Syllabus (Version 1)1

January 15, 2021PHIL 340 Ethics (49515R)

ONLINE8:30 9:50 PST MW

Professor John DreherONLINE dreher@usc.eduOffice Hours:By Zoom Appointment Take-home Final Paper #4Due Mon May 10th at 1:00 p.m. PDT

MATERIALS:

RequiredAristotle, Irwin, trans., Nicomachean Ethics, second edition, Hackett, paper (NE)Bentham and Mill, Troyer, ed., The Classical Utilitarians, Hackett, paper (CU) Foot, Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy, Oxford, paper (V&V) Hume, Geoffrey Sayre McCord, ed., Indianapolis, Hackett, paper (H)Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Ellington, trans., Hackett, paper (GMM) Korsgaard, Christine, Sources of Normativity, Hackett, paper (SN)Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, Clark and Swenson, trans., Hackett, paper (GM) Sidgwick, Henry Outlines of the History of Ethics For English Readers, London, Macmillan, 1902 in Sidgwick, Henry Outlines of The History of Ethics For English Readers, Indianapolis Hackett PublishingCompany, 1988. Williams, Moral Luck, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, paper (ML)Williams, Truth and Truthfulness, Princeton University Press, paper (T&T)Highly Recommended Cahn and Haber, 20th Century Ethical Theory, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1995, (20CET)Recommended (in the order in which they appear in the lectures)Plato, Jowett (trans, ed. and interpreter, Euthyphro, Apology, Meno, (in: B.A. Jowett, The Dialogues of Plato, Vol. I, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1953Plato, Jowett (trans, ed. and interpreter, Republic, Gorgias (in: B.A Jowett, The Dialogues of Plato, Vol. II, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1953Foot, Natural Goodness, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2001.Anscombe, G.E.M., “Modern Moral Philosophy, Philosophy 33, No. 124, January 1958, In 20CET pp.351 – 64.Geach, Peter, “Good and Evil,” Analysis, 17 , 1956: 32 – 41, in 20CET, pp. 300 -06.Inwood, Brad and L. Gerson, The Epicurus Reader, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Co.,

1 This version of the syllabus is subject to change before the beginning of classes. Also, the schedule of lectures, although firm, may be varied somewhat to accommodate interests as they arise.

1994 (pp.75 – 104) Epictetus, Higginson, Tans., The Enchiridion, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 2nd edition, 1955.Inwood, Brad and L. Gerson, The Stoics Reader, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Co,.2008, (“The General Account in Diogenes Laertius,” pp. 113 – 24), “The Account of Cicero on Gods,” pp. 151 – 7; Seneca, pp. 185 – 95, Epictetus, 195 – 206).Maudlin, Timothy, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Co., 2011, pp. 224 - 259Epictetus, Higginson, Tans., The Enchiridion, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 2nd edition 1955.Spinoza, Edwin Curley, trans. and ed., Ethics, 1677, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1985 (Appendix, Part I, pp. 439 – 46; p7,p. 451f. P. 13pp. 457 – 62; Preface, Definitions, Postulates, Pp. 1- 30, pp. 491 -512; Part IV Preface Definitions, Postulates Pp. 1 – 59, pp.491 -530.Broad C.D. “Egoism and a Theory of Human Motives,” 1950, Marett Memorial Lectures, Exeter College, Oxford, 1949 in 20CET, pp. 174- 182)Garrett, Don, “Spinoza’s Ethical theory” 1996, Garrett, Don, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, 1996Baier, A., A Progress of Sentiments, Reflections on Hume’s Treatise, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1991, pp. 152 – 219.Rawls, J. “Two Concepts of Rules,” (originally delivered to the Harvard Philosophy Club), 1973, in ” 20CET, pp. 2173, pp. 273 – 90.Paton, H.J Paton, Immanuel, Paton H.J.,trans. with analysis, Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, New York, Harper and Row, 1964, originally published as The Moral Law, 1st edition 1945, 2nd edition 1953, 3rd edition 1945: London, Hutchinson & Co., Ltd.Nagel, T. “Moral Luck,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 50, 1976, in 20CET, pp. 573 – 82.Hegel, The Hegel Translation Group, Trinity College, University of Toronto; editor and commentator, Daniel Shannon, Phenomenology of Spirit, Part VI, Section C, pp. 112 – 158.Kaufmann, Walter, The Portable Nietzsche, New York, Penguin Books, USA, 1954Wittgenstein, L., “A Lecture on Ethics,” 1929, in 20CET, pp. 81 – 87.Ayer, “A Critique of Ethics,” 1936, New York, Dover, 1951, in 20CET pp. 108 – 115.Camus, A. The Stranger. Stewart Gilbert, trans., 1942, (originally published in France as L’Étranger by Librairie, Gallinard) New York, Random House, 1956.Camus, A, Stewart Gilbert, trans., The Plague, 1948 (originally published in France as La Peste by Librairie, Gallinard), New York, Random House, 1972. Sartre. “Existentialism as a Humanism,” in Schacht, R., The Norton Anthology of Western Philosophy, Norton & Co., 2017, pp. 1214 -32.

