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
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?”
PTSD
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
There are two primary 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.
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
Undergraduate students
40% 1 Paper (3-4 pages)
50% 1 Paper (4-6 pages)
10% 5 one-page reaction papers
Graduate students
90% 2 Papers (7-9 pages)
or 1 Paper (15-20 pages)
10% 5 one-page reaction papers
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.
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.
Tentative Reading and Assignment Schedule
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
There are two primary 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.
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
Undergraduate students
40% 1 Paper (3-4 pages)
50% 1 Paper (4-6 pages)
10% 5 one-page reaction papers
Graduate students
90% 2 Papers (7-9 pages)
or 1 Paper (15-20 pages)
10% 5 one-page reaction papers
Required Texts
Kant, Practical Philosophy, Cambridge University Press.
Any additional readings assigned will be posted as pdf’s on the course website.
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 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.
The one-page reaction papers (double-spaced) are due 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 exploring some of your more risky/bold/creative/fuzzy ideas without worrying about it
impacting your course grade.
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
Week 0 (9/26) Introduction and Background
Week 1 (10/1, 10/3) Groundwork—Preface (4:387-392) and Section I (4:393-405)
Week 2 (10/8, 10/10) Groundwork—Section II (4:406-427)
Week 3 (10/15, 10/17) Groundwork—Section II (4:427-445)
Week 4 (10/22, 10/24) Critique of Practical Reason—Chapter 1 (5:19-42)
Week 5 (10/29, 10/31) Critique of Practical Reason—Chapter 1-2 (5:57-65)
Paper #1 due—Oct. 29th at noon
Week 6 (11/5, 11/7) Critique of Practical Reason—Chapter 3 (5:71-89)
Metaphysics of Morals—Intro—Sections I-II (6:214-221)
Respect for the Moral Law: the Emotional Side of Reason (pdf)
Week 7 (11/12, 11/14) Critique of Practical Reason—Highest Good (5:108-115)
Week 8 (11/19, 11/21) Metaphysics of Morals—Intro to Doctrine of Virtue (6:379-413)
Optional--Metaphysics of Morals—Intro Sections III-IV (6:221-221)
*Note—the pagination is out of order for the MM Intro
Metaphysics of Morals—Duties to Oneself (6:417-447)
Week 9 (11/26) Metaphysics of Morals—Duties to Oneself continued
(NO CLASS Nov. 28th—Thanksgiving Break)
Week 10 (12/3, 12/5) Metaphysics of Morals—Duties of Love (6:448-461)
Metaphysics of Morals—Duties of Respect (6:462-474)
Week 11 (Finals Weeks) Paper #2 due—date/time TBD
Phil 191: Historical Theories of the Self/Soul/Mind/I Spring 2020
Instructor
Janelle DeWitt
OH: M 2-3 and by appointment
Course Description
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 seminar, we will consider a range of historical attempts to
address these questions. Some of the figures we might cover include the Epictetus, Boethius,
Augustine, Aquinas, Avicenna, Olivi, Descartes, Locke, Hume and/or Kant.
Course
The course will meet as scheduled on Mondays 10-12:50. Since this is an undergraduate
seminar, where students will be presenting each week, attendance is required. If you have to
miss for any reason, please email me ahead of time. (Medical emergencies, technological
difficulties, etc., will be excused. Weeks 1-2 will also be a grace period to give you all time to
transition to online courses.)
Course Requirements
30% Presentation (grades will be A- for satisfactory, A for well-done)
60% Either/or:
Two 5-6 page papers (30% each)
One 10-12 page paper (60% each)
10% Participation in the seminar discussion.
Required Texts
There are no required texts for this class. All readings will be posted as pdf’s on the course
website.
Readings, Assignments and Participation
There will be no formal paper topics assigned for this course. You are free to develop a topic for
any one (or two) of the readings assigned this quarter. And you may start work on the papers at
any point during the seminar. I’m available to discuss potential topics at any point. Just send me
an email to set a time to meet. Papers will be due Friday of finals week, by midnight.
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 a course covering ethics, that I will be especially
vigilant.
