Department  of  Philosophy  ∞  University  of  St  Andrews  

PY3200  Reading  Philosophy  2  

Texts  in  Ethics,  Metaethics,  Religion,  Aesthetics,  and  Political  Philosophy  

 

 

 O  leitor  

Ferdinand  Heilbuth,  1856    

Semester  2,  2016-­‐‑17  

Credits:  30    Description:  This  module  will  develop  the  philosophical  skills  students  have  acquired  over  their  sub-­‐‑Honours  years  and  will  acquaint  them  with  key  works  in  core  areas  of  philosophy.  The  module  involves  close  reading  of  philosophical  texts  –  historical  and  contemporary  –  that  address  a  variety  of  topics  within  ethics,  metaethics,  philosophy  of  religion,  aesthetics,  and  political  philosophy.  Students  will  be  required  to  carry  out  close  study  and  discussion  of  these  texts  in  staff-­‐‑led  weekly  workshops,  thereby  furthering  their  skills  of  critical  evaluation  and  analysis.  Students  will  also  take  turns  in  presenting  within  the  workshop,  in  pair-­‐‑groups,  which  will  help  them  develop  important  communication  skills  as  well  as  providing  an  opportunity  for  teamwork.    

2

Learning  Outcomes:  By  the  end  of  this  module,  students  will  be  familiar  with  a  range  of  important  philosophical  writings,  and  will  have  an  improved  understanding  of  how  philosophy,  as  an  academic  discipline,  is  practised,  and  how  it  progresses.  Students  will  also  have  enhanced  their  presentation  skills,  critical  and  argumentation  skills,  and  transferable  skills  such  as  those  utilised  in  team-­‐‑work.  Students  will  also  learn  how  to  think  independently  and  develop  novel  critiques  of  central  texts  in  the  field.    Requirements:  to  meet  the  learning  outcomes  described  above  students  must  attend  all  workshops,  study  the  required  readings  outside  of  class  and  prepare  fully  each  week  for  the  workshop  discussions.  Ideally,  this  will  include  meeting  weekly  with  co-­‐‑students  in  smaller,  autonomous,  groups  to  facilitate  deeper  understanding  of  the  texts.      This  module  is  30  credits,  which  represents  half  of  a  full-­‐‑time  student  workload.  It  should  therefore  typically  occupy  half  of  your  working  week,  i.e.  approximately  18  hours  per  week.  You  will  neither  achieve  the  grade  of  which  you  are  capable,  nor  gain  much  satisfaction  from  the  module,  if  you  don’t  put  this  level  of  work  into  it.      Note  that  3  or  more  unauthorised  absences  from  weekly  workshops  will  lead  to  a  grade  of  0X,  as  will  failure  to  complete  all  assessment  (100%  of  assessment  must  be  completed).    Workshop  convenors:  Dr  Lisa  Jones  (module  coordinator);  Dr  Elizabeth  Ashford;  Dr  Adam  Etinson;  Dr  Theron  Pummer;  Dr  Justin  Snedegar.    Office  hours:  check  with  your  workshop  convenor  for  consultation  times.    Teaching:     One  2-­‐‑hour  reading  workshop  per  week  (aka  “seminar”).  Times:     Mondays  11-­‐‑1.  Sign  up  to  a  group  on  MMS  (venues  shown  there).  

Students  are  also  strongly  encouraged  to  form  their  own  small,  autonomous  learning  groups  in  which  to  meet,  to  work  through  texts  each  week  in  preparation  for  the  workshop.  

 Assessment:  Coursework  100%,  in  3  separate  elements.  Full  details  of  each  given  further  below.  