DESCRIPTION: This course is an introduction to ethics, approached from the perspective of Anglophone analytic philosophy. The course seeks to introduce the main currents in Western ethical thought, via the works of Aristotle, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Mill and Nietzsche, which are classical works pertaining to the distinctions between good

2

and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice. These three philosophers offer significantly different approaches to ethics, but they all concern themselves with the main distinctions of ethics. Aristotle locates the ethical in the rational nature of human beings, arguing that the moral goodness is the end of the rational activity of the soul in accordance with moral virtue. Spinoza, an egoist, argues that what is good is that which we know to be certainly useful to us, by which he means those things that promote our health and secure integration within a benign society. Hume argues that good is more or less subjective, a feeling of approbation that is aroused when we view matters soberly, as conscientious and competent judges. Kant disagrees with Aristotle, Spinoza, and Hume, insisting that the good will, which chooses the right because it is right, is in fact the only thing good “in itself.” Mill, who was influenced by Hume and Bentham, departs from Aristotle, Spinoza, Hume and Kant, insisting that the overarching moral principle is to maximize goodness across the moral population, where goodness is broadly defined to be pleasure. By the end of the nineteenth century considerable doubt had arisen about the traditional ways of drawing the main distinctions of ethics. Indeed, Nietzsche’s philosophy profoundly undermined confidence in the possibility of discovering any moral truths. Nietzsche argued that value is essentially a human creation, those leading successful vibrant lives create their own values. The course examines these philosophies not only from a classical perspective but also from the perspectives of 20th and 21st century philosophers. Contemporary philosophers of special interest and importance include: G.E.M. Anscombe, A.J. Ayer, A. Baier, C. D. Broad, P. Foot, D. Garrett, P. Geach, B Jowett, C. Korsgaard, H. Paton, B. Williams, and L. Wittgenstein. The views of these philosophers not only extend our understanding of the philosophies of earlier periods but also offer their own original views philosophical views that PHIL 340 is meant to be preparation for more advanced courses in ethics, including PHIL 440, Contemporary Ethical Theory, PHIL 442, History of Ethics to 1900, and PHIL 443, Value theory. LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

1, To introduce students to major works by key figures in the development of Western philosophical ethics from Sophocles to Sartre, with emphasis on Aristotle, Hume, Kant Mill and Nietzsche.2. To introduce students to contemporary, original works and to commentaries on the works of earlier figures, especially by A.J. Ayer, A. Baier, C. D. Broad, P. Foot, D. Garrett, B Jowett, C. Korsgaard, T. Nagel, B. Williams, and L. Wittgenstein.3. To develop skills in writing analytical essays by reconstructing principal arguments step-by-step. 4. To trace the ways in which major philosophers during this period were influenced and responsive to others, for example, Aristotle to Plato; Epicurus to Aristotle; Hume to the Moral Rationalists; Kant to Hume, Mill to Hume and to Kant; Nietzsche to Socrates and Plato, to Spinoza, and to Kant. 5. To apply difficult texts from periods far removed from our own and to moral issues of our own time.

3

REQUIREMENTS: There are four mandatory papers, the last of which is a substitute for the in-class final exam. (For details, please see “Papers”) below. Papers typically are to be double-spaced in font size 12. They should be in the six to ten page range. Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 340 S 21 Paper #x. Paper prompts that are located below are also included in the Schedule of Classes, Lectures, Readings and Prompts.

Class attendance is mandatory, although you may satisfy the attendance requirement by viewing the recordings of the lectures that the University makes available on Zoom.

IMPORTANT DATES

PAPER #1

FRI FEB 26 Paper #1 DUE at 8:00 a.m. Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 340 S 21 Paper #1

Prompt: How are we to understand Aristotle’s doctrine that “the good is what everything seeks”? According to Aristotle, how does his conception of good differ from Plato’s conception of the good? What, according to Aristotle is the “good for human beings? How does Aristotle understand the concept of “eudaimonia”? Is it true that a person who has achieved the state of eudaimonia has enjoys “well-being” and can never be “miserable”? Why does Aristotle believe that the concepts of health (and fitness) complement the concept of moral goodness? Why does Aristotle consider the distinction between voluntary and involuntary action in the ethics? Is the distinction really about metaphysics and not about ethics? According to Aristotle, which “actions” are proper objects of moral evaluation? What according to Aristotle is a virtue? Please devise a specific example that illustrates Aristotle’s view by choosing one of the four cardinal virtues. According to Aristotle, should

4

we think of “incontinence” as a vice and “continence” as an ordinary virtue or as a “meta-virtue”?

PAPER #2

THU MARCH 18 Paper #2 DUE at 8:00 a.m. Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 340 S 21 Paper #2

Prompt: State and analyze Hume’s argument in his Treatise of Human Nature for the view that “morality does not consist in any relations, that are the objects of science.” (H, p. 76) On the contrary, Hume claims that by virtue we mean that which produces a pleasant feeling of approval within us and by vice that which produces a feeling of blame within us. Virtues and vices, he concludes, may be compared with secondary qualities like sounds and colors. (H, pp.77) Yet, not all feelings are moral in nature. How does Hume distinguish those feelings that are moral in nature from those that are “amoral”? How does Hume account for moral motivation; that is to say, for taking the moral course when an immoral course might be less painful or merely more pleasurable? What difficulties might arise for those taking Hume’s view to account for the possibility of culturally invariant moral values? In light of all this, is it better to read Hume as proposing a theory of what actually is good or bad and what actually is right or wrong, or to think of Hume as proposing a theory that explains how we come to have beliefs about what is good and evil, about what is right and wrong?

