GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW FORM
ETHICS AND HUMAN VALUES (GROUP VIII, E) 5/15
Please attach/ submit additional documents as needed to fully complete each section of the form.
COURSE INFORMATION
Department: Philosophy
Course Number: PHL 210
Course Title: Moral Philosophy
Type of Request:
Rationale:
New
One-time Only
X Renew*
Change
Remove
This course develops an appreciation for three leading approaches to moral philosophy through a careful reading of
classical texts in the Western tradition together with some of their recent descendants.
*If course has not changed since the last review and is taught by the same tenure-track faculty member, you may skip sections III-V.
JUSTIFICATION FOR COURSE LEVEL
Normally, general education courses will not carry pre-requisites, will carry at least 3 credits, and will be numbered at the 100-200
level. If the course has more than one pre-requisite, carries fewer than three credits, or is upper division (numbered at the 300 level
or above ), provide rationale for exception(s).
Not applicable.
II. ENDORSEMENT / APPROVALS
* Instructor: Bridget Clarke
Signature _______________________ Date____________
Phone / Email: x5314 / bridget.clarke@umontana.edu
Program Chair: Paul Muench
Signature _______________________ Date____________
Dean:
Signature _______________________ Date____________
*Form must be completed by the instructor who will be teaching the course. If the instructor of the course changes before the next
review, the new instructor must be provided with a copy of the form prior to teaching the course.
III. DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
General Education courses must be introductory and foundational within the offering department or within the General Education
Group. They must emphasize breadth, context, and connectedness; and relate course content to students’ future lives: See
Preamble
No changes since last renewal.
IV. CRITERIA
BRIEFLY EXPLAIN HOW THIS COURSE MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR THE GROUP.
1.
Courses focus on one or more of the specific traditions of ethical thought (either Western or non-Western), on basic ethical
topics such as justice or the good life as seen through the lens of one or more traditions of ethical thought, or on a professional
practice within a particular tradition of ethical thought.
No changes since last renewal.
2.
Courses provide a rigorous analysis of the basic concepts and forms of reasoning which define the traditions, the ethical topics,
or the professional practices that are being studied.
No changes since last renewal.
V. STUDENT LEARNING GOALS
BRIEFLY EXPLAIN HOW THIS COURSE WILL MEET THE APPLICABLE LEARNING GOALS.
1.
Correctly apply the basic concepts and forms of reasoning from the tradition or professional practice they studied to ethical
issues that arise within those traditions or practices.
No changes since last renewal.
2.
Analyze and critically evaluate the basic concepts and forms of reasoning from the tradition or professional practice they
studied
No changes since last renewal.
VI. ASSESSMENT
A. HOW ARE THE LEARNING GOALS ABOVE MEASURED ? Describe the measurement(s) used, such as a rubric or specific test
questions that directly measure the General Education learning goals. Please attach or provide a web link to the rubric, test
questions, or other measurements used.
The assessment of learning goals for PHL 210 is achieved through the evaluation of students’ participation in a number of inclass endeavors and through the evaluation of five papers.
Participation
I run this course as a seminar; what is more, students are required to discuss the material at each meeting based on the reading
they have done in advance and based on my own expositions and interventions. This format allows me to form a continuing
assessment of each student’s grasp of the material. Overall, participation accounts for 12% of the final grade. I take into
account (a) attendance and the quality of each student’s comments in class over time; (b) the student’s ability to lead class
discussion on at least one occasion; (c) the quality of the student’s comments on a peer's paper on four different occasions; (d)
other short assignments, many of them improvised in response to the particular needs of the class. For instance, if students are
having trouble developing a critical position on the readings, I have them write out and bring to class two responses to a given
reading. I then help them to see how some of these responses could form the basis of a critical position.
Papers
Students must revise four of the (five) assigned papers in the light of criticism from the instructor and from at least one of
their peers. The point of the papers is to give students a chance to develop a position on a fundamental yet focused topic
connected to our readings. Paper topics have included the following:
“Critically discuss either the charge that utilitarianism is too demanding or the charge that it is too permissive. Carefully
explain what the charge is and why you do, or do not, take it to be justified.”
“Aristotle claims that the virtues are the principal component of a good (‘eudaimon’) life, i.e., that you cannot live well without
them. Critically assess this claim through a careful discussion of one of the virtues in the Nicomachean Ethics (Books II-IV
only).”
Papers are assessed in terms of: whether they have answered the question; how clearly they are written; how carefully they
have interpreted the text; how successfully they have defended their critical assessment of the text; whether they have stayed
within the word limit. I have attached a form that students use to assess their own work and the work of their peers according
to these criteria.
A General Education Assessment Report will be due on a four-year rotating cycle. You will be notified in advance of the due date.
This will serve to fulfill the University’s accreditation requirements to assess general education and will provide an opportunity to
connect with your colleagues across campus and share teaching strategies. Items VI.B- D will be helpful in compiling the report.
