Dan Hausman
5197 H. C. White Hall
354-6120    
dhausman@wisc.edu

Eric Sampson
5172 H.C. White Hall
615 476-3742
etsampson@gmail.com

Office Hours:
Tuesdays 12:30-1:30
Wednesday 2:30-3:30
Office Hours:
Mondays 11-12
Friday 1-2

Philosophy 341 Syllabus


Introduction:

Although one cynical reaction to the world around us is to think of morality as empty words, the actions of individuals and even of whole societies are nevertheless influenced by moral judgments. (Have you never been influenced by concerns about whether what you are doing is right or wrong? -- and if you have, why suppose that others haven't?) Furthermore (although further cynical qualms are possible here), our moral judgments concerning actions and social policies are influenced by reasoning and argument.

This course will give us the opportunity to think deeply about four controversial and difficult moral issues: 1) surrogate motherhood, 2) abortion, 3) affirmative action, and 4) health care. In addition, to provide some perspective and depth in our consideration of the particular issues, we shall spend some time with ethical theory.


Course Goals:

The overall goal is to enable all members of the class to reflect on their views and through this reflection and the criticisms of others to reach better articulated and justified conclusions. This requires both cultivation of skills of argumentation and criticism and familiarity with the considerations that support different sides of these issues. More specifically the course aims:

1. To provide some solid knowledge of the moral arguments concerning surrogate motherhood, abortion, affirmative action, and health care. By providing this knowledge the course should help you to develop and to deepen your own views on these matters and to see through simplistic and shallow arguments. The moral arguments you will be studying will in many cases challenge your convictions or permit you to refine them.

2. To provide an introduction to moral argument and to moral theory in general: This course should help you to see how rational argument in morality works and to appreciate the force and limits of such arguments. The course should also help you to appreciate what moral theory is, how it can be important in your life and in society in general, how it can be valid and powerful, even though not always capable of producing consensus.

3. To provide an introduction to the nature of argument and of informal logic in general: To appreciate what can be said concerning moral issues such as affirmative action, one must be able to tell the difference between good and bad arguments, and one needs to be able to present and criticize arguments effectively. To the extent that this course helps you to make and criticize arguments, it should be of considerable use to you, quite apart from its particular subject matter.

4. To help you to develop your abilities to present and to criticize arguments both in discussion and, in particular, in writing: Every good essay, regardless of the subject matter, is an extended argument for some thesis or conclusion. The only thing special about philosophy essays is the extent to which one focuses upon the logic of the argument. This course should help you to write more sharply organized, focused and effective essays.

The extent to which these course goals can be achieved is, of course, largely up to you, but it is important that you appreciate what the teaching assistant and I are trying to accomplish. If you cannot see how any particular lecture or reading assignment relates to the goals of the course, ask about it. In abstract matters it is especially important and especially difficult to be clear on what the point is. Keep asking "So what?" Since this course is more concerned with mastering skills than with acquiring information, it demands your active participation, and I think that the interest and importance of the issues we will be addressing will reward that participation.


What this course does not aim to do:

1. This course does not aim to provide pat answers to questions such as "Is affirmative action morally permissible?" It is not Sunday School. I don’t intend to preach, and if I get carried away, I hope you’ll jump on me. I have my own views concerning the issues, and in some cases, I feel confident that I've got some good answers. Yet I shall not be concerned to convert anybody. What is important in the course is conviction, intellectual honesty, and the sort of perseverance that makes one struggle to bring one's convictions and the weight of argument into accord. The course should help you rationally to make up your own mind concerning surrogate motherhood, abortion, affirmative action, and health care, and it will not espouse a set of "correct" positions.

2. This course does not aim to provide a thorough or precise introduction to moral theory. Although you should learn some moral theory, the subject is a deeper one than it might appear from the introductory material we will consider.


Note: Students are encouraged to discuss problems concerning the teaching of this course with the instructor and/or the TA. If students wish to pursue a complaint with someone else, they should contact Jesse Steinberg, Assistant to the Chairperson, Philosophy Department, 5185 H.C. White Hall, 263-5162.
Texts:

All of the course readings will be available electronically on the Learn@UW site for the course. Please download each of the readings and print it. You'll grasp the material much better if you read a printed version than if you try to read it on a computer or tablet screen.


Computers:

Because I aim at considerable discussion within lecture and computers are distracting, I urge you not to use computers or tablets during lecture or discussion sections, but the decision is yours.


Course Web Site:

In addition to the learn@uw site, there is a public web site for the course: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hausman/341Fall2012/341-Fall2012.htm. You will find many useful documents there.

I STRONGLY urge you to download and print out the essays on the Learn@UW site. Your ability to master the material will be greatly diminished if you attempt to read the essays on your computer, and without accessing your computers during class, which I discourage, you will not be able to refer to the readings during lecture if you do not print them out.


Students with disabilities:

I hope to make this course as accessible as is feasible to anyone with a disability. Please let me know as early in the course as possible if you need accommodations in the curriculum, instruction, or assessments in this course to enable you to participate fully. I will attempt to maintain confidentiality of any information you share with me.


