starting with the ancient Greek philosophers and including philosophers from the 17th century, students will explore perennial issues such as: the existence of God, the nature of reality, the problem of evil, and the basis of knowledge. Readings are culled from the history of philosophy, but lectures and discussions will be informed by contemporary considerations.

Curriculum Category: Exploring Perspectives (EP) - Humanist

Attribute(s): Writing

Learning Outcomes:
REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will identify the approaches and methodologies of Humanists, using evidence to critically analyze questions and arguments, and consider contributions of this perspective to finding solutions to global and/or local challenges. (EP Humanist)

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development. (Writing)

OPTIONAL:

Students will be familiarized with the textual, rhetorical, and argumentative strategies typical of philosophical writing, and will thus be well prepared to take further and more advanced courses in philosophy, should they so desire.

Course Objectives

By the end of the course, students will be able to:
-- appropriately deploy the philosophical concepts and practices of intellectual self-scrutiny, including critical thinking; interrogating arguments in terms of their validity and soundness;
-- come to their own independent assessment of philosophical texts, and to express that assessment clearly to their peers;
-- communicate effectively both through in-class discussion, short assignments, and a larger self-expressive writing project;
-- construct a sound philosophy paper through the process of draft and revision, and including the defense of their own philosophical perspective on classic philosophical topics, using the appropriate genre conventions of the humanist discipline of philosophy;
-- understand and value differences by comparing and contrasting different philosophical systems within the Western/European tradition;
-- identify and state clearly the main theses of three historically significant philosophical perspectives (theistic rationalism, skeptical empiricism, and materialist naturalism), and to articulate the evidential and explanatory relations between those theses.

Signature Assignment(s):

Choose Your Own Philosophical Adventure

By the three-quarters mark of the term, students will have looked in detail at three different families of views, and come to a critical appreciation of the interrelated elements of each of those families that constitutes them as a perspective on reality and our places in it, most particularly the existence of God, our capacities for achieving knowledge, and the nature of the human mind. For each of those perspectives – theistic rationalism, skeptical empiricism, and materialist naturalism – they will have produced a short paper assessing its mutually reinforcing elements, but also its outstanding difficulties or unanswered objections. As a culminating exercise, the students will synthesize their understandings of these perspectives to articulate and defend their own philosophical perspective. They will stake out their own position on these several classic questions in philosophy, and then perform the same sort of critical assessment on their own views as thus articulated. Students will be strongly encouraged to take ownership of their own philosophical views by means of an intellectual self-examination using the tools of philosophical argumentation, and ideally the Signature Assignment will reflect their authentic and reflective – if perhaps only pro tem – views on these big questions.

The papers will of course not be evaluated on how right their answers are, since we are in the realm of ongoing and unsettled philosophical debate, and part of what we are trying to inculcate is a degree of comfort in defending a view when there is no antecedently established correct one. Rather, students will be evaluated on how well their paper manifests their mastery of both the historical course material, and the textual, rhetorical, and argumentative strategies of good philosophical writing. A particular premium will be placed on clarity of expression and argumentation. Students will not be expected to come at these questions totally de novo, but rather to adapt pieces of the perspectives we will have examined, combined perhaps with some positions or arguments of their own making; what will be important in this regard is that they be able to take stock of both the mutual support and difficult tensions within the particular combinations and alterations they propose.

The students will know from the start of the term that this assignment will be coming, and they will have been encouraged on a daily basis to work on coming to their own assessment of philosophical texts, and clearly expressing those assessments to their classmates. We will put those developed skills to work in an in-class writing workshop on their rough drafts. Students will also receive feedback from the instructors, both as to the substance of their drafts but also as to their prose. Final drafts will be about 8 pages long. They will also turn in a one-page reflection on their rewriting process (which will be graded on low-stakes terms, as equivalent to an in-class quick reflection assignment.)

Catalog Description: We will study the ethics and the economics of such phenomena as market competition, institutions of private and public property, trade restrictions, globalization, and corporate welfare. How do people create wealth? How do societies enable people to create wealth? Are some ways more ethical than others? Why do some societies grow rich while neighboring societies remain poor? People have various ways of creating wealth. Which are ethical and which are not?  Why?

Curriculum Category: Building Connections (BC)

Attribute(s): Writing

Learning Outcomes:

REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will demonstrate competency in analyzing a philosophical text, critical thinking, and writing a sound philosophy paper. (Philosophy program outcome)

Students will demonstrate the ability to utilize multiple perspectives and make meaningful connections across disciplines and social positions, think conceptually and critically, and solve problems. (BC)

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development. (Writing)

REQUIRED Philosophy program learning outcomes (must include one):

• Outcome 1: Write a sound philosophy paper. Write a clear, logical, and mechanically sound philosophy paper.
• Outcome 2: Analyze a philosophical text.
• Outcome 3: Demonstrate critical thinking. 

OPTIONAL:

Utilize prior knowledge and experience to reflect on what wealth is, its normative significance, the individual and social processes that create wealth, and the institutions that facilitate the creation of wealth.

Reflect on writing as tool for utilizing and creating knowledge, on writing skills, and on writing goals and areas for writing improvement.

Describe the history, measurement, causes, and consequences of wealth creation.

Relate economic, social, and political institutions to wealth creation.

Compare centralized and decentralized actions, practices, and institutions relevant to wealth creation in terms of ethics, knowledge, incentives, efficiency, and opportunity costs.

Evaluate social policies and institutions using major ethical theories.

Consider the perspective of economically marginalized groups in critically evaluating arguments regarding institutions that impact the creation of wealth.

Discuss, evaluate, and construct ethical and economic arguments regarding social institutions and actions that impact the creation of wealth.

Collaborate with other students to recommend policies for controversial markets based on incentives, consequences, and moral rights and moral duties.

Draft and revise a substantial paper that reconciles ethical and economic values in critically evaluating aspects of a capitalist political economic order and/or proposals for reforming this order.

Draft and revise essays that conform to the genre conventions of academic philosophy.

Signature Assignment(s):
In the first part of course students will have written 3 shorter papers on aspects of capitalist economic order:  on property, on markets, and the hierarchical firm.   The normative focus in this part of the course will be economic values of efficiency and preference satisfaction.

