Teaching Dossier

Teaching Statement| Janelle DeWitt

One day when I was a graduate student at UCLA, some of my students were moaning about how difficult the Critique of Pure Reason was, to which I quipped with a wry smile, “If you want to study Kant, you’ve got to be hard core.” A few days later, just before the mid-term, more than 25 students showed up to my office hours. When I was surprised at the number, one of them responded, “We are hard core!” This particular interaction probably best captures the relationship I have with my students—one in which I function as much like a coach as I do an instructor. This form of interaction is likely a residue from my former life as a student athlete and personal trainer. And though I had no expectation that any of those experiences would translate over to teaching, I now believe that they have come to serve me well in meeting the particular challenges of a philosophy instructor. This is due in large part to the special role I believe philosophy plays in an undergraduate education. It is the distinctive task of philosophy to focus on teaching how to think, rather than what to think, that is, in doing philosophy rather than just learning about it. It is not enough for a student to absorb and repeat back a body of knowledge. In philosophy, a student must take that knowledge and produce something new or original with it, something of his own creation, and something that might reveal his true self, even when he is not yet sure how to do it.

This task has been made even more difficult because somewhere along the line, many students have lost their voice. When giving my writing advice, I stress the point that there is no philosophical appreciation, that in a philosophy paper, one should do some philosophy. I am often met with bewilderment at this suggestion. Many students now find it impossibly difficult to form an opinion of their own, much less to defend it with reasons. And the ones who can form an opinion are too often discouraged in other disciplines from doing so. A student once reported to me that he was told by another professor that he didn’t know enough yet to have his own opinion, so any point he wanted to make, he had to support it with quotations from a reputable source. In essence, he could only agree with someone else, or take on another’s voice as his own. To me, this leads to a slow death of the philosophical soul. And with those students close to this death, paralyzed with fear, it has taken every ounce of trust I have with them to encourage that severely weakened voice to come out.

When I taught self-defense, I quickly learned just how important it was to establish a feeling of trust with the women I was training. Until I did, they would be cautious and hold back because they felt vulnerable. However, once I got them to open up, they were finally able to discover their true strength. As it turns out, the same dynamics are at play in the classroom. When I push students to work harder, to think deeper, to expose their ignorance with questions, or to challenge their skills as writers, they expose a part of their deepest self and so become vulnerable in the process. And it is because of this inherent vulnerability that I believe trust plays such an essential role in the success of the relationship. So to help establish it early on, I have developed a short ritual at the beginning of every semester where I spend five minutes telling my students a little bit about me; that I came from Kansas, that I was a biology major, that I had no idea what philosophy was when I took my first class, that I was hopelessly lost the first few weeks, but that I had an “aha” moment one day in class when everything finally fell into place and I figured out how to think about philosophy. This ritual started as an ice-breaker, but it was readily apparent that it helped the students see me as less threatening or judgmental, and so they became less guarded and more willing to reveal themselves to me. Once this happened, motivating (and

Janelle DeWitt | 2

instructing) them became a far easier task. I can set very high expectations and help the students come to believe that they can achieve them. And if they stumble, they feel comfortable coming to me for help. It is also what helps me effectively reach out to students who might face unique challenges because of their racial, ethnic, or religious backgrounds, their geographic origin, or their socio-economic status. (I believe this is one of the reasons why I tend to generate a high number of recruits to the major, and in particular, students from non-traditional backgrounds. When they hear about my own background as a first-generation college student, from a poor family, coming from a rural area of the country, they realize it is possible for them to do the same.)

Along with encouraging the students to develop their voice, I also aim to help them develop ways to express it. One of the most striking lessons I learned from a professor at Tufts is that merely thinking ideas out in my head is a very different cognitive process than thinking them out on paper. And because of this, I needed to start working out my ideas in a journal. He said that, in doing so, I would come to see my own ideas more clearly simply through the act of verbalizing them on paper. It was in coming to understand this tight connection between thinking and writing about philosophy that I became aware of just how much a student’s poor writing skills can impede his philosophical understanding. This is not to say that sometimes a student’s paper is poorly written because he just doesn’t understand the material—but rather, that I have been reminded that the relationship holds both ways. In order to confront this issue, I have developed a handout that covers all of the basic instructions on how to write a philosophy paper—what’s expected, what’s not expected, a long list of potential pitfalls to be avoided, as well as a basic algorithm for writing a good introduction and thesis statement (to help get them started). In addition, I have developed various writing exercises to help address certain problems. One of the most effective in helping students transition to philosophical writing has been an exercise comparing what I call that vs. why style writing. That style is one that involves a disconnected or “laundry list” set of points drawn from their notes, often expressed in the form of “Kant says/thinks/concludes that…”. To help the students see why this style is problematic, I have them read excerpts from two different papers explaining Descartes’s wax argument (or one that is unfamiliar to them). I then ask them to determine which one made more sense, and why. They inevitably seize on the key set of lines that explains why certain points matter, and so why Descartes comes to the conclusion he does. I then explain to them that each time I hear “that”, I think to myself “yes, but why?” Philosophy is all about that elusive why because that is where the real answer lies. Until they can see why Descartes comes to the conclusion he does, they don’t really understand the argument yet. I have been motivated to develop more of these exercises because of the incredible success I have had with them thus far. I have had a number of students who were hard-working, but struggling C and D level students finish my course doing A and B level work. More importantly, they continued to do as well in classes taken with other professors in the major.

