|Certificates: Civic Engagement|
This intermediate philosophy course will examine several philosophical accounts of moral responsibility, with attention to several recurring themes: (1) For what do we hold people responsible: for their intentions? For consequences of their actions? For their character? For their response to others' deeds? (2) What do we presuppose about people or groups when we hold them responsible? (3) Is moral responsibility for something a static thing we discover, or does it emerge and shift with time and social context? (4) What is our aim and purpose in holding ourselves and others responsible, and how is that purpose best achieved?
Ethical Reasoning, Logical Reasoning
The subject-matter is moral responsibility, and the approach is through careful formal reasoning analysis.
||Gen Ed Area Dept:
|Course Format: Lecture / Discussion||Grading Mode: Student Option|
||Prerequisites: [PHIL212 or ENVS212] OR PHIL214 OR [PHIL215 or ENVS215] OR PHIL217 OR PHIL218 OR [PHIL219 or COL283]
||Fulfills a Major Requirement for: (CIVI-MN)(PHIL)(PHIL-Philosophy)(PHIL-Social Jus)(SISP-Phil Ethic)(SISP-Phil Mind)
||Past Enrollment Probability: Not Available
|Major Readings: Wesleyan RJ Julia Bookstore
Pereboom, ed., 1997. Free Will (Hackett)
May, Larry, 1992. Sharing Responsibility (University of Chicago Press).
Walker, Margaret Urban, 1998. Moral Understandings: a Feminist Study in Ethics (Routledge).
Additional readings available via ERes and photocopies.
|Examinations and Assignments: |
Each week, on BlackBoard, class members will post an argument analysis (reconstruction and diagram) for at least one interesting or provocative argument-sequence from an assigned reading Those posts need to be available to other students by 9pm the evening before class.
For each class session, a pair of students will be responsible for initiating critical discussion of one of the arguments posted by other students. This work will require both critical attention to the other students┐ BlackBoard work and critical attention to the argument itself. What objections might be raised? How might the author reply? What implications hang in the balance if the argument in question does not work well?
|Instructor(s): Springer,Elise Times: .M.W... 11:00AM-12:20PM; Location: ANTH6; |
|Total Enrollment Limit: 25||SR major: 10||JR major: 10|| || |
|Seats Available: 14||GRAD: X||SR non-major: 0||JR non-major: 0||SO: 5||FR: X|
|Drop/Add Enrollment Requests|
|Total Submitted Requests: 0||1st Ranked: 0||2nd Ranked: 0||3rd Ranked: 0||4th Ranked: 0||Unranked: 0|