In the second part of the course students will completed 2 shorter papers (and one presentation) that critically evaluate proposals for reforming some aspect of a capitalist economic order.  The normative focus in this part of the course will be ethical values of rights, liberty, justice, and virtue.

Catalog Description: It is important "to do the right thing." But how can anyone tell what "the right thing" is? What makes some actions right and some wrong? This course is an overview of ethics, which is the field of philosophy that examines these questions. We examine three main ways of thinking about ethics: those that focus one the outcomes of actions, those that focus on the nature of the actions themselves, and those that focus on the character of the one who acts. Students will gain a foundational knowledge that will serve as a solid background for more advanced work in ethics, as a resource for thinking about moral issues, and as a piece of general education valuable for understanding practical aspects of human life.

Curriculum Category: Exploring Perspective (EP) - Humanist

Attribute(s): Writing

Learning Outcomes:
REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will identify the approaches and methodologies of the disciplinary perspective, use evidence and/or knowledge generated within the disciplinary perspective to critically analyze questions, ideas, and/or arguments, and describe contributions of this perspective to finding solutions to global and/or local challenges.

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development.

REQUIRED Philosophy program learning outcomes (must include one):

• Outcome 1: Write a sound philosophy paper. Write a clear, logical, and mechanically sound philosophy paper.
• Outcome 2: Analyze a philosophical text.
• Outcome 3: Demonstrate critical thinking. 

Signature Assignment(s):

The assignment is to compare and critically assess how Classical Act Utilitarianism and Rule Consequentialism would apply to the following case:

Janice is suffering greatly from Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. This disease causes the death of neurons which control voluntary muscles. Here is a quote about the disease from the ALS Association:

Motor neurons reach from the brain to the spinal cord and from the spinal cord to the muscles throughout the body. The progressive degeneration of the motor neurons in ALS eventually leads to their demise. When the motor neurons die, the ability of the brain to initiate and control muscle movement is lost. With voluntary muscle action progressively affected, people may lose the ability to speak, eat, move and breathe.

Because there is no effective treatment at present, ALS is fatal. It is also progressive. Janice’s ALS has progressed to the point where she has lost her ability to speak, eat, and move. Soon the disease will cause her death. Janice understands this and has requested she be given a painless life-ending drug. (This would be a case of physician-assisted suicide.)

Let us suppose Janice lives in a country where there are no laws against such actions. Still, the moral question is whether it is morally right for a physician to administer a fatal dose of the drug to Janice, upon her request.

Length: to adequately address the assignment, your paper should be 7-8 pages, double-spaced, 1” margins.

Suggested Paper Outline
1. Write a short introductory paragraph explaining to your readers what you will do in your paper. Explain that you plan to compare the implications of classical Act Utilitarianism and Rule Consequentialism to a difficult moral to compare and evaluate these theories as they apply to the case.

2. Next, describe in your own words the case of Janice.

3.  Next, begin with classical Act Utilitarianism (AU) and explain to your reader the elements of this theory in question.

4. Then, once you’ve explained AU, take the position of a judge, and proceed to explain whether it would be morally permissible for the physician to administer the life-ending drug to Janice.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 now focusing on Rule Consequentialism (RC).

Catalog Description: In this course, students will considers a wide range of moral or ethical controversies and positions involved in contemporary life. Topics covered will vary but may include, among others, famine relief; euthanasia and physician assisted suicide; the morality of warfare, often known as Just War Theory; sexual morality; racism; sexism; the ethics of immigration; the morality of genetic engineering, as well as the related topic of human cloning; the restriction of liberties pertaining to recreational drug use, prostitution, pornography, and free speech; environmental damage and moral obligations to future generations; the moral status of nonhuman animals; and abortion.

Curriculum Category: Exploring Perspective (EP) - Humanist

Attribute(s): Writing

Learning Outcomes:
REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will identify the approaches and methodologies of the disciplinary perspective, use evidence and/or knowledge generated within the disciplinary perspective to critically analyze questions, ideas, and/or arguments, and describe contributions of this perspective to finding solutions to global and/or local challenges.

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development.

REQUIRED Philosophy program learning outcomes (must include one):

• Outcome 1: Write a sound philosophy paper. Write a clear, logical, and mechanically sound philosophy paper.
• Outcome 2: Analyze a philosophical text.
• Outcome 3: Demonstrate critical thinking. 

Signature Assignment(s):

Two different signature assignments involve two different goals. One is more general as part of a quality education in any humanities course another is more focused upon excelling in the discipline of philosophy.

The first is a 1000-word essay requiring each student to write a critical assessment of an article or articles (or specific arguments in an article or articles). Each of these assigned articles takes a position on some particular moral controversy. What is distinctive about the assignment is in part the lead up to it. Students in the course are divided into groups, and each group is assigned a specific week and topic. (For example, week one is the topic of famine relief, and students in Group 1 are then required to write their essay on tha topic. In week 2, when the topic is famine relief, students in Group 2 are required to write on that topic.) Students in each group are required to write individual (not group) essays, but prior to writing their essay, they are treated as accountable for being “experts” for that week. To that end, prior to class meeting for that week, each student in the group has to write and submit a “shorty” that summarizes in one paragraph one of the two or three assigned readings. (This shorty is “low stakes” in that there is no grade assigned. It is just a simple requirement that each student do this and submit it prior to a class meeting on this topic.)  This insures that these students have carefully invested in the topic ahead of time. Then in attending lectures on the topic, these students are asked to take on a leadership role in asking critical questions and just being prepared to answer hard questions from their professor in helping to explain the material. The students are then also asked to prepare for the second class meeting that week at least one discussion question to help structure a seminar-style discussion. They also prepare these ahead of time and send them to the professor to help plan a class session that engages them. (Note this is also another low-stakes assignment.)

With this as background, after the completion of the topic in class lecture and discussion, students are given a week to write an essay, based on an (optional) prompt. Having invested deeply in the week’s topic, they then submit a 1000-word essay wherein they are required to express in their words, and not based on further research, their views. The instructor then grades that essay focusing both on mastery of philosophical content but also on quality of written arguments. The student is then required to revise in specific response to the feedback to earn full credit. In getting feedback, students are encouraged to take on a professional tone. In doing so, they often produce something that has the respectable appearance of a position piece that could appear in the op-ed section of a good newspaper.