3

Weekly  schedule  of  workshops,  with  key  dates  for  assessment    Week  1   Papers  in  Ethics  

Staff  member  presenting    

Week  2   Papers  in  Ethics  Students  1  and  2  presenting  

[NB:  if  fewer  than  10  students  per  group,  the  presentation  allocations  will  need  to  be  revised]  

Week  3   Papers  in  Metaethics  Students  3  and  4  presenting  

 

Week  4   Papers  in  Metaethics  Students  5  and  6  presenting  

 

Week  5   Papers  in  Moral  Psychology/Freedom  &  Agency  Students  7  and  8  presenting  

 

Week  6   Papers  in  Philosophy  of  Religion  Students  9  and  10  presenting  

Feedback  and  marks  returned  for  all  presentations  so  far,  by  end  of  this  week  

Week  7   Papers  in  History  of  Philosophy  Students  1  and  6  presenting  

Argument  Analysis  assessment  due  –  Mon  6  March,  9am  (with  feedback  within  3  weeks)  

 Spring  Vacation  

Week  8   Papers  in  Aesthetics  Students  2  and  7  presenting  

 

Week  9   Papers  in  Aesthetics  Students  3  and  8  presenting  

By  the  end  of  this  week,  you  must  have  discussed  your  essay  topic  with  your  workshop  convenor,  and  had  it  approved  

Week  10   Papers  in  Political  Philosophy  Students  4  and  9  presenting  

Essay  plan  to  have  been  submitted  by  end  of  this  week  –  Fri  14  April  (11:59pm)  

Week  11   Papers  in  Political  Philosophy  Students  5  and  10  presenting  

Formative  feedback  on  essay  plan  returned  by  Friday  21  April  

Week  12   Revision  period:  no  workshops   ‘mop-­‐‑up’  session  for  any  outstanding  presentations,  to  be  delivered  before  a  panel  of  staff  

Week  13   Revision  period:  no  workshops   Feedback  and  marks  for  all  presentations  now  returned  

Week  14   Exam  period:  no  workshops   Essay  due  –  Monday  8  May  9am  

4

 ASSESSMENT    The  assessed  coursework  on  this  module  is  broken  down  into      

(i) workshop  presentations  –  2  presentations  worth  10%  each  of  overall  grade;    

(ii) argument  analysis  –  short  written  assessment,  1500-­‐‑2000  words,  20%  of  overall  grade;  

(iii) essay  –  longer  written  assessment,  4000  words,  60%  of  overall  grade  (with  a  1000-­‐‑word  plan  to  be  submitted  prior,  for  formative  feedback).  

 Details  of  each  element  are  given  below.      PRESENTATIONS  (2  x  10%  of  overall  grade)    Each   week,   from   week   2   onwards,   the   workshops   will   be   led   by   a   pair   of  students  who  will  present   that  week’s  papers   for  discussion.  Each   student  will  present  twice,  with  a  different  partner  each  time.  The  allocations  of  presentation  slots  and  partners  will  be  arranged  in  the  first  week,  using  a  fair  lottery  method.      What  is  expected  of  the  presentation?    We  want   each   student   pair-­‐‑group   to   work   fully   together   in   preparing   for   the  presentation   –   both   students   must   read   both   papers,   and   plan   together   for   a  properly  joint  presentation  (each  taking  a  turn  in  speaking,  handing  over  to  each  other   at   various   points,   etc.).   The   presentation   should   do   the   following,   with  respect  to  each  of  the  set  papers:    

• identify  what  the  paper  is  aiming  to  establish,  and  how  this  aim  fits  in  the  wider  contextual  background  (e.g.  is  it  a  defence  of  an  established  view,  a  challenge   to   the   status   quo,   a   novel   proposal,   a   response   to   a   previous  paper,  a  re-­‐‑mapping  of  the  terrain,  and  so  on.)  

• identify   the   key   claim(s)   being   put   forward   in   the   paper,   and   also   the  more  general  stance  that  this  supports  (if  applicable)  

• make   clear   the   structure   of   the   paper,   showing   how   the   argument  progresses  –  reconstructing  the  argument  in  clear  form,  where  appropriate  

5

• analyse   the   argument,   by   critically   assessing   the   assumptions,   the   key  claims,  the  moves  made,  any  relevant  presuppositions,  and  so  on.  