Tentative Reading Schedule
Week 1 Introduction/background
Week 2 Epictetus—Discourses Book I
Week 3 Boethius—Selections from The Consolation of Philosophy—selections
Week 4 Augustine—De trinitate—Book X
Week 5 Aquinas—Summa theological—Q75 Treatise on Man
Optional: Aristotle—De anima—selections
Week 6 Avicenna—De liber anima--selections
Week 7 Olivi—Questions on the Second Book of Sentences—selections
Optional: Descartes—Meditations on First Philosophy—II and VI
Week 8 Locke—An Essay Concerning Human Understanding—II.27
Week 9 Memorial Day—no seminar
Week 10 Hume—Personal Identity
Optional: Dennett—The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity
PHIL 3000: Ancient and Medieval Philosophy
Fall 2014
Instructor
Janelle DeWitt
3006 Moore Hall
Course Description and Objectives
This course is an introduction to various questions about God, human nature and the metaphysics of good
and evil raised in the ancient and medieval periods of philosophy. The general questions addressed will
include—does God exist, and if so, what is his nature? What then does God’s nature tell us about our own
nature, if anything? Do we have a soul? If so, what is it, and how does it relate to the mind? What is its
relation to the body? What is the will? Is it free? How must it be structured to explain morality, or to
make us responsible for our actions? Is there even such a thing as morality? If so, what then makes an
action right or wrong? What motivates us to do the right thing? And how do we explain why we
sometimes don’t (i.e., why do some people do evil things)?
In this course, students will come to understand the development and progression of the ancient and
medieval ideas about God, the soul, the will, and their relationship to morality. From class discussion and
the writing component, the students will also learn how to articulate some of these themes, both in their
own right, and in their historical context. And finally, the students will develop writing skills to meet the
baccalaureate-level writing requirement.
This course satisfies General Education Proficiency 2: Baccalaureate-Level Writing and General Education
Area II: Humanities.
Course Requirements
40% 2 short (2-3 pg) writing assignments (20% each)
40% 1 long (4-5 pg) writing assignment
20% 6 quizzes (4% each, lowest score dropped)
The reading schedule (and so also the quizzes and writing assignments) is tentative, subject to course
pacing. The short, multiple choice quizzes will cover both the readings and the lecture material. The lowest
quiz score will be dropped (and the remaining scores will be “curved”). The two short written assignments
will break down and focus on different aspects of writing a philosophy paper. The long written assignment
will then combine these skills into a fully developed paper. Plagiarism, as well as academic misconduct in
any form, will be caught and dealt with according to Western Michigan’s policy and procedures regarding
academic honesty (found in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs). You are responsible for making
yourself aware of and understanding these policies, which include cheating, fabrication, falsification and
forgery, multiple submission, plagiarism, complicity and computer misuse. [The policies can be found at
http://catalog.wmich.edu under Academic Policies, Student Rights and Responsibilities.] If there is reason
to believe you have been involved in academic dishonesty, you will be referred to the Office of Student
Conduct. You will be given the opportunity to review the charge(s). If you believe you are not responsible,
you will have the opportunity for a hearing. You should consult with your instructor if you are uncertain
about an issue of academic honesty prior to the submission of an assignment or test.
Readings
All of the readings for the course will be posted as .pdf’s on the course website. You are expected to have
done the readings for the lecture date before class. However, some of the readings will be much more
difficult than others, and so will have to be read more than once. My suggestion with those texts would be
to read them quickly before the lecture, without getting bogged down in the details or in the parts that are
difficult to make sense of. Then, after the lecture, read the texts again more carefully. Also note that the
reading schedule may be subject to change. Adjustments will be announced in class.
Attendance
Attendance and active participation in class discussion is required. Failure to attend or engage in class
discussion in either the main lecture or in section will affect your final grade.
Accommodations for Students with Disabilities
Any student with a documented disability (e.g., physical, learning, psychiatric, vision, hearing, etc.) who
needs to arrange reasonable accommodations must contact the Disabilities Services for Students center at
the beginning of the semester; contact information is here:
http://www.wmich.edu/disabilityservices/index.html. A disability determination must be made by this
office before accommodations are provided by the instructor.