A key aim of this signature assignment is to infuse carefully reading, class lecture, peer discussion, and feedback from both peers (in the class discussion) and from the professor into a writing assignment. In this way, it just cannot be that writing something is one little step, and other aspects of the class are other little steps, reading, shared discussion, reflection, feedback, and revisiting one’s ideas are all enmeshed. This is just what good writers and thinkers do.

Below, I will past an example of a prompt for one of these essay assignments.

Before doing so, here is a second Signature Assignment, and this is far easier to explain. It instead is aimed at drilling down into the disciplinary practice to craft a quality piece of work unique to philosophy as a distinctive area of the humanities. In the last third of the course, we shift from focus on one topic each week to intensive focus on two topics for two weeks each. The final assignment is a final paper that asks the students to write a proper philosophy paper that incorporates the many (4-6) assigned readings. These papers should be of a quality that, at the upper end, could be submitted in application to a graduate program as a writing sample. The two topics most recently used are the moral status of nonhuman animals and the moral permissibility or impermissibility of abortion. Students often produce astoundingly mature and well-crafted essays.

Catalog Description:
Happiness matters to us; and now it is in the news. There are large numbers of self-help books telling us how to be happy. Some nations are planning to measure the happiness of their citizens to find out how it can be increased. There is a huge new field of “happiness studies,” and new focus on happiness in positive psychology as well as fields like politics and law. Much of this material is confusing, since often it is not clear what the authors think that happiness is. Is it feeling good? Is it having a positive attitude to the way you are now? Is it having a positive attitude to your life as a whole? Is it having a happy life? Can some people advise others on how to be happy?

Philosophers have been engaged with the search for happiness for two thousand years. They have asked what happiness is, and have explored different answers to the question, including some of the answers now being rediscovered in other fields.

In this course we will ask what happiness is, and examine critically the major answers to this question. We’ll look at the rich philosophical tradition of thinking about happiness, at contemporary answers, and also at some recent work in the social sciences. We’ll examine the contributions being made to the ongoing search to find out what happiness is, and how we can live happy lives.

This course has two primary objectives:
* To introduce students to the theoretical nature of the question of the nature of happiness by presenting a representative sample of the primary historical and contemporary literature
* To enable students to think and write critically, logically and objectively about the philosophical issues pertaining to happiness.

These objectives will be approached through lectures, discussions and writing assignments informed by the assigned readings. Course outcomes will be assessed through substantial writing assignments, some of which will feature opportunities for students to revise their work in light of advice from the professor.

Curriculum Category: Exploring Perspectives (EP) - Humanist

Attribute(s): World Cultures and Societies, Writing

Learning Outcomes:

REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will identify the approaches and methodologies of Humanists, using evidence to critically analyze questions and arguments, and consider contributions of this perspective to finding solutions to global and/or local challenges. (EP Humanist)

Students will describe, from one or multiple perspectives, the values, practices, and/or cultural products of at least one non-US culture/society; relate how these values, practices and/or cultural products have shaped their social, historical, political, environmental and/or geographic contexts; and reflect on how the student's own background has influenced their perceptions of other societies and their sense of place in the global community. (World Cultures & Societies)

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development. (Writing)

REQUIRED Philosophy program learning outcomes (must include one):

• Outcome 1: Write a sound philosophy paper. Write a clear, logical, and mechanically sound philosophy paper.
• Outcome 2: Analyze a philosophical text.
• Outcome 3: Demonstrate critical thinking. 

OPTIONAL:

Apply a variety of disciplinary lenses—from Philosophy, Social Science, and Humanities—to identify the scope, achievements, limitations, and concerns of research on human quality of life.

Interpret texts from different times, places, peoples, and disciplines about human quality of life, in terms of the concerns and methodologies of their authors and audience.

Appreciate some of the challenges of merging different disciplinary perspectives and methodologies to construct a more unified understanding of human quality of life.

Critically analyze diverse theories of the nature of human happiness and well-being, and understand the concerns and methodologies that often drive the development of those theories.

Gain proficiency in reading complex texts on happiness and well-being, from different disciplines and historical periods, that require a high degree of analytical reasoning.

Compose written texts that carefully, accurately, and precisely reconstruct complex perspectives on human quality of life that both represent the reasoning and concerns of their creators and make them intelligible and compelling for capable but uninformed readers.

Signature Assignment(s):

The overarching assignment for the semester is to learn to produce concise, accurate, and clear secondary texts on the nature of human well-being. This, one finds, is a struggle for even the best-prepared students, often to their surprise. However, with practice and guidance every student can improve, often dramatically. The skills involved in reconstructing complex viewpoints of others and communicating complex viewpoints to others, are skills that students can apply throughout their lives.

Several times during the semester, students compose a written text in which they identify an idea, problem, question, or challenge arising in a recent reading on human quality of life, reconstruct it in a way that demonstrates deep understanding of the author’s concerns and methods, and present it in a clear and engaging manner for a capable but uninformed reader.

Each individual assignment includes multiple components. Students produce and exchange rough drafts of their work. Students then review and provide feedback on each other’s drafts. Lastly, students revise their work in light of advice received from their instructor and in-class colleagues, in preparation to submit final drafts.

The individual assignments work towards a cumulative, semester-long effect. Students’ final drafts of one text become the basis for new recommendations for skill development on subsequent texts. Over the course of the semester, students are expected to show substantial progress in their development of this foundational skill of reconstructing and communicating complex ideas.

Course Description:

Suppose it was entirely up to you to decide what is right or wrong, what is valuable and what is not. Suppose it was “entirely” up to you in the sense that there were no other standards or guidelines to tell you how to go about making these decisions. That would be a huge and perhaps scary task. Is it even possible to make decisions in a world where there are no objective norms and values to fall back on? A group of philosophers, the existentialists, thought that our actual task in this world is not so different. On their account, at least when it comes to what is most valuable and the fundamental norms of one’s own life, it is entirely up to each one of us to make that decision for ourselves. This course is an introduction to various theories and expressions of 19th- and 20th-century existentialism and its phenomenological method. We will read authors such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir, and Fanon. We will also analyze some existentialist literature. 