PAPER #3

PAPER #3 DUE on FRI APR 9 at 8:00 a.m. Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 340 S 21 Paper #3

5

Prompt: Kant famously urges a strict morality that requires us to follow the Categorical Imperative regardless of the consequences. Kant concedes that many find the moral law to be onerous, but he insists that anyone with a genuinely good will can be reasonably expected to make correct moral choices. Yet, this claim appears to raise a question in its turn, which is: Why should one cultivate a good will? Of course, those who actually have a good may find moral requiremenst unproblematic, but that hardly explains why those without a good will should seek one. More broadly, this is the challenging question that demands to know what reason a rational person has to follow the universal moral law. Explain how Korsgaard attempts to respond to the challenge; state the doubts that critics like Nagel and Williams express about her views and assess the merits of Korsgaard’s response to them.

PAPER #4

DUE MON May 10 at 1:00 P.M. PDT. Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 340 S 21 Paper #4

Prompt for Paper #4: The first part of 20th century ethics philosophy gave rise to various s forms of subjectivism: Logical Positivism was developed in Anglo-American philosophy and among the Vienna Circle. A different form of subjectivism is found in the works of Camus as late as 1942, although Camus appears to reject subjectivism in The Plague (1946). Sartre also embraces a form of modified subjectivism. Arguably those subjectivist tendencies can be traced back to the philosophy of Nietzsche, and even to the hedonist utilitarianism of the late nineteenth century, which grounded moral value in pleasure and pain.

6

Yet, both Nietzsche and J.S. Mill celebrated truth and truth-seeking as genuine, even heroic, moral values. Moreover, the logical positivists and French existentialists thought that they too were seeking truth, perhaps not about what is actually right or wrong (and actually good or evil), but at least about the meanings of those two distinctions for human life and destiny. In this connection, analyze and assess the merits of the theory about truth and truthfulness that is advanced by Bernard Williams in his eponymous book, which appears to celebrate truth and truthfulness as culturally invariant moral values. How would two of the major philosophies that we have studied address the following question: Is it really true that a substantive, objectivist moral theory can “make do” with truth and truthfulness as its only foundational moral values?

LECTURE NOTES: Lecture notes for each week will be distributed by e-mail and posted on Blackboard (Content), ideally before the beginning of the week. The lecture notes are meant to summarize the essentials of each lecture in a relatively non-technical, easily accessible form. Some material delivered in class will not be covered on the lecture notes. Lecture notes are not a substitute for class attendance.

Papers: Grades in the course will be determined by the grades received by four required papers

Grading: Grades will be weighted as follows:Paper #1 – 25%Paper #2 – 25%Paper #3 – 25%Paper #4 --25%:

Grading scale:94: A90: A –87: B +84: B80: B –77: C+And so forth.

What Do Grades Mean?

7

In general, a grade of ’85,’ which is a ‘B’ on the grading scale above, indicates a solid knowledge of the material covered on the class notes and familiarity with the most important passages drawn from primary texts. Higher grades of ‘B+,’ ‘A-,’ and ‘A’ indicate knowledge that goes beyond the basics. In order of importance, those indicators are:

1. Demonstrated capacity to analyze the logical structures of arguments, viz., to Identify their premises and conclusions and to determine their strengths and weaknesses2. Demonstrated knowledge of primary texts by apt and accurate reference to them3. Clearly articulated theses that are defended and frankly acknowledge possible shortcomings4. Apt comparisons of primary texts from different philosophical traditions

Late Submissions and Missing Work:

Work submitted on the due date but after the due time will not be penalized by a grade reduction but will be graded after the papers that were submitted on time. This may mean that late papers will be returned after on-time papers. Work submitted within 48 hours after 11:59 p.m. on the due date will be penalized by 1 point. Work submitted more than 48 hours but by the last class will be penalized 2 points. Papers submitted after the last class but before the due date and time of the final paper will be penalized 3 points. Papers will not be accepted after the due date and time of the final paper unless “IN” is assigned as the grade for the course. Please note that “IN” is assigned only for illness or emergency.

Missing work after the final examination will be penalized as follows: For any required paper, the final course grade will be lowered by one full letter grade. For example, suppose that only three of four equally weighted pieces of work were submitted on time and received grades of 85, 82 and 93. The average of the three would be: 86.66, which is a ‘B.’ Because of the missing assignment, the course grade would be reduced by one full letter grades to ‘C.’ Suppose that two of the assignments were missing and the average of the other two were 83, which is a B -. The course grade would then be reduced to D -.

In general, excuses for late papers or missed examinations will be accepted only in extraordinary circumstances, including illness or genuine family emergency. Please remember that it is impossible accommodate a special request by a single individual unless the same opportunity is extended to everyone in the class. This makes it virtually impossible to accommodate extensions of due dates for reasons other than those indicated above.

UNIVERSITY POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND FACILITIES

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES:

8

Any student who has registered with the office of Disability Services and Programs (DSP) and who has been certified by DSP as needing specific accommodations will gladly be afforded those accommodations. Please meet with the instructor as early as possible in the semester to discuss the best ways of providing these accommodations. I will be very glad to work with you to tailor course requirements to your specific needs subject to considerations of general fairness for all students in the class.