• highlight  problems  where  you  find  them,  and  offer  any  potential  solutions  or  counter-­‐‑claims   that  you  can   think  of   (in   this  phase  of  presenting,  you  can  start  opening  the  discussion  up  to  your  classmates  –  ask  them  for  their  views,  invite  their  comments).  

• sum  up  with  your  view  on   the  paper,  and  suggest  some  further  reading  (two  or  more  items)  that  you  would  recommend  for  the  topic.  

 Visual   aids   should   be   used   –   either   a   handout,   or   a   powerpoint/Prezi  presentation,  or  both.  The  presentations   should   last   25-­‐‑30  minutes   (though   this  time  need  not  all  be  in  one  unbroken  block  –  e.g.   it  might  be  broken  into  parts,  with  class  discussion  interposed  throughout).    PLEASE  NOTE:  You  will  not  be  able  to  cover  all  aspects  of  arguments  and  views  offered   in   the   set   reading.  That  means  you  will   have   to  decide   together  which  parts  can  be  safely  left  out  or  summarised  more  briefly.  Try  to  focus  on  what  you  take  to  be  the  crucial  moves,  and  central  ideas.      A  mark   out   of   20  will   be   awarded   for   the   presentation.   This  mark  will   be   the  mark   that   each   individual   in   the  pair   receives   for   10%  of   their   overall   grade.  A  tailored  feedback  sheet  will  be  used  for  presentations,  specifying  the  criteria  on  which  the  convenor  will  assess  your  presentation.  A  copy  of  this  will  be  posted  on  MMS,   so   that   you   can   consult   it   prior   to   presenting   to   check   that   you   are  addressing  all  criteria.    NB:  No  student  will  be  excused  from  presenting.  If  any  student  is  unable,  for  reasons  beyond  their  control,  to  attend  on  the  day  they  are  due  to  present  then  they  (and  perhaps  their  partner)  will  be  required  to  deliver  the  presentation  in  a  ‘last  chance’  session  in  week  12,  before  a  panel  of  staff.    It  is  each  student’s  responsibility  to  ensure  that  the  pair-­‐‑work  is  successful,  and  that  equal  effort  goes  into  the  presentation.  If  your  partner  is  slacking,  pick  them  up  on  it.  If  you’re  the  one  slacking,  step  it  up!  Remember,  you  will  be  letting  your  partner  down  if  you  don’t  put  in  as  much  effort  as  s/he  does.      You  are  strongly  encouraged  to  meet  regularly  before  your  presentation  and  to  have  a  practice  run  the  day  before.    

6

ARGUMENT  ANALYSIS  (20%  of  overall  grade)    The  first  piece  of  written  work  due  for  assessment  will  be  a  1500-­‐‑2000  word  argument  analysis  to  be  carried  out  on  ONE  of  the  papers  listed  below:    

• Garrett  Cullity,  (1994).  ‘International  Aid  and  the  Scope  of  Kindness’,  Ethics  105  (1):  99-­‐‑127.  [Relating  to  Ethics  topic]  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2382170?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents    

• Michael  Smith,  (1988).  ‘Reason  and  Desire’,  Proceedings  of  the  Aristotelian  Society  88:  243-­‐‑258.  [Relating  to  Metaethics  topic]  http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545082?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents  

 What  is  expected  of  the  argument  analysis?  

• Identify  the  key  elements  of  the  main  argument  by  setting  out  its  conclusion  and  stating  clearly  the  main  premises.  (Ideally,  you  should  number  the  premises.)  

• Identify  any  relevant  presuppositions.  (For  example,  does  the  argument  presuppose  some  background  view  or  dubious  principle?)    

• Identify  any  weaknesses  in  the  argument.  In  particular,  is  the  argument  valid?  Is  it  sound?  Is  it  clearly  stated?  Are  the  terms  used  univocal?  Is  it  persuasive?  Does  it  really  show  what  it  purports  to  show?  (If  you  can  see  ways  in  which  the  argument  of  the  paper  could  be  strengthened,  then  perhaps  point  this  out,  too).  