Curriculum Category: Exploring Perspective (EP) - Humanist

Attribute(s): Diversity and Equity, Writing

Learning Outcomes:
REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will identify the approaches and methodologies of Humanists, using evidence to critically analyze questions and arguments, and consider contributions of this perspective to finding solutions to global and/or local challenges. (EP)

Students will demonstrate knowledge of how historical and contemporary populations* have experienced inequality, considering diversity, power, and equity through disciplinary perspectives to reflect upon how various communities experience privilege and/or oppression/marginalization and theorize how to create a more equitable society. (Diversity and Equity)
*populations including, but not limited to: people from racial/ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQIA+ people, disabled people, people from marginalized communities and societies, socioeconomically disadvantaged communities and/or people from colonized societies.

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development. (Writing)

OPTIONAL:

Philosophy majors and minors in our program are not trained the tradition of Continental philosophy. This course is one of the only avenues to expose them to the methods and some of the central ideas from that philosophical tradition.

Course Objectives:

During this course, students will:

• Identify and employ methods of phenomenological analysis
• Read philosophical and literary texts from the existentialist tradition and analyze the content critically
• Write analytically and reconstruct philosophical viewpoints from the existentialist philosophy and literature
• Construct critical arguments by considering possible objections to one's favored position
• Analyze and elucidate the foundational concepts and historical trajectory of existentialism as a philosophical and cultural movement
• Identify the methods and views of Black and feminist existentialist movements
• Apply existentialist themes to contemporary debates in moral theory concerning race, gender, sexual identity, or class

Additionally, students will acquire skills to:

• Write clearly about abstract and complicated topics
• Organize a paper in such a way that it reflects the rational structure of a sustained argument
• Write a modest, constrained, and yet creative and original thesis by developing an argument step by step
• Read difficult and complicated texts with an eye for reconstructing the ideas in more accessible ways
• Write a paper outline, and turn it into a longer piece
• Write "charitably" about opposing viewpoints

Write short critical pieces that summarize complicated argument in a paragraph, and raise a question/worry about it.

Signature Assignment(s):

PHI246 contains a signature assignment that aligns closely with the Writing Attribute and the DE attribute for the following reasons.

First, students learn how to write about complicated philosophical ideas in a way that is clear, well-structured, well-reasoned, and yet accessible to non-philosophers.

Second, students are asked to apply the philosophical ideas from the course to a contemporary problem concerning race, gender, sexual identity, or class. Moreover, they are asked to do this by contrasting the approaches of two philosophers from two different standpoints: first, a philosopher from the “canon”, and then a philosopher from a marginalized group in academia. They are tasked to see if the different standpoints make important differences to the philosophical views at stake. 

Signature Assignment: “Non-Academic Piece”

In this assignment, you are tasked to write a piece of what people call “popular philosophy”. That is, you are supposed to write for an audience who has no familiarity whatsoever with the philosophical jargon, philosophical ideas, or methods. I want you to imagine that you are writing this piece for an online publication (so, you’re welcome to use other media like photos, cartoons, etc. alongside your writing). Here are the details:

• By Monday of Week 12, you will send me a “prompt” of your own choosing for the writing. The prompt will have to address a contemporary social issue about gender, sexual identity, race, or class (preferably in the context of the US, but not required). The prompt must have the following structure:
  • Here is a short description of a social issue about identity and social dynamics.
  • I will explain how we can apply the views of philosopher A from the first module (i.e., before De Beauvoir) to this topic. And I will contrast it with the views of philosopher B from the second module (i.e, de Beauvoir and Fanon) on this topic.
• When it comes to writing the piece, you are to reflect on a methodological question: Does the different social standpoint of philosophers A and B make a difference to their view?
  • NOTE: You’re not being asked to that their social background makes a difference to their philosophical viewpoint and how they’d approach this contemporary issue. Rather, you are being asked to that is the case. In short, given the readings in the course, it makes sense to reflect on these issues.
• On Week 14, you will submit your assignment as a Blog entry (Blog log in info will be provided).
• The writing must be 1000 to 1500 words. As mentioned above, you are welcome to use multimedia devices for engaging your audience.
• You’re to comment on at least two other entries from your classmates. The comments must be respectful, engaging, and charitable. (Deadline Monday of Week 15)
• You are required to respond to at least one comment on your own entry.(Deadline Wednesday of Week 15)
• • 80% Your own entry.
    • Clarity and accessibility to non-academic audience 30%
    • Comprehension and understanding of the philosophical ideas and the social issue 30%
    • Creativity and Originality 20%
    • Structure (both in terms of writing and reasoning) 20%
  • 15% Comments you leave for your peers.
    • Does it raise a good question? Is it charitable to the author?
  •    Your reply to the comments. 
    • Does it engage the comment properly?

Course Description:

Survey of Greek philosophy, from the pre-Socratic philosophers through Plato and Aristotle to post-Aristotelian philosophers, such as the Stoics, Epicureans. Questions to be explored include:
What is it to be the cause of something?
What is it to be responsible in a world in which everything has a cause?
What is it to learn something and to know something?
Why do we live in groups, and why are those groups politically organized?
What is it to live one’s life well?
What is it that drives us to do what we do?
What is the world ultimately made of?

Students will gain familiarity with theories about the nature of human experience among major schools of thought in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy.

Curriculum Category: Exploring Perspective (EP) - Humanist

Attribute(s): World Cultures and Societies, Writing

Learning Outcomes:
REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will identify the approaches and methodologies of Humanists, using evidence to critically analyze questions and arguments, and consider contributions of this perspective to finding solutions to global and/or local challenges. (EP)

Students will describe, from one or multiple perspectives, the values, practices, and/or cultural products of at least one non-US culture/society; relate how these values, practices and/or cultural products have shaped their social, historical, political, environmental and/or geographic contexts; and reflect on how the student's own background has influenced their perceptions of other societies and their sense of place in the global community. (World Cultures & Societies)

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development. (Writing)

Course Objectives:

• Apply a variety of disciplinary lenses—from Philosophy, History, and Classics—to consider the development of and contrasts between major movements in Ancient Philosophy, and to situate them in their time and place.
• Interpret texts from different times, places, peoples, and perspectives about fundamental philosophical questions, in terms of the concerns and methodologies of their authors and audience.
• Understand some of the basic conceptual building blocks of their own thought whose origins can be traced to Ancient Philosophy, for better or worse.
• Appreciate some of the challenges of merging diverse perspectives and methodologies to construct a more unified understanding of human experience.
• Critically analyze diverse theories purporting to answer basic philosophical questions, and understand the concerns and methodologies that often drive the development of those theories.
• Gain proficiency in reading complex texts on a wide array of philosophical issue, from different cultures and historical periods, that require a high degree of analytical reasoning.
• Compose written texts that carefully, accurately, and precisely reconstruct complex perspectives from Ancient Philosophy that both represent the reasoning and concerns of their creators and make them intelligible and intriguing for capable but uninformed readers.