Tentative Reading and Exam Schedule
9-3 Introduction/Background
9-8 Anselm on the existence and nature of
God— selections from the Proslogium
9-10 Augustine on the mind—selections
from De trinitate
9-15 Augustine—cont’d
9-17 Augustine—cont’d
Quiz #1
9-22 Aquinas on the soul—selections from
the Summa theological
9-24 Aquinas—cont’d
9-29 Avicenna on the soul
Quiz #2
10-1 Plato on the moral good—Protagoras
10-6 Plato—cont’d
10-8 Plato—cont’d
Writing assignment #1 DUE
10-13 Plato—cont’d
Quiz #3
10-15 Aristotle—selections from the
Nicomachean Ethics
10-20 Aristotle—cont’d
10-22 Aristotle—cont’d
10-27 Aristotle—cont’d
10-29 Aristotle—cont’d
Quiz #4
11-3 Cicero on the moral good—selections
from On Duties
11-5 Cicero—cont’d
Writing assignment #2 DUE
11-10 Cicero —cont’d
11-12 Cicero —cont’d
11-17 Anselm on the will—selections from
On Truth, On the Freedom of the Will,
and On the Fall of the Devil
11-19 Anselm—cont’d
Quiz #5
11-24 Anselm—cont’d
11-26 Anselm—cont’d
12-1 Anselm—cont’d
12-3 Anselm—cont’d
Quiz #6
12-10 Writing assignment #3 DUE
Core 280: Introduction to Philosophy Fall 2012
Instructor
Janelle DeWitt
503 Hafey-Marian Hall
OH: WF 10:00-11:00, TTh 11:00-12:00, and by appt.
Course Description
This course is an introduction to several of the major questions in the history of philosophy. These include—
how do we know what is moral? Is there even an objective standard for right and wrong? Do we have free
will? What is the mind and how does it relate to the body/brain?
Course Requirements
70% 2 Exams (35% each)
20% 5 Quizzes (5% each, lowest score dropped)
10% Participation
ExCr In-class presentation
The reading schedule (and so also the quizzes and exams) is tentative, subject to course pacing. For the
participation grade, active participation in class is required—mere attendance is not enough. If you are nervous
to speak up in class, feel free to stop by my OH, or email any questions or thoughts you might have. The short,
multiple choice quizzes will cover both the readings and the lecture material. The lowest quiz score will be
dropped. (There will also be an optional, slightly challenging on-line quiz during finals week for those who
might need to drop more than one.) The exams will be open note/text “TPQ” (thought provoking questions)
essays. In these essay questions, you will be expected to apply the theories learned in class to a question or
problem and then discuss/analyze the response. Finally, since the primary goal of a philosophy class is to train
you, the student, to develop your own ideas, and your own way of articulating them, by teaching you how to
analyze arguments, there will be chance to earn extra credit by giving a short, in-class presentation and leading a
follow-up discussion (up to one letter grade added to an exam score).
Readings
All of the readings for the course will be contained in the course packet. You are expected to have done the
readings for the lecture date before class. However, some of the readings will be much more difficult than
others, and so will have to be read more than once. My suggestion with those texts would be to read them
quickly before the lecture, without getting bogged down in the details or in the parts that are difficult to make
sense of. Then, after the lecture, you should read the texts again more carefully. Also note that the reading
schedule may be subject to change. Adjustments will be announced in class.
Miscellaneous Information
If you miss class: 1. Extra copies of the readings handed out will be put in a bin outside my office door. (Be sure
to pick up the entire bundle—not just the first page.) 2. You should ask a classmate what you missed, and get
notes from him/her. (Only when all else fails should you email me asking, “What did I miss?”)
Office hours: Office hours are times I reserve to meet with students. You do not need an appointment. Just
stop by my office. You can stop by with any and all questions—even if you are just “completely lost”. With a
short one-on-one discussion, I can usually help get you back onto track. If you can’t make it to the scheduled
times, I’m more than happy to meet at other times. Just send me an email or talk to me after class.
Tentative Reading and Exam Schedule
8-27 Introduction
8-29 Aristotle—selections from the Nicomachean
Ethics—Book I
8-31 Aristotle—Book I
9-3 Labor Day—no class
9-5 Aristotle—Book I
9-7 Aristotle—Book II
9-10 Aristotle—Book II
9-12 Quiz #1
9-14 Aristotle—Book II
9-17 Aristotle—Book III
9-19 Aristotle—Book III
9-21 Aristotle—Book III
9-24 Quiz #2
9-26 Kant—Groundwork for the Metaphysics of
Morals—Section I
9-28 Kant—Section I
10-1 Kant—Section I
10-3 Kant—Section I
10-5 Kant—Section I
10-8 Kant—Section II
10-10 Quiz #3
10-12 Fall Break—no class
10-15 Kant—Section II
10-17 Kant—Section II
10-19 Kant—Section II
10-22 Review/overflow day
10-24 Mid-term Exam
10-26 Daniel Dennett—Where Am I?