So, on the one hand, I work hard to gain my students’ trust. I make sure that they know I respect and care about them (as students and as individuals). Yet, on the other hand, I am incredibly tough on them. I set very high expectations, just high enough that they will never quite meet them. I do this in order to push them out of their comfort zone, to teach them that the best way to learn a skill is often by trying and failing (e.g., by pursuing an argument far enough to see that it ultimately collapses), learning from the failure, and trying again. Through this process, I hope to cultivate a love for learning and improving, one that balances (if not outweighs) their desire for a particular grade. In other words, I count my class as successful when my students express their desire to be intellectually hard core.

Janelle DeWitt | 3

Teaching Experience | Janelle DeWitt

Primary Instructor:

University of California, Los Angeles Spring 2021 History of Modern Philosophy, 1650 to 1800 Winter 2021 Topics in Philosophy: The Two Wills Moral Psychology of Anselm and Kant Fall 2020 Graduate Seminar: The Two Wills Moral Psychology of Anselm and Kant Introduction to Ethical Theory Spring 2020 Philosophical Analysis of Contemporary Moral Issues Undergraduate Research Seminar Winter 2020 Topics in Moral Philosophy: Emotions and the Psychology of Good and Evil Fall 2019 History of Ethics: Modern Historical Introduction to Philosophy Spring 2019 Topics in Moral Philosophy: Emotions and the Psychology of Good and Evil Winter 2019 Topics in Philosophy: The Two Wills Moral Psychology of Anselm and Kant Historical Introduction to Philosophy Fall 2018 History of Ethics: Modern

Indiana University Spring 2017 Emotions and the Psychology of Good and Evil Fall 2016 Introduction to Ethics Spring 2016 Biomedical Ethics

Stanford University Spring 2016 Graduate Seminar: Topics in Kant’s Ethics (guest lecturer)

Western Michigan University Spring 2015 Biomedical Ethics Honors Biomedical Ethics Graduate Seminar: Kantian Ethics Fall 2014 Introduction to Ethics Ancient and Medieval Philosophy Biomedical Ethics

King’s College Spring 2013 Introduction to Philosophy Ethics and the Good Life Fall 2012 Introduction to Philosophy Honors Ancient and Medieval Philosophy Biomedical Ethics Spring 2012 Introduction to Philosophy Death and the Meaning of Life Fall 2011 Introduction to Philosophy Ethics and the Good Life

University of California, Los Angeles Summer 2010 Introduction to Philosophy of Religion Summer 2008 Introduction to Philosophy of Religion

Tufts University Summer 2003 Making of the Modern Mind (co-taught with Mario DeCaro)

Janelle DeWitt | 4

Teaching Assistant: Moral Responsibility and Free Will Calvin Normore UCLA Kant Tyler Burge UCLA Meta-ethics Gavin Lawrence UCLA Philosophy of Mind: Anscombe’s Intention Andrew Hsu UCLA Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy Joe Hwang UCLA Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy Calvin Normore UCLA Skepticism and Rationality Bill Bristow UCLA Introduction to Ethical Theory-Writing Intensive Barbara Herman UCLA Introduction to Ethical Theory-Writing Intensive Seana Shiffrin UCLA Introduction to Philosophy of Mind Joseph Almog UCLA Introduction to Philosophy of Mind Mark Greenberg UCLA Issues in Feminist Philosophy Carol Quinn UCLA Introduction to Ethics, Head TA Nancy Bauer Tufts U. Knowing and Being David Denby Tufts U. Language and Mind Daniel Dennett Tufts U. Biomedical Ethics Eli Hirsch Harvard U. (Ext.) Biomedical Ethics Eli Hirsch Brandeis U. Evolution: Chemical to Biological Kevin Swier U. of Chicago Biochemistry Herbert Friedmann U. of Chicago Immunobiology Jose Quintans U. of Chicago

Janelle DeWitt | 5

Course Evaluation Data | Janelle DeWitt

UCLA: Instructor Dept Ave Scale # of Evals

S 2020 Philosophical Analysis of Contemporary Moral Issues 7.6 7.9 9 97/200 Historical Theories of the Self/Soul/Mind/I 9.0 7.9 9 5/17 W 2020 Emotions and the Psychology of Good and Evil 8.5 7.9 9 16/51 F 2019 History of Ethics: Modern 8.9 7.9 9 13/33 Historical Introduction to Philosophy 7.9 7.9 9 68/150 S 2019 Emotions and the Psychology of Good and Evil 8.2 7.6 9 13/47 W 2019 The Two Wills Moral Psychology of Anselm and Kant 8.5 8.0 9 18/36 Historical Introduction to Philosophy 8.2 8.0 9 65/152 F 2018 History of Ethics: Modern 8.9 7.7 9 13/33 Su 2010 Introduction to Philosophy of Religion 8.5 9 11 Su 2008 Introduction to Philosophy of Religion 8.6 9 13 Indiana University: S 2017 Emotions and the Psychology of Good and Evil 3.5 3.4 4 6/18 F 2016 Introduction to Ethics 2.9 3.1 4 31/86 S 2016 Biomedical Ethics 3.3 3.0 4 22/32 Western Michigan University: S 2015 Biomedical Ethics 4.6 5 24/61 Graduate Seminar: Ethical Theory 4.8 5 2/11 F 2014 Introduction to Ethics 4.3 5 20/97 Ancient and Medieval Philosophy 4.0 5 3/32 Biomedical Ethics 3.7 5 14/55 King’s College: S 2013 Introduction to Philosophy 6.5 7 59 Ethics and the Good Life 6.6 7 33 F 2012 Introduction to Philosophy 6.5 7 63 Honors Ancient and Medieval Philosophy 6.3 7 15 S 2012 Introduction to Philosophy 6.3 7 64 Death and the Meaning of Life 6.0 7 31 F 2011 Introduction to Philosophy 4.1 5 54 Ethics and the Good Life 3.7 5 17 Teaching Assistant at UCLA: S 2010 Free Will and Responsibility 8.8 9 28 W 2010 Kant 8.7 9 21 F 2009 Meta-ethics 8.7 9 21 Su 2009 Philosophy of Mind--Anscombe’s Intention 8.4 9 5 Su 2007 Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy 9.0 9 3 S 2007 Skepticism and Rationality 8.5 9 35 W 2007 Introduction to Ethical Theory—Writing Intensive 8.6 9 19 F 2006 Introduction to Philosophy of Mind 8.4 9 35 S 2006 Introduction to Philosophy of Mind 8.3 9 29