STATEMENT ON ACADEMIC CONDUCT AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS:

ACADEMIC CONDUCT:

Plagiarism – presenting someone else’s ideas as your own, either verbatim or recast in your own words – is a serious academic offense with serious consequences. Please familiarize yourself with the discussion of plagiarism in SCampus in Part B, Section 11, “Behavior Violating University Standards” policy.usc.edu/scampus-part-b. Other forms of academic dishonesty are equally unacceptable.  See additional information in SCampus and university policies on scientific misconduct, http://policy.usc.edu/scientific-misconduct. SUPPORT SYSTEMS:

Student Counseling Services (SCS) – (213) 740-7711 – 24/7 on callFree and confidential mental health treatment for students, including short-term psychotherapy, group counseling, stress fitness workshops, and crisis intervention. engemannshc.usc.edu/counseling

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1 (800) 273-8255Provides free and confidential emotional support to people in suicidal crisis or emotional distress 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org

Relationship and Sexual Violence Prevention Services (RSVP) – (213) 740-4900 – 24/7 on callFree and confidential therapy services, workshops, and training for situations related to gender-based harm. engemannshc.usc.edu/rsvp

Sexual Assault Resource CenterFor more information about how to get help or help a survivor, rights, reporting options, and additional resources, visit the website: sarc.usc.edu

Office of Equity and Diversity (OED)/Title IX Compliance – (213) 740-5086Works with faculty, staff, visitors, applicants, and students around issues of protected class. equity.usc.edu

Bias Assessment Response and Support

9

Incidents of bias, hate crimes and microaggressions need to be reported allowing for appropriate investigation and response. studentaffairs.usc.edu/bias-assessment-response-support

The Office of Disability Services and Programs Provides certification for students with disabilities and helps arrange relevant accommodations. dsp.usc.edu

Student Support and Advocacy – (213) 821-4710Assists students and families in resolving complex issues adversely affecting their success as a student EX: personal, financial, and academic. studentaffairs.usc.edu/ssa

Diversity at USC Information on events, programs and training, the Diversity Task Force (including representatives for each school), chronology, participation, and various resources for students. diversity.usc.edu

USC Emergency InformationProvides safety and other updates, including ways in which instruction will be continued if an officially declared emergency makes travel to campus infeasible. emergency.usc.edu

USC Department of Public Safety – UPC: (213) 740-4321 – HSC: (323) 442-1000 – 24-hour emergency or to report a crime. Provides overall safety to USC community. dps.usc.edu

SCHEDULE OF CLASSES, LECTURES, READINGS AND PROMPTS

1. Mon Jan 18: MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DAY: NO CLASS

2. Wed Jan 20: Introduction: Important Distinctions and Terminology

Secular ethics v. religious ethics; ethics and meta-ethics: What are the traditional problems in Western ethics and the main strategies for dealing with them? How does twentieth century moral philosophy differ from previous moral philosophies? Moral Realism: Can moral belief “objective”? Three Objectivist Moral Theories: Aristotelianism, Kantian Moral Philosophy, Utilitarianism, Nietzsche’s blistering criticism of much Western philosophy.

3. Mon Jan 25: Introduction to Plato’s Moral Philosophy

Is moral knowledge possible? The distinction between voluntarist and factual accounts of moral belief; the challenge arising from the comparison between mathematical knowledge and ethical knowledge; Rationality and Moral Choice? Thrasymachus’s challenge to high-minded accounts of morality.

Recommended readings:

10

Plato, EuthyphroPlato ApologyPlato, MenoPlato, Republic. Book ISidgwick, Outlines of the History of Ethics, pp. 1 - 11 Plato Gorgias, 522b – 527e

Many of you will have studied these sources in general studies courses or introductions to philosophy. If you are unfamiliar with Plato’s works, please think of these recommended readings as required; The most important will be those from Republic. Any translation will work, but I personally favor Jowett, B., The Dialogues of Plato, 4th edition, Vol I and Vol II. These works are available from the Hoose Library of Philosophy.

4. Wed Jan 27: The Socratic Account of the Good

The allegory of the cave, the “divided line;” Plato’s theory of the forms; Socrates’s account of the good life. Foot on modern moral philosophy: The distinction between “Thick” and “Thin” moral terms; analysis of concepts like pride, fear, dismay, danger, whether or not justice pays. Can it be that a person reasonably rejects something that counts as evidence of others on the grounds that it does not count as evidence for herself or himself? What does the answer to that question imply about Thrasymachus’s challenge to Socrates? What does it show about action-guiding principles, like “justice?” Required Readings:

Foot, “Moral Beliefs,” In V & V, pp. 110 – 132.

Recommended Readings:

Sidgwick, Outlines of the History of Ethics, pp. 22 – 30.

5. Mon Feb 1: Introduction to Aristotle’s Ethics: Aristotle’s Account of Explanation

Aristotle’s criticism of Plato’s conception of the forms, Aristotle’s model of the “four causes;” and his conception of persons, Some remarks on the influence of Aristotle in the middle ages and even into the early modern period and especially in the the philosophy of Leibniz, Aristotle’s Understanding of Eudaimonia: The sense in which the good is that at which all things aim, Aristotle’s conception of the good for persons; his conception of virtue and the rational activity of the soul; virtue and its relation to the aim or end of human activity; the connection between virtue and happiness in Aristotle’s philosophy. Can a person in the state of eudaimonia ever be miserable? Comparison of Aristotle’s conception of the good for persons with Socrates remarks at the conclusion of Gorgias.

Required Readings:

11

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, II.