Course Requirements:

There will be two essays, two midterms, homework assignments, five-minute essays (attendance), and a final examination. Your semester grade will depend on the essays (50%), two midterms (10% each), the final (20%), the homeworks (10%), and the five-minute essays and section attendance (extra credit or penalty)

LECTURES AND DISCUSSION SECTIONS Attendance at lecture is technically optional, but the five minute essays provide you with a strong incentive either to attend regularly, or to keep up with lectures by writing a precis of each lecture you miss. I welcome questions and comments during lecture. Attendence at section is also optional, but if you miss fewer than three discussion sections during the semester, you will receive one point of extra credit toward your semester point total, and if in addition you are an active and helpful contributor to discussions in section you will receive an extra point of extra credit.

INTRODUCTORY PAPER The introductory essay should be no more than 1000 words in length. It counts for 10% of your semester grade. It is designed to give you an opportunity to try your hand at writing a philosophy essay without the anxiety of having much of your grade depend on the result. It counts for only ten percent of your grade. A first version is due promptly at the beginning of class on Tuesday, September 25, and a revised version is due one week later,Tuesday, October 2. The first version must be completed on time, but your grade will depend on the revised version.

TERM PAPER The term paper counts for 40% of your semester grade. It should be no more than 1800 words and it is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, November 8. The term paper is due fairly early in the semester in order to make it possible for you to rewrite it and to submit a revised version. Unlike the introductory paper, the first version you hand in will be graded. Revising the paper is optional. The optional revision is due on Thursday, December 6. If you submit a revised version, your grade will be the average of your grades on the two versions.

DEBATES We will begin the consideration of each of the four issues with which this course is concerned with a debate on that issue. Those who actually participate in the debates will receive credit for the initial homework assignment on the issue debated and on one additional homework assignment, provided that they do a competent job in the debate. See below for further information about the debates.

MIDTERMS will be held on Tuesday, October 9 and Thursday, November 15 and will each count for 10% of your semester grade.

FINAL EXAMINATION The final examination will be cumulative, though it will emphasize material that comes after the midterms.

HOMEWORK (hand in in lecture to Dan Hausman, not to TA)

FIVE-MINUTE ESSAYS


WARNING!! Philosophy challenges complacency. It’s hard to know what the truth is concerning hard questions like the ones we will be addressing this semester.
Course Outline:

Course Outline:

Tuesday, September 4: Introduction: discussion of the goals, structure and requirements of the course; discussion of the notion of what is morally right and of the distinction between facts and values.


Thursday, September 6: Is morality a matter of opinion or social consensus?

D. Hausman and M. McPherson, "What Are Moral Questions and How Can They Be Answered?"
Steven Pinker, "The Moral Instinct"


Tuesday, September 11: On arguments and informal logic

Steven Pinker, "The Moral Instinct"
D. Hausman,   "Skill Sheet: Good and Bad Arguments"


*Thursday, September 13 Debate: Resolved that contracts whereby a surrogate mother agrees to bear and to give up a child in exchange for a fee ought to be as legally binding as is any other contract.

John Locke, Chapter 2 "Of the State of Nature" of his Second Treatise of Government
J.C.S. Sorkow, Opinion in the "Baby-M" Case
Katha Pollitt, "The Strange Case of Baby M,"
Opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court

Homework #1 due: Write an informal essay of 300 to 500 words (one or two typed pages--but it doesn't have to be typed) stating your "initial" view of whether surrogate motherhood contracts ought to be legally binding. Give what seems to you to be the strongest argument in support of your initial view and try to make the argument as clear and logical as possible. Explain what reservations one might have concerning your argument and your position.


*Tuesday, September 18: Individual rights and the limits of government: Where do natural rights come from? What determines their scope? To what extent do they depend on matters of social expediency? Does permitting or banning surrogate motherhood contracts increase individual freedom? Does either policy violate individual rights?

John Locke, Chapter 2 "Of the State of Nature" of his Second Treatise of Government
J.C.S. Sorkow, Opinion in the "Baby-M" case

Homework #2 due. Write a brief essay of roughly 300 words analyzing the following argument:

Provided that the parties are competent and sign voluntarily, surrogate motherhood contracts should be legally binding, because they do not call on the parties to do anything illegal. All contracts between competent individuals that are voluntarily signed and that do not call on the parties to do anything illegal should be legally binding.

Formulate this argument as logically valid and discuss whether it is sound. This homework assignment is something of a "dry run" for the introductory paper.


Thursday, September 20: Qualms about surrogacy: What is right under ideal circumstances versus what is right under actual circumstances. Is there a conflict here in our understanding of individual liberty?