Janelle DeWitt | 6

W 2006 Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy 7.8 9 17 F 2005 Introduction to Ethical Theory—Writing Intensive 8.6 9 14 Su 2005 Issues in Feminist Philosophy 8.5 9 9 Overall Average 8.49 UCLA Humanities-wide Average 7.95 UCLA Campus-wide Average 7.76

Janelle DeWitt | 7

Sample Evaluation Comments | Janelle DeWitt

University of California, Los Angeles (2018-20) 1. This professor had a perfectly unbiased way of presenting arguments from both side without

diminishing either argument, and also offering valid critiques to each side. This was perfect in teaching the issue of moral philosophy. Her mostly pre-recorded lectures were also a great format to teach the material. Additionally, the readings she chose were spectacular and made me really enjoy the course. She was my favorite professor this quarter. (Spring 2020 during online instruction.)

2. This is one of the best classes I have taken so far. I feel like I really did learn something. Moreover, the class was easy to follow and went at nearly the perfect pace. The lectures were very interesting, and though the professor went over almost every lecture - the material was interesting and presented in an engaging way. I would take this class again 10000000%. I would encourage my friends to take it. GREAT stuff! (Spring 2020 during online instruction.)

3. Professor Dewitt is spectacular. She is genuinely interested in the class and her students' learning. I absolutely LOVE the prompts offered for longer papers and the autonomy afforded to us with promptless journal entries. The only improvement I can think of is publishing lecture notes online.

4. Kant is really difficult, so I'm glad I had you to guide me through since this was my first exposure to Kant. The examples you used were very easy to understand and if they weren't, you were always open to questions and you never treated any question like it was stupid or too small/large. I also really appreciate you being lenient on the due dates, since my academic life already feels incredibly overwhelming and you get it. I also enjoyed answering the prompts and it made them seem less scary when you stressed that you wanted us to have fun with them. Thanks for a great quarter.

5. This was the best experience I've had in a philosophy class. Janelle was not only incredibly knowledgeable about the material, she was also really PASSIONATE and her joy and delight in the ideas was contagious and it got me all fired up about Kant: imagine that! Her ability to draw similarities between a philosopher I didn't like and a philosopher I loved got me to love the former, which is rare for me. The class discussions were always lively and everyone was included and involved. She was especially patient in hearing out everyone's questions and objections and then ironing them out with wit, good humor and precision. Also, the 5 "reaction papers" was a great homework assignment! Best class ever.

6. Professor DeWitt is one of the few philosophy professors whose course structure was extremely flexible so as to accommodate and incorporate student inquiries and interests into the teaching of the topic. This quality produced a class atmosphere that was thus very engaging and inclusive. I have found that often times in philosophy classroom settings, the professor is absorbed with working through their own points and tend to lose sight of how the students themselves are grappling with this new information. Professor DeWitt does no such thing.

7. I loved this class so much. Although this class was not an ideal time, I continued to look forward to it. Professor DeWitt was a very fun and engaging teacher, who helped carefully explain this crossover material between philosophy and psychology. I was truly able to understand so long as I paid attention. Some of the material could be a little dense, especially for the non-philosophy majors, but all of the readings she had us do were so intriguing and interesting. The reaction papers definitely helped me reflect more on each reading and made sure I was up to date on my readings overall. I think she really expands the course material out of just a classroom use, motivating and inspiring her students to think for their own, as philosophers would. I do think this class might have been slightly easier due to the fact that I was a philosophy major who has had some Kant and Aristotle background but she was still very patient in answering any and all questions. I enjoyed this course a lot and feel that I have learned so much. It is probably the first class where I have slightly enjoyed writing my papers. Thank you for a great course.

8. Very clear/lively lectures! This class made me wish I had taken more ethics courses. Prof. is an inspiration.

Janelle DeWitt | 8

9. I loved this class and the structure of it. Dr. DeWitt let us choose how we would be graded at the very beginning of the quarter, so we chose to write essays instead of having a midterm and a final. She is clearly passionate about the things she teaches and obviously got a great education in them, too- she seriously knows what she's talking about. Her enthusiasm shows during lectures, which makes it easier to stay engaged because she's excited about the material. She also weaves stories from her daily life into lectures and provides real-life examples for difficult philosophical concepts. This makes it way easier to pay attention, considering philosophy can definitely get a little dry sometimes, and also easier to understand. Dr. DeWitt is also super approachable. I went to her office hours once and was treated so respectably. She makes so much time for her students and gives them great personal attention. Philosophy isn't one of my favorite subjects, but Dr. DeWitt made this course manageable but also super enjoyable.

10. Professor DeWitt’s greatest strengths include a talent for getting students to engage with the material & to participate in discussions—along with being able to take complicated Kantian and Anselmian concepts and make them clear. She makes these notoriously difficult ideas seem almost intuitive by drawing parallels between them (i.e. difficult ideas) & real-life examples. Her ideas are original and she delivers a new perspective on Kant and Anselm.