Signature Assignment(s):

The overarching assignment for the semester is to learn to produce concise, accurate, and clear secondary texts on important themes in Ancient Philosophy. This, one finds, is a struggle for even the best-prepared students, often to their surprise. However, with practice and guidance every student can improve, often dramatically. The skills involved in reconstructing complex viewpoints of others and communicating complex viewpoints to others, are skills that students can apply throughout their lives.

Several times during the semester, students compose a written text in which they identify an idea, problem, question, or challenge arising in a recent reading from Ancient Philosophy, reconstruct it in a way that demonstrates deep understanding of the author’s concerns and methods, and present it in a clear and engaging manner for a capable but uninformed reader.

Each individual assignment includes multiple components. Students produce and exchange rough drafts of their work. Students then review and provide feedback on each other’s drafts. Lastly, students revise their work in light of advice received from their instructor and in-class colleagues, in preparation to submit final drafts.

The individual assignments work towards a cumulative, semester-long effect. Students’ final drafts of one text become the basis for new recommendations for skill development on subsequent texts. Over the course of the semester, students are expected to show substantial progress in their development of this foundational skill of reconstructing and communicating complex ideas.

Catalog Description: Survey of major 17th and 18th century British and European philosophers, chosen from Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant.

Curriculum Category: Exploring Perspective (EP) - Humanist

Attribute(s): Writing

Learning Outcomes:
REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will identify the approaches and methodologies of the disciplinary perspective, use evidence and/or knowledge generated within the disciplinary perspective to critically analyze questions, ideas, and/or arguments, and describe contributions of this perspective to finding solutions to global and/or local challenges.

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development.

REQUIRED Philosophy program learning outcomes (must include one):

• Outcome 1: Write a sound philosophy paper. Write a clear, logical, and mechanically sound philosophy paper.
• Outcome 2: Analyze a philosophical text.
• Outcome 3: Demonstrate critical thinking. 

OPTIONAL:

Being able to describe and discuss the various theories featured in the course (empiricism vs. rationalism, realism vs. idealism, the nature of scientific knowledge and its foundations). Each of these represents a particular perspective for thinking about ourselves, and of our place in a world that we take to be governed by the universal laws of nature that form the subject matter of the most foundational natural sciences.

Being able to compare the theories and assess their relative merits according to pertinent standards for evaluating philosophical theories.

Being able to compose a clear well-structured essay, suitable for the discipline of philosophy.

Signature Assignment(s):

Your assignment is to compare and critically assess Hume’s and Kant’s competing accounts of inductive inferences.  These are inferences are ones we make from cases of causal interaction that we have observed to obtain in the past to as yet unobserved cases in the future.  What distinguishes these philosophers is, in large part, what they have to say regarding the question of whether we have any rational entitlement to draw inductive inferences.  Attending to the relevant texts from these philosophers’ writings, explain the answer each philosopher provides to this question, and the considerations each adduces in support of his answer.  In your estimation, which philosopher provides the better answer?   Why? 

Consider, for example, why, when you get on a place, you do so believing that it will fly. You might think that an argument of the following form is one to which you could appeal to justify this belief:

A) Whenever I have observed an airplane roar down a runway, it has subsequently flown.

B)  This airplane has started and is now roaring down the runway.

C)  Therefore, this airplane will subsequently fly.

In Section IV of the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume argues that this form of inference necessarily relies on the assumption that the future will resemble the past (that nature is uniform) and that, given the nature of our cognitive capacities, there is no good argument that we can provide in defence of our reliance on this assumption.  On these grounds, he concludes that we cannot provide any grounds on the basis of which we are entitled to draw inferences of this kind.  In your own words, explain this argument, making clear how it relies on Hume’s account of our cognitive capacities.  Notice that Hume does not deny – indeed, he insists – that it belongs to the nature of the human mind that, once we’ve observed regularites like A), we will in fact develop the disposition to draw inductive inferences in which we project these regularitis into the future.  Moreover, Hume holds that it is a good thing that we rely on nature’s being uniform in the way we anticipate it to be. But he insists that it is not our reason, but rather these habits, that determines our inductive inferences.

In the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Kant develops an account of our capacities of cognition that is very different from Hume’s, and on which each of us is, as a subject of our capacity to understand, entitled to subsume certain regularities in kind that objects exhibit to her in her perception of them under the category of the relation of cause and effect.  This entitlement amounts to an entitlement to draw inductive inference, from the instances of regularities that one has observed from which one derives one’s empirical concept of a natural kind, that these regulaties will hold in the future, as yet unobserved, cases.  Explain Kant’s account of this entitlement.  Be sure to explain how this account is one we have as subjects of a capacity of understanding the operation of which must yield empirical concepts that have a use in making what he calls ‘judgments of experience’.

LENGTH
to adequately address the assignment, your paper should be 7-8 pages, double-spaced, 1” margins.

SUGGESTED PAPER OUTLINE

1. Write a short introductory paragraph explaining to your readers what you will do in your paper. Explain that you plan to compare the competing accounts of inductive inference offered by Hume and Kant.

2. Next, describe in your own words the question about the nature of inductive inference to which Hume and Kant offer competing answers.

3.  Next, explain to your reader the main elements of Hume’s answer to this question.  What, according to Hume, happens when we draw an inductive inference?  What does he mean when he says that these inferences are a product of habit, and not reason? 

4. Then, explain to your reader the main elements of Kant’s competing account of what our capacity to draw inductive inferences consists in. What, on this account, entitles us to rely on the assumption that nature is uniform in the way we rely it to in drawing inductive inferences?