Katha Pollitt, "The Strange Case of Baby M"
Opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court


*Tuesday, September 25: On the limits of contracts and of natural rights--conclusions on surrogate motherhood

First version of introductory paper is due

Read Elizabeth Anderson's essay, "Is Women's Labor a Commodity?"(available on the learn@uw site) and then focus on pages 80-87, where she argues that paid surrogacy "commodifies" child-bearing by changing the "norms" -- that is the unwritten social rules -- governing the activity. The application of economic norms to child-bearing violates women's claims to "respect" and "consideration." Your task in this paper is to explain what she means and either to defend her conclusion or to criticize it. In these pages, Anderson presents a number of arguments, and there is no way in a short essay that you can assess all of them. What you should do is to narrow your focus to just one of the arguments she presents, reformulate it as precisely as you can (ideally as an explicit valid argument), defend your reformulation as capturing what Anderson says, and argue that this argument is sound or unsound.

Though the precise structure of your paper is up to you, and different papers might not have the same structure, a logical way to proceed would be to begin with a brief explanation of what is at issue, followed by a presentation of one of Anderson's detailed arguments (which will presumably require quotation, paraphrase, and explication). You might then point out ambiguities or unclarities to motivate your reformulation or you might turn directly to the reformulation. In any case, you should be sure to make the case that you have captured what you think is one of Anderson's specific arguments. Then you can turn to the question of whether the argument is sound or not.

Papers should be individual work, not the result of collaboration. In making your argument you may draw upon any of the readings that are appropriate, but what is important in an essay is your argument.  An essay is not like an examination answer.  While you should not, of course, be ignorant of relevant material and intellectual integrity means that you cannot just ignore objections and counterarguments in the readings and lectures, the point is not to show what you've read or heard in class, but to make an honest and persuasive case.  You should believe in what you are writing. When you refer to the readings, please make your reference clear. Footnotes are not necessary. Page references to readings inserted in the text are fine. I do not expect you to read anything in addition to Anderson and what is assigned, but you are, of course, free to read more. If you rely on any texts besides Anderson, Locke, Sorkow, Pollitt, and the New Jersey Supreme Court, be sure to make clear references to your sources.

Late papers will be penalized unless you speak with me or your TA before the due date.  Please note the following specific requirements and suggestions:

The point of the introductory paper assignment is, on the one hand, to enable you to have a try at writing an analytical paper and to learn what this course demands and, on the other hand, to enable us to get to know what you are able to do already and what you need to learn.  Do not be discouraged if the paper is difficult to write well.  If you can already write a good analytical essay, then you have less to learn in this course.

You have until next Tuesday (October 2) to revise and improve your essay.The TA or instructor will read a short portion of the draft you hand in today (9/25) and by the end of the week will post in the grade book on learn@uw either "OK" or "U" . "U" means that the writing in the paper is unsatisfactory and if the version of the paper handed in on October 2 is not repaired, it will be returned for further revisions and marked down. "OK" means that the small portion examined seems okay. An "OK" is not a judgment that as a whole the writing in the paper is satisfactory and does not preclude the possibility that the version you hand in on October 2nd will be returned for revisions and marked down. If you discuss your essay with a classmate or with anyone else, be sure to acknowledge any help you've received when you hand in the revised version. You do not need to change the version you hand in today, but you have the opportunity to improve the paper before the TA and I grade it.


*Thursday, September 27: Debate #2: Resolved that abortion ought to be legal only in circumstances where continuing a pregnancy would lead to the death of the pregnant woman.

Roe v. Wade
Mary Anne Warren, "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"
Don Marquis, "Why Abortion Is Immoral"
Judith Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion"
Baruch Brody, "Opposition to Abortion: A Human Rights Approach"
Immanuel Kant, "The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals"

Homework #3 due: Write an informal essay of 300 to 500 words presenting and criticizing the argument concerning abortion that you personally find most persuasive. The task is to play "Devil's Advocate" and to try to lay bare, as far as possible, any weakness in your own position.


*Tuesday, October 2: On rights and persons: What is a person? Do only persons have rights? Why do persons have rights? How can we decide which rights a person has?

Immanuel Kant, "The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals
Roe v. Wade

Revised introductory paper due


Thursday, October 4: Abortion: Is a fetus a person? What is the relationship between mental capacities and being a person? What determines whether something has a right to life?

Mary Anne Warren, "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"


*Tuesday,October 9: Midterm #1 on Logic, Surrogate Motherhood, and Kant


Thursday, October 11: Avoiding rights

Don Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral

Homework #4 due: Write an informal essay of 300 to 500 words addressing the question of whether someone who believes that abortion should generally be illegal can consistently make an exception for the cases of rape or incest.


*Tuesday,October 16: If a fetus is a person does it follow that abortion ought to be illegal?

Judith Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion"


*Thursday, October 18: Is killing an innocent human being always impermissible? Abortion and the doctrine of double effect.

Baruch Brody, "Opposition to Abortion: A Human Rights Approach"

Homework #5 due: Write an informal essay of 300 to 500 words contrasting Brody's example of the lifeboat to Thomson's example of the violinist. What do you think most people's intuitions would say about the two cases? What are your own intuitions? Are these intuitions consistent? How can they be explained?


*Tuesday, October 23: Debate: Resolved that affirmative action whereby disadvantaged minorities and especially African Americans are given preferential treatment in educational admissions and hiring is morally permissible.