Recommended Readings:

Sidgwick, Outlines of the History of Ethics, pp. 35 -71 6. Wed. Feb 3: Virtue and Choice in Aristotle’s Philosophy

The golden mean and the comparison with fitness and health, the cardinal virtues: especially courage, and justice.; comparisons of the cardinal virtues with the so-called theological virtues. Aristotle on Pleasure and Happiness. Foot on the Nature of Virtues

Required Readings:

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Books III, V, VII, Foot: Virtues and Vices, in V & V pp. 1 – 18.

7. Mon Feb 8: Aristotle on Pleasure and Happiness; Foot on the Nature of Virtues

Aristotle on the nature of pleasure and its relation to happiness, Aristotle on temperance and continence; Is there a special “meta-virtue” that is the virtue of cultivating virtue? Foot’s suggestion concerning a Kantian paradox

Required Readings:

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Books VII and X §1 – 9.

8. Wed Feb 10: Twentieth Century Neo-AristotelianismContemporary understanding of the underlying motivation and structure of neo-Aristotelianism; argument from the perceived necessity of defending cognitivist ethics without reference to God, an attributive rendering of “good,” Can the concept of moral goodness be interpreted naturalistically along Aristotelian lines as a “Specie”?

Recommended Readings:

Anscombe, G.E.M., “Modern Moral Philosophy, Philosophy 33, No. 124, January 1958.Geach, Peter, “Good and Evil,” Analysis, 17 , 1956: 32 – 41.Foot, Philippa, Natural Goodness, Oxford, Calrendon Press, 2001.NB: The articles by Anscombe and Geach are also reprinted in 20CET.

9. Mon Feb 15: PRESIDENTS’ DAY: NO CLASS

10. Wed Feb 17 Discussion of the prompt for paper #1.

12

FRI FEB 26 Paper #1 DUE at 8:00 a.m. Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 340 S 21 Paper #1

Prompt: How are we to understand Aristotle’s doctrine that “the good is what everything seeks”? According to Aristotle, how does his conception of good differ from Plato’s conception of the good? What, according to Aristotle is the “good for human beings? How does Aristotle understand the concept of “eudaimonia”? Is it true that a person who has achieved the state of eudaimonia has enjoys “well-being” and can never be “miserable”? Why does Aristotle believe that the concepts of health (and fitness) complement the concept of moral goodness? Why does Aristotle draw a distinction between voluntary and involuntary action in the ethics? Is the distinction really about metaphysics and not about ethics? According to Aristotle, which “actions” are proper objects of moral evaluation? What according to Aristotle is a virtue? Please devise a specific example that illustrates Aristotle’s view by choosing one of the four cardinal virtues. According to Aristotle, should we think of “incontinence” as a vice and “continence” as an ordinary virtue or as a “meta-virtue”?

11. Mon Feb 22: The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers

The atomistic metaphysics of Epicurus and its relation to his understanding of the good for human being, Epicurus’s conception of free will, the “Garden,” and withdrawal from society; cf, early Christianity in the Roman Empire. Comparison with contemporary conceptions of the indeterminacy and the brain (Maudlin), and Epicurus’ social philosophy. The quasi-religious Stoic theory of nature, the Stoic doctrine of “harmony with nature,” Stoicism and the Roman conception of civic virtue; the figures of the middle Stoic era: Seneca, Cicero, and Epictetus

Recommended Readings:

13

Sidgwick, Outlines of the History of Ethics, pp. 72 – 103.Inwood, Brad and L. Gerson, The Epicurus Reader, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Co., 1994 (pp.75 – 104)Epictetus, Higginson, Tans., The Enchiridion, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 2nd edition 1955.Inwood, Brad and L. Gerson, The Stoics Reader, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Co,.2008, (“The General Account in Diogenes Laertius,” pp. 113 – 24), “The Account of Cicero on Gods,” pp. 151 – 7; Seneca, pp. 185 – 95, Epictetus, 195 – 206).Maudlin, Timothy, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Co., 2011, pp. 224 - 259

12. Wed Feb 24 The Egoist Philosophy of Spinoza

The metaphysics of Spinoza: That there is one and only one substance, that it is made manifest in the “material” and the “mental,’ which therefore are actually manifestations of the same thing. That the order of thoughts is” parallel” to the order of material events. Spinoza’s psychology: Our power increases to the extent that our control over our destiny increases; the consciousness of an increase in power is joy; the doctrine that the good is what we certainly know is useful to us. Whatever is useful to us increases our power and is made manifest in our joy; the increase in our power is facilitated by our reciprocal alliances with friends and society; those alliances depend upon our embrace of the standards of conventional morality, all of which implies that insofar as we give others joy, we ourselves are enriched by joy.

Recommended Readings:Spinoza, Edwin Curley, trans. and ed., Ethics, 1677, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1985 (Part I Appendix, pp. 439 – 46; Part Two, Propositions 7, p. 451f, and 13, pp. 457 – 62; Part III Preface, Definitions, Postulates, 1- 30, pp. 491 -512; Part IV Preface Definitions, Postulates, Propositions 1 – 59, pp.491 -530.Broad C.D. “Egoism and a Theory of Human Motives,” 1950, Marett Memorial Lectures, Exeter College, Oxford, 1949 (in 20CET, pp. 174- 182)Garrett, Don, “Spinoza’s Ethical theory” 1996, in: Garrett, Don, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, 1996, pp. 267 – 314.