5. Finally, conclude by critically evaluating the answers Hume and Kant offer. Be sure to attend to the competing accounts of our capacity of cognition to which they, respectively, appeal.  What sorts of considerations tell for and against each of these accounts?

AUDIENCE
Write the paper as if you were writing it for a student at this university who is not familiar with philosophy. So, this means that you should strive to explain clearly and in just enough detail the answers that Hume and Kant offer to the question about the nature of our inductive inferences so that such a peer could follow the paper.

RULE TO FOLLOW
Avoid quoting and do not paraphrase text. Remember, you need to describe and explain the answers Hume and Kant are offering in your own words. It will not do simply to write down what Hume and/or Kant say, or repeat exactly what I say about their answers.

EVALUATION
This paper assignment is worth 100.

• Spelling and grammar                  10
• Clarity and organization              15
• Accuracy in describing the
  positions Hume and Kant take     30 (15 + 15)
• Accuracy in laying out their            
  arguments for their positions        30 (15 + 15)                             
• Quality of critical evaluation
  (step 5 above)                            15

Course Description:

This course is an introduction to philosophical approaches to scientific methodology. We will cover theories of the scientific method, such as Bayesian confirmation theory, theories of explanation in science, such as Mechanistic Theories, and applied methodological issues in current scientific debates, such as the Replication Crisis. 

Curriculum Category: Building Connections (BC)

Attribute(s): Quantitative Reasoning

Learning Outcomes:
REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will demonstrate the ability to utilize multiple perspectives and make meaningful connections across disciplines and social positions, think conceptually and critically, and solve problems. (BC)

Students will demonstrate competency in working with numerical information by critically analyzing quantitative information, generating ideas that are supported by quantitative evidence, assessing the relevance of data and its associated implications in a variety of contexts, and communicating those ideas and/or associated interpretations using various formats (graphs, data tables, equations, oral presentations, or written reflections). (Quantitative Reasoning)

OPTIONAL:

Provide a foundation for critical reasoning to students in Science majors, and prepare Philosophy majors for later courses in epistemology, philosophy of science, and Cognitive Science.

Course Objectives:

By the end of the course, you will achieve skills in two categories:

A- Engaging critically with scientific articles
This might seem easy! But it’s a complex skill that you’ll get a start on here to approach an article, isolate the relationships between evidence and conclusion, and know enough statistical basics to classify the kinds of claims being made. Of course, this won’t provide all you need to know, and importantly needs to be filled out with knowledge of the topic and more advanced statistical literacy, but this course will bring you up to speed on the core skill: reading to extract and evaluate the main evidential relationships.

B- Fundamentals of philosophical argumentation
We’ll practice argument generation and mapping, which is the absolute most important part of philosophy.

In terms of content, you will also learn two different bodies of knowledge:

A- Philosophical theories of confirmation, evidence, and value in science
These include answers to questions such as: should we approach science with a social or political aim? Is there such a thing as objectivity? What does it mean for evidence to support a theory?

B- Probability and inductive reasoning
We’ll look both at the foundations of different interpretations of what probability is, and at how basics of probability theory such as Bayes rule are applied to experimental results. These concepts will be discussed abstractly, through problem sets and exercises, and as embedded in real scientific research.

Signature Assignment(s):

This class has four signature assignments: an argument map, a critical formal-reasoning evaluation, a review paper, and a final paper. I do not describe the final paper here because it is very standard. I do however describe the others, and in the case of the argument map have included an example.

Argument Map

Argument maps teach students to extract the core of an argument, and learn to tell the difference between an argument’s structure and its content.

Goals.

Identify argument structures in the text, and evaluate them for both good structure and true premises.

What you must submit.

A 1-2 page map in PDF format. The actual submission is short, but this assignment is not easy!

Format.

Your submission should include the following sections:

1. The passage from which your question is drawn, with reference to the book/chapter.  Pick a passage that seems to establish an interesting or controversial conclusion - make sure it’s an argumentative passage as opposed to just a description, analogy or elaboration. However, it is ok if the passage states an argument that the author himself/herself does not endorse.
2. 1. A conclusion statement. Start by identifying the central point the passage is trying to establish.
   2. Numbered statements of the premises. Write out a version of the argument for that conclusion in your own words. Try to identify and separate the premises (i.e., different reasons that are given for the conclusion).  
      1. You will almost definitely need to ignore some of the things that are said in the passage. Not everything is always relevant to the main argument. For instance, usually the examples are not part of the main argument; rather they are illustrating a point.   
      2. Make the list of premises as long as is necessary to establish the conclusion and no longer. Sometimes, you might have to add a “hidden” premise.
      3. It’s very unusual to have an argument that has more than 10 premises.
3. Construct an argument against the premise from the argument which you consider to be the weakest premise (your original thought), in premise-conclusion form.
4. Notes and issues: A section noting any difficulties or problems in your map.
5. Write-up. A 2-4 paragraph narrative version of the argument and counterargument, ending with a very short concluding statement. 

Topic.

Any argument from the readings from Unit 1 of the course.  Do not use an argument that I have already mapped in lecture. 

Your task.

Identify the best possible interpretation of the argument structure. This means it should fit with the text, but also be as reasonable and clear as possible. Your job is to take what’s there in the paragraph and make it clear and better, distilling it down to the bones.  The formalism of the map will help you do this. And remember: a good argument map starts by correctly identifying the conclusion!

Grading.

Your grade has four main components:

• : Did you properly identify the conclusion? Are the premises related to the text?  
• : Is your argument reconstruction an argument? Or is it just a collection of related sentences? Have you identified a clear structure? 
• How strong is the argument? Is the logic sound, and do the premises make sense?
• Have you identified an interesting and plausible weakness in the premises? Is your counter argument good? 

In general, mistakes that are noted will not be graded as harshly.

What is premise-conclusion form?

We’ve been implicitly working on this all semester. This is a way of writing out an argument that separates the considerations in favor of the conclusion and identifies their relationships. You’re looking for the structure of the argument - this form allows us to separate two questions: is the structure correct? Are the premises true? 

Review Paper

Goals.

To set you up to write an excellent final paper by having some background research in hand. To work on research skills, and learn a bit about an area of interest in science.  Your final paper will be a philosophy focused paper that draws on scientific material, so think of this as the scientific background to that project.  However you can choose to write your final paper on a totally different topic.