10-29 Aquinas—selections from the Summa
theologica
10-31 Aquinas—cont’d
11-2 Aquinas—cont’d
11-5 Quiz #4
11-7 Descartes—selections from the Meditations
on First Philosophy
11-9 Descartes—cont’d
11-12 Hume—selections from A Treatise of Human
Nature
11-14 Hume—cont’d
11-16 The Identity Theory from Philosophy of Mind
11-19 Quiz #5
11-21 Thanksgiving Break—no classes
11-23 Thanksgiving Break—no classes
11-26 Functionalism from Philosophy of Mind
11-28 Thomas Nagel—What Is It Like to Be a Bat?
11-30 Frank Jackson—What Mary Didn’t Know
12-3 John Searle—Is the Brain’s Mind a Computer
Program?
12-5 Review/overflow day
12-7 Final Exam
Finals Week—Optional Quiz #6 (electronic)
PHIL 140: Introduction to Ethics Fall 2016
Instructor
Janelle DeWitt
011 Sycamore Hall
OH: M 3:30-5:00 and by appointment (additional OH will be announced exam weeks)
Assistant Instructors
SA
Sections: F 11:15-12:05, F 12:20-1:10
0017 Sycamore Hall
OH: M/W 1:00-2:00
AB
Sections: F 1:25-2:15, F 2:30-3:20
0025 Sycamore Hall
OH: M/W 12:00-1:00
Course Description
This course is an introduction to ethics. The primary area we will focus on is normative ethics—but we will
touch upon three additional areas of ethics—meta-ethics, moral psychology, and free will/responsibility. The
general questions addressed will include—is morality invented or discovered? What makes something right or
wrong? Is there an objective standard, or do we each “decide for ourselves”? How do we know/decide what is
right or wrong? What motivates us to do the right thing? How do we explain why we sometimes don’t? During
the course, we will explore (through reading, discussion and writing) four of the most significant theories
developed to answer these questions.
This course satisfies the Arts and Humanities Common Ground Breadth of Inquiry Requirement (part of the IU
General Education Requirements). The General Education Arts and Humanities learning goal most addressed in
this course is: the ability to develop arguments, ideas, and opinions about forms of human expression, grounded
in rational analysis and in an understanding of and respect for the historical context of expressions and artifacts,
and to express these ideas in written and/or oral form.
Course Requirements
90% 4 Take-home Essay Exams (22.5% each)
10% Participation
Required Texts
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant
Three Philosophical Dialogues, Anselm of Canterbury
The remaining readings will be posted as pdf’s on the course website.
The reading and exam schedule is tentative, subject to course pacing. The reading assignments will be short, but
most will be very difficult. (We will usually cover about 5-10 pages per class period.) My suggestion is to read
through them once quickly before class, listen to the lecture, and then read through them again more carefully
afterwards. (They should make a great deal more sense the second time around.)
The exams will be assigned at the end of each section/philosopher, and you will have at least one week to
complete them. They will consist of “TPQ’s” (thought provoking questions). In answering these essay questions,
you will be expected to apply the theories learned in class to a novel question or problem and then discuss/analyze
the response. These exams are designed to get you to think through an issue and to formulate your own position
on the matter. Consulting outside resources undermines this goal (and will end up confusing you). So no outside
resources will be allowed in developing your exam answers. If you have trouble understanding the material,
please visit me or your AI during office hours. We will be happy to work through trouble you might be having.
(That’s why we get paid the big bucks .) Finally, once the exam questions have been handed out, you may not
discuss them with your classmates (and you certainly may not share your work). But you are still allowed to
discuss the questions with your AI and me.
Participation will also be considered in determining final grades. For the participation grade, active
participation in class and section is required—mere attendance is not enough. If you are nervous to speak up in
class, feel free to stop by your AIs or my office hours, or email any questions or thoughts you might have to us.
If you miss class, contact a classmate for notes. If you will miss an exam due to illness, reasonable schedule
conflicts, etc., contact me before the exam is due to make alternative arrangements. I will try to be as
accommodating as fairness allows.
