Teaching Portfolio

1

TEACHING PORTFOLIO

Eric Campbell Georgetown University

Table of Contents Teaching Experience and Interests ..................................................................................................................... 2

Statement of Teaching Philosophy ..................................................................................................................... 4

Teaching Evaluations .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Sample Syllabi .................................................................................................................................................. 11

PHIL 13: Introduction to Ethics (Spring 2013) ............................................................................................ 11

PHIL 137: Philosophy of Action (Winter 2012) ........................................................................................... 15

PHIL 108: Nietzsche (Spring 2011)…………………………………………………………………………………19

STRT 282: Social Responsibilities of Business (Fall 2014)..…………………………………………………….22

Eric Campbell 2

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

As Instructor (two courses will be taught Spring 2015)

• Introduction to Ethics (Summer 2010, Summer 2011, Spring 2013) An introduction to ethical inquiry, with a focus on (avoiding) threats to such inquiry (syllabus included).

• Logic and Scientific Reasoning (Fall 2011, Spring 2012) An introduction to the study of probability, inductive logic, scientific reasoning, and rational choice among competing hypotheses and alternative courses of action when the evidence is incomplete or uncertain.

• Nietzsche (Spring 2011) An extensive exploration of Nietzsche’s philosophy (syllabus included).

• Philosophy of Action (Winter 2012) Topics included freedom and responsibility; action, agency and motivation; the relationships between rationality and willpower, including questions of responsibility for addictive behavior (syllabus included).

• Introduction to Philosophy (Winter 2013) Topics covered include Mind, Knowledge, Language, Science, Morality and Law

• Social Responsibilities of Business (Fall 2014) This course is designed primarily to teach students how to deal with ethical dilemmas that can arise in a business context, as managers, consumers and citizens (see attached syllabus).

• Nietzsche on Values (Spring 2015) An examination of Nietzsche’s philosophy with a focus on values and evaluation (syllabus in progress).

• Morality and Psychology (Spring 2015) An investigation into whether and in what ways psychological research can help address some traditional moral questions, focusing on questions of freedom, responsibility, praise, blame, and the nature of agency more generally.

As Teaching Assistant (Department of Philosophy, UC San Diego)

• Introduction to Logic • Logic and Scientific Reasoning • Introduction to Ethics (X2) • Epistemology • Ethics and Society (X5) • Introduction to Ancient Philosophy • Nietzsche • Philosophy of Mind • Bio-Medical Ethics (X2)

Eric Campbell 3

TEACHING INTERESTS

My teaching interests include, but are not limited to, the following courses:

Lower-Division Upper-Division Graduate Intro to Philosophy Intro to Ethics Applied Ethics Ancient Philosophy Epistemology Existentialism Logic and Decision- Making Philosophy and Literature Philosophy of Law Philosophy of Mind Business Ethics

Moral Psychology Evolution and Morality Ethical Theory Political Philosophy Human Nature and Values Bioethics Enviromental Ethics Philosophy of Law Ethics of Propaganda Existentialism Judgment and Decision- Making Nietzsche Naturalism and Normativity Philosophy and Literature Philosophy of Mind Philosophy of Action Morality and Evolution Practical Reasoning Naturalism and Normativity Business Ethics

Moral Psychology Metaethics Human Nature and Values Morality and Evolution Practical Reason and

Value Nietzsche Naturalism and

Normativity

Eric Campbell 4

STATEMENT OF TEACHING PHILOSOPHY On The Value of Teaching Philosophy

It’s not unusual to hear intelligent people say that they are bad at math, science, writing, art, music—or philosophy. I have yet to hear anyone say that they are a poor critical reasoner or that they are incompetent to evaluate or provide arguments for their views. Having these capacities is at the heart of our conception of what it is to be a person whose opinions are worth taking seriously. Therefore, it is profoundly important for people to have and be seen to have these skills, and I think this largely explains why almost nobody claims to be without them. This is not to say that people are aware either of how important it is to them to reason well or that they do not do so nearly as well as they might. Indeed, bringing students to see that they already care about being better than they are in this regard is at the heart of my approach to teaching any philosophy course. Then I try to show them that they can have the power they want. That is, I try to show them that with practice they can make progress on difficult, even seemingly intractable problems—that they can become better at making a case for their views and understanding and evaluating the arguments of others. I’m especially concerned to show that these skills can be fruitfully applied to questions of value and meaning in life. I exhibit a passion for philosophy that many students have found contagious.

On My Teaching Methods and Experience My first goal in any philosophy class is Socratic in that I attempt to generate a productive confusion

in my students. For example, in my introductory ethics class, I begin by having the students read clear and forceful arguments against views at least one of which most students come to class finding plausible if not obvious—psychological egoism, divine command theory and ethical relativism. I have students write a short paper early in the course that requires them to recapitulate the best objection against the view of their choice and then respond to that objection. Having the students write a paper on something about which they are likely to have had some prior opinion seems a good way to motivate them to care about the feedback they receive, which I want them to have in time for it to affect their longer, more difficult papers. One of my central commitments is to teach even introductory classes in a way that can captivate and challenge any student. For this reason, I included material in my introductory ethics class that, despite extensive online lecture notes and careful lectures, was probably too demanding for some students. However, after wrestling with how to change the course, I decided to rearrange the material somewhat and try to more clearly explain the difficult readings in class and notes. The reason for this decision is that the first time I taught the course, I had a small group of students repeatedly stay after class to talk with me for up to an hour—after a three-hour summer lecture!—and every time I was the one to end the conversation, feeling that if I didn’t, they never would. Those are some of my fondest memories of teaching. I know that developing courses that allow for broad engagement while also providing enough challenge and stimulation for the most interested and talented students is one of the most difficult balances I will have to strike in my teaching career. I think I struck that balance better in my subsequent introductory courses, and very well in my upper-division courses on Nietzsche and the Philosophy of Action. In three of these courses (especially Nietzsche) I again had passionate students, some of whom often stayed long after class to talk philosophy. These experiences have reaffirmed my commitment to continually seek that difficult balance. Student comments for three of these four classes are included below.