What you must submit.

A single-spaced, 2-page paper in PDF format. Include a bibliography in any official citation format. Bibliography is not included in the 2 pages.

Paper format

Your paper will begin with a scientific question that is also philosophically interesting. The first paragraph of the paper should give a summary of what you will say, followed by a brief discussion of why the question is interesting. The rest of the paper will outline two possible answers to the question, and discuss at least 2 scientific articles that support each answer (i.e. 4 total). These articles should be peer-reviewed journal articles. Write as though your reader is an intelligent person who has not read any of these articles. Here’s an example outline:

1. In this paper, I will look at the question: do depressed people have more realistic opinions of their own abilities than non-depressed people? I will consider 2 answers to this question…..[describe outline of paper]
2. This question is important because it tells us something about the rationality of depression…..[short explanation of why]
3. Summary of findings of articles 1 and 2. (note: describe one or two of the experiments, do not just summarize the conclusions. Do not describe the whole article, just key findings.)
4. Explanation of why articles 1 and 2 support the idea that depressed people do have more realistic opinions of their own abilities.
5. Summary of findings of articles 3 and 4  
6. Explanation of why articles 3 and 4 support the idea that depressed people are equally or less accurate about their own abilities.
7. Conclusion, including reflecting on which answer you find more convincing. You do not have to pick a side, if you think the question is unresolved, just describe why. 

Topic

Theoretically, you are allowed to pick any scientific question that relates to a philosophical question. I would suggest, however, picking a question that relates to the philosophical topics we’ve already covered in the class - this will make the assignment a lot easier. Likewise, selecting a question about the topics we’ve covered (i.e. mood disorders and addiction) is the safest bet. You can pick a topic that’s as close as you like to what we’ve discussed, though the 4 articles you review must not be required course readings.

Critical Formal Reasoning Evaluation

Goals.

To hone your understanding of formal statistical and inductive methods, and apply them to a practical case. Think of this as similar to the argument map, but instead of identifying a weak premise in an argument, you are identifying flawed reasoning about chance, induction, and/or statistical reasoning.

What you must submit.

A 1-2 page critical evaluation in PDF format, which follows the structure below.

Format.

Your submission should include the following sections:

1. The passage containing the statistical, probabilistic, or inductive argument you are evaluating. It must contain flawed statistical, probabilistic, or inductive reasoning. You may use one of the prompts provided, or find flawed reasoning in published news or opinion pieces. If you choose the latter, they must be no more than three months old.
2. 1. A qualitative conclusion statement. Identify the central point the passage is trying to establish.
   2. A quantitative conclusion statement. Identify what quantitative claim mustbe true if for it to support the qualitative claim.
   3. Identification of the evidence. Write out what quantitative variables the passage is using to support its conclusion statement.
3. Qualitative counter-argument: Identify the central flaw in the quantitative reasoning. If the flaw has a name, be sure to use it.
4. Quantitative counter-argument: Use the evidence provided in Part 2 to show the flaw identified in part three. You may need to set an additional variable or two for this; if you do so, choose reasonable values for those variables.
5. Notes and issues: A section noting any difficulties or problems in your map.

Catalog Description: We will investigate and seriously consider how and why we should live as morally responsible members of an ecological community. Students will explore philosophical responses to questions such as: What makes something natural? What value is there to non-human entities? What obligations do we have to each other regarding the environment?   Students will investigate social scientific responses to questions such as:  How should wilderness be preserved?  How should we respond to climate change?  How should water resources be allocated?  Students will build connections between and reconcile philosophical and social scientific approaches to issues of environmental concern. 

Curriculum Category: Building Connections (BC)

Attribute(s): Writing

Learning Outcomes:
REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will demonstrate competency in analyzing a philosophical text, critical thinking, and writing a sound philosophy paper. (Program outcome)

Students will demonstrate the ability to utilize multiple perspectives and make meaningful connections across disciplines and social positions, think conceptually and critically, and solve problems. (BC)

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development. (Writing)

REQUIRED Philosophy program learning outcomes (must include one):

• Outcome 1: Write a sound philosophy paper. Write a clear, logical, and mechanically sound philosophy paper.
• Outcome 2: Analyze a philosophical text.
• Outcome 3: Demonstrate critical thinking. 

OPTIONAL:

Utilize prior knowledge and experience to reflect on what nature is, our relation to nature, the value of nature, and how societies should respond to contemporary issues of environmental concern.

Reflect on writing as tool for utilizing and creating knowledge, on writing skills, and on writing goals and areas for writing improvement.

Describe environmental challenges contemporary societies face and the history of these challenges.

Explore conceptions of nature and the place of human beings in nature.

Critically assess anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric conceptions of environmental value, and draw out the implications of these conceptions.

Discuss and evaluate institutional proposals for responding to contemporary issues of environmental based on incentives, information constraints, feasibility, and cultural fit.

Consider the perspective of marginalized groups and environmental justice in critically assessing institutional proposals.

Collaborate with other students to present and defend an institutional proposal that addresses a contemporary issue of environmental concern.

Draft and revise a substantial paper that reconciles social scientific and philosophical perspectives in defending an institutional proposal for a contemporary issue of environmental concern.

Draft and revise essays that conform to the genre conventions of academic philosophy.

Signature Assignment(s):
In the first part of course students will have written 3 shorter papers on philosophical conceptions of nature, our place in nature, and its value.

In the second part of the course students will have drawn on the perspective of the social scientist in composing 2 shorter papers that critically evaluate institutional proposals for responding to issues of contemporary environmental concern and in collaborating on 1 group presentation recommending an institutional response to one such issue.

Course Description:

This course is an introduction to the moral mind from the neuroscientific, philosophical and psychological perspective.  Many traditional philosophical problems about morality are being illuminated by current work in psychology and neuroscience. In this course, we will look at several of these problems. In each case, we will begin with a presentation of the philosophical problems, and we will proceed to examine recent empirical work on the topic.  A wide range of topics will be covered, including moral judgment, agency, the self, and punishment.