 This  assessment  is  due  for  submission  by  09:00am  on  Monday  6  March  2017  (Monday  of  week  7).  Feedback  will  be  returned  within  3  weeks.      ESSAY  (60%  of  overall  grade)    The  final  piece  of  written  work  due  for  assessment  will  be  a  4000-­‐‑word  essay.  The  topic  of  the  essay  will  be  decided  in  consultation  with  your  workshop  convenor  (by  no  later  than  end  of  week  9).  You  will  be  required  to  submit  a  1000-­‐‑word  essay  plan  by  the  Friday  of  week  10.  You  will  receive  some  formative  feedback  on  your  plan  by  the  following  Friday,  and  you  will  then  have  two  further  weeks  to  work  on  your  essay.      The  essay  submission  deadline  is  09:00am  on  Monday  8  May  2017.      

7

The  essay  will  receive  a  mark  out  of  20,  which  will  count  for  60%  of  your  overall  grade  (the  plan  itself  is  not  marked).  See  the  Philosophy  UG  handbook  for  our  essay  marking  criteria.        WEEKLY  READINGS    Each  week,  students  will  read  and  prepare  notes  on  a  pair  of  papers  that  will  be  the  focus  of  discussion  in  the  weekly  workshop.  The  majority  of  these  are  journal  articles  that  are  available  online.  In  addition,  some  very  basic  ‘background  reading’  resources  are  suggested  (e.g.  an  encyclopedia  entry,  or  a  chapter  from  a  ‘companion’  volume,  for  instance)  to  help  students  understand  the  general  issue/topic  under  discussion  in  the  paired  papers.      Note  that  in  the  weeks  where  you  are  not  presenting,  you  are  still  expected  to  prepare  thoroughly  for  the  workshop  discussion.  You  cannot  sit  back  and  let  others  do  the  work  –  you  must  come  along  armed  with  notes,  thoughts,  questions,  and  be  prepared  to  contribute  to  the  discussion.  You  may  be  randomly  called  upon,  by  the  workshop  convenor,  to  raise  a  question  or  provide  your  thoughts  on  the  papers,  so  make  sure  you  have  something  to  say.      Week  1:  papers  in  Ethics    Background:  Woollard,  F.  (2012).  ‘The  Doctrine  of  Doing  and  Allowing  I:  Analysis  of  the  Doing/Allowing  Distinction’.  Philosophy  Compass,  7:  448–458.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-­‐‑9991.2012.00491.x/full  and  ‘The  Doctrine  of  Doing  and  Allowing  II:  The  Moral  Relevance  of  the  Doing/Allowing  Distinction’.  Philosophy  Compass,  7:  459–469.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-­‐‑9991.2012.00492.x/full      Paired  readings  for  reading  workshop:  

• Judith  Jarvis  Thomson  (1976).  ‘Killing,  Letting  Die,  and  the  Trolley  Problem’,  The  Monist  59  (2):  204-­‐‑217  https://academic.oup.com/monist/article/59/2/204/1360123/Killing-­‐‑Letting-­‐‑Die-­‐‑and-­‐‑The-­‐‑Trolley-­‐‑Problem    

• Jonathan  Bennett  (1980).  ‘Morality  and  Consequences’,  Tanner  Lectures  [read  only  the  second  lecture,  i.e.  pp.  72-­‐‑95]  http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-­‐‑to-­‐‑z/b/bennett81.pdf    

8

 Week  2:  papers  in  Ethics      Background:  Shelly  Kagan,  (1984).  ‘Does  consequentialism  demand  too  much?  Recent  work  on  the  limits  of  obligation’,  Philosophy  and  Public  Affairs  13  (3),  239-­‐‑254.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265413?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents      Paired  readings  for  reading  workshop:  

• Liam  Murphy  (1993).  ‘The  Demands  of  Beneficence’,  Philosophy  and  Public  Affairs  22  (4),  267-­‐‑292  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265468?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents    