Office hours
Office hours are times the TAs and I reserve to meet with students. You don’t need an appointment. You can
stop by with any and all questions—even if you are just “completely lost”. With a short one-on-one discussion,
we can usually help get you back onto track. (Seriously, stop by early and often. Students always wait until the
last few weeks, and then regret not having come by sooner.) Feeling lost is a part of doing good philosophy.
Just as an athlete who isn’t sore isn’t training hard enough, if you aren’t a little confused by what you are
reading, you aren’t thinking hard enough.
Accommodations for Students with Disabilities
Disabled students are also strongly encouraged to avail themselves of the services provided by the campus
Office of Disability Services for Students, Herman B Wells Library Suite W 302, 1320 E. Tenth Street, (812)
855-7578, [email protected], https://studentaffairs.indiana.edu/disability-services-students/. Per University
Guidelines, no accommodations for disabilities are permitted except as arranged through the Office of Disability
Services. I will make every effort to meet the needs of students with documented disabilities.
Academic Integrity
Academic misconduct in any form (including plagiarism, note-selling, multiple submissions, and cheating) will
be caught and dealt with according to Indiana University’s policy and procedures regarding academic honesty.
This includes reporting suspected violations to the Dean of Students. As a student, you are expected to
familiarize yourself with the official Indiana University definitions of plagiarism and other forms of misconduct
in the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct, available from the Registrar’s Office, academic
advisors, and the web (at http://studentcode.iu.edu). 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.
Warning to the generous at heart: If a classmate asks to see your exam answers because they are having a hard
time with theirs, I advise against sharing it. In particular, don't email it to them. If they copy (parts of) it, and the
result is that two papers are submitted that look very similar, you will both be in trouble. Advise them to talk
with their AI about their problems writing their answers. You are also 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 your paper with them, don't.
Tentative Reading and Exam Schedule
8-22 Introduction/Background
8-24 Aristotle—Nicomachean Ethics—Book I
8-29 Aristotle— Book I
8-31 Aristotle— Book I
9-5 Labor Day—no classes
9-7 Aristotle—Book II
9-12 Aristotle—Book II
9-14 Aristotle—Book II
9-19 Aristotle—Book II-III
9-21 Anselm—selections from On Truth
9-26 Anselm—On the Freedom of the Will (FW)
9-28 Anselm—FW
10-3 Anselm—FW
10-5 Anselm—On the Fall of the Devil (FD)
10-10 Anselm—FD
10-12 Anselm—FD
10-17 Anselm—FD
10-19 Anselm—FD
10-24 Kant—Sections I-II from the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
10-26 Kant—Section I
10-31 Kant—Section I
11-2 Kant—Section II
11-7 Kant—Section II
11-9 Kant—Section II
11-14 Kant—Section II
11-16 Kant—Section II
11-21 Thanksgiving Break—no class 11-23 Thanksgiving Break—no class
11-28 Mill—selections from Utilitarianism
11-30 Mill—continued
12-5 Mill—continued
12-7 Mill—continued
Finals Week—there will be no in-class exam
PHIL 3340: Biomedical Ethics Spring 2015
Instructor
Janelle DeWitt
3006 Moore Hall
OH: M 1-2, T 2-3
Course Description
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? We will begin with 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. The course will begin with a brief overview of the major moral theories and principles use in
analyzing moral issues. We will then collectively select and intensively explore a small selection of current
issues, such as end of life care/euthanasia, abortion, the harvesting of fetal parts for research, embryonic
stem cell research, treatment of disabled children, 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?” Through these discussions, the students will
learn about several major ethical principles and theories and how to use them to critically assess the
morality of past, current, and emerging practices and technologies in medicine and biomedical research.
This course satisfies GE Area VII: Natural Science and Technology: Applications and Implications.
Course Requirements
75% 3 Exams (25% each)
20% 5 Quizzes (5% each, lowest score dropped)
5% Participation
The reading schedule (and so also the quizzes and exams) is tentative, subject to course pacing. The short,
multiple choice quizzes will cover both the readings and the lecture material. The lowest quiz score will
be dropped. The exams will be open note/text “TPQ’s” (thought provoking questions). In these essay
questions, you will be expected to apply the theories learned in class to a question or problem and then
discuss/analyze the response.
Participation will also be considered in determining final grades. For the participation grade, active
participation in class and section is required—mere attendance is not enough. If you are nervous to
speak up in class, feel free to stop by your TAs or my office hours, or email any questions or thoughts
you might have to us. If you miss class, contact a classmate for notes. If you will miss an exam due to
illness, reasonable schedule conflicts, etc., contact me before the exam to make alternative arrangements.