Indiana University (2016-17) 1. I liked the comfortable feel of the classroom- I felt as though I could add whatever I felt to the

discussion without being judged by my professor or my peers. The class let me think about topics and ideas in a new way- it also taught me how to form my own opinion and how to defend it as well. I enjoyed the topics and Dr. DeWitt's teaching style as this has been one of my favorite classes I have taken at Indiana University.

2. I liked that we got to help decide what topics we would cover at the end of the semester and that she listened to us about what we wanted to learn.

3. Professor DeWitt was absolutely fantastic in bringing to light and talking about many issues in life that are often silenced or otherwise avoided by many other professors. I especially appreciated her openness to truth and other general values in life.

4. Professor DeWitt was very enthusiastic with the topics discussed and openly welcomed us to question her and other philosopher's opinions. Though this class did not require much outside work at all, I actually believe I learned more in through this course than most courses I've taken before with homework or assignments.

5. She is passionate about getting her students to think for themselves, which is nice.

Western Michigan University (2014-15) 1. Professor DeWitt always created a positive, learning conducive environment in the classroom which

made it very enjoyable for me when normally any class over an hour begins to put me to sleep. She always did a great job explaining in depth each concept so that everyone in the class would understand. She also made us feel comfortable to contribute to discussion and never put anyone's ideas down. I learned so much and even when topics seemed over my head, she made them possible to understand.

2. The instructor was able to break down the difficult concepts so that we could understand it. She also was able to take feedback from the students and change her teaching style to help them understand all of the issues they faced.

3. I will take any class that Professor DeWitt teaches, literally, any class. 4. Used a lot of real life stories to help the students understand the difficult material throughout the

course. Linked things back to previous people we talked about for comparison to make things easier to understand.

King’s College (2011-13) 1. Overall Miss DeWitt is a great teacher, but a better person. She is always there if you need help in

class and after hours. She has a true interest in her students and them performing well.

Janelle DeWitt | 9

2. Janelle was a very fun teacher. I like that she not only emphasized philosophy, but also to stand up for what you think is right, which is an important life skill that everyone should have. She is clearly passionate about philosophy and is a really nice and funny person. Easy class, great professor. King’s College Philosophy Department should be proud to have her as a part of their team. She teaches students valuable life lessons.

3. Best professor I’ve ever had. She cares about her students and helps them mentally mature. In addition, she spends most of her time teaching us how to analyze and think, not what to think like most professors. She makes you feel welcome and encourages class discussions that are interesting. I love the fact that she gives us articles to evaluate rather than simply reading out of a textbook. She knows her theories influenced by Kant in and out!

4. Humorous, made material very, very interesting. You can tell she is passionate about the subject. Most intelligent person I have ever met. Lived a very colorful life. Fair grader and feedback was always helpful. I love philosophy and ethics now and my interest has boomed. I am glad I had her for intro to philosophy and ethics. I hear horror stories about philosophy professors at King’s. But she is the best professor I ever had a King’s College. I honestly agree with all the high scores I gave DeWitt. DeWitt spent 2.5 hours with me in her office going over a paper. She encouraged me to do more and excel, and I really value that. I don’t know any other professor that would do this for a student!

5. She was extremely interesting and presented the material in a way that was very easy to understand. Her personality was great, which made it very easy to pay attention and [follow] the material. The way she taught the class made you not want to sleep because you felt like you were missing out on something important. She is one of the best, if not the best, professor I have had.

6. I enjoyed this class a lot. I was dreading taking this class but loved it the moment I walked in (such an interesting, well organized/taught class). My favorite class/professor at King’s.

7. The way she teaches makes me actually interested in a subject I never would be otherwise. Ms. DeWitt draws pictures and gives simple examples to make complex ideas more understandable. She is an amazing teacher and understands our point of view and is always willing to help.

8. I do not have any interest in philosophy, but I loved this course. I learned new things and the professor made me think outside the box.

9. I like that she was extremely encouraging. No matter what, she wanted so badly for us to like and be interested in the topic. She never gave up.

10. I loved that she picked subjects that we were interested in. It made us want to get involved. I loved the class. She really broke down philosophy so that we all could understand. Thank you!

11. Dr. DeWitt is extremely lively, fun, energetic, and most importantly, brilliant. She is so intelligent and witty. Janelle really made me love and appreciate this course. She taught me to never give up.

12. Genuinely wants students to succeed. Understanding of student needs and problems. Presents material in an easy-to-understand way. Encourages students to challenge themselves.

University of California, Los Angeles (2005-10) 1. Great TA. Supplementary handouts were extremely helpful in understanding complex ideas or difficult

notions. Her “How to Write a Philosophy Paper” handout was by far the single best thing I’ve ever gotten from a TA. Help outside of class and communication skills very good. Would recommend to friends.

2. Janelle is the greatest TA ever! Janelle combines qualities of rigorous educational standards with an uncanny personal concern for individual students. She has gone above and beyond the call of duty to help me on numerous occasions.

3. She takes the time to thoroughly explain everything. Very concerned with my ability to understand the subject. While demanding in her grading of papers, she takes careful time to explain what I did wrong and I feel that my writing is getting better thanks to her efforts. Great TA.

* A full set of comments from UCLA (2005-2010) is available at https://ucla.academia.edu/JanelleDeWitt.