Lyndon Johnson "To Fulfill These Rights: Commencement Address at Howard University"
Lisa Newton, "Bakke and Davis: Justice, American Style"
Richard Wasserstrom, "A Defense of Programs of Preferential Treatment,"
D. Hausman and M. McPherson, "Some Notes on Libertarianism"
Robert Fullinwider, "The Case for Reparations"
David Horowitz, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks -- and Racist Too"
Henry Lewis Gates, "Ending the Slavery Blame Game"
George Sher, "Justifying Reverse Discrimination in Employment,"
Michael Levin, "Is Racial Discrimination Special?"
Louis Pojman, "The Case against Affirmative Action."
D.Hausman, "Some Notes on Utilitarianism"
Center for Equal Opportunity Press Release and Report
Ronald Dworkin, "Affirming Affirmative Action"

Homework #6 Due: Write an informal essay of 300-500 words stating your "initial" view of whether affirmative action programs are morally permissible. Give what seems to you to be the strongest argument in support of your initial view and try to make the argument as clear and logical as possible. Explain what reservations one might have concerning your argument and your position.


*Thursday, October 25: Affirmative Action: Introduction and non-discrimination argument

Lyndon Johnson "To Fulfill These Rights: Commencement Address at Howard University"
Lisa Newton, "Bakke and Davis: Justice, American Style"
Richard Wasserstrom, "A Defense of Programs of Preferential Treatment,"

Homework 7: Lisa Newton maintains that "The quota system, as employed by the University of California's medical school at Davis or any similar institution, is unjust, for all the same reasons that the discrimination it attempts to reverse is unjust." Analyze this criticism of affirmative action. What is meant by "discrimination," and why is discrimination wrong? In what sense of "discrimination" is preferential admissions a form of reverse "discrimination"? Is this discrimination the same as the discrimination that kept African Americans out of universities? Write a 300-500 word essay developing your answers to these questions.


Tuesday, October 30: The non-discrimination argument against preferential hiring and admissions; libertarianism

Richard Wasserstrom, "A Defense of Programs of Preferential Treatment,"
D. Hausman and M. McPherson, "Some Notes on Libertarianism"


Thursday, November 1: Rectification and reparations

Michael Levin, "Is Racial Discrimination Special?"

Robert Fullinwider, "The Case for Reparations"
David Horowitz, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks -- and Racist Too
Henry Lewis Gates, "Ending the Slavery Blame Game"

Homework #8 due: Consider the following objection to reparations for the injustices of slavery. "Reparations are irrational because they demand that people who are entirely innocent of the injustices compensate people who are not victims of the injustices." How, if at all, can a defender of reparations respond to this objection? Write a 300-500 word informal essay in response.


*Tuesday, November 6: Equal results, equal opportunity, and individual responsibility

Louis Pojman, "The Case against Affirmative Action,"
George Sher, "Justifying Reverse Discrimination in Employment,"


Thursday, November 8: Utilitarianism, social policy, and affirmative action

D. Hausman, "Some Notes on Utilitarianism"

Term Paper Due:

Read Jeff McMahan's essay, "The Right to Choose an Abortion", which can be found on the learn@uw site. In this essay, he criticizes a complicated argument by Frances Kamm, who (like Judith Thomson) maintains that even if fetuses and embryos have the same full right to life that adults have, it is still morally permissible for women to have abortions. Your task in your term paper is to zero in on one of McMahan's criticisms of Kamm, to formulate precisely the argument that McMahan makes (and the argument of Kamm's he is criticizing) and to defend or to criticize that specific argument of McMahan's.

It is up to you which specific argument you focus on and how you organize your paper. But you should make clear what specific disagreement between Kamm and McMahan you are discussing and why it matters, and you should show that your reconstruction of the disagreement and of the arguments is faithful to McMahan's text.

Please note the following:

  1. Your paper must have a definite point --it must attempt to establish some specific claim concerning the correctness of McMahan's criticism of Kamm and its implications for the permissibility of abortion
  2. Your paper must be logically organized as an argument for your thesis. Be sure to think hard about objections to your point of view and about how to respond to them. You can draw on other sources, and I would expect most of the papers to draw on the arguments and distinctions drawn in the readings and in lecture, but this is meant to be an analytical rather than a research paper.
  3. Term papers should be individual work, not collaborative efforts. They should be about 1800 words long -- about six double-spaced pages. They should be printed double-spaced with a reasonably large font and at least 1" margins.
  4. Term papers must be correct in their grammar, usage, punctuation, spelling and so forth. Sloppy papers will be returned ungraded, and your term-paper grade will then depend entirely on the grade on the revised version, which will in addition be marked down by a full grade as a penalty. The TA and I will be more lenient to those who are not native English speakers, but even they must produce minimally literate papers.

If you have trouble with your writing, I encourage you to seek help in the writing lab. The TA and I will be happy to help you with your papers, but because you have the option of rewriting them, we will not read and comment on rough drafts, and it is not our job to copy-edit your work..