Readings
All of the readings for the course will be posted as pdf’s on the course website. You are expected to have
done the readings for the lecture date before class. Any adjustments to the reading schedule will be
announced in class.
Office hours
Office hours are times the TAs and I reserve to meet with students. You do not need an appointment.
You can stop by with any and all questions—even if you are just “completely lost”. With a short one-on-
one discussion, we can usually help get you back onto track.
Academic Misconduct
Academic misconduct in any form will be caught and dealt with according to Western Michigan’s policy
and procedures regarding academic honesty (found in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs). You
are responsible for making yourself aware of and understanding these policies, which include cheating,
fabrication, falsification and forgery, multiple submission, plagiarism, complicity and computer misuse.
[The policies can be found at http://catalog.wmich.edu under Academic Policies, Student Rights and
Responsibilities.] If there is reason to believe you have been involved in academic dishonesty, you will
be referred to the Office of Student Conduct. You will be given the opportunity to review the charge(s). If
you believe you are not responsible, you will have the opportunity for a hearing. You should consult with
your instructor if you are uncertain about an issue of academic honesty prior to the submission of an
assignment or test.
Accommodations for Students with Disabilities
Any student with a documented disability (e.g., physical, learning, psychiatric, vision, hearing, etc.) who
needs to arrange reasonable accommodations must contact the Disabilities Services for Students center at
the beginning of the semester; contact information is here:
http://www.wmich.edu/disabilityservices/index.html. A disability determination must be made by this
office before accommodations are provided by the instructor.
Tentative Reading and Exam Schedule
1-12 Introduction
1-14 Bentham—excerpts from Principles of
Morals and Legislation
1-19 Martin Luther King Day—no classes
1-21 Bentham—cont’d
1-26 Kant—excerpts from The Groundwork of
the Metaphysics of Morals
Quiz #1
1-28 Kant—cont’d
2-2 Kant—cont’d
2-4 Exam #1
2-9 Three Biomedical Ethics Principles:
Autonomy
2-11 Three Biomedical Ethics Principles:
Beneficence
2-16 Three Biomedical Ethics Principles: Justice
2-18 Eugenics movement
Quiz #2
2-23 Eugenics movement—cont’d
2-25 Tooley—Personhood
3-2 Personhood—cont’d
3-4 Exam #2
3-9 Spring Break—no classes
3-11 Spring Break—no classes
3-16 Abortion and related issues
3-18 Abortion and related issues
3-23 Gene therapy, designer babies and sex
selection
3-25 Euthanasia and related end of life issues
Quiz #3
3-30 Euthanasia and related end of life issues
4-1 Ownership of body/body parts
4-6 Care of the mentally ill
4-8 Nano-technology and robotics
Quiz #4
4-13 Research on human subjects
4-15 Infectious disease management
4-20 Distribution of limited medical resources
4-22 Distribution of limited medical resources
Quiz #5
4-27 Finals Week (schedule to be determined)
Exam #3
Phil 4: Philosophical Analysis of Contemporary Moral Issues Spring 2020
Instructor
Janelle DeWitt
Teaching Assistants:
CG SB LJ SR
1A: T 1-1:50 pm 1C: W 11-11:50 am 1E: R 9-9:50 am 1G: F 9-9:50 am
1B: T 2-2:50 pm 1D: W 12-12:50 pm 1F: R 10-10:50 am 1H: F 10-10:50 am
Course Description
This course is an introduction to applied ethics. The course will begin with a brief overview of two major
moral theories (Bentham/Utilitarianism and Kant). We will then explore a set of contemporary moral issues
(to be selected midway through the quarter), such as euthanasia, abortion, gene-therapy, research involving
human subjects, research involving non-human subjects, performance enhancing drugs, limited medical
resources, infectious disease management, GMO foods, mass farming, the legalization of marijuana, gun
control, care of the homeless, free speech, affirmative action, and/or capital punishment, to name a few. 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?”, “what makes life worth living, or gives quality to our lives?” and “how do we
balance the good of society with the good of the individual?”