13. FRI FEB 26 Paper #1 DUE at 8:00 a.m. Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 340 S 21 Paper #1

14. Mon Mar 1 The Naturalist Ethical Theory of Hume

Hume’s empiricist background and his theory of the origin of ideas; Hume’s account of the idea “good,” (which is to say the idea conveyed by the term “good”); Hume’s argument that “good” is the feeling of moral approbation that arises when we contemplate an action, a quality of character, or a person. The objection that Hume’s definition is circular; his use of the analogy that he draws between the quality “good” and

14

ordinary secondary qualities of physical objects. Hume’s argument against moral rationalism; the distinction that he draws between the natural and artificial virtues; Hume’s problematic view that virtues are qualities that are agreeable or useful to ourselves or to others (which many think is problematic because agreeable qualities like beauty and wit do not appear to be moral); Hume’s argument that his theory accounts for the motivation to act benevolently on the grounds that the contemplation of our benevolence raise a pleasant feeling of pride within us. Required Readings:

Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III: Of Morals, Part I, in: H, pp. 67 – 81,Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, H pp. 185 – 96.

Recommended Readings:

Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, H pp. 218 - 67:Sidgwick, Outlines of the History of Ethics, pp. 170 – 199.

15. Wed Mar 3 Hume on What we Owe Each Other

Hume’s view that all virtuous actions derive from virtuous motives; that justice is not natural by rather produces a pleasant feeling of moral approbation by “:an artifice or contrivance,” which arise from the circumstances in which we find ourselves; the examination of the human condition in the state of nature, which is parlous; that society is advantageous on three counts, that it augments our force, ability, and security in coping with the contingencies of life. The advantages of society become apparent to allthrough the necessities of nature, which is “non other that the appetite betwixt the sexes” and their concern for the children that they have in common. The love of parent for each other and their children means that no moral force or obligation need operate as they care for each other and their common offspring. However, the motives of generosity do not extend to larger groups, which are not held together by affection. It is in those situations that the artificial virtues of justice and promise-keeping arise inasmuch as the requirements of society demand sacrifices that we otherwise would not be inclined to make. Required Readings:

Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III: Of Morals, Part II, Sections 1 and 2, in: H, pp. 82 – 99.Foot, “Hume on “Moral Judgment” in V & V, pp. 74 – 80.

Recommended Readings:

Sidgwick, Henry Outlines of the History of Ethics For English Readers, pp. 200 – 21,Indianapolis Hackett Publishing Company, 1988 (Originally

15

16. Mon Mar 8 Discussion of the Prompt for paper #2

THU MARCH 18 Paper #2 DUE at 8:00 a.m. Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 340 S 21 Paper #2

Prompt: State and analyze Hume’s argument in his Treatise of Human Nature for the view that “morality does not consist in any relations, that are the objects of science.” (H, p. 76) On the contrary, Hume claims that by virtue we mean that which produces a pleasant feeling of approval within us and by vice that which produces a feeling of blame within us. Virtues and vices, he concludes, may be compared with secondary qualities like sounds and colors. (H, pp.77) Yet, not all feelings are moral in nature. How does Hume distinguish those feelings that are moral in nature from those that are “amoral”? How does Hume account for moral motivation; that is to say, for taking the moral course when an immoral course might be less painful or merely more pleasurable? What difficulties might arise for those taking Hume’s view to account for the possibility of culturally invariant moral values? In light of all this, is it better to read Hume as proposing a theory of what actually is good or bad and what actually is right or wrong, or to think of Hume as proposing a theory that explains how we come to have beliefs about what is good and evil, about what is right and wrong?

17. Wed Mar 10 Kant on the Distinction between Ordinary and Philosophical Knowledge of Morality

The distinction between ordinary goods and the good will, which is good in itself; the role of reason in moral philosophy, the relation of duty to the good will, the reverence of the moral law, and the Categorical Imperative, that the need for philosophical knowledge arises from the natural tendency to contradict our principles of behavior in the attempt to make excuses for wrongdoing.

Required Readings:

16

Kant, Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals, Preface, First Section, pp. 1 – 18, in: GMM

Recommended Readings:

Paton, H.J Paton “Analysis of the Argument”, in: Kant, Immanuel, Paton H.J., trans. with analysis, Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, pp. 13-23.

18. Mon Mar 15 The Nature of Imperatives and the Distinction between A Priori and Ordinary, “Empirical” Imperatives.

Imperatives are meant to be objective principles that constrain the will; that a perfectly rational and wholly good person would find the objective principles of morality to be necessary, but would not find them to be necessitating, because by hypothesis, their will is wholly good and therefore in accords with reason. It is important to distinguish hypothetical imperatives from categorical imperatives: hypothetical imperatives do not constrain the will unconditionally, but rather are conditioned upon the hypothesis of the imperative. The explanation for the constraint of the Categorical Imperative is not teleological in nature, which leads to three formulations of the Categorical Imperative; first with respect to universality, secondly to act out of respect to humanity so that humanity it is always an end and never a means, and finally, act in accordance with your maxims of action always as a part of the “kingdom of ends.” The correspondence between acting from hypothetical rather than categorical imperatives and willing heteronymous rather than autonomously.