• Elizabeth  Ashford  (2000).  ‘Utilitarianism,  Integrity  and  Partiality’,  Journal  of  Philosophy  97  (8),  421-­‐‑439  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2678423?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents    

   Week  3:  papers  in  Metaethics      Background:  Finlay,  Stephen  and  Schroeder,  Mark,  ‘Reasons  for  Action:  Internal  vs.  External’,  The  Stanford  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy  (Winter  2015  Edition),  Edward  N.  Zalta  (ed.),  URL  =  https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/reasons-­‐‑internal-­‐‑external/      Paired  readings  for  reading  workshop:  

• Philippa  Foot,  (1972).  ‘Morality  as  a  System  of  Hypothetical  Imperatives’,  The  Philosophical  Review,  81  (3),  305–316.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2184328?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents    

• Christine  Korsgaard,  (1986).  ‘Skepticism  about  Practical  Reason’,  The  Journal  of  Philosophy,  83  (1),  5–25.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026464?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents    

     Week  4:  papers  in  Metaethics      Background:  David  Enoch,  ‘Non-­‐‑naturalistic  realism’,  in  McPherson  and  Plunkett,  eds.,  forthcoming  in  Routledge  Handbook  of  Metaethics.  Book  not  yet  available,  but  URL  link  to  chapter  =  https://www.dropbox.com/s/1jdjmhdhxj1dtqe/Enoch-­‐‑Non-­‐‑naturalistic%20realism.pdf?dl=0    

9

Paired  readings  for  reading  workshop:  • Sarah  McGrath,  (2011).  ‘Skepticism  about  Moral  Expertise  as  a  Puzzle  for  

Moral  Realism’.  Journal  of  Philosophy  108  (3),  111-­‐‑137.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/23039026?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents    

• Alison  Hills,  (2009).  ‘Moral  Testimony  and  Moral  Epistemology’,  Ethics  120(1):  94-­‐‑127.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/648610.pdf  

   Week  5:  papers  in  Moral  psychology/freedom/agency      Background:  Eshleman,  Andrew,  ‘Moral  Responsibility’,  The  Stanford  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy  (Winter  2016  Edition),  Edward  N.  Zalta  (ed.),  URL  =  https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/moral-­‐‑responsibility/      Paired  readings  for  reading  workshop:  

• Derk  Pereboom,  (1995).  ‘Determinism  Al  Dente’,  Noûs,  29  (1),  21-­‐‑45.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2215725?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents    

• Dana  K.  Nelkin,  (2008).  ‘Responsibility  and  Rational  Abilities:  Defending  an  Asymmetrical  View’,  Pacific  Philosophical  Quarterly,  89  (4),  497-­‐‑515.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-­‐‑0114.2008.00333.x/full    

   Week  6:  papers  in  Philosophy  of  Religion      Background:  Kraay,  K.  J.  (2016).  ‘God  and  gratuitous  evil  (Part  I)’,  Philosophy  Compass,  11:  905–912.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phc3.12389/full      Paired  readings  for  reading  workshop:  

• William  Rowe,  (2012).  ‘The  Inductive  Argument  from  Evil  against  the  Existence  of  God’,  in  Pojman,  L.P.  and  Rea,  M.  eds.  Philosophy  of  Religion:  An  Anthology.  6th  ed.  [either  scanned  for  MMS  or  ebook]  

• Marilyn  McCord  Adams  (2012).  ‘Horrendous  Evils  and  the  Goodness  of  God’,  in  Pojman,  L.P.  and  Rea,  M.  eds.  Philosophy  of  Religion:  An  Anthology.  6th  ed.  [either  scanned  for  MMS,  or  ebook]  

   Week  7:  papers  in  History  of  Philosophy      Background:  John  Cottingham,  (2005).  ‘Why  Should  Analytic  Philosophers  Do  History  of  Philosophy?’,  in  Analytic  Philosophy  and  the  History  of  Philosophy,  ed  