Course
The course was originally scheduled for M/W/F 2-2:50. However, because of the transition to an online
format, there will likely be no “synchronous” or live lectures. (It is simply untenable with 200+ students,
spread out in opposite time zones.) Instead, I will post the lectures each morning for viewing. You will
have one week to review the lectures and take notes before they are removed. If, for some reason (illness,
technical difficulties, etc.), you cannot access the recordings that week, email me.
Discussions
The discussion sections, in contrast to the main lecture, will be live sessions. To understand the readings,
you really need a chance to talk about them, ask questions about them, and challenge them. Since you
won’t be able to do that during the main lecture, it is even more important that you try to attend the
discussion sections. However, we realize that some of you are in inconvenient time zones to participate.
We are considering possible options to accommodate you, including recording the discussion sessions
(with the same rules as the main lecture), setting up a floating section—one to be held early or later in the
day, or rearranging sections so that you might be enrolled in a section with a more suitable time.
Course Objectives
There are three primary course objectives.
1. To consider some of the complex questions related to our moral agency, including questions
about moral motivation, moral judgment, moral responsibility, and their relation to individual
happiness/well-being.
2. To consider and critically assess some of the complex questions related to current moral issues.
3. 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
60% 2 exams (30% each)
35% 1 paper (3-4 pages)
5% class/section participation
Required Texts
There are no required texts for this class. All readings will be posted as pdf’s on the course website.
Readings, Assignments and Participation
The reading and assignment schedule is tentative, subject to course pacing. Some of the reading assignments in
the first half 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 set of lectures, and then read
through it again more carefully afterwards. The material will make more sense the second time around.
The format for the two exams will be announced prior to the exams, but will likely be a mix of multiple choice,
short answer and medium length essay questions (with a choice of questions). The first exam will be assigned at
the end of the first section (after we finish covering the two theories). The second will likely be assigned during
finals week.
The assigned paper is due on the due date listed in the paper prompt. The extension policy will be announced
when papers are assigned. Extensions must be requested before the paper is due. Any papers submitted after the
due date (or after the extension when requested) will be penalized 1/3 letter grade/day late.
Participation will also be considered in determining final grades. For the participation grade, active
participation in section is required—mere attendance is not enough. If you are nervous to speak up in section,
feel free to drop into your TA’s or my office hours, or email any questions or thoughts you might have to us. If
you will miss an exam due to illness, reasonable schedule conflicts, etc., contact me before the exam to make
alternative arrangements. I will try to be as accommodating as fairness allows.
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.
Tentative Reading and Assignment Schedule
Week 1 3-30 Introduction
4-1 Background/Overview
4-3 Background/Overview
Week 2 4-6 Bentham—Principles of Morals and Legislation
4-8 Bentham—Principles of Morals and Legislation
4-10 Bentham—Principles of Morals and Legislation
Week 3 4-13 Kant—Groundwork—Section I
4-15 Kant—Groundwork—Section I
4-17 Kant—Groundwork—Section I
Week 4 4-20 Kant—Groundwork—Section II
4-22 Kant—Groundwork—Section II (up to 4:421)
4-24 Kant—Groundwork—Section II (up to 4:436)
Week 5 4-27 Three major principles of applied ethics—Autonomy
4-29 Three major principles of applied ethics—Beneficence
5-1 Three major principles of applied ethics—Justice
Week 6 5-4 First Exam
5-6 Tooley—Personhood
5-8 Tooley—Abortion and Infanticide
Week 7 5-11 Noonan—An Almost Absolute Value in History
5-13 Rachels—Active and Passive Euthanasia
5-15 Foot—Killing and Letting Die
Week 8 5-18 Callahan—A Case against Euthanasia—350-52 (remainder optional)
Velleman—Against the Right to Die—370-73 (remainder optional)
5-20 van den Haag—A Defense of the Death Penalty
5-22 Nathanson—An Eye for an Eye?
Week 9 5-25 Memorial Day—no class
5-27 Hunt and DeGrazia—Introduction to Debating Gun Control
Hunt—What Is the Issue of Gun Control About?
Hunt—Self-Defense: A Right that Deserves Special Protection
Optional Readings:
Ekwall—The Racist Origins of US Gun Control
D’Amato—Actually, gun restrictions will target the black community
Stevens, Teufel, and Biscan—Disarming Women
5-29 Overflow Day
Week 10 6-1 DeGrazia—Critique of Appeals to Self-Defense and Physical Security
Optional Readings:
Kates—The Limited Importance of Gun Control from a Criminological Perspective
Bell—Disarming the Myths of the Gun Control Lobby
6-3 Review/Discussion
6-5 Final Exam
Week 11 Final Paper—due Weds at 8am
Philosophy 2: Introduction to Philosophy of Religion
Summer Quarter 2010
Instructor
Janelle DeWitt
Office Hours: W 12-1pm and by appt.