Required Readings: Kant, Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals, Preface, Second Section, pp. 49 - 62; in: GMMFoot, “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives, XI, pp 157 – 74, in: V &V.Recommended Readings:Paton, H.J Paton “Analysis of the Argument”, pp. 24-40 in: Kant, Immanuel, Paton H.J., trans. with analysis, Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

19. Wed Mar 17 The Nature of Practical Reasoning and its Connection with Freedom of the Will

Acting from freedom and from necessity, that the two realms (or standpoints?) do not conflict, but rather that they are located in different explanatory structures. there is no knowledge of the noumenal realm; the there is neither explanation for freedom nor for the interest that we take in the moral law, an interest that does not require explanation and cannot be explained (and is surely distinct from feeling)

Required ReadingsKant, Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals, Third Section and Supplement: “On the Suppose Right to Lie. “ pp. 48 - 67, in: GMM

17

Williams, Bernard, “Moral Luck,” pp. 20 – 39; in: ML Essay 2.Nagel, Thomas, “Moral Luck,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1976 (in: 10CET, pp. 573 – 582;

Recommended Readings:

Paton, H.J Paton “Analysis of the Argument”, pp. 41-52 in: Kant, Immanuel, Paton H.J., trans. with analysis, Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

20. THU MAR 18 Paper #2 DUE at 8:00 a.m. Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 340 S 21 Paper #2

21. Mon Mar 22 Contemporary Readings on Kant’s Ethical Theory

Does the concept of a categorical imperative make sense? The concept of normativity and possible grounds of normativity? Must a normative theory be voluntarist?

Required Readings:

Foot, “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 81, NO. 3, July 1972; also in V & V, pp. pp. 157 – 73.Korsgaard, SN, pp. 1 – 48

22. Wed Mar 24 The Concepts of Reflective Endorsement and the Authority of Reflection:

The connection between normativity and personal identity; Must a normative theory be voluntarist? The origin and scope of the moral law; whether or not valuing oneself commits one to adherence to the moral law; to what extent, in any, can pain or other desires be normative; can there be biological sources of value and in particular of normativity.

Required Readings:

Korsgaard, SN, pp. 131-66

Recommended Readings:

Korsgaard, SN, pp. 49 – 130 23. Mon Mar 29 Some Criticisms of Korsgaard’s Account

18

Why it is necessary for the rational will to adhere to universal law; whether Korsgaard’s response actually departs from its Kantian inspiration, and whether Korsgaard’s view is “unattractively egoistic.”

Required Readings:

Nagel, “Universality and the Reflective Self?”: in SN, pp. pp. 200 – 09.Williams, “History, Reflection and the Test of Morality”: in SN, pp. 210 – 18. Korsgaard, “Reply”, pp. SN, pp.242 – 58

Recommended Readings:

Korsgaard, SN, pp. pp. 219 – 43

24. Wed Mar 31 Discussion of Prompt for Paper #3

PAPER #3 DUE on FRI APR 9 at 8:00 a.m. Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 340 S 21 Paper #3

Prompt: Kant famously urges a strict morality that requires us to follow the Categorical Imperative regardless of the consequences. Kant concedes that many find the moral law to be onerous, but he insists that anyone with a genuinely good will can be reasonably expected to make correct moral choices. Yet, this claim appears to raise a question in its turn, which is: Why should one cultivate a good will? Of course, those who actually have a good may find moral requiremenst unproblematic, but that hardly explains why those without a good will should seek one. More broadly, this is the challenging question that demands to know what reason a rational person has to follow the universal moral law. Explain how Korsgaard attempts to respond to the challenge; state the doubts that critics like Nagel and Williams express about her views and assess the merits of Korsgaard’s response to them.

25. Mon Apr 5 Introduction to Utilitarianism: Hume, Bentham and Mill the Rise of Utilitarian Ethics, Mill’s Conception of Utilitarianism.

19

Required Readings:

Mill Utilitarianism: in CU, pp. 95 - 147

Recommended Readings:

Bentham, Principles of Morals and Social Legislation, in: CU, pp. 1 – 22.

26. Wed Apr 7 WELLNESS DAY NO CLASS

27. Paper #3 DUE on FRI APR 9 at 8:00 a.m. Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 340 S 21 Paper #3

28. Mon Apr 12 Mill on Liberty

The goal of liberty, personal development and Aristotelian intimations, the free marketplace of ideas, the importance of education; what society owes us and what we owe society

Required Readings:

Mill, On Liberty: in CU. p. 150 -222.

29. Wed Apr 14 Contemporary Criticisms of Utilitarian Ethics

In what sense can the consequences of omissions be actions? Can utilitarianism account for obligations arising from personal attachments? When can the greater good require relief from personal obligations?

Required Readings:

Williams “Critique of Utilitarianism,” in 20CET, pp. 457 – 475

Recommended Readings: Williams, Utilitarianism and Moral Self Indulgence ML #3Williams, “Persons, Character and Morality”: in 20CET, pp. 634 - 646

30. Mon Apr 19 Hegel’s Criticism of Kantian Moral Philosophy and Nietzsche’s Debt to Hegel

Hegel’s insistence that Kant’s intelligible or noumenal realm cannot even be a proper object of religious faith and that as a consequences ethics is not an eternal but rather a

20

temporal, and in fact cultural phenomenon. Hegel’s preoccupation with the idea that the nation state is the exemplar of culture in that it generates icons like the visual arts, music and epic poetry; Nietzsche’s claim that so-called moral belief is delusory, and that human nature is dominated by a “will to power.” (cf. Spinoza’s claim that the good is that which we know to be useful to us, which is to increase our power.) The attempt to suppress the will to power by those who are weak individually but collectively strong; their attempt to undermine the genuinely strong through the inculcation of guilt, principally through religion and its emphasis on our indebtedness to the sacred.