10

Tom  Sorrell  and  G.  A.  J.  Rogers,  Oxford  University  Press,  pp.  25-­‐‑42  [to  be  scanned  for  MMS].    Paired  readings  for  reading  workshop:  

• R.  G.  Collingwood,  (1978).  ‘The  History  of  Philosophy’,  Chapter  7  of  An  Autobiography,  Oxford:  Clarendon  Press  pp.  53-­‐‑76  [to  be  scanned  for  MMS]  

• Quentin  Skinner,  (1969).  'ʹMeaning  and  Understanding  in  the  History  of  Ideas'ʹ,  History  and  Theory  8  (1),  3-­‐‑53.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2504188    

   Week  8:  papers  in  Aesthetics      Background:  Gracyk,  Theodore,  ‘Hume'ʹs  Aesthetics’,  The  Stanford  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy  (Summer  2016  Edition),  Edward  N.  Zalta  (ed.),  URL  =  https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/hume-­‐‑aesthetics/    See  sections  1-­‐‑2,  and  4.    Paired  readings  for  reading  workshop:  

• David  Hume  (1757).  ‘Of  the  Standard  of  Taste’,  from  his  Four  Dissertations.  Widely  available  online,  e.g.  http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/hume1757essay2.pdf    

• Mason,  Michelle  (2001).  ‘Moral  Prejudice  and  Aesthetic  Deformity:  Rereading  Hume'ʹs  ‘Of  the  Standard  of  Taste’’,  Journal  of  Aesthetics  and  Art  Criticism  59:  59-­‐‑71  http://www.tc.umn.edu/~mason043/moral%20prejudice2001.pdf    

   Week  9:  papers  in  Aesthetics      Background:  Rafael  De  Clercq,  (2008).  ‘The  Structure  of  Aesthetic  Properties’,    Philosophy  Compass  3:  894–909.    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-­‐‑9991.2008.00165.x/full      Paired  readings  for  reading  workshop:  

• Frank  Sibley  (1959),  ‘Aesthetic  Concepts’,  The  Philosophical  Review,  68  (4),  421–450.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2182490?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents    

11

• Kendall  Walton  (1970),  ‘Categories  of  Art’,  The  Philosophical  Review,  79  (3),  334-­‐‑367.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2183933?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents    

   Week  10:  papers  in  Political  Philosophy      Background:  Lesley  Brown,  (1998).  ‘How  totalitarian  is  Plato'ʹs  Republic?’  in  Essays  on  Plato'ʹs  Republic,  ed  Erik  Nis  Ostenfeld,  Aarhus  University  Press,  pp.  13-­‐‑27  [to  be  scanned  for  MMS]  Brink,  David,  ‘Mill'ʹs  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy’,  The  Stanford  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy  (Winter  2016  Edition),  Edward  N.  Zalta  (ed.),  URL  =  https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/mill-­‐‑moral-­‐‑political/    See  section  3.    Paired  readings  for  reading  workshop:  

• Plato,  Republic,  all  of  Book  IV;  Book  VII,  beginning  to  521d  (the  allegory  of  the  cave)  and  then  536d  to  end  

• J.  S.  Mill  (1859).  On  Liberty,  Ch.  1  and  Ch.  4      Week  11:  papers  in  Political  Philosophy      Background:  Wall,  Steven,  ‘Perfectionism  in  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy’,  The  Stanford  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy  (Winter  2012  Edition),  Edward  N.  Zalta  (ed.),  URL  =  https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/perfectionism-­‐‑moral/      Paired  readings  for  reading  workshop:  

• Elizabeth  Anderson,  (1999).  ‘What  is  the  Point  of  Equality?’,  Ethics  109  (2):  287-­‐‑337.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/233897?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents    

• Michael  Otsuka  and  Alex  Voorhoeve  (2009).  ‘Why  It  Matters  That  Some  Are  Worse  Off  Than  Others’,  Philosophy  and  Public  Affairs  37  (2):  171-­‐‑199.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/40212842?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents