HRS 318: A.P.E.

HRS 318: Sources and Methods: Animals, Persons, and Ethics

Prof. Stephens Spring 2009 Mon. Wed. 2:30 – 3:45 pm HC ?

office: HC 116 office hours: , and by appt.

phone (with voicemail): 280-2632 email: stphns at creighton dot edu

Description

This Honors Program course will use philosophical methods to study the nature of animals, the nature of persons, and the ethical dynamics between persons and animals. What makes a being a person? Are all human beings persons or only some? Are there any nonhuman persons? Are corporations, androids, computers, or divine beings persons? Are some nonhuman animals persons? Are dolphins, whales, or great apes persons? What philosophical methods can be used to constructing defensible answers to these questions? What obligations do morally responsible agents have to persons, to sentient rudimentary persons, and to living non-persons? How do biology, the theory of evolution, and the science of ethology inform our thinking about such questions? We will draw from various philosophical texts in order to examine the fascinating and complex ethical, social, and metaphysical relationships between persons and animals.

Course Objectives

Students will learn how...

To roughly outline the history of the concept ‘person’ from inception to today.
To compare and contrast several competing philosophical conceptions of what a person is.
To construct a coherent, philosophically defensible position on which beings and animals are persons and why, which beings and animals are not persons and why, and which beings are neither paradigmatic persons nor paradigmatic non-persons.
To explain some important ethical issues regarding the treatment of persons, non-persons, and borderline cases.
To outline the ethical debate regarding the status and treatment of nonhuman animals by articulating the main competing positions.
To explain several arguments for philosophical vegetarianism and discuss objections to those arguments.

Required Texts

Armstrong, S. J. & Botzler, R. G. The Animal Ethics Reader (= AER). London and New York: Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0-415-27589-X.
Sapontzis, Steve F. Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004. ISBN 1-59102-118-9.
Stephens, William O. The Person: Readings in Human Nature. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2006. ISBN 0-13-184811-9.
Stephens, William O. How to Write Philosophy Papers: A Manual for Beginning Philosophy Students. (Creighton Philosophy Dept. $4)
several photocopy handouts

Required Film

Blade Runner (1982) directed by Ridley Scott. On four-hour and overnight reserve at Reinert Library.

Supplemental Texts

Rachels, James. Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. Oxford University Press, 1999 (paperback) ISBN 0-19-2861298.
Rodd, Rosemary. Biology, Ethics and Animals. Oxford University Press, 1992 (paperback) ISBN 0-19-824052-X.

Course Requirements (and percentage of course grade)

One 1500 to about 1700 word (2235 max!) paper	25%
Two Exams	20% + 20%
Final Exam	20%
Class Participation (includes pop reading quizlets)	15%

Attendance Policy

Regular and punctual class attendance is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a good class participation grade. Absences totaling the equivalent of three (3) weeks of class meetings will result in an AF (failure due to excessive absence) for this course. Each absence fewer than three weeks will incrementally lower the student’s class participation grade. Students are responsible for all material discussed and all announcements made in every class. If a student misses a class, it is her responsibility to find out what she missed. Being tardy twice counts as one absence.

Academic Honesty and Penalties for Violations

Students who plagiarize any part of a paper or written assignment will receive an F (zero) for that assignment. Students who cheat on an assignment will receive an F (zero) on that assignment. Students are required to produce their own original work in their papers and assignments, including all ideas, arguments, and sentences. Students may not take ideas or sentences from another unless that source is properly cited. Students may NOT work with others when writing the sentences of their assignments. However, students are encouraged to discuss ideas pertaining to their papers with other students in the course and with other people not taking the course. Citations on the paper should follow the guidelines in How to Write Philosophy Papers. In a case of plagiarism or cheating judged by the instructor to be flagrant, the student will receive an F for the course. See the Creighton College of Arts & Sciences Academic Honesty Procedures.

Paper Requirements

The due date (May 1) and time (2:30 pm) of the paper is firm. A hard copy of the paper must be delivered under Dr. Stephens' office door (HC 116) in order to count as being submitted. Emailed papers are not acceptable. Print the WORD COUNT of the paper on the cover page. Make sure your paper meets all requirements in How to Write Philosophy Papers. Papers submitted between 2:31 and 3:30 pm May 1 will be penalized ten (10) pts. Papers submitted between 3:31 and 4:30 pm May 1 will be penalized thirty (30) pts. Papers submitted after 4:30 pm May 1 will receive a zero (0).