Janelle DeWitt | 10

Sample Course Descriptions | Janelle DeWitt

Emotion and the Psychology of Good and Evil Historically, certain philosophers have considered emotion to be essential to a flourishing human life or life of virtue. Yet there are others who have taken the opposite stance, warning instead of its destructive and irrational tendencies. In this course, we will explore the nature of emotion and its significance in various aspects of human life. We will begin with a brief overview of the major theories of emotion. We will then discuss several claims scholars have made about the relevance or purpose of emotion in human life, such as its function in the epistemology of value, its influence on reasoning and deliberation, its relation to motivation, and its role in building social connections that help to constitute communities. We will also consider cases in which emotion may fail, such as with autism, psychopathy, or PTSD, and the impact this failure has on the life of the individual. In these cases, we see that some failures seem to be responsible for the worst forms of human depravity, while others merely inhibit a person's ability to connect with others in meaningful ways. And finally, we will explore these claims in relation to two major moral theories—Aristotle and Kant. For Aristotle, emotion is central to a flourishing human life or a life of virtue. In contrast, Kant has traditionally been thought to have viewed emotion with little, if any, importance. These two theories will then provide a range to consider the degree to which a moral theory must make room for emotion. The “Two-Wills” Moral Psychology of Anselm and Kant Theories of the Will There are certain elements of Kant’s account of the will that have been notoriously difficult to interpret, much less to defend. What is it that makes us free? What does it mean to will spontaneously? Autonomously? Are we really more free, rather than less free, when we restrict our range of actions to those that accord with the demands of morality? If to be free is to be moral, and to be moral is to be rational, then does that mean that no one is responsible for their immoral actions? What do we really mean by happiness? Is it merely the maximal satisfaction of my desires, or is there something more involved? Can I aim to be both moral and happy? Or must I choose morality to the exclusion of my own happiness? The answers Kantians have typically given to these questions have been less than satisfying. I believe the key to more compelling answers lies in a better understanding of the two-wills doctrine underlying Kant’s account of the will and the impact it has on the rest of his moral theory. Thus, the aim of this class will be to reconsider Kant’s moral psychology in light of the original “two wills” account found in the work of Anselm of Canterbury. In Anselm’s development of this doctrine, we find such key Kantian concepts as moral self-determination/legislation, spontaneity of the will, intellectual evil, the highest good, etc. But more importantly, we also find a full complement of arguments in support of these concepts and an explanation of how they are intended to fit together—arguments and explanations that are often buried in a mire of theoretical entanglements, assumed as background, or missing altogether in Kant’s own account. Historical Theories of the Self/Soul/Mind/I What does it mean to have a mind, a soul, a self, or an ‘I’? Are these all ways of referring to a single thing, or are they distinct from each other? What is the mind’s relationship to the body? Is the mind identical to the brain, or is it something else altogether? Could we have more than one self? One type of self? What does it mean to be a person? How is being a person different from being a human being? In this undergraduate seminar, we will consider a range of historical attempts to address these questions. Some of the figures we might cover include Epictetus, Augustine, Aquinas, Avicenna, Olivi, Descartes, Locke, Hume, and Kant.

Janelle DeWitt | 11

Bioethics This course is an introduction to biomedical ethics. Medicine and biomedical research have the noble goals of improving the health, well-being, quality of life, and happiness of all human beings through the practices and technology they develop. But can medicine/biotechnology go too far in their attempts to achieve these goals? Are there certain means to these goals that are simply off-limits? And if so, how do we determine where the ethical lines are that cannot be crossed? The course will begin with a brief overview of the major moral theories and principles used in analyzing moral issues. We will then turn to a brief history of the eugenics movement in America—a movement that led science and medicine in the early 20th century to cross ethical lines, not just in the development of public policy in the US, but even in helping to inspire the Nazi holocaust. For the second half of the course, we will collectively select and intensively explore a small set of current issues in biomedical ethics, such as end of life care/euthanasia, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gene-therapy, or research involving human subjects, especially in relation to infectious diseases such as AIDS and Ebola. We will also discuss concepts central to these issues, such as “what is it to be human, or to be a person?”, “what is it to value our humanity?”, and “what makes life worth living, or gives quality to our lives?” Ethics as an Introduction to Philosophy The topics addressed in this course will be framed by the general theme of “What is the good and what is our relationship to it?” In considering conceptions of the good, we will cover the moral theories of Aristotle, Aquinas/Anselm, Kant, and Mill. Each has something distinctive to say about the nature of a good human life and what constitutes a good human community. In considering both of these general conceptions (the private and public good), we will also explore the idea of what it means to be a human being, and what it means to live in community with others. Are we human in virtue of our rationality, our emotions, our basic needs and desires, our social tendencies, or our spiritual dimension? Is our shared humanity what binds us together in society, and if so, in what way? What obligations do we have to ourselves and to others in virtue of this humanity (whatever constitutes it)? How do we negotiate our own legitimate pursuit of happiness with the demands of morality, justice, and/or the good of the society (on which our happiness in part depends)? Would the possibility of an afterlife change any of this? In discussing these questions, we will begin to discover what constitutes a good human life, a good human society, and the proper relation between the two. Emotion in Medieval and Modern Philosophy What is an emotion? Even though emotion is one of the most familiar experiences a human being can have, it is also one of the most difficult phenomena to explain. This is due, in large part, to their interconnectedness with almost every aspect of our existence. Emotions have been thought to relate to sensations, perception, attention, imagination, the self, the will, reason, and action. They are central to accounts of morality, aesthetics, social and political relations, and even education. Emotions are thought to be found in a wide range of beings, from God all the way down to non-rational animals. And the theories explaining them are just as wide-ranging, from the purely rational accounts (among others) found in philosophy to the physiological accounts found in science and medicine. Historically, some of the most interesting discussions about emotion, its function in the mind, and its value in the activity of human life, took place during the medieval and modern periods. In this course, we will explore the work some of these philosophers, including Augustine, Abelard, Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham, Suarez, Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hume, Smith, and culminating in the most unlikely figure of Kant.