Eric Campbell 5

STUDENT EVALUATIONS AS COURSE INSTRUCTOR

Summary Quantitative Data1

Phil 13: Introduction to Ethics, Summer 2010

Recommend Course: 60% Recommend Instructor: 90%

Phil 13: Introduction to Ethics, Summer 2011

Recommend Course: 58% Recommend Instructor: 88% Phil 13: Introduction to Ethics, Spring 2013


Phil 12: Logic and Decision-Making, Fall 2011

Recommend Course: 83% Recommend Instructor: 88% Phil 12: Logic and Decision-Making, Spring 2012

Recommend Course: 71% Recommend Instructor: 81% Phil 1: Introduction to Philosophy, Winter 2013

Recommend Course: 96% Recommend Instructor: 100% Phil 108: 19th-Century Philosophy (Nietzsche), Spring 2011


Phil 137: Philosophy of Action, Winter 2012


1 For all but the first two courses listed here, I have used evaluation data recorded by the philosophy department, as

Eric Campbell 6

Qualitative Instructor Evaluations

Introduction to Ethics, Spring 2013 (Complete Comments)

Campbell is very knowledgeable of the concepts he teaches us. But, he rambles and this makes it hard when taking notes. He firmly believes that students should read the course material and that's why he has weekly pop quizzes, so you have to read, or else it's your ass. He's very strict about no electronic devices, and for good reason. The stuff he teaches requires basic knowledge of the readings and some critical thinking. Even though he may be a hard ass, he's a really good professor who knows his shit. Eric is always prepared for the lectures and I like how he's always ready to present the lectures to us. He definitely shows a great deal of knowledge for the course and helps engage me in thinking about these ethical issues. Great professor. He did a great job of explaining both sides of each argument, and tried very hard to explain very difficult material in an easy to understand way. Although I am an electrical engineering major, his lectures and style of teaching kept me very engaged throughout the quarter. He was very open to allowing students to ask questions or proposes situations, and he did a great job of explaining where misunderstandings might be. Also, he wasn't afraid to use humor to communicate problems with some of the view points on morality, which made class even better. He also never dismissed anyone's opinions about the topics. He may have corrected someone if they didn't understand something correctly, but he was open to different viewpoints on morality. Overall: Great professor. Would love to be able to take more classes with him. Great teacher. He is a strong speaker, but he speaks rather quickly. He does not allow laptops or any other electronics to be visible during lecture, so any notes must be taken on paper. This makes it somewhat difficult to take notes on the lectures, which is something that I would normally prefer doing. He is really cool and well-prepared. He interprets philosophy ideas very clearly and interestingly. he knows a lot. like his teaching style.

He knows his stuff and gives great examples on how to relate to the readings. He should structure his lecture where he can outline an argument first to get whatever point an author wanted to the students, and then say what their supporting ideas are. THEN go into the arguments. He would just write them down and go over the argument. He should also spend some time in clearly defining some of the philosophical terms in layman's terms (not in more philosophical terms) before using them for an entire lecture in convoluted arguments. This can also go for the arguments in general, they were hard to follow because of the complexity of his wording. The use of profanity shouldn't be used as a way for cheap laughs either, it doesn't sound professional.

Eric Campbell 7

Holds attention of the class well and leads a cohesive class throughout the quarter, each lecture builds upon the last creating a plentiful learning environment. Lectures are entertaining and stimulating. I never fall asleep or feel like falling asleep in the lectures. Occasionally you can speak a bit too fast though, but I can still hear what you said very clearly. I'm not that good with logics so philosophy can be kind of confusing to me, so it would be nice if you can slow down when you get too excited. My only complaint is that he is too good at what the does for an intro course. His proficiency in philosophy was intimidating at times even though he communicated in a down-to-earth style. Perhaps going over material in slower speech and being less harsh and to the point would encourage more feedback during lecture he is always looking for. It makes the class look like it does not care when we are really just speechless and unsure of what we even understood before lecture. Professor Campbell is very informed on this topic and he's a pretty good teacher. He needs to be able to tone it down for us undergrads, though. I was confused a few times. The professor has great energy and desire toward teaching. He provides outlines of his lectures, and makes sure that the class understands the material by providing as many examples and wording changes that are needed, which assist in learning the material. He maintains the attention of the students for the entire hour of class. As an introductory course to ethics, I feel it's a little too dense for complete comprehension of the concepts. Helps you make good argument. I feel like this would be interesting to philosophy majors, but only regarded as a necessary GE to most others. interesting. makes me think that I have never really thought about. It gives an introduction, but then throws us full on into philosophy and seems too difficult in that sense. We are given a lot of help grade wise, but the material still can fly over our heads. It is a very long and difficult course. I dislike philosophy so i am a little biased against it. It's a pretty good course if you're into this stuff. I mean, it's not my favorite thing to sit and think about but I learned some cool stuff. PHIL 13 was harder than I anticipated and yet, I still find myself intrigued with these questions surrounding different theories of morality. I found it really hard to write in the style of a philosopher but over time, I figured out more about how to think more logically. Readings are hard. I hope we only need to read the lecture notes you gave us. Should be required for every student to take. It is fundamental to understanding your own world views and brings to light important questions about life which are often forgotten amongst science and math majors. The class improved my understanding of morality and I am glad I took it.

Eric Campbell 8

The course itself has prompted me to evaluate my own ethics and the ethics of those around me. It also opened me up to new ways to interpret the world around me. The course material was interesting and challenged many of my preconceived notions that I had coming into the class. I thought the look at each theory/argument was fair with each viewpoint represented well. Ultimately the course left me with more questions than answers. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, but the course didn't give me any one theory which answered all my questions and felt satisfying to explain morality. While both the Professor and TAs for this class did a great job, I have found that I much prefer the hard sciences to Philosophy and therefore did not enjoy the class.

Nietzsche, Spring 2011 (Complete Comments)

Nice professor. Young/hip.

Eric talks with his hands, it is really interesting, he makes really large gestures and you can teel he has a specific image in his head of what he is talking about and somehow he uses his whole body to demonstrate it. Not a bad thing at all, it is really interesting to watch actually, and I think it helps him when he is talking. He is a good lecturer though, very clear and obviously know a lot about Nietzsche. He is able to answer questions from his own standpoint and from what he predicts would be Nietzsche's standpoint. That being said, the beginning of the course was a bit difficult to follow and the end of the course was as well. I think that when the Leiter book was relevant to class, he tended to structure his lecture around it (while adding his own emphasis and discussion) and that was useful because it really gave class structure and he would write on the board, which I found really helpful, but after the book was not relevant, lectures got a bit more scattered on subjects. Overall, I think Eric was a good instructor and he brought out interesting topics in Nietzsche's work.

Seriously knowledgeable and really cares about getting the point across. Came off as a little harsh in the beginning of class, but warmed up toward the end. Takes the time to fully answer questions in a way that was clear, well thought out, and helpful. A+ all around. Even though the material was hard and my grade will be below what I want it, Campbell really did a great job. Completely lived up to my expectations of Philosophy at UCSD. Sort of reminded me of when Watkins taught Kant; the material was super hard but the lectures made it accessible.

Good teacher, really friendly guy, nice to have a personable professor

Very proficient with the course material, which it seems can be difficult even for the most advance philosopher. Lecture notes were very helpful to have available and were always very detailed which was nice. It would be nice if he had made a better effort to learn our names, seeing as it was such a small class, however even if he didnt learn them i would suggest not to constantly remind us that you dont know us, just keeping that quiet may help. overall lectures seemed very well prepared and thought through, with main points very well emphasized. Can seem a bit condescending at times, though I have yet to meet a good philosopher who isnt. Way too authoritarian at first, maybe that was just being nervous about being a new teacher. Better about it, but still, I think, intimidating for some. Seems to prepare lecture out of secondary source more than primary source- multiple times I've had questions relevant to the primary source that did not fit into the flow of the secondary source (or his preconceived flow for the class) and were left unaddressed. I would suggest more direct interaction with the text,

Eric Campbell 9

and perhaps more advice for sections to focus on within the readings-that-are-too-big-for-us-to- possibly-discuss-comprehensively. Despite all this folks seem to be more or less interested and participating, which is a good sign.