Pop Quizlets

Ordinarily pop quizlets cannot be taken later if missed. I will drop your lowest (ten item) quizlet score when calculating your final Class Participation grade.

Class Cancellation Procedures

Ordinarily, the instructor will notify students of a cancelled class via email or on the web-syllabus or both. Students are expected to confirm that a class is cancelled by at least one of three means: (1) telephone call to the instructor’s office phone; (2) telephone call to the Philosophy Department Administrative Assistant, Mrs. Peggy Troy; (3) first-hand, eye witness observation of a credible class cancellation sign printed on Creighton University Philosophy Department stationery, and signed either by the instructor or by Mrs. Peggy Troy, posted inside the classroom. Word of mouth does not justify a student's belief that a class is cancelled.

Standards of Evaluation for Letter Grades

F “Failure – no credit” (<60% average)

Extreme lack of clarity or lack of coherence of argument or expression of thought.
Disregard for the requirements of the assignment.
Irrelevant use or failure to use relevant course readings.
Submission of another's words or thoughts as if they were your own, whether in the form of plagiarism or failure to acknowledge the source of an idea.
Very poor class attendance with no participation in discussions.

D “Work of inferior quality, but passing” (60 to <70% average)

Unclarity or incoherence of argument or expression of thought.
Failure to satisfy the requirements of the assignment.
Poor or inadequate understanding or use of relevant course readings.
Improper acknowledgment or citation of the sources of your ideas.
Poor class attendance with little or no participation in discussions.

C “Satisfactory work”

Basic clarity and coherence of argument and expression of thought.
Satisfaction of the assignment’s basic requirements.
Fair or adequate understanding of the major views and theories in the relevant course readings and the arguments presented in support of those views and theories.
Minimally clear and coherent evaluation of the views and arguments in the relevant course readings.
Minimally proper acknowledgment and citation of the sources of your ideas.
Generally consistent class attendance with occasional participation in discussions.
77 to <80% average for a C+; 70 to <77% average for a C.

B “Noteworthy level of performance” Demonstrates all of the qualities of satisfactory work plus:

Good, above average clarity and coherence of argument and expression of thought.
Clear, logical organization of the essay’s introduction, body, and conclusion.
Clear, detailed, and accurate understanding of the major views and theories in the relevant course readings and of the arguments presented in support of those views
and theories.
Good attempt to provide argumentative support for your evaluation of the views, theories, and arguments presented in the relevant course readings.
Regular, consistent class attendance with regular, good participation in discussions.
87 to <90% average for a B+; 80 to <87% average for a B.

A “Outstanding achievement and an unusual degree of intellectual initiative” Demonstrates all of the qualities of noteworthy performance plus:

Excellent, superior clarity and coherence of argument and expression of thought.
Clear, rigorous, and cogent argumentative support for your evaluation of the views, theories, and arguments presented in the relevant course readings.
Originality and creativity of interpretation, explanation, argumentation, or criticism.
Superior class attendance with consistent, excellent, and thoughtful participation in discussions.
90% average or above.

Oral Class Participation

Punctuality is a virtue. Prof. Stephens strives to attend every class on time. He expects all of his students to attend every class, on time, every week, all semester long. Being in class is a NECESSARY but not a sufficient condition for earning a good class participation grade. Six (6) or more absences will result in an AF (failure due to excessive absence) for this course. Each absence fewer than six will incrementally lower your class participation grade. You are responsible for all material discussed and all announcements made in every class. If you miss a class, it is your responsibility to find out what you missed. Being tardy twice counts as one absence. Class begins when Prof. Stephens enters the room or at 9:30 am, whichever comes second, so if you arrive after that, then you are tardy. “Participation” means raising your hand to be called on and making comments about the reading or the discussion, or asking questions about the reading or the lecture, or responding to questions Prof. Stephens raises or comments made by other students. Attentively listening to everything said in class is certainly expected. But it is virtually impossible to learn how to do philosophy by merely listening. Listening alone does not count in the least as oral participation. You must vocalize your questions, thoughts, and comments out loud in class. Both quality and quantity of oral remarks count; both are recorded for every class. Since we will be closely attending to the readings in our class discussions, it is vital that everyday you bring to class your book containing that day’s reading assignment.

