PHL 359: History of Ethics

Spring 2008       Mon. Wed. 4–5:15 pm       Prof. Stephens       HC 212

office hours: Wed. 9–11: 30 am and 1:45–2:15 pm, and by appointment

office: HC 116       phone (with voicemail): 280-2632       stphns at creighton.dot edu

Description

This course is an examination of the history of Western ethical theory from the ancients to contemporary philosophers.  The guiding theme is the controversy of eudaemonism versus anti-eudaemonism.  We will begin with a close study of what is probably the single most influential book of eudaemonist theory in the history of Western philosophy–Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.  Next we will turn to the anti-teleological eudaemonist reaction of Epicurus and the Garden (his immediate followers) to Aristotle’s account of “virtue ethics.”  The magnificent poem of the Roman Lucretius provides us with a superior source of Epicurean thought.  The meticulously systematic ethics of the Stoics, the arch-rivals of the Epicureans, will occupy us next.  We will have a brief look at the medieval moral philosophies of Aquinas and Duns Scotus to conclude the first half of the term.  We will tackle the major anti-eudaemonist normative theories of David Hume, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant after the recess.  Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche’s scathing critique of his moralist predecessors will be studied in his Genealogy of Morality.  The course will end with several contemporary essays on virtue ethics as it began with ancient virtue theory.

Required Texts

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics; translation, introduction, and commentary by Sarah Broadie & Christopher Rowe (Oxford Univ. Press, 2002).
• David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals; edited by J. B. Schneewind (Hackett, 1983)
• Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals; translated, with an introduction, by L. W. Beck (Macmillan)
• John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism; edited by George Sher (Hackett Publishing Co., 2nd ed. 2001)
• Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality; translation and notes by M. Clark and A. J. Swensen (Hackett, 1998)
• William O. Stephens, How to Write Philosophy Papers ($4 at the Philosophy Dept.)

Suggested Text

• Richard Norman, The Moral Philosophers: An Introduction to Ethics (Oxford Univ. Press, 1998)  ISBN 0-19-875216-4

Course Requirements and Percentage of Final Grade*

Three exams (Feb. 11, March 19, April 29) = 15% each
Two longer papers (1750 to @2100 words each; due Feb. 27 and April 16) = 16% each
Active class participation = 15%
Occasional short writing assignments and perhaps pop reading quizzes = 8%

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.
• Extremely infrequent class attendance with no participation in discussions.

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

• 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.
• Infrequent class attendance with little 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 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 excellent, thoughtful, and insightful participation in discussions.
• 90% and >.

Participation & Attendance

Class participation includes comments and questions in class discussions and talking with me about course material outside of class. Daily, punctual attendance is expected.   Three tardies count as one absence.  Five (or more) absences will earn an AF (F due to excessive absence). Each absence fewer than five will incrementally lower one’s class participation grade.  On the other hand, actively, orally contributing comments and questions in class discussions raises one’s class participation grade.  Both quality and quantity of oral remarks are recorded.  Since we will be closely attending to the readings in our class discussions, it is important that everyday you bring to class your book.

Papers and Submission Policies

Papers should be submitted on time.  By a “paper” I mean thin sheets made from wood pulp, stapled together, with printing on them, NOT an electronic file on a storage device or an email attachment.  Early submissions are much appreciated.  Requests for extensions must be made at least three (3) class days (i.e. weekdays) prior to the due date.  Papers submitted after the due date (or granted extension date) will be penalized 5 points (= half a letter grade) per weekday late (not counting holidays recognized by the University).   If the paper has not been received by the instructor within a week after its due date, then the student must withdraw from or take an F for the course.   Students must discuss their paper topics with Prof. Stephens at least two weeks before they are due so that Stephens can approve your described paper topic and plan.  Follow closely the guidelines in How to Write Philosophy Papers.  You can get additional help at the Writing Center (Hitchcock Communication Arts Building Room 306, phone 280-4707).

Academic Honesty Statement

Keep in Contact with the Instructor throughout the Course

If you have any problem that hinders you from attending class, doing the assigned reading, studying for the exams, or writing your papers, please come see me or call me or send me e-mail or leave me a note in my mailbox or under my office door.  Whatever happens, it is your responsibility to keep in contact with me.  Failure to do so usually has unhappy consequences.

Schedule of Assignments

last modified 1 May 2008
Copyright © 2008, William O. Stephens