Professor Campbell is very approachable and shows genuine concern for his students' education. His lectures are easy to follow and covers the material that was assigned for the specific day. Lastly, his enthusiasm for the subject matter is evident in every single class period which makes learning all that much better.

Willing to explain things outside of class. Very helpful and never condescending!

Lectures were good overall though there never seemed to be a clear goal most of the time, just impromptu presentation. Was hard to follow your thought processes sometimes when you would jump from one tangent to another while trying to explain some things.

Eric Campbell is an exceptionally engaging lecturer. He is truly passionate about the subject and he excellently conveys the quite difficult material. He is definitely one of the most interesting teachers I have had in my three years as a Philosophy Major at UCSD. He also was extremely generous with his time outside of class and seemed legitimately interested in talking about the material with the students.

I thoroughly enjoyed Eric Campbell as my instructor. His passion for Nietzsche really made a difficult philosopher a lot easier to understand and also very enjoyable. He is very enthusiastic and encourages students to ask questions. He always makes himself available; if he misses office hours, he reschedules and is always willing to set up an appointment if need be.

Eric Campbell has a lot of knowledge on Nietzsche. I was excited to see that this wasn't just a survey, but an in-depth scrutiny of several of Nietzsche's texts. The reading were difficult but well thought out. Mr. Campbell really took the time to explain his interpretation of Nietzsche to all of us. Eric has been a great instructor. His passion for Nietzsche is matched by his knowledge. I'm a newly declared Philosophy major and this was my first PHIL course. I enjoyed this course so much (largely because of Eric's great lecturing), that I know I made the right decision to major in Philosophy. Thanks, Eric! Enjoyed the class and the professors grasp and interest in the material.

Very knowledgeable.

He is one of the most enthusiastic professors I have had at UCSD, and he's able to capture student interest in the material without fail. Never have I went to lecture and not left feeling like the material was of the utmost importance and interest. His explanatory skills are also excellent, making a difficult subject like Nietzsche's philosophy seem like something rather simple. Best professor I've ever had. Has a great command of the material.

gave great lectures and notes. very helpful in preparing for exams. made content interesting and understandable even to someone who has never taken a philosophy class before (aka me. a biochemistry student)!!

Eric Campbell 10

excellent command of material, obviously very interested in subject, happy to reiterate or explain things in a different way, occasionally gets side-tracked but always manages to return to course material

Philosophy of Action, Winter 2012 (Complete Comments)

Like a lion. class can be extremely hard to follow as the professor will begin to make a point but then jump all over the place before actually getting to what he is trying to say. taking this class with very little philosophy background made the entire experience very frustrating and hard to keep up with. too much material is covered too quickly. despite doing all the reading, i still had issues following the professor's explanations. he was accessible and did try to help but he lacked being able to put the arguments and objectives into terms that could be understood by someone without a philosophy background. he was a great speaker though, and obviously very passionate about what he was teaching which i respect very much. Very helpful in office hours, exam are straightforward and fair Great professor, extremely friendly and engaging. Willing to take the extra step to ensure you understand the material. Always reachable for extra help even on weekends!

Eric was really incredible all quarter. He was especially helpful outside of class during office hours. He was extremely effective in explaining the readings and their concepts within the scope of the broader topics of the course. He encouraged questions, and provided deep responses to aid overall understanding of the topic/reading at hand while directly answering the content of the question at hand. He demonstrated a mastery of the material and skillfully provided the views of the writers we looked at while giving an objective view of the overall discussion within the field. I really learned a lot from Eric and, given the amount of material we covered, he really demonstrated a talent for communicating complex ideas and difficult concepts while maintaining a broader description of the issues within "philosophy of action". This can be a delicate balancing act and I appreciate how well he did it. I also want to stress that he really made a huge effort to keep in contact regarding the course and the material via email, made himself very accessible through office hours (where he was really, really helpful), and generally put a lot of time and care into teaching the course. Specifically his treatment of the paper (demanding a proposal first which he then commented on and provided direction/advice) was really helpful in fostering a thoughtful effort. I hope to be lucky enough to take another course or two under Eric's instruction. He has a talent for teaching and the care to put in the extra time and hard work that the job requires when done especially well.

Eric Campbell 11

SAMPLE SYLLABUS 1

PHIL 13: Intro to Ethics, Spring 2013 HSS 1330 11 – 1:50 Instructor: Eric Campbell OH: Roma Café, W 12 to 2 Daniel Schwartz Matthew Piper Cory Davia HSS 7089 Tue 9 – 11 HSS 8037 MF 12 – 1 HSS 8088 W 12 – 1 Readings and Course Site All readings and lecture notes will be on our course site, run by Piazza. Here is where you go to sign up for the site: piazza.com/ucsd/spring2013/phil13; and here is the course site itself: piazza.com/ucsd/spring2013/phil13/home. The readings are under ‘Resources’. All enrolled students must sign-up for this site, and you should all do this right away. Some of the lecture notes I post on here will be important to read before you read the primary material. I will also make accouncements through this site. When you sign in to the site, set it up to receive emails and check your email. If you miss any of the announcements because you haven’t signed up for the site or don’t check your email, it’s on you. The site also has a Q and A function, and students should feel free to ask questions about the class or related material. The order in which we will do the readings is pre-established, but how much time we spend on each one is not. The readings are all listed on the Piazza site in the order we will read them, and I also list them below in conjunction with the 4 parts of the course. Course Goals, Structure and Requirements This course will consist of an introduction to metaethics, normative ethics and a little bit of applied ethics. Metaethics is, very roughly speaking, the study of what is going on when we make moral judgments or engage in moral discourse. Normative ethics is, roughly speaking, the attempt to create theories about what the good or right thing to do is, or how to live a good life. Applied ethics addresses specific ethical topics, such as what to do in the face of global poverty and/or famine. All topics in this course will be interrelated. You are expected to attend all lectures and sections. I will not take attendance at lectures because I find it tedious, but I still expect you to be there. I will present material in lecture that will be available nowhere else. There I will provide responses to the readings that it will be crucial for you to be aware of when writing your papers. You can expect to do very poorly if you miss lectures. I’m doing it this way because I really want you to both attend and pay attention in lectures. If you have to miss a lecture, please let me know in advance if possible. If you have work or any other conflicts with lecture, please eliminate either that conflict or this class. You will almost certainly not do well if you miss multiple lectures. Further, it is crucial that you do the readings before coming to lecture. Seriously. Some of these readings are very hard, but I chose them because I think they are very interesting and play an important role in the course. It is my job to help you understand them, and to that end I will lecture over them and provide you with lecture notes. However, it is your job to try your best to read them before you come to class. If lecture is the first