Phil 152A: Topics in Moral Philosophy

Emotions and the Psychology of Good and Evil

Instructor:

Janelle DeWitt

dewitt@humnet.ucla.edu

Dodd 395

OH: M 2-3, W 11-noon, and by appointment

Teaching Assistant:

…@humnet.ucla.edu

Dodd 330

OH: T 2-4

Course

M/W noon-1:50, Royce Hall 156

Course Description

Historically, certain philosophers have considered emotion to be essential to a flourishing human life or life of

virtue. Yet there are others who have taken the opposite stance, warning instead of its destructive and

irrational tendencies. In this course, we will explore the nature of emotion and its significance in various

aspects of human life. We will begin with a brief overview of the major theories of emotion. We will then

discuss several claims scholars have made about the relevance or purpose of emotion in human life, such as

its function in the epistemology of value, its influence on reasoning and deliberation, its relation to

motivation, and its role in building social connections that help to constitute communities. We will also

consider cases in which emotion may fail, such as with autism, psychopathy, or PTSD, and the impact this

failure has on the life of the individual. In these cases, we see that some failures seem to be responsible for the

worst forms of human depravity, while others merely inhibit a person's ability to connect with others in

meaningful ways. We will question what it might be about emotion, or the lack thereof, that explains this

difference. And finally, we will explore these claims in relation to two major moral theories—Aristotle and

Kant. For Aristotle, emotion is central to a flourishing human life or a life of virtue. In contrast, Kant has

traditionally been thought to have viewed emotion with little, if any, importance. These two theories will then

provide a range to consider to what degree, and in what way, a moral theory must make room for emotion.

Course Objectives

There are two primary course objectives.

1. To consider some of the complex questions related to the nature of emotion, its relation to moral

motivation and moral judgment, its role in helping to achieve human happiness/well-being, and its

tendency to distort, damage, or undermine those goods.

2. More generally, to learn how to think, not what to think. This includes:

a. Learning to read difficult philosophical texts carefully, critically, but also charitably.

b. Learning how to develop your own positions and to defend them with arguments, in class

discussion and in written work.

c. Learning how to discuss complex and often sensitive ideas with others in a way that leads to a

better understanding of each other and the topic at hand—even when you may vehemently

disagree on the topic. It is only through an open and respectful exchange of ideas that any

progress might be made on the most difficult moral issues we currently face.

Course Requirements

90% 2 Papers (4-7 pages) (45% each)

10% 5 one-page reaction papers

The readings will be posted as pdf’s on the course website, unless otherwise noted. You are expected to

complete the readings before class. Regular attendance at all lectures is also expected.

The one-page reaction papers are due via Turnitin each Sunday (at midnight). They should cover the

upcoming week’s assignments. But because the reading schedule is tentative, this is not a hard and fast rule

(i.e. a week ahead/behind is OK). The goal with these one-page papers is not to summarize the readings to

show you have done the work. (That’s boring.) Instead, you should discuss your reaction to the readings—

i.e., point out the things you find interesting, annoying, totally wrong, puzzling, confusing, etc. and then

discuss why you find them so. So that you will be comfortable in exploring some of your more

risky/bold/creative/fuzzy ideas without worrying about it impacting your course grade, they will be graded

on a √/√- system. √ = satisfactory work, √- = not turned in or unsatisfactory work (e.g., half-page or

unserious “fluff”). You need only submit reaction papers for 5 of the 10 weeks. For this reason, late/make-

up reaction papers will not be accepted. (My advice, get them done early. The feedback will help with your

papers, and you will get them out of the way when you have more time to do them.)

The assigned/graded papers are due on the due date listed in the syllabus (unless otherwise noted in class).

You will need to submit both a hard copy in class, and an electronic copy via Turnitin. Late papers will be

penalized 1/3 letter grade/day late.

Accommodations for Students with Disabilities

Students needing academic accommodations based on a disability should contact the Center for Accessible

Education (CAE, previously known as the Office for Students with Disabilities) at (310) 825-1501 or in

person at A255 Murphy Hall. When possible, students should contact CAE within the first two weeks of the

term as reasonable notice is needed to coordinate accommodations. For more information visit

www.cae.ucla.edu. Only students with a disability documented by CAE will receive accommodations.

Academic Integrity

Academic misconduct in any form (including plagiarism, note-selling, multiple submissions, and cheating)

will be dealt with according to UCLA’s policy and procedures regarding academic honesty. This includes

reporting suspected violations to the Dean of Students. If you are uncertain as to what constitutes plagiarism,

the library has a helpful guide (http://guides.library.ucla.edu/citing/plagiarism/avoid). When you submit

an assignment with your name on it, you are signifying that the work contained therein is yours, unless

otherwise cited or referenced. Any ideas or materials taken from another source for either written or oral use

must be fully acknowledged. Penalties for academic misconduct may include a failing grade on the

assignment, a reduction in your final course grade, and/or a failing grade in the course, among other

possibilities. If you are unsure about the expectations for completing an assignment or taking a test exam, be

sure to seek clarification beforehand.

An additional warning to the generous at heart: If a classmate asks to see your paper because he is having a

hard time with his, I advise against sharing it. In particular, don't email it to him. If he copies (even parts of)

it, and the result is that two papers are submitted that look very similar, you may both face penalties. Instead,

advise him to talk with me about his writing problems. (I’m really good at helping in cases like these.) You

are, of course, free to talk with classmates, listening to their ideas and giving suggestions (in each case giving

credit where credit is due), but if someone is putting pressure on you to share a draft of your paper with him,

don't.