Be sure to consult the general directions on writing philosophy papers near the end of the syllabus.


*Tuesday, November 13: Conclusions on affirmative action: what are the consequences?

Center for Equal Opportunity Press Release and Report
Ronald Dworkin, "Affirming Affirmative Action"

Homework #9 due: Write a 300 to 500-word informal essay discussing how a utilitarian would approach surrogate motherhood or abortion and what conclusion the utilitarian would draw.


Thursday, November 15: Midterm #2
*Tuesday, November20: Debate: Resolved that the United States should institute a single-payer health-insurance plan, whereby everyone has comprehensive health insurance, which is paid for via general tax revenue.

Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Spends 141% More on Health Care"
"Comparison of Canadian and U.S. health care systems"
John Rawls, "Justice" (excerpts)
Norman Daniels, "Justice, Health, and Health Care"
Loren Lomasky, "Medical Progress and National Health Care"
Richard Wilkinson and Michael Marmot, "Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts"
Angus Deaton, "What does the empirical evidence tell us about the injustice of health inequalities?"
"Description of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"
Henry Aaron and Joseph Newhouse, "Meeting the Dilemma of Health Care Access: Extending Insurance Coverage while Controlling Costs"
Grace-Marie Turner & James C. Capretta & Thomas P. Miller & Bob Moffit, "Getting Health Care Right"

Homework #10 due: Write a 300 to 500 word essay expressing your initial view about whether the government ought to ensure that all its citizens have adequate health insurance. What do you take to be the main argument in defense of your view? What do you take to be the main objections to your view, and how would you respond to them?


Thursday, November 22: Thanksgiving


Tuesday, November 27: Justice, health and health care in the U.S. and elsewhere

"Comparison of Canadian and U.S. health care systems"


Thursday, November 29: Justice and health care

John Rawls, "Justice" (excerpts)
Norman Daniels, "Justice, Health, and Health Care"


Tuesday, December 4: Justice, health care, and individual choice

Norman Daniels, "Justice, Health, and Health Care"
Loren Lomasky, "Medical Progress and National Health Care"


*Thursday, December 6: Health care and health

Richard Wilkinson and Michael Marmot, "Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts"
Angus Deaton, "What does the empirical evidence tell us about the injustice of health inequalities?"

Optional Revision of Term Paper Due

You must submit the original paper along with the revision and an explanation (no more than one page) of how you revised your essay. Only significant revisions will be graded. Revisions that merely fix some copy-editing will not be graded.


Tuesday, December 11: Assessment of Obamacare

"Description of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"
Henry Aaron and Joseph Newhouse, "Meeting the Dilemma of Health Care Access: Extending Insurance Coverage while Controlling Costs"
Grace-Marie Turner & James C. Capretta & Thomas P. Miller & Bob Moffit, "Getting Health Care Right"

Homework #11 due: Write an informal essay of 300-500 words explaining how your views on one of the issues discussed this semester changed and why they changed.


Thursday, December 13: Summary and Review


Debates:

At the beginning of the discussion of each of the four issues with which the course in concerned, there will a debate on a specific resolution concerning the issue. To compensate participants in the debates for their efforts, they will receive credit for the first homework assignment concerned with the issue debated without having to hand it in, provided that they do a competent job in the debate. Debaters will also receive a second homework credit that I will apply at the end of the semester in whatever way is most advantageous to the student. There should be three debaters on each side. The debate team members will need to decide how to divide up and organize their presentation. These debates can be fun, and they valuable to the whole class, not just to the participants. Their success depends (of course) on you.

The format for the debates will be as follows: Each team will have ten minutes to fifteen minutes to make its case. The team-members may divide up the time or choose one or two speakers to express their position. Then the floor will be open to give and take between the two teams, and all the debaters will be expected to participate. If I think it useful, I may direct some questions to the teams at the beginning of the give-and-take session. There is no definite time limit to this second round, but I will break off the exchange at some point to permit questions and arguments from the audience.


Homework:
number handed-in 11 10 9.5 9 8.5 8 7.5 7 < 7
grade A+ A AB B BC C D F F (0)
points (toward semester grade) 10 9.8 9.1 8.5 7.9 7.3 6.7 5.9 0

Five-Minute Essays:

By distributing to you brief and often provocative questions and giving you a few minutes to jot down your thoughts, these assignments encourage discussion.

************

MISSING FIVE-MINUTE ESSAY MAKE-UP FORM:

Name:

Name of student whose notes were used:

Date of the lecture:

Topic of the lecture:

Readings discussed:

Precis of the lecture, including careful presentation of any explicitly formulated arguments.

***************


Discussions:

Discussions are difficult to manage in a large class, but with such controversial and important issues we should strive for as much as possible. Don't be surprised if I call on you during lecture, especially if you sit near the back.This is not material to be passively absorbed, and I shall try to keep you involved thinking along with me. (Students at the back are disadvantaged. One consistent finding of social scientists is that there is a clear correlation between how close to the front students sit and how high their grades are.)