Eric Campbell 12

time you are hearing the material, you will have a much harder time following the lectures and they will therefore not be nearly so helpful. Grading 1) In-class quizzes. These will take place roughly once a week at the beginning of class. They will be unannounced and can be on any day. They will be turned in no later than 10 minutes after class starts and they cannot be made up if you miss one. They will not be very difficult if you have done the reading carefully and paid attention in lecture. That is a big if. I really want you to pay attention in class and I really want you to do the reading and so I will design the quizzes with the aim that those who do these things get points and those who don’t don’t. You get to drop your lowest score (so if you have to miss one, you can drop it): 20% 2) Section attendance/participation: 10% 3) Short (900-word limit) paper due at the beginning of 3rd week (4/15): 20%. 4) Longer paper (about 2000 words) due on the day of the final exam: 35%. You are strongly encouraged to write a one-page proposal beforehand and get feedback from your T.A. before beginning to write. I will talk more about the proposals when the time comes. 5) Final Exam. This will be a short final. You should be able to do well without much additional studying if and only if you have been doing the reading carefully and paying attention in lecture all quarter: 15% Academic Integrity UCSD policy: http://senate.ucsd.edu/manual/appendices/app2.htm. You’ll have to turn your papers into turnitin.com. Further information on how to do so will be forthcoming. Electronics Laptops are not allowed in class. Seriously. I know it’s lame for those of you who would only take notes on them if I allowed them, but experience has shown me that no matter how much I insist that laptops are only to be used for note-taking, the vast majority of people cannot (or do not) resist using them in naughty ways, and this distracts other students and me. At any rate, I think it’s very easy to get too focused on taking detailed notes, and I provide you with lecture notes anyway. I want you to come to class having carefully done the readings, ready to listen, think about what I’m saying and ask questions. You should take notes when reading, and I am perfectly happy for you to take notes when I’m talking, but what is most important in lecture is that you’re paying attention and thinking. The notes you take should be limited to main ideas and/or things not in the readings. It should take only a few minutes to transfer them to your computers after class. Also, no texting or any electronic gadgetry whatever during class. If you expect to receive a vitally important message while in class, sit in the back and leave the class to take the call or message. Nobody’s perfect; I’ll give you a friendly reminder/warning the first time you use these electronic devices. The second time, I’ll ask you to withdraw from the class. If you require special accommodations of any sort, please let me know on the first day of class.

Eric Campbell 13

Part 1: Initial Threats to Moral Discourse A) Do moral obligations depend on divine will? Dostoevsky said that if God is dead, everything is permitted. This is a famous expression of the common idea that moral right and wrong depend on divine commands or will (though it seems that what he should have said is that if God is dead, then nothing is either permitted or forbidden). This claim is quite important. For if it and atheism are both true, then there can be no moral right or wrong. And if it and theism are true, then figuring out moral right and wrong becomes a matter of figuring out God’s will. And as hard as moral reasoning can be, it might be even harder or impossible to figure out God’s will.

Plato’s Euthyphro provides a famous argument against the idea that the good or right depends on divine will. Our own David Brink draws upon Euthyphro in giving a fuller account of why ethics is autonomous, in the sense of not depending on any divine will. Is morality dependent on religion? Is religion dependent on an independent morality? Read Brink’s ‘Autonomy of Ethics’ by the second class day (Wednesday). B) Is it even possible for people to be morally motivated? Many people think it is a truism that to be motivated by moral considerations involves being motivated by considerations beyond pursuing one’s self-interest. However, many philosophers, economists and laypeople have thought that people are necessarily motivated by self-interest alone. If this ‘psychological egoism’ is true, then it appears impossible to be morally motivated. Is psychological egoism true, or plausible? Read Feinberg’s ‘Psychological Egoism’ by Friday, the third class day. C) Aren’t moral norms or truths relative to different cultures, and if so, isn’t it wrong for one culture to try to impose its norms on another? Read ‘Subjectivism: First Thoughts’ by Williams. Part 2: Consequentialism, Alienation and the Demandingness of Morality Everybody thinks consequences matter in morality. Some people think only consequences (ultimately) matter. These people are called consequentialists. Those who deny this are called non-consequentialists. Both consequentialism and nonconsequentialism have many adherents. Both positions can be made to seem very plausible, even to the point of being obviously true. We will look at Mill’s argument for classical Utilitarianism, which is the view that morality requires us to maximize the total [pleasure-minus-pain] in the world. We will then look at part of a famous argument against utilitarianism by Bernard Williams, the heart of which is that utilitarianism, and consequentialism generally, lead to profound alienation and lack of integrity. Then we’ll look at an argument by Peter Singer which helps to give us some idea of what we would be morally required to do if some form of consequentialism were true (and perhaps even if some forms of non-consequentialism were true). Finally, we’ll look at a paper by Peter Railton that attempts to defend a consequentialist morality against charges that such a morality is too demanding and/or alienating. Are consequences all that matter (morally)? If so, are we morally required to promote the best overall consequences, or at least promote them impartially?

Eric Campbell 14

Read in this order: 1) The Stanford Encyclopedia entry on well-being; 2) John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, Chapters I, II and IV; 3) Nozick on Side-Constraints; 4) Bernard Williams ‘Against Utilitarianism’ Sections 3 – 5 (pp. 93 – 118 of the book); 5) Singer’s ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’; 6) Railton’s ‘Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality’ Part 3: More Serious Threats to Moral Discourse A) Are there any objective moral values? As we saw in the Brink reading, moral discourse seems to have a deep commitment to objectivity. Objectively true moral judgments are supposed to be true no matter what any person’s or group’s beliefs or concerns happen to be. Yet many people think these truths should motivate anyone who is aware of them, no matter their actual motivations. Would the universe have to contain very strange properties in order for there to be objective moral truths? Read in this order: Mackie, Chapter 1, sections 1, 2, 4, 8, 9; Dworkin ‘Objectivity and Truth’, Section IV onward. I will be providing important information in lecture about these readings that you will need to have before starting to read. B) Can acting morally conflict with acting rationally? Suppose there are objective truths about what morality requires. But also suppose that there are objective truths about what self-interest requires. What is the rational thing to do when they conflict? And suppose there are things you care about even more than self-interest or morality. Can your strongest reasons for action come apart from both self-interest and morality? And if so, does this threaten to undermine moral discourse? Read Finlay’s ‘Too Much Morality’. Part 4: The Science of Morality One way to do science relevant to ethics is to investigate the ways that people think about ethical or moral matters. This is science as applied to the domain of our ethical thinking and nothing more; it attemps to describe how we do think in a domain. Another thing to do, or something more to do, is to take the results of such experiments and attempt to draw conclusions about how we should think about ethical matters. Some people think this enterprise is simply confused. They hold that empirical investigations into what people actually do or think is simply irrelevant to what they ought to do or think. A weaker claim is that while such descriptive information could be relevant, any conclusions about how we ought to think or behave will still require irreducibly ethical, or more generally, normative premises. This is summarized in the slogan (from David Hume), ‘One cannot derive an ought from an is.’ What is the value of scientific research into morality? Can scientific investigation shed light on how we ought to think or behave? Has it already? Read Haidt’s The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology, then Greene’s The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul

Eric Campbell 15

SAMPLE SYLLABUS 2

PHIL 137: Philosophy of Action, Winter 2012 MWF Solis 109 12 – 1 Instructor: Eric Campbell Office Hours: W 1- 3 Roma Café Email: [email protected]