Schedule

Jan. 11 Introduction to philosophical methods; Pre-test

I. Persons

Jan. 16 Ch. 3: Cicero, Ch. 4: Epictetus, Ch. 5: Clement Al., (The Person, 17–31)

Jan. 18 Ch. 6: Boethius (The Person, 32–37)

Jan. 23 Ch. 23: C. D. Broad, "The Validity of Belief in a Personal God" (The Person, 187–198)

Jan. 25 Ch. 35: Gary Legenhausen, "Is God a Person?" (The Person, 321–335)

Jan. 30 Ch. 35: Legenhausen continued (The Person, 321–335)
Feb. 1 Ch. 28: Raymond M. Smullyan, "Is God a Taoist?" (The Person, 241–254)

Feb. 6	Ch. 30: Peter A. French, "The Corporation as a Moral Person" (The Person, 263–274); 7:15–9:40 pm
	in HC 212 screening of Blade Runner with Dr. Stephens
Feb. 8	Ch. 39: Oswald Hanfling, "Machines as Persons?" (The Person, 379–386)

Feb. 13	Ch. 34: Mary Midgley, "Persons and Non-Persons" (The Person, 313–320); #24 Rendell & Whitehead,
	"Culture in Whales and Dolphins"; #25 Herman, "Exploring the Cognitive World of the Bottlenosed Dolphin" (AER 152–165)
Feb. 15	Ch. 42: Boyd Group, "The Moral Status of Non-Human Primates: Are Apes Persons?" (The Person, 409–415)
	and #21 Gomez, "Are Apes Persons? The Case for Primate Intersubjectivity" (AER 138–143)

Feb. 20 Ch. 36: A. O. Rorty, "Persons and Personae" (The Person, 336–350)

Feb. 22 Exam #1 Review Guide for Exam #1

II. Ethics and Animals

Feb. 27	Foreword; General Introduction; #1 Regan, The Case for Animal Rights; #2 Cohen,
	"Reply to Tom Regan" (AER xi–xiii, 1–29)
March 1

SPRING RECESS

March 13	#4 Singer, Practical Ethics {selections}(AER 33–44)
March 15	#6 Frey, "Rights, Interests, Desires and Beliefs" and #7 DeGrazia, "Equal Consideration and
	Unequal Moral Status" (AER 50–59)

March 20	#41 DeGrazia, "The Ethics of Animal Research: What are the Prospects for Agreement?" (AER 252–261)
March 22	#58 Kheel, "The Killing Game: An Ecofeminist Critique of Hunting" and #59 Gunn,
	"Environmental Ethics and Trophy Hunting" (AER 390–409)

March 27	#65 Regan, "Are Zoos Morally Defensible?" and #67 Lindburg, "Zoos and the Rights of Animals"
	(AER 452–458, 471–480)
March 29	#73 Shephard, "Pet World,"
	#83 Regan, "Understanding Animal Rights Violence,"

	(AER 510–512, 520–523, 563–575)

April 3 Exam #2 Review Guide for Exam #2

III. Animals as Food

April 5	Sapontzis, Introduction; #2 Collura, "What is Our Natural Diet, and Should We Really Care;
	#3 Barnard & Kieswer, "Vegetarianism: The Healthy Alternative"; #4 Dwyer & Loew,
	"Nutritional Risks of Vegan Diets"; #5 Rachels, "The Basic Argument for Vegetarianism"
	(Food 9–19, 36–80). Note: The introduction and Chapters 2–4 are background information. Discussion will focus on
	Rachels' chapter and on Nicolette Hahn Niman, "Pig Out" New York Times (photocopy)

April 10	Stephen Mulhall, “Picturing the Human (Body and Soul): A Reading of Blade Runner”

April 12	#8 Singer, "Animal Liberation: Vegetarianism as Protest" (Food, 108–117); The Meatrix I
	writing assignment: Write a one (1) paragraph summary of the handout "Time in the Animal Mind" (New York Times, April 3, 2007)

April 17	handout: S. F. Sapontzis, "Saving the Rabbit from the Fox" in Morals, Reasons, and Animals
	(Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1987)
April 19	#20 Adams (Food 248–260); The Meatrix II

April 24	#25 Everett; #27 Kheel (Food, 302–314, 327–341); The Meatrix II½; writing assignment: Write the
	introductory paragraph of your paper and an outline for the rest (double-spaced, no more than 2 pages)
April 26	handout: James Rachels, Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism,
	Introduction and Chapter 4 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1990)

Review Guide for Final Exam

May 1, 2:30 pm Papers DUE ► Include the WORD COUNT with the other required info on your cover page. ◄

May 3, 8:00–9:40 am Final Exam

* The instructor reserves the right, at his discretion, to make minor changes to this syllabus during the course including due dates, assignments, and requirements.