Required Readings:

Nietzsche, F., Genealogy of Morals, Parts I and II, in GM, pp. 1 – 66.

Recommended Readings:

Hegel, The Hegel Translation Group, Trinity College, University of Toronto; editor and commentator, Daniel Shannon, Phenomenology of Spirit, Part VI, Section C, pp. 112 – 158. 31. Wed Apr 21: Truth and Asceticism in Nietzsche’s Philosophy

The ascetic ideal, Nietzsche’s conception of truth and authenticity, the will to power and dominion; the threatening and liberating readings of Nietzsche’s teachings

Required Readings:

Nietzsche, F., Genealogy of Morals, Part III, in GM, pp. 67 – 118.

Recommended Readings:

Nietzsche, selections from various works including Thus Spoke Zarathustra, “On Ethics” The Gay Science,” “On Truth and Lie in the extra Moral Sense,” in: Kaufmann, The Portable Nietzsche, pp. 30 – 34; 42 – 47; 93 – 101; 115 – 190,

32. Mon Apr 26 The Rise of Subjectivism in early 20th century Anglo-American and European Philosophy: The logical positivism of Wittgenstein, the Vienna Circle and Ayer; the French existentialism of in the pre-WWII writings of Camus and in the writings of J.P. Sartre. and Truthfulness as a Culturally Invariant Moral Values: Bernard Williams argues for the thesis that truth and truthfulness are foundational moral values, which is to say moral values that ground all other moral values. Williams also argues that those moral values are sufficient to undergird attempts to legitimize social and political institutions.

Required Readings:

Williams, T & T, pp. 1 - 83.

21

Recommended Readings:Wittgenstein, L., “A Lecture on Ethics,” in 20CET, pp. 81 – 87.Ayer, “A Critique of Ethics,” 1936, New York, Dover, 1951, also in 20CET pp. 108 – 115.Camus, A. The Stranger. Stewart Gilbert, trans., 1942, (originally published in France as L’Étranger by Librairie, Gallinard) New York, Random House, 1956.Camus, A, Stewart Gilbert, trans., The Plague, 1948 (originally published in France as La Peste by Librairie, Gallinard), New York, Random House, 1972. Sartre. “Existentialism as a Humanism,” in Schacht, R., The Norton Anthology of Western Philosophy, Norton & Co., 2017, pp. 1214 -32.

33. Wed Apr 28 Course Evaluation and Review for Paper #4,

PAPER #4

DUE MON May 10 at 1:00 P.M. PDT. Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 340 S 21 Paper #4

Prompt for Paper #4: The first part of 20th century ethics philosophy gave rise to various s forms of subjectivism: Logical Positivism was developed in Anglo-American philosophy and among the Vienna Circle. A different form of subjectivism is found in the works of Camus as late as 1942, although Camus appears to reject subjectivism in The Plague (1946). Sartre also embraces a form of modified subjectivism. Arguably those subjectivist tendencies can be traced back to the philosophy of Nietzsche, and even to the hedonist utilitarianism of the late nineteenth century, which grounded moral value in pleasure and pain. Yet, both Nietzsche and J.S. Mill celebrated truth and truth-seeking as genuine, even heroic, moral values. Moreover, the logical positivists and French existentialists thought that they too were seeking truth, perhaps not about what is actually right or wrong (and actually good or evil), but at least about the meanings of those two distinctions for human life and

22

destiny. In this connection, analyze and assess the merits of the theory about truth and truthfulness that is advanced by Bernard Williams in his eponymous book, which appears to celebrate truth and truthfulness as culturally invariant moral values. How would two of the major philosophies that we have studied address the following question: Is it really true that a substantive, objectivist moral theory can “make do” with truth and truthfulness as its only foundational moral values? Prompt for Paper #4: The first part of 20th century ethics philosophy gave rise to various s forms of subjectivism: Logical Positivism was developed in Anglo-American philosophy and among the Vienna Circle. A different form of subjectivism is found in the works of Camus as late as 1942, although Camus appears to reject subjectivism in The Plague (1946). Sartre also embraces a form of modified subjectivism. Arguably those subjectivist tendencies can be traced back to the philosophy of Nietzsche, and even to the hedonist utilitarianism of the late nineteenth century, which grounded moral value in pleasure and pain. Yet, both Nietzsche and J.S. Mill celebrated truth and truth-seeking as genuine, even heroic, values. Moreover, the logical positivists and French existentialists thought that they too were seeking truth, perhaps not about what is actually right or wrong (and actually good or evil), but at least about the meanings of those two distinctions for human life and destiny. In this connection, analyze and assess the merits of the theory about truth and truthfulness that is advanced by Bernard Williams in his eponymous book, which certainly appears to celebrate truth and truthfulness as culturally invariant moral values. In particular, do you think that it really be true that a substantive, objectivist moral theory can make do with truth and truthfulness as the only foundational moral values?

34. WED May 10 Paper #4 DUE at 1:00 P.M. PDT. Substitute FINAL EXAM: HARD DEADLINE (no extensions without a proper

23

excuse that will result in a grade of “IN”) Each paper should be submitted as an e-mail attachment in WORD (ext .doc) to dreher.usc.edu at the due date and time. Please enter the subject line of your e-mail as in the following form: LAST NAME, First name, Phil 442 S 21 Paper #4

24