Requirements • Short paper (2 - 3 pages) (15%) Due: 1/27 • Midterm exam (25%) Date: 2/10 • Final Paper (7 - 9 pages) (40%) Due: 3/21 at 11:30 a.m. • Final Exam (20%) Date: 3/21 at 11:30 a.m. • Final Paper Proposal (1 – 2 pages) Due: 3/9 via email. You see that the final paper is due on the same day as the final exam. There are two primary sources of feedback I want you to make use of in your final papers. The first is the feedback you get on your short papers. The second is from my response to your proposal. The proposal is a requirement, though it is not graded. That means that I won’t accept your final paper unless you have given me a proposal. I want to be able to respond to your proposals in time for you to use the feedback in your papers, so I want you to give them to me by the 9th (it will probably take me a few days to get back to all of you, and I also want you to be able to talk to me about my responses in office hours). Proposals are to include a thesis and a general outline of how you plan to argue for it. If you think you might want to write about addiction and responsibility, you should read ahead since the proposal needs to be turned in by the 9th. We will talk more about this when the time approaches. Course Description In this course we will focus on three related (and very interesting!) topics. The first begins with challenges to our commonsense idea that we at least sometimes act freely in a way that can ground or justify being held morally responsible. Then we’ll examine a number of attempts to overcome these challenges, that is, to show that we are and/or can be morally responsible for at least some of our actions. Finally, we’ll look at an attempt to use empirical moral psychology to inform our theorizing about moral responsibility. Our next topic deals with the relationships between action, agency and motivation. We begin with the causal theory of action, which holds that all actions are caused (at least in part) by agents’ desires and/or intentions. As plausible as this sounds, in spelling out these views, it has proven difficult to retain a picture of ‘full-blooded’ agency, wherein an agent is the one acting, as opposed to various events taking place within an agent, resulting in actions that might be alienated from or at least not proceed from our agency as we (loosely) understand it. We will look closely at the relationship between motivation and agency, specifically whether our actions always ultimately proceed from nonrational desires or whether ‘pure practical reason’ can motivate us to act. Finally, we will explore the nature of and relationships between rationality and the will (or willpower). ‘Weakness of will’—understood as acting contrary to one’s best judgment—has traditionally been thought of as the paradigmatic form of practical irrationality. However, both this claim and the traditional conception of weakness of will itself have recently been powerfully criticized. We will take a look at an influential, empirically-grounded conception of willpower, as well as philosophical criticisms and employments thereof, in order to gain traction on the nature of both weakness and strength of will and their

Eric Campbell 16

relationships to practical rationality. We will finish by examining how our answers to these general questions might inform and perhaps be informed by our understanding of whether and in what ways or contexts people should be held (criminally and/or otherwise) responsible for behavior that leads to and/or stems from various addictions. Academic Integrity UCSD policy: http://senate.ucsd.edu/manual/appendices/app2.htm. You’ll have to turn your papers into turnitin.com. Further information on how to do so will be forthcoming. GoogleGroup Here is the googlegroup for the course: http://groups.google.com/group/phil137winter2012. You can email me anytime, but our primary means of communication will be on the group. All students must immediately sign up for the group (you don’t need a gmail account). Just go to the site, request to be added, and I will add you. Make sure you elect to receive email updates from the group at least daily (this does not mean that you will get an email at least once a day from the group, just that you won’t miss it when a message is sent to the group). I reserve the right to make important announcements to the group, including adding and/or changing readings or the midterm date. If you miss these announcements, it is on you, so sign up! I will also post any lecture notes there. Finally, you are encouraged to discuss course material and ask questions to me and/or one another on the group. Consider sharing interesting (and relevant) news, information, or websites you run across. Miscellaneous Laptops are not allowed in class. Seriously. I know it’s lame for those of you who would really only take notes on them if I allowed them, but experience has shown that no matter how much I insist that laptops are only to be used for note-taking, people cannot (or do not) resist using them in naughty ways, and this distracts other students as well. Also, I think it’s very easy to get too focused on taking notes anyway. I want you to come to class having done the readings and ready to listen, think about what I’m saying and ask questions. You should take notes when reading, and I am perfectly happy for you to take notes when I’m talking, but what is most important in lecture is that you’re paying attention and thinking. The notes you take should be limited to main ideas and/or things not in the readings. It should take only a few minutes to transfer them to your computers after class (I will also post lecture notes, but not necessarily for every lecture, and not necessarily in great detail). Also, no texting or any electronic gadgetry whatever. If you expect to receive a vitally important message while in class, sit in the back and leave the class to take the call or message. Nobody’s perfect; I’ll give you a friendly reminder if you forget. The second time, I will ask you to withdraw from the class. I am not taking a grade for attendance, but it is nevertheless required. For one thing, unless you are very talented and experienced and studious, you will do quite badly if you don’t come to lecture. Lectures are not just me telling you what is in the readings. I will be saying lots of things in lecture that are not in the readings, making connections between readings, criticisms thereof, etc. I will expect you to know about these things. Also, I will take quite different stances toward someone who is having trouble in the class despite showing up to class regularly and giving evidence of having

Eric Campbell 17

done the readings, vs. someone who I barely recognize when they come to me after the midterm or paper, gnashing their teeth. If you require special accommodations of any sort, please let me know on the first day of class. Readings Since googlegroups no longer hosts large documents, readings will be on the course website: https://sites.google.com/site/philactionucsdwinter2012 I will be uploading articles and chapters from books to the website. Below, I list required readings first, then sometimes add recommended readings. Some articles are from A Companion to the Philosophy of Action, edited by Tim O’Connor and Constantine Sandis. I label these with ‘(C)’. These readings are short and very helpful. Where these are recommended, they are strongly recommended (otherwise they are required). Part 1: Freedom and Responsibility Week 1: M: Galen Strawson ‘The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility’ (I will talk about this in the introductory lecture, but I want you to read it afterwards) W: Robert Kane, sections 3 and 6 – 12 of ‘Libertarianism’ F: Peter Strawson ‘Freedom and Resentment’ (W) Recommended: Fischer, ‘Responsibility and Autonomy’ (C) Week 2: M: MLK Holiday W: Frankfurt, ‘Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility’ and ‘Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person’ F: Pereboom, ‘Hard Incompatibilism’; Alfred Mele, ‘A Critique of Pereboom’s Four Case Argument’ Recommended: Gary Watson ‘Free Agency’ (W), Fischer, “Frankfurt-Style Compatibilism’2 Week 3: M: Dennett: ‘Mechanism and Responsibility’ W: Manuel Vargas, ‘Revisionism about Free Will: A Statement and Defense’, Eddie Nahmias: ‘Scientific Challenges to Free Will’ (C) F: Knobe and Doris, ‘Responsibility’ (Paper 1 due)

2 Found here: http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:Zo_t7RNyPW8J:scholar.google.com/+fischer+frankfurt-style+compatibilism&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44