B. ACHIEVEMENT TARGETS
[This section is optional. Achievement targets can be reported if they have been established.]
Describe the desirable level of performance for your students, and the percentage of students you expected to achieve this:
Achievement targets have not been established.
C. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
[This section is optional. Assessment findings can be reported if they are available.]
What were the results/findings, and what is your interpretation/analysis of the data? (Please be detailed, using specific
numbers/percentages when possible. Qualitative discussion of themes provided in student feedback can also be reported. Do NOT
use course grades or overall scores on a test/essay. The most useful data indicates where students’ performance was stronger and
where it was weaker. Feel free to attach charts/tables if desired.)
Assessment findings are not available.
D. ASSESSMENT FEEDBACK
Given your students’ performance the last time the course was offered, how will you modify the course to enhance learning? You
can also address how the course could be improved, and what changes in the course content or pedagogy you plan to make, based
upon on the findings. Please include a timeframe for the changes.
No changes are anticipated at this time.
A General Education Assessment Report will be due on a four-year rotating cycle. You will be notified in advance of the due date.
This will serve to fulfill the University’s accreditation requirements to assess general education and will provide an opportunity to
connect with your colleagues across campus and share teaching strategies.
VII. SYLLABUS AND SUBMISSION
Please submit syllabus in a separate file with the completed and signed form to the Faculty Senate Office, UH 221. The learning
goals for the Ethics Group must be included on the syllabus. An electronic copy of the original signed form is acceptable.
See attached.
Your Name__________________________
This Side to be Completed by the Author of the Paper
1. What did you find most difficult in writing this paper? (Specifics, please.)
2. What do you think works best in the paper? (Yo, specifics!)
3. What do you think needs the most work? (‘Could you be more specific?’)
4. What aspect of the paper would you most like help with today?
5. Are you open to rewriting the paper from scratch? (Explain.)
6. What else would you like your reader to know?
Your Name___________________________
This Side to be Completed by the Editor/Reader
1. In general, how well prepared to comment on this topic do you feel?
2. Does the paper clearly answer the specific question(s) asked?
3. If so, summarize in your own words the position defended. If not, elaborate.
4. Has the author given compelling reasons in support of her position? Elaborate. (Has she
sometimes merely restated her position instead of defending it?)
5. How closely has the author tied his discussion to specifics from the text(s)? Has he given
relevant page numbers when he paraphrases or quotes? Does he rely too much on
quotation?
6. What, specifically, seems to be working best in the paper?
7. What, specifically, would you say needs the most improvement?
8. What else would you like the author to know?
Clarke
Office: LA 148
bclarke@mso.umt.edu
Office hours: tba
Spring 2014
MW 1:40-3:00
LA 138
Philosophy 210: Moral Philosophy
Humans, when perfected, are the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice,
the worst of all.
—Aristotle, Politics 1253a31-33
Course Objectives and Student Learning Goals
Our objective is to develop an appreciation for three leading approaches to moral philosophy through a careful reading of
classical texts in the Western tradition together with some of their recent descendants. Our investigation of each approach will
center around the following three questions: how do I tell if an action (or way of living) is ‘good’ as in morally right on?; what
makes an action (or way of living) morally good?; what is supposed to motivate me, or anyone, to act (or live) in a morally good
way?
This course teaches ethical literacy and will enable you to
(1) explicate the norms and values that in fact govern your behavior,
(2) clarify these norms and make them consist with one another,
(3) set your norms and values in the context of the standard theories of ethics so you can understand your own norms more
deeply and circumspectly or change your norms to make them support your aspirations more effectively.
As a result, you will acquire a twofold competence:
(1) The cognitive competence of recognizing a moral position or argument for what it is along with the standard strengths and
weaknesses of such a position or argument.
(2) The expressive competence of being able to talk about your own moral convictions in a calm, confident, and circumspect
way.
Requirements
This is a seminar-style course, so your regular attendance and thoughtful participation are all-important. Occasional absences
will diminish your grade; frequent absences will lead me to ask you to drop the course. Reading the assigned works carefully
before you come to class is essential. Please always be sure to bring the readings to class with you.
Your final grades will be based on the following percentages:
1. Three Papers: 85% (20%, 25% and 40%, respectively)
2. Participation: 15%. This portion of your grade takes into account (a) your attendance and the quality of your comments in
class; (b) the quality of your workshop comments; (c) other short assignments. Every absence beyond two will diminish your
participation grade and more than four will seriously hurt it.
In determining final grades I will take into account the extent to which your work improves over the course of the term.
Please note: All of the assignments are due according to deadline. As a rule, I won’t accept late work or ‘make-up’ work.
Please note also that you must participate in the workshops in order to receive credit on the papers for which they are
designed. No exceptions.