Office Hours:

If my office hours, (Tuesday 12:30-1:30 and Wednesday 2:30-3:30) are not convenient, see me after class to arrange another time to meet. My job is to help you to master the skills and material with which this course is concerned, so feel free to come see me.


The Use of Email:

Email can be a great convenience, but in a large class, it can get out of hand. The TA will have his own guidelines, which you should be careful to respect. With respect to communicating with me, feel free to email me at dhausman@wisc.edu with any specific questions you have about substance, assignments or requirements. If the question and answer are relevant to others, I will post them anonymously on the course discussion page. If you want to keep the discussion private, please let me know. Otherwise, in emailing me about any aspect of the course, you’ve given me permission to post your question. That way I can serve as many students as possible. Some questions are not appropriate. For example, "Could you please restate the last three lectures?" Also, please do not email me or your TA to ask when five-minute essays were distributed. You should instead get to know other students in the class whose notes you can consult if you are unable to attend. Some questions are of course better discussed in person than over email. I’ll do the best I can to be helpful.


A Note on Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is a serious offense, for which there is no excuse. All sources and assistance used in preparing your papers must be precisely and explicitly acknowledged. If you have any questions about what constitutes plagiarism, please come talk with me or with your TA. Ignorance of what constitutes plagiarism is not a defense. It is your responsibility to be sure. The web creates special risks. Cutting and pasting even a few words from a web page or paraphrasing material without a reference constitutes plagiarism. If you are not sure how to refer to something you find on the internet, you can always give the URL.  It is generally better to quote than to paraphrase from material on the web, because in the absence of page numbers it can be hard to find passages that are paraphrased rather than quoted. The minimum penalty for plagiarism -- even of just a phrase -- is a zero on the assignment.

In my experience, plagiarism usually happens because it is 3 a.m. on the morning when a paper is due. Your rough draft is going nowhere. You're exhausted and increasingly desperate. And you've come across an obscure web page that says pretty much what you've been trying to say. And ... well you can fill in the rest, perhaps even what happens when students get caught. This is the time to stop and go to bed. Much better to talk with me or the TA and get some help, take the mild penalty for not handing the paper in on time, and write a paper that gives you some satisfaction and that doesn't risk expulsion from the University.


Grading Scheme:

I am planning on employing the on-line gradebook on the Learn@UW web site.

Grade A+ A A- AB B+ B B- BC C+ C C- D F
Percentage (points) 98-100 95-97 92-94 89-91 86-88 83-85 80-82 77-79 74-76 71-73 68-70 60-67 0-59
Points below 60 60-68.9 69-74.9 75-80.9 81-86.9 87-92.9 93 and above
Semester Grade F D C BC B AB A

The Role of Readings in the Course:

I do not usually devote my lectures to the exposition and discussion of the readings (though I am happy to entertain questions about how my lectures relate to the readings). Although I will cite and criticize specific arguments from the readings, the lectures usually present an independent perspective on the issues. Critically engaging with the arguments in the lectures is your most important task, but you may have a hard time understanding my arguments or exactly how they are relevant if you do not study the readings carefully. I selected the readings to represent a variety of different perspectives, and even when the readings are mistaken (as, in one regard or another, they often are), there are valuable lessons to be learned from understanding their mistakes. The examinations will ask not only that you have mastered the material in the lectures but that you be able to relate the arguments in the lectures to the arguments in the readings and to respond intelligently to questions concerning the important arguments in the readings.


Some Hints on Reading Philosophy Papers:

Although you will not be able to understand completely the most difficult philosophical texts such as Kant's Groundwork, you should aim to master most of the readings, particularly those that address specific issues. Here are some detailed hints about how to do so:

1. Use your highlighter sparingly. It is much more useful to pencil in marginal notes summarizing or querying specific points than to highlight passages. Actively engaging the author is much more valuable than merely trying to assimilate the prose. And if you do highlight, only highlight a small percentage of the text. (There is not much point to highlighting everything, apart from adding color to the page!)

2. The assignments are usually short, and you should plan on reading the assignments at least twice. During the first reading you should ask yourself:

a. What is the author's position?

b. What is the general structure of the essay? Is it a collection of separate arguments, or does it aim to make one main argument?

c. What are the author's main assumptions? (Where is the author coming from?)

d. Against whom does the author take him/herself to be arguing? What is the context in which the piece was written?

e. What is the main line of argument (or what are the main lines of argument)?

f. What objections does the author address and how successful is the author in answering them?

g. How does the author's position relate to your views? To what extent does the author reinforce or challenge your views?

h. How do the author's arguments relate to the arguments developed in lecture and in other reading assignments? What criticisms would the author make of arguments developed in lecture or in other readings? To what extent is the position of the author open to criticisms made in lecture or in other readings?