Eric Campbell 18

Part 2: Action, Agency and Motivation Week 4: M: Davidson, ‘Actions, Reasons and Causes’ W: Velleman, ‘What Happens When Someone Acts’ F: Bratman ‘Reflection, Planning and Temporally Extended Agency’ Recommended: Davis, ‘The Causal Theory of Action’ (C), Frankfurt ‘A Problem for Action’ Week 5: M: Bratman, ‘Two Problems for Human Agency’ W: Schlosser ‘Agency, Ownership, and the Standard Theory’ F: Midterm Exam Week 6: M: Mele, ‘Motivational Strength’; Smith ‘Humeanism about Motivation’ (both in ‘C’) W: Wallace ‘How to Argue About Practical Reason’ F: Video. I’m showing a video this day becaue I have to be in Chicago; someone else will show the video and take attendance. I have not finalized my decision about which video yet. Week 7: M: President’s Day W: Sinhababu, ‘The Humean Theory of Motivation Reformulated and Defended’ F: May, ‘Because I Believe It’s Right’ Part 3: Rationality, Responsibility and the Will Week 8: M: Tenenbaum, ‘Akrasia and Irrationality’ (C); Davidson, ‘How is Weakness of Will Possible?’ W: Arpaly and Schroeder, ‘Praise, Blame and the Whole Self’ F: Ainslie, Precis of Breakdown of Will Week 9: M: Bratman, ‘Planning and Temptation’ W: Holton, ‘Intention and Weakness of Will’ F: Holton, ‘How is Strength of Will Possible?’ Week 10: M: Levy, ‘Addiction and Autonomy’ W: Morse, ‘Addiction and Criminal Responsibility’ F: Levy ‘Addiction, Responsibility and Ego-depletion’ Recommended: Levy, ‘Addiction and Compulsion’ (C)

Eric Campbell 19

SAMPLE SYLLABUS 3

Philosophy 108: Nineteenth Century Philosophy (Nietzsche)

Spring 2011

Instructor: Eric Campbell Solis 110 Office hours: Monday 2:45 – 4:45 or by appt. (HSS 8056) MW 5- 6:20 Email: [email protected] Class website: https://sites.google.com/site/phil108nietzsche/ It is common to suppose that philosophers like to question everything, and perhaps also to think that in doing so they run no small risk of insanity. No philosopher fits this picture better than Nietzsche, who thought that philosophers had not questioned thoroughly enough: “What provokes one to look at all philosophers half suspiciously, half mockingly, is … that they are not honest enough in their work, although they all make a lot of virtuous noise when the problem of truthfulness is touched even remotely ... They are all advocates who resent that name, and for the most part even wily spokesmen for their prejudices which they baptize ‘truths’—and very far from having the courage of conscience that admits this, precisely this, to itself …” (Beyond Good and Evil 5). For Nietzsche, the “death of God” names (the beginning of) a process whereby people (Europeans) are losing their belief in God and by extension the belief that there is an inherent meaning or value to existence. Since “man has to believe, to know, from time to time why he exists; his race cannot flourish without a periodic trust in life—without faith in reason in life” (Gay Science 1), the death of God is one aspect of the practical nihilism that Nietzsche believed threatened Europe in the late 19th century, and was part of a calamity that would play out over centuries. However, unlike many other philosophers, Nietzsche does not set out to show that (most) of the values that people had thought to depend on God could be justified in other ways (thereby avoiding a true calamity). Rather, Nietzsche saw his task as centered in the re-evaluation of the Judeo-Christian (moral) values that had become so dominant that they had come to be seen as beyond question. Nietzsche saw these convictions as highly questionable; he thought that what the ‘true’ philosopher required was not the courage of one’s convictions, but rather could only find his freedom by having “the courage for an attack on one’s convictions!”. In reading Nietzsche one must have that courage, for he attacks our convictions about the nature--and especially the value--of good and evil, truth, pity, compassion, suffering, cruelty, (belief in the) equality of persons, and morality generally. In confronting Nietzsche, try to maintain the spirit and excitement of an adventure, which as such must contain some danger: Indeed, we philosophers and "free spirits” feel, when we hear the news that “the old god is dead," as if a new dawn shone on us; our heart overflows with gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation. At long last the horizon appears free to us again, even if it should not be bright; at long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again; perhaps there has never yet been such an “open sea.”— (Gay Science 343)

Eric Campbell 20

I. Texts: F. Nietzsche (tr. Swensen and Clark), On the Genealogy of Morality (Hackett) F. Nietzsche (tr. W. Kaufmann), The Gay Science (Vintage) F. Nietzsche (tr. W. Kaufmann), Beyond Good and Evil (Vintage) F. Nietzsche (tr. W. Kaufmann), The Portable Nietzsche* (Penguin) B. Leiter, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Nietzsche on Morality (Routledge) *Readings taken from The Portable Nietzsche are followed by ‘(PN)’ on the reading list. II. Requirements 1. Midterm Exam (30%) 2. One 4-5 pp. paper on The Geneology of Morality (topics will be handed out one week in advance) (30%) 3. Final exam (40%) Option 1: Cumulative final during scheduled exam time Option 2: Research paper (10+ pp.) drawing on Nietzsche’s writings and secondary literature (e.g. Leiter). If you elect this option, you must submit a 1-2 pp. proposal for your paper at least two weeks before the due date. The paper will be due at the final exam. III. Schedule of Classes Week 1 Class 1: Introduction Recommended: Leiter, Nietzsche on Morality, chs. 1-2 Class 2: The Gay Science, Prelude, bks. I-II Week 2 Class 3: The Gay Science, bks. III-IV Class 4: The Gay Science, bk. V Week 3 Class 5: Beyond Good and Evil, bks. I-III Recommended: Leiter, Nietzsche on Morality, ch. 3 Class 6: Beyond Good and Evil, bk. IV-VI Week 4 Class 7: Beyond Good and Evil, bks. VII-IX Recommended: Leiter, Nietzsche on Morality, ch. 4 Class 8: Beyond Good and Evil

Eric Campbell 21

Week 5 Class 9: MIDTERM EXAM Class 10: On the Genealogy of Morality Introduction and Part I Recommended: Leiter, Nietzsche on Morality, chs. 5-6 Week 6 Class 11: On the Genealogy of Morality Part II Recommended: Leiter, Nietzsche on Morality, ch. 7 Class 12: On the Genealogy of Morality Part III Recommended: Leiter, Nietzsche on Morality, ch. 8 Week 7 Class 13: On the Genealogy of Morality Class 14: Twilight of The Idols (PN) Preface through “The ‘Improvers’ of Mankind” Week 8 Class 15: Twilight of the Idols Remainder Class 16: Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part I (PN)—PAPER DUE Week 9 Class 17: Thus Spoke Zarathustra Part II Class 18: Thus Spoke Zarathustra Part III Week 10 Class 19: Thus Spoke Zarathustra Part IV Class 20: Summing up

Eric Campbell 22

Strategy 282 Social Responsibilities of Business

Georgetown University August 27 – December 18

Dr. Eric Campbell Fall 2014 Office: Hariri 523 Time: MW 9:30-10:45 e-mail: [email protected] Location: Hariri 130 Office hours: MW 11 - 12 Course Description This is a course on business ethics. But what is that? To many people, it is an oxymoron. However, there are many and various difficult ethical issues facing business owners and executives. Moreover, we all face (or avoid facing) ethical questions related to business as consumers and citizens. This course explores some of those ethical questions from the perspectives of corporations, business owners and managers, citizens and consumers. We will begin by covering some important aspects of ethical psychology, focusing on our basic nature as ethical creatures and explaining the most common forms of (self-) deception and cheating. This is meant to help us engage in and manage for ethical behavior. In my view, this basic grounding in self-understanding is also very helpful when it comes to address substantive ethical questions. Course Objectives

• Apply insights from ethical psychology to develop strategies for engaging in and managing for ethical behavior.