An additional warning to the bold at heart: I take plagiarism (and academic misconduct in general) very,

very seriously. Everyone recognizes that it undermines the integrity of the class and the grades issued for it.

But it is especially problematic for a philosophy class because it undermines the very point of the class

itself—to teach you how to think for yourself. When you “borrow” material from the internet, from a friend,

etc., and present it as your own, you are essentially telling me that you have nothing important to say, or that

you can’t arrive at an interesting answer on your own—i.e., that you cannot think for yourself (when I know

that you can). It is because of this, and because it is an ethics course, that I will be especially vigilant.

Tentative Reading and Assignment Schedule

What, exactly, are emotions?

Week 1 Introduction and Background

Optional:

Damasio—“Unpleasantness in Vermont” (Ch 1 in Descartes’ Error)

Week 2 Solomon—“The Philosophy of Emotions” (Ch 1 in Handbook of Emotions)

James—“What is an Emotion?”

Week 3 Solomon—“Emotions, Thoughts, and Feelings: Emotions as Engagements with the World” (Ch 5

in Thinking about Feeling)

Nussbaum—“Emotions as Judgments of Value and Importance” (Ch 12 in Thinking about Feeling)

Optional:

Myers—“William James’s Theory of Emotion”

Leighton—“Modern Theories of Emotion”

Solomon—“On Emotions as Judgments” (Ch 7 in Not Passion’s Slave)

Solomon—“Emotions as Evaluative Judgments” (Ch 18 of True to Our Feelings)

What is their place is happiness/morality?

Week 4 Aristotle--Nicomachean Ethics Book I-III

Optional:

Solomon—“Why It Is Good to Be Afraid” (Ch 2 of True to Our Feelings)

Adamos—“Aristotle on Emotions and Contemporary Psychology”

Week 5 Kant--The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Section I

Week 6 Kant--The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Section II

Week 7 Sherman—“Moral Psychology and Virtue” (Ch 35 in The Oxford Handbook of the History of

Ethics)

Sherman—“The Place of Emotions in Kantian Morality”

Optional:

DeWitt—“Feeling and Inclination: Rationalizing the Animal Within”

What is their place in happiness?

Week 8 Solomon—excerpt from “Extremes of Emotion: Grief, Laughter, and Happiness” (Ch 6 in True

to Our Feelings)

Solomon—“Happiness, Spirituality, and Emotional Integrity” (Ch 23 in True to Our Feelings)

Optional:

Csikszentmihalyi—“The Concept of Flow”

What happens when they fail? Immoral Emotions, Emotional Extremes, Psychopathy, Autism,

PTSD, and other forms of emotional disorder

Week 9/10 OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM:

Psychopathy

Nichols—“How Psychopaths Threat Moral Rationality, or Is it Irrational to Be Amoral?”

Kennett--“Do Psychopaths Really Threaten Moral Rationalism?”

Sherman—“Reborn but Dead” (Ch 1 in After War: Healing the Moral Wounds of Our Soldiers)

Cahill and Foa—“Psychological Theories of PTSD” (Ch 4 in Handbook of PTSD)

Chemtob, et al—“A Cognitive Action Theory of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder”

Autism

Kennett—“Autism, Empathy and Moral Agency”

Immoral Emotions and/or Emotional Extremes

Anger/Wrath/Vengeance and Sympathy/Compassion

Solomon—“Anger as a Way of Engaging the World” (Ch 1 of True to Our Feelings)

Frijda—“The Lex Talionis—On Vengeance” (Ch 10 of Emotions—Essays in Emotion Theory)

Solomon—“Sympathy and Vengeance—The Role of the Emotions in Justice” (Ch 11 from

Emotions—Essays in Emotion Theory)

Sherman—Aristotle, the Stoics, and Kant on Anger (from Perfecting Virtue)

Blum—“Compassion”

Solomon—“We Are Not Alone: Compassion and Sympathy” (Ch 5 of True to Our Feelings)

Jealousy/Envy/Schadenfreude and conceptions of self-worth

Excerpts from Kant on jealousy/envy/Schadenfreude

Ben-Ze'ev--Pleasure-in-Others'-Misfortune

Lewis—“The Role of the Self in Cognition and Emotion” (Ch 7 in Handbook of

Cognition and Emotion)

Solomon—“Nasty Emotions: Envy, Spite, Jealousy, Resentment and Vengeance” (Ch 8 in True

to Our Feelings)

Taylor—“Envy and Jealousy—Emotions and Vices”

Phil C119: Topics in Philosophy

The “Two-Wills” Moral Psychology of Anselm and Kant Winter 2019

Instructor

Janelle DeWitt

Dodd 355

OH: Th 2-4 and by appointment

Course

T/R 12-1:50, Rolfe Hall 3108

Course Description

There are certain elements of Kant’s account of the will that have been notoriously difficult to interpret,

much less to defend. What is it that makes us free? What does it mean to will spontaneously?

Autonomously? Are we really more free, rather than less free, when we restrict our range of actions to

those that accord with the demands of morality? If to be free is to be moral, and to be moral is to be

rational, then does that mean that no one is responsible for their immoral actions? What do we really

mean by happiness? Is it merely the maximal satisfaction of my desires, or is there something more

involved? Can I aim to be both moral and happy? Or must I choose morality to the exclusion of my own

happiness? The answers Kantians have typically given to these questions have been less than satisfying.

I believe the key to more compelling answers lies in a better understanding of the two-wills doctrine

underlying Kant’s account of the will and the impact it has on the rest of his moral theory.