Lecture Time and Location
MWF 1:00-2:50 Public Affairs 2284
Course Description
This course is an introduction to the philosophy of religion, intended primarily for students new
to philosophy. In this course, we will address three broad themes, each highlighting in a
different way the contrast between non-naturalist and naturalist world views: Faith and Reason,
Faith and Science, Faith and Morality. Within these three segments, we will cover several
classical problems in the philosophy of religion, such as arguments about the existence and
nature of God, arguments about the existence and nature of the soul, the nature of faith, evolution
and religion, and freedom of the will.
Course Requirements
20% Short paper assignments and class participation
35% Mid-term exam
45% Final exam
Short paper assignments will be read, and credit will be given on a “check +”, “check” and
“check –“ basis. You should take these assignments seriously, because they will be an
opportunity to work out and express ideas that will eventually be on your exams. These
assignments should be at least one page, double-spaced, and submitted via turnitin.com by
Tuesday of each week (Friday for week 1). One will be assigned each week, and you will be
expected to complete 5 of the 6 assignments. No extensions will be given.
The mid-term and final will be in-class. The format and content will be discussed in class prior
to the exams.
Lastly, you must have a current email address registered with the university (myucla.com). I will
frequently use email to communicate with you. It is your responsibility to make sure I am able
to do so.
Readings
The readings will be posted on the course website. You are expected to have done the readings
for the lecture date before class. Some of the readings are much more difficult than others, and
so will have to be read more than once. The schedule may be subject to change. Adjustments
will be announced in class.
Tentative Reading Schedule
Introduction
6-21 What is faith? What is religion? What is the philosophy of religion? In what ways
can/does faith and religion interact with philosophy, science and morality? One claim
about this relationship is that, all being directed towards the truth, each system of
beliefs must ultimately be reconciled. Must this be the case? Is there any hope of this
being the case? If it is the case, then what strategies can be utilized to resolve the
conflicts currently existing between the different systems and faith?
Faith and Reason
6-23 Ontological Argument: Anselm—selections from the Proslogium
6-25 Ontological Argument continued
Teleological Argument: William Paley—selections from Natural Theology
David Hume—selections from the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
Optional:
John Leslie, “The Prerequisites of Life in Our Universe,” from Philosophy of Religion
Robin Collins, “Design and the Many-Worlds Hypothesis,” from Philosophy of Religion
6-28 Teleological Argument continued
6-30 What is faith?: Thomas Aquinas—selections from the Summa Theologica
7-2 What is faith? continued—Pamela Hieronymi—selections from “Wrong Kind of
Reason” and “Controlling Attitudes”
7-5 No class--holiday
Faith and Science
7-7 What is the soul?: Thomas Aquinas—selections from the Summa Theologica
Renee Descartes—selections from Meditations on First Philosophy
Patricia Smith Churchland—selection from Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified
Science of the Mind-Brain
Optional:
“Materialism, Positivism, and God,” from Contemporary Philosophy of Religion
7-9 What is the soul? continued— Lynne Rudder Baker, “Christians Should Reject Mind-
Body Dualism,” from Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Religion
David Hume—selections from A Treatise of Human Nature
7-12 What is the soul? continued—Dean Zimmerman, “Should a Christian Be a Mind-
Body Dualist?” from Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Religion
7-14 Mid-term exam
Faith, Science and Morality
7-16 The Moral Argument: Robert Wright, “Evolutionary Ethics,” from The Altruism Reader
“Moral Arguments,” from Contemporary Philosophy of Religion
7-19 The Moral Argument continued
Richard Dawkins, excerpts from “The Selfish Gene,” from The Altruism Reader
Elliot Sobel and David Sloan Wilson, “Bentham’s Corpse,” from The Altruism Reader
Faith and Morality
7-21 Free Will: Selections from Anselm’s De veritate, De libertate arbitrii and De casu diaboli
7-23 Free Will continued
7-26 Free Will continued
7-28 Faith, Morality and Politics: “Religious Pluralism and Politics,” from Contemporary
Philosophy of Religion
7-30 Final exam