• Confront difficult ethical questions from the perspectives of corporations; business owners and managers; citizens and consumers

• Sharpen analytical thinking, writing, presentation, and debating skills. • Encounter and resolve (simulated) real-world ethical problems that arise inside class group-

work. • Reflect on personal values and goals.

In general, I hope that some of what you learn from this course will help make you a more thoughtful and reflective person (that’s a lot to ask from a course!). We are looking at real-world problems. Whether you become a businessperson or not, you will be confronted with some of these issues in your life. I hope this class aids you to be aware of and respond to those situations better than you would have.

Eric Campbell 23

Course Materials:

1. Dan Ariely, The Honest Truth about Dishonesty 2. Robert Jackall, Moral Mazes 3. Other materials on Blackboard free of charge

Academic Freedom and Opportunity You should feel free to engage in reasoned disagreement with me without any penalty to your grade. I will feel free to challenge any belief, ideology, worldview, or attitude you have, including those beliefs you hold sacred. Students likewise should feel free to engage in this way with each other. Everyone should not only feel free to express his or her views without fear of bullying or reprisal, but you are all positively encouraged to do so. The classroom and the university is a forum for the pursuit of truth. We are all ignorant and mistaken about many things. One of the most common ways of remaining ignorant and mistaken is to try to keep others from airing and defending their viewpoints. Another, related way is to avoid the attempt to defend your own viewpoint. You are all very lucky to have this opportunity to improve your views on the questions we’ll discuss in this course, as well as your ability to defend them. I want you to take advantage of that opportunity. Lectures and Participation You are expected to come to class each day prepared to discuss the readings intelligently. If you can’t attend class, let me know ahead of time. Classes will generally involve lectures and discussion, and sometimes activities and games. Come prepared to participate actively in discussion, as well as potential games and activities. Lectures are not just me telling you what is in the readings. I will be saying lots of things in lecture that are not in the readings, making connections between readings, criticisms thereof, etc. I will expect you to know about these things.

Also, active participation constitutes 10% of your grade. Attendance alone counts for exactly nothing. If you do not participate, even if you attend every class, your participation grade will be a 0. You are very strongly encouraged to participate in class, but if you cannot get yourself to speak in public, you may receive full participation credit by discussing the material with me in office hours. You are encouraged to come to office hours in general, but doing so can only boost your participation grade if you regularly attend class. Office hours is not a substitute for going to class, and it will be much more productive if you have been in lecture. Assignments and Grades Per MSB policy, the course will be curved to a 3.3/4.0 average. That’s policy. The major part of your grade will be a result of The Business Project. The Business Project is explained at length at the end of this syllabus. You’ll become a member of a group (6-7 students). Your group has 4 assignments. In addition, there will be an option of either writing a final paper or taking a final exam. This will be done individually. There are no extensions for the final paper; if you do not submit the paper on time, for whatever reason, you will be taking the exam.

If you choose to write the paper, you must inform me by November 24 and include a carefully written one-page summary of what you plan to argue. You must also meet with me in office hours during that week so we can discuss how to make your paper stronger. The paper option is for those who genuinely want to develop and defend their ideas about one or more of the issues we’ve covered in class. I respect this option and I think you probably increase the value you get form the course in taking it (seriously), but it will probably not be the easier option.

Eric Campbell 24

1. Group: Business Plan Presentation, 15% 2. Group: Statement of Corporate Social Responsibility, 10% 3. Group: Advertising Campaign Presentation, 15% 4. Group: Moral Dilemma Presentation, 10%

5. Final Paper/Final Exam, 40% 6. Participation, 10%: Come to class prepared. Participate actively. On Group Work By default, I assume each member of each group contributed her fair share. By default, each group member gets the group’s grade. I prefer for you to resolve problems—such as a group member trying to free-ride on others—without my intervention. After each presentation, you will send me your assessment of each member of your group, including yourself. These assessments will be strictly confidential between you and me. This is your way of informing me if someone did not contribute properly, or if they went above and beyond the call of duty. I will use this input to assign individual grades. Academic Integrity Don’t plagiarize or pass off other people’s work as your own. Just don’t do it. Information about the Honour Code and plagiarism is available here: http://scs.georgetown.edu/academic-affairs/honor-code. You are responsible for knowing and abiding by the honour code and all rules regarding academic integrity. As a faculty member, I am bound by the Honour Code to report all apparent violations of the Honour Code. Any students found guilty of violating the Honour Code will fail the class, in addition to whatever other sanctions the Honour Council issues. Tips for Success

• Don’t just read. Write. For every reading assignment, write down the author’s thesis in plain language. Outline and explain the main argument. Write down one important objection to the argument. Doing all this will make you understand the material better and help you get a better grade.

• If you need help, I encourage you to come to my office hours or schedule an appointment. There’s no reason to make this class harder than necessary. I want you to succeed.

Electronics Policy Laptops are not allowed in class. Seriously. Even for those precious few of you who would really only take notes on them if I allowed them, research indicates that taking notes by hand facilitates understanding and recall. More important, most people cannot or do not resist using them in naughty ways (social media, sports, movies) and this distracts that student and other students as well. Also, I think it’s very easy to get too focused on taking notes. I want you to come to class having done the readings carefully and ready to listen, think about what I’m saying, ask questions and discuss. You should take notes when reading, and I am perfectly happy for you to take notes when I’m talking, but what is most important in lecture is that you’re paying attention and thinking. The notes you take should be limited to main ideas and/or things not in the readings. It should take only a few minutes to transfer them to your computers after class (I will also post lecture notes, but not necessarily for every lecture, and not necessarily in great detail). Also, no texting or any electronic gadgetry whatever (unless for a documented disability). If you expect to receive a vitally important message while in class, sit in the back and leave the class to take the call or message. Nobody’s perfect. I’ll give you a friendly reminder if you forget. The second time, I will ask you to leave the class.

Eric Campbell 25

Email Policy

• Please do not email me any question the answer to which can easily be found on this syllabus. Any such emails will either be ignored or I will respond ‘see syllabus’.

• Substantive questions about course content that cannot be answered with a Yes or No should not be emailed, but rather bring those questions to office hours. I’m there anyway and you will get much more out of the course if you come talk to me in office hours.

• In general, please avoid emailing me unless necessary. Check whether the answer to your question is on the syllabus or blackboard, whether it can wait until the next lecture, and whether it can likely be answered much more quickly and easily by me than by you.