Thus, the aim of this class will be to reconsider Kant’s moral psychology in light of the original “two

wills” account found in the work of Anselm of Canterbury. In Anselm’s development of this doctrine, we

find such key Kantian concepts as moral self-determination/legislation, spontaneity of the will,

intellectual evil, the highest good, etc. But more importantly, we also find a full complement of

arguments in support of these concepts and an explanation of how they are intended to fit together—

arguments and explanations that are often buried in a mire of theoretical entanglements, assumed as

background, or missing altogether in Kant’s own account.

Course Objectives

1. To consider some of the complex questions related to our moral agency, including questions

about moral motivation, moral judgment, moral responsibility, moral evil, and their relation to

individual happiness/well-being.

c. Learning how to discuss complex and often sensitive ideas with others in a way that leads

to a better understanding of each other and the topic at hand—even when you may

vehemently disagree on the topic. It is only through an open and respectful exchange of

ideas that any progress might be made on the most difficult moral issues we currently face.

Course Requirements

Undergraduate students

40% 1 Paper (3-4 pages)

Graduate students

90% 2 Papers (7-9 pages)

or 1 Paper (15-20 pages)

Required Texts

Anselm, Three Philosophical Dialogues, trans. Thomas Williams, Hackett Publishing.

Kant, Practical Philosophy, ed. Mary Gregor, Cambridge University Press.

Kant, Religion within the Bounds of Mere Reason, trans. Wood and Di Giovanni, Cambridge Univ. Press.

Any additional readings assigned will be posted as pdf’s on the course website. You are expected to

complete the readings before class. Regular attendance at all lectures is also expected.

The reading and assignment schedule is tentative, subject to course pacing. The reading assignments will

be short, but very difficult. (We will usually cover about 5-10 pages per class period.) My suggestion is to

read through the assignment once quickly before class, listen to the lecture, and then read through it again

more carefully afterwards. The material will make more sense the second time around.

The one-page reaction papers are due by email on the Monday of that week’s assignments. You need only

submit reaction papers for 5 of the 10 weeks. For this reason, late/make-up reaction papers will not be

accepted. These papers will be graded on a √/√- system. √ = satisfactory work, √- = not turned in or

unsatisfactory work (e.g., half-page or unserious “fluff”). They are graded on this system so that you can

be comfortable in exploring some of your more risky/bold/creative/fuzzy ideas without worrying about it

impacting your course grade.

The assigned papers are due on the due date listed in the syllabus (unless otherwise noted in class). An

automatic 2-day extension will be granted if requested before the paper is due. Any papers submitted after

the due date (or after the 2-day extension when requested) will be penalized 1/3 letter grade/day late. When

turning in papers, you will need to submit both a hard copy in class and an electronic copy via Turnitin.

Students needing academic accommodations based on a disability should contact the Center for

Accessible Education (CAE, previously known as the Office for Students with Disabilities) at (310) 825-

1501 or in person at A255 Murphy Hall. When possible, students should contact CAE within the first

two weeks of the term as reasonable notice is needed to coordinate accommodations. For more

information visit www.cae.ucla.edu. Only students with a disability documented by CAE will receive

accommodations.

Academic Integrity

reporting suspected violations to the Dean of Students. If you are uncertain as to what constitutes

plagiarism, the library has a helpful guide (http://guides.library.ucla.edu/citing/plagiarism/avoid). When

you submit an assignment with your name on it, you are signifying that the work contained therein is

yours, unless otherwise cited or referenced. Any ideas or materials taken from another source for either

written or oral use must be fully acknowledged. Penalties for academic misconduct may include a failing

grade on the assignment, a reduction in your final course grade, and/or a failing grade in the course, among

other possibilities. If you are unsure about the expectations for completing an assignment or taking a test

exam, be sure to seek clarification beforehand.

Week 1 (1/8, 1/10) Background/Introduction

On Truth, Ch 3-4, 12

Week 2 (1/15, 1/17) On the Freedom of the Will

Week 3 (1/22, 1/24) On the Freedom of the Will continued

On the Fall of the Devil

Week 4 (1/29, 1/31) On the Fall of the Devil continued

Week 5 (2/5, 2/7) On the Fall of the Devil continued

Week 6 (2/12, 2/14) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals I

Paper #1 due (Tuesday, Feb. 12)

Week 7 (2/19, 2/21) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals II

Week 8 (2/26, 2/28) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals III

Metaphysics of Morals—Intro—Sections I-II (6:214-221)

Week 9 (3/5, 3/7) Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, Part I

Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, Part II

Week 10 (3/12, 3/14) Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, Part II

Critique of Practical Reason—Highest Good (5:108-115)

Week 11 (finals week) Paper #2 due (Friday, Mar. 22nd)

Phil C151B—History of Ethics: Modern Fall 2019

Instructor

Janelle DeWitt

OH: W 1-2, Th 2-3 and by appointment

Course

T/Th 12-1:50, Bunche Hall 3153

Course Description

This course will engage in an intensive study of three central texts of Kant’s ethics—the Groundwork of

the Metaphysics of Morals, the Critique of Practical Reason, and the Metaphysics of Morals. We will be

exploring various elements of his ethical theory, such as the nature of moral principles, moral motivation,

happiness, emotion, freedom, virtue, vice, and the highest good.

Course Objectives

about moral motivation, moral judgment, moral responsibility, moral evil, and their relation to

individual happiness/well-being.

Course Requirements

Undergraduate students

Graduate students

90% 2 Papers (7-9 pages)

or 1 Paper (15-20 pages)

Required Texts

Kant, Practical Philosophy, Cambridge University Press.

Any additional readings assigned will be posted as pdf’s on the course website.