During the second reading of the assignment, you should proceed more slowly and critically. Rather than asking, as suggested above, questions about what the author's purposes, organization, and argument are, you should try to assess all of these and particularly the author's arguments


General Directions on Writing the Papers

Style and references:

1. You are expected to give references when you cite detailed claims or arguments made in the readings, and your papers should, where appropriate, show familiarity with relevant materials from the lectures or reading for the course. But you are expected to write essays, not examination answers. So don't introduce irrelevant matters merely to demonstrate that you have done the course readings. (But you must not ignore relevant supporting arguments and, particularly, objections in the readings.) Cite the readings only when they are relevant. Be sure that your paper is a well organized argument for some clearly articulated thesis.

2. When you quote, paraphrase, or make use of a point made by others, be sure to document the source. Your reference style is not important. What matters is that your references be precise and usable. If you say that Pollitt says that contracts are worthless, it should be clear on what page Pollitt supposedly says that. The easiest way to give a reference is simply to put the source and page number in parenthesis. Papers without clear references (where needed) will be marked down.

3. Papers must be typed or printed double-spaced in a reasonably large font with wide margins (at least one inch) on all sides, so that there is plenty of room for marginal comments. Be sure to keep copies of your papers. Please do not use binders. There is no need for a separate title page.

4. Papers for the course must be essentially correct in their writing- spelling, punctuation, grammar, usage, typing, and so forth. Papers with more than 3 or 4 errors per page will be marked down, and if they are very messy, they will be returned for correction before they are graded and also penalized.First versions of term papers that are messy will not be graded at all. Your term-paper grade will then depend entirely on the revised version minus a double-minimal grade penalty. (What I mean by a minimal grade penalty is a penalty from a B- to a BC or from a B+ to a B. So a double-minimal penalty will lower your grade from, for example an A- to a B+ or from a B to a BC.) Messy and badly written papers are hard to assess; and it is not unfair to expect you to take responsibility for making sure that your papers are in minimally correct English. Although the TA and I will make some allowances for non-native speakers, papers that are not reasonably well written will not receive a grade higher that a B. If you have writing difficulties, seek help in the writing lab and get someone to proofread your paper before you hand it in.

5. I have abridged and reprinted on the learn@uw site some principles of composition from Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. I urge you to read them before you start to write and then again when you have finished your rough draft.


Hints on essay writing:

1. The paper topics are not recipes for writing your essays. You have to decide what you want to maintain in your essays. Do not regard the paper topic as an essay examination question. Although your papers must be on the assigned topic, the point is to write a well-organized and unified argument for some clearly enunciated conclusion.

2. The task of writing a good essay is virtually identical with the task of thinking out a clear thesis or conclusion that you want to defend and then elaborating and defending it. You should be able to say clearly and precisely not only what your paper is about, but also what your paper maintains or shows. Be sure each of your papers has both a thesis--that it asserts something definite--and a logical organization. Once it is clear what you what to show, you will have a criterion to decide what is relevant and the basis for organizing your paper. Can you put your main point clearly in a sentence? Can you say clearly in a sentence what your paper shows or proves? Are all the parts of your paper relevant to your main point? Is the structure of your argument clear? No good essay merely summarizes things you have read and then offers your remarks or points of comparison or differences you noticed. Every acceptable essay integrates its remarks into an argument of its own. Exposition of the views of others should always be part of your argument for your thesis.

3. Note that a well-organized paper is not merely orderly. For example, a paper that argues that Thomson argues claims 1, 2, and 3 and that one can defend claim 1 as follows, claim 2 as follows, but not claim 3 is orderly, and it has a thesis. But it would only be well-organized--truly one paper rather than three--if the discussions of the three claims bore some relations to one another and if the paper added up to some unified and substantive thesis. A thesis like "Brody has some good things to say" is not detailed or substantive enough to hold a paper together.

4. Avoid first paragraphs that say things such as, "First I will discuss the views of Pollitt and Sorkow. Then I will discuss their strengths and weaknesses. Then I will compare their conclusions and formulate my opinion." Passages such as these make it sound as if your argument will begin only on the last page. Exposition of the views of others has to find its place within your argument, not as a preface to your argument. If you think in terms of what you want to establish, and outline your paper in terms of stages in your argument, your essay will be much stronger.

5. Try to say exactly what you mean. Pay careful attention to your language. Sentences such as "Abortion is a mistaken principle" are unacceptably careless. (Abortion is a medical procedure, not a principle.) Value your words and use them accurately. Avoid putting section headings in your papers. The papers are not long enough to need them. Provide clear transitions from one paragraph to the next so that the reader knows where you are going without section headings.

6. To help in organizing your thinking, you should attempt to answer the following three questions:

1. What is your thesis--that is, what is it that you are trying to maintain or show or prove? What is your main argument for your thesis?

2. What is the most important objection to or criticism of your thesis that you need to consider? Formulate that objection or criticism as an argument.

3. What is your argument in response to the objection or criticism mentioned in answer to question 2?

If you cannot answer these questions clearly and easily, then there are problems with your paper. Do not regard your papers as finished or acceptable until each clearly implies answers to the above questions. (But an essay is not, of course, a list of answers to any set of questions.) Taking the task of answering these questions seriously can make a big difference in the quality of your paper.