Accessibility Your success in this course is important to me. If you require special accommodations of any sort, please let me know on the first day of class. You may also visit the Disability Support page for more information: http://academicsupport.georgetown.edu/disability. SCHEDULE OF READINGS AND TOPICS Note: This schedule is tentative. I will announce any changes in class and on Blackboard. Readings marked by an asterisk (*) are optional. Week 1. (We meet August 29 only). Introduction Part 1: Ethical and Organizational Psychology Week 2. Ethical Creatures (Labor Day Holiday September 1. We meet September 3.)

• Haidt, “The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology” Week 3. (September 8 and 10)

• Ariely, Honest Truth, Introduction – Chapter 2

Week 4. Self-Deception, Self-Signaling and (Dis)honesty (September 15 and 17) • Ariely, Honest Truth, Chapters 3 through 6

Week 5. Self-Deception and Conformity (September 22 and 24)

• Ariely, Honest Truth, Chapters 7 – 8 • Milgram, “The Perils of Obedience” • *Asch, “Opinions and Social Pressure” • Milgram Obedience Experiment (video)

Week 6. Business Model Presentations (September 29 and October 1) Week 7. Organizational Psychology and Why Should We Be Ethical? (October 6, 8 and ???)

• Jackall, Moral Mazes, Introduction through Chapter 6 but not Chapter 3. • Frieman, “Why Be Immoral?” • *Nozick, “The Experience Machine”

Eric Campbell 26

Part II: Corporations Week 8. Corporate Social Responsibility (Columbus Holiday Oct. 13. We meet October 15)

• William Evan and R. Edward Freeman, “A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism”

• Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits” Week 9. The Ethics of Rent-Seeking/Market Failures Approach (October 20 and 22)

• Michael E. DeBow, “The Ethics of Rent-Seeking” • John Boatright, “Rent-Seeking in a Market With Morality” • Joseph Heath, “The Market Failures Approach to Business Ethics” • Assignment: CSR statement due October 24 by email.

Week 10. Honesty and Advertising (October 27 and 29)

• Albert Z. Carr, “Is Business Bluffing Ethical?” • Tibor Machan, “Advertising: The Whole Truth or Only Some of the Truth”

Week 11. Modern Advertising (November 3 and 5)3

• Selections from two PBS Frontline Movies: The Persuaders and Generation Like o http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/ o http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/generation-like/

Week 12. Group Presentation: Advertising Campaign (November 10 and 12) Part III. Citizens and Consumers Week 13. The Ethical Limits of Markets (November 17 and 19)

• Michael Sandel, “What Money Shouldn’t Buy” • Debra Satz, “The Moral Limits of Markets: The Case of Human Kidneys” • Janet Radcliffe Richards, “Nephrarious Goings On: Kidney Sales and Moral Arguments” • Case Study: Tales from the Organ Trade (video)

Week 14. Consumption and Exploitation (November 24 and 26)

• Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” • Matt Zwolinski, “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation” • Denis G. Arnold and Norman E. Bowie, “Sweatshops and Respect for Persons” • *Coakley and Kates, “The Ethical and Economic Case for Sweatshop Regulation”

Week 15. Group Presentations: The Dilemma (Dec. 1 and 3). Monday, Dec. 15. Final Exam/Paper Due 3 These videos could also easily be categorized under Part III.

Eric Campbell 27

THE BUSINESS PROJECT

We will use “The Business Project” as our way of grappling with some of the ethical issues in Business Ethics. The project will have several stages, with each stage corresponding with a unit in our class. Each stage of the project will require an in-class presentation by each of the groups. The breakdown of the assignments (each of these are individual assignments, which we will assign over the course of the class):

1. The Business Plan (using the business model canvas as your guide) 2. Company statement of Corporate Social Responsibility 3. Advertising campaign 4. The Dilemma

STAGE 1: THE BUSINESS PLAN (September 29 and October 1) In your groups, please come up with your own company, using the Business Model Canvas (it will be up on Blackboard) as your guide.

You will be assessed on the basis of how well thought-out your business model is, how creative you are in constructing a model, and your ability to think through what potential customers might want.

Your group will present your business to the class. The class will function as potential INVESTORS in your company. Your job is to persuade them that they should invest in your company, rather than in the other companies that your fellow classmates will construct. Evaluation criteria include: Is there saturation (or, did you choose a good location for whatever it is you do)? Is the business idea original or creative? Was the description of your company clear and understandable? Were your financial realistic (did you consider all relevant financials)? Did you demonstrate familiarity with the regulations and the regulatory burden? Did you demonstrate familiarity with this type of business, including what you consider to be your main competitors? And, finally (and most importantly), was it persuasive?

Presentation length: 15 - 20 minutes per group, including questions and answers. STAGE 2: CSR (Due October 24) In your groups, please construct a two-page, double-spaced Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) statement. Your statement should address the particular qualities of your company, and the particular ethical issues that might arise given what your company does. You will be assessed on how well thought-out your CSR is, how well you foresee any potential ethical issues that might arise from your particular business, as well as how relevant your CSR is to the kind of company your group runs. You will submit the statement to me on the due date. STAGE 3: ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN (November 10 and 12) In your groups, please create an advertising campaign for your company. As part of your campaign, which you will explain to the class, please create one complete advertisement. Your advertisement can be a 30 to 60 second television commercial, a newspaper or magazine advertisement, an internet advertisement, or some sort of “guerilla” advertisement.

You will be assessed on how well thought-out your campaign is, how well you understand your target demographic, and how catchy or captivating your advertisement is to your particular demographic.

Your group will present your campaign and advertisement to the class. The class will

Eric Campbell 28

function as a FOCUS GROUP for the campaign. The responsibility of the focus group will be to explain why or why not a particular campaign is persuasive and successful.

Evaluation criteria includes: Does your advertisement cut through the “clutter”? Was the choice of advertising vehicle appropriate? Do you have a clear idea of who your target audience is? Is it likely to succeed given your audience? In general, is it an effective piece of advertising? Is it clear what is being advertised? Are you sufficiently aware of the ethical terrain when it comes to your advertising campaign?

Presentation length: 15 - 20 minutes per group, including questions and answers. STAGE 4: THE DILEMMA (December 1 and 3). In your groups, you will have to make a tough decision. I will construct a dilemma specific to each of your companies. You will be forced to either sacrifice your principles captured in your CSR, or profitability and your shareholders.

The class will be composed of your shareholders. Your mission is to persuade the shareholders that you are doing what is, all things considered, best. In your presentation, you will explain the dilemma, how you attempt to solve it, and defend your solution on ethical and strategic grounds.

Evaluation criteria includes the following: How does your dilemma response relate to your CSR? Did you cover yourself from a PR perspective? Did you assess the relevant ethical terrain? Did you consider possible alternatives? Did you recognize what is at the heart of your dilemma (what kind of a dilemma it is)?

Presentation length: 15 - 20 minutes per group, including questions and answers. At the conclusion of the presentation, there is a class ballot which will help determine a probability distribution for best-case, worst-case, and medium-case possible outcomes. We roll a 10-sided die to determine what in fact happens.

Teaching Portfolio

Documents

Transcript of Teaching Portfolio