Curriculum Category: Building Connections (BC)

Attribute(s): Writing

Learning Outcomes:
REQUIRED GenEd learning outcomes:

Students will demonstrate the ability to utilize multiple perspectives and make meaningful connections across disciplines and social positions, think conceptually and critically, and solve problems. (BC)

Students will demonstrate rhetorical awareness and writing proficiency by writing for a variety of contexts and executing disciplinary genre conventions of organization, design, style, mechanics and citation format while reflecting on their writing development. (Writing)

Course Objectives:

Students will come to understand and be able to critically think and write clearly about issues at the intersection of philosophical ethics and the sciences (social psychology and neuroscience in particular) utilizing the methods of critical reasoning that these disciplines bring to bear on aspects of our moral lives.

Moral concretely, students will:

• Understand the various topics of the course and why they are worthy of the attention they receive from philosophers and scientists.
• Carefully and critically read texts (both classical and contemporary) that address issues and questions at the intersection of moral philosophy and the pertinent sciences that contribute to debates in moral philosophy.
• Understand the basic methods of philosophical thinking (defining terms, clarifying positions, identifying arguments and being able to critically assess them) in thinking and writing about the topics of this course – skills that apply generally to thinking, discussion, and writing.
• Understand the experimental methods of the pertinent sciences in addressing questions about our moral lives.
• Understand how these disciplines contribute to each other in addressing a common set of questions about morality.
• And because the subject matter of the course relates directly to one’s experiences, students come to reflect critically on their own concrete moral experiences in addition to what they learn about the more theoretical questions raised in the course.

With respect to the quality of their writing, students will:

• Develop their skills in writing clearly about the course topics.
• Organize their papers according to a structure specified in each writing assignment.
• Learn to improve their writing by re-writing in light of comments about style and content.

Signature Assignment(s):

Resentment, indignation, and moral disgust are among the negative moral emotions. While the first two are typically considered morally apt responses respectively to perceived wrongs against oneself and against others, the aptness of moral disgust has been a subject of dispute among philosophers. Here we find moral disgust skeptics as well as moral disgust defenders. For instance, Martha Nussbaum (quoted in Hauskeller) argues that “the really civilized nation must make a strenuous effort to counter the power of disgust, as a barrier to the full equality and mutual respect of all citizens (Nussbaum 2004, 117). Michael Hauskeller responds that “To dismiss as morally irrelevant widespread feelings of disgust is . . . itself in need of justification. In the absence of any good moral reasons not to trust our intuition, we should take them seriously and act accordingly” (Hauskeller 2006, 599-600).

The assignment is to write an integrated essay in which you bring to bear work in philosophy, social psychology, and neuroscience on the question of whether (considering the work of philosophers and social scientists) you think moral disgust is (or can be) a morally apt response to the perceived offenses of others or whether the skeptics are right and moral disgust should not guide our moral judgments.

The core readings for this assignment are: “Moral Disgust,” by Michael Hauskeller (Journal of European Ethics Network, 2006), “Disgust is a Factor in Extreme Prejudice” by Kathleen Taylor (British Journal of Social Psychology, 2006) and “The Moral Affiliations of Disgust: A Functional MRI Study” Jorge Moll, et. al. (Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 2005). These are posted under “Content” on our d2l site.

Here is a step-wise outline for completing this writing assignment.

1: Introduction
An introductory paragraph in which you explain to your reader what your paper is about and give some indication of how you plan to proceed (the organization of the paper). This should be short, no more than half a page. Here you can mention the dispute between the disgust advocates and the disgust skeptics, explaining briefly what the dispute is about, as well as say what you will go on to do in the paper.

2. Next, explain how moral disgust (contrasted with so-called core disgust, animal-nature disgust, non-moral interpersonal disgust) is conceptualized by philosophers involving its various components: its elicitors, behavioral manifestations, facial expression, and feelings.

3. Then, explain how the work of neuroscientists Moll, et. al. bears on how philosophers (using Hauskeller as their representative) conceptualize moral disgust. Specifically, assuming that philosophical conceptualizations of the emotions should be consistent with empirical results from the sciences, explain how well the philosophical analysis of moral disgust fits with the work of Moll et. al. 

3. Next, consider how Taylor’s work bears on the dispute over the aptness of moral disgust as this emotion affects moral judgment. This will involve explaining the various hypotheses she proposes about the relation between moral disgust and extreme prejudice, the methodology involved in testing these hypotheses, and the conclusions Taylor draws from them as they pertain to the aptness of moral disgust as it affects moral judgments.

4. As indicated in the quote from the first paragraph above, Hauskeller defends moral disgust against various objections. Summarize the objections and Hauskeller’s replies to them. 

5. Then, considering the work of Taylor and Hauskeller, take a stand on the dispute between moral disgust advocates and moral disgust skeptics. That is, which position do you think is strongest? Defend your position by taking what you consider the strongest argument(s) by the opposing side and how you would defend your position against those arguments.

6. Conclusion.
Write a short conclusion in which you briefly summarize your paper.

Audience

Imaging that your audience (for whom your essay should make clear sense) is one of your university peers who is not taking this course. Someone smart like you, but who is unfamiliar with the dispute between moral disgust advocates and moral disgust skeptics.  

Citations

Follow all three authors who use the Harvard style in which full references to the works referred to in the text are listed at the end of the work and specific references in the text have the form: (Author Date, Pages).

 Evaluation

This paper assignment is worth 100 points. Here is a list of the grading criteria and how much each of the items is worth.

Grammar and Spelling: worth 20 points

Clarity and organization: the organization part shouldn’t be hard given the above outline. But writing clearly is a skill that I’m expecting anyone enrolled in the course to be able to do at a high level. Worth 30 points.

Accuracy: some of the assignment is an exercise in exegesis – explaining in your own words the views of the authors. Worth 30 points.

Quality of response: item 5 of the assignment asks you to be creative in taking and then defending either the pro-moral disgust position or the anti-moral disgust position. Worth 20 points.

How this assignment addresses GE learning outcomes for Building Connections

This assignment requires students to integrate and discuss relevant of multiple perspectives on the topic of moral disgust, including the perspectives of philosophy, social psychology, and neuroscience. Specifically, it requires students to explain the bearing of work in neuroscience on how moral disgust is conceptualized by philosophers, and it requires students to critically consider work in social psychology on the dispute between moral disgust advocates and moral disgust skeptics. The assignment thereby requires students to think critically about the aptness of moral disgust as it affects moral judgment in defending one of the two positions.