Some recommendations on how to write badly: (adapted from Martin Hassel  http://lacasahassel.net/cv/martin/howto.htm)

1.  Begin with a sentence that is clear and direct:

Katha Pollitt vigorously condemns surrogate motherhood.

2. Change its verbs, adjectives, and adverbs into abstract nouns:

Katha Pollitt presents with vigor a condemnation of the acceptability of surrogate motherhood.

3. Make the sentence passive:

A condemnation with vigor of the acceptability of surrogate motherhood is presented by Katha Pollitt.

4. Use two words where one would do:
A condemnation and critique with vigor and strength of the acceptability or legality of surrogate motherhood is presented by Katha Pollitt.

5. Use plenty of 'in regard to' and 'as to':

In regard to the acceptability or legality of surrogate motherhood under some circumstances, a condemnation and critique thereof with vigor and strength is presented by Katha Pollitt.

6. Sprinkle with words that do not add anything:

In regard to the fundamental or derivative acceptability of surrogate motherhood under or within some circumstances or situations, a specific condemnation and a direct critique thereof with lots of vigor and considerable strength is presented in writings by Katha Pollitt.

7. Put everything in the negative:

In regard to the not-underivative acceptability or less-than universal legality of surrogate motherhood under or within some circumstances or situations, a specific endorsement or even indirect approbation thereof that is not lacking in vigor or without considerable strength is rejected in writings by Katha Pollitt.

8. Repeat the preceding steps:

In regard to or consider the basic fundamental or not-underivative full acceptability or less-than universal partial or complete legality of surrogate motherhood under or within or contained in some circumstances or situations, a specific endorsement or even some element of indirect approbation thereof that is not lacking in vigor or without considerable strength is rejected in essays or parts of them or other writings by Katha Pollitt.


Special considerations in writing philosophical papers:

1. In a political debate, the point is to win, and one consequently tries to make the arguments of one's opponents sound as ridiculous and worthless as possible. In a philosophical debate (or in writing a philosophy essay), in contrast, the objective is to learn the truth. So you should try to make the arguments conflicting with your views as compelling as possible, before you answer them. If there are any objections to your position that you cannot answer, then you cannot be sure that you are right. Work hard at trying to see "the other side". (This is not to say that there are no mistakes and that both sides of every issue are always equally well supported. If the question was, "Should slavery be legal?" it is worth studying what can be said in the defense of slavery, even though there is in fact very little to be said in its defense.)

2. Although many sociological and economic facts are relevant to the issues you are addressing in your essays, be careful to keep your focus philosophical. If you aren't sure whether your papers are philosophical or not, check with me or with your TA.


Seeking help:

When working on the final versions of your essays, feel free to come to your teaching assistant or me for help. You do not need to do further research, but you can consult with us if you want references for further reading.

There are some excellent resources on the web for writing philosophy papers. After consulting the brief writing suggestions in on the learn@uw site, I particularly recommend:

UW-Madison Writer's Handbook This excellent handbook is produced by The Writing Center here. Highly recommended!

www.sfu.ca/philosophy/writing.htm This is brief, clear, and helpful.

http://www.princeton.edu/~jimpryor/general/writing.html Excellent, but much lengthier.

www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/philosophy.html For those who are serious about philosophy.

www.cofc.edu/~portmord/tips.htm Contains lots of references for further study.

A terrific general source on writing is Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. The first edition is available on the web at http://www.bartleby.com/141/


Paper grading criteria

An "A" paper typically has all of the following virtues, although in exceptional cases papers with five of the six virtues might merit an "A"

  1. It has a well-defined thesis and a logical organization.
  2. It shows good sense, intellectual honesty and struggle. It defends a defensible thesis and takes seriously objections to that thesis.
  3. It is well-informed. If there are passages in the assigned readings for the course that are particularly relevant to the matters under discussion in the essay, these are cited and discussed. The paper shows an awareness of conceptual distinctions and clarifications developed in the course.
  4. It is intelligent, logical, and careful. The argument is carefully articulated and developed. Obvious difficulties are anticipated and answered, and gaps are closed.
  5. It is significant. The issues discussed, although detailed, are of some importance, and the essay makes their importance clear.
  6. The paper is written in a lucid and grammatical style.

A "B" paper has the following virtues:

  1. As before.
  2. As before.
  3. As before.
  4. It is logical and not careless. The argument is well articulated.
  5. It is not trivial. The essay provides some motivation for its topic.
  6. The paper is grammatical.

A "C" paper has at least the following virtues:

  1. It is orderly and has some focus.
  2. It shows some serious concern with the issues it deals with.
  3. It is not uninformed. Where relevant, it shows awareness of the content of the course.
  4. There are some definite and cogent arguments in the essay.
  5. The paper has some point.
  6. The paper is readable and minimally grammatical.

A "D" paper

  1. Has some intelligible organization.
  2. Shows some concern with the issues it deals with.
  3. Shows minimal awareness of the course content.
  4. Makes some relevant and sensible argument
  5. Has some point.
  6. Is comprehensible and minimally grammatical.