If you have to miss a class or anticipate difficulties in meeting an assignment, talk to me about the situation as soon as you can.
Papers
The point of the papers is to give you a chance to develop a position on a fundamental yet focused topic connected to our
readings.
You must complete each of the paper assignments to receive credit for the course.
Academic Misconduct
You plagiarize when you represent someone else’s work as your own. Plagiarism is a form of theft, specifically, the theft of
someone else’s thoughts or words which you then claim as your own. Plagiarism is prohibited by the University of Montana
Student Conduct Code (http://life.umt.edu/vpsa/student_conduct.php). Examples of plagiarism range from the blatant, e.g.,
handing in work that you did not do (perhaps you bought a paper from the internet or simply borrowed a paper from another
student) to the more subtle, e.g., using material—perhaps no more than one idea, or a sentence—from an outside source, such
as a book, a website, a published or unpublished paper, without documenting that source. Let me know if you ever have
questions about whether something constitutes plagiarism (asking will not bring you under suspicion!). It is also a violation of
the Student Conduct Code to hand in work that you already submitted for a previous course. You will at a minimum receive an
“F” on any work that plagiarizes.
Books
Plato, Republic (ca. 380 BCE)
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (ca. 350 BCE)
Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751)
Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)
Bentham and Mill, The Classical Utilitarians (1800s)
Wilkerson, The Warmth of Other Suns (2010)
Klinkenborg, Several Short Sentences about Writing (2013)
All of these books are available at the University Bookstore.
Moodle
A number of readings have been posted on Moodle. Please print hard copies to bring to class.
Coursepack
I will distribute a packet of my notes on the readings. Please bring these to class as well. They are definitely not a substitute for
reading the texts yourself and are probably best read after your own reading of the text.
Note
Please let me know if you have a disability so we can make suitable arrangements.
Schedule of Readings and Assignments
This is a provisional schedule; we will probably make some changes to it as we go. It’s your responsibility to keep on top of the
changes. (M)=Moodle.
Jan
M 27 Introductions
W 29 Allen Wood, “Relativism” (Handout)
Feb
M3
W5
Plato, Republic (Rep.) I 327a-336a (Cephalus and Polemarchus)
Rep. I 336b-344c (Thrasymachus); Cohen, “Judge Judy” (M)
Also: Klinkenborg, 1-13 and Wilkerson, 1-46
M 10
W 12
Foot, “Moral Beliefs” pp. 125-131 (M); NYT, “Profiling Report” (M)
Phillips, “Does it Pay to be Good?” (M)
Also: Klinkenborg, 13-32 and Wilkerson, 47-94
M 17
W 19
President’s Day. No Class.
Rep. II 357a-367e (Ring of Gyges)
Also: Klinkenborg, 32-47 and Wilkerson, 95-122
M 24
W 26
Paper #1 draft due in class. Workshop.
Film: Eyes on the Prize “Awakenings” (Emmett Till and the CRM 1954-1956)
Paper #1 rewrite due Thursday February 27 by 5p in LA 101 (mailbox “Clarke”)
March
M3
Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, §§I-III
W5
Hume, Enquiry, §§V-VIII, focusing on §V
Also: Klinkenborg, 47-59 and Wilkerson, 123-164
M 10
W 12
Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation, chaps. I and IV (pp. 8-22) and “Push-Pin versus
Poetry” (p. 94) in The Classical Utilitarians
Rawls, “Classical Utilitarianism” (M)
Also: Klinkenborg, 59-70 and Wilkerson, 165-204
M 17
W 19
R.M. Hare, “What is Wrong with Slavery” (M)
Film: Eyes on the Prize “Mississippi: Is this America?” (Voter reg. and the CRM 1963-1964)
Also: Klinkenborg, 70-85 and Wilkerson, 205-221
M 24
W 26
Paper #2 draft due in class. Workshop.
No class.
Paper #2 rewrite due Thursday March 27 by 5p in LA 101 (mailbox “Clarke”)
March 31-April 4 Spring Break
April
M7
W9
Kant, Groundwork (G.) Preface and Section I
G. section II (406-427)
Also: Klinkenborg, 85-94 and Wilkerson, 222-259
M 14
W 16
G. section II (428-end)
MLK, Jr. “Letter from a Birmingham Jail [1963]” (M); Brown v Board of Education [1952] (M)
Also: Klinkenborg, 94-107 and Wilkerson. 260-301
M 21
W 23
Film: Eyes on the Prize “Fighting Back” (Little Rock and the CRM 1957-1962)
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics [NE] 1.1-I.9, skipping I.6 (the telos of human life)
Also: Klinkenborg, 107-116 and Wilkerson, 302-331
M 28
W 30
NE 1.13-all of NE 2 (virtue of character); Comte-Sponville, “Politeness” (M)
NE 3.6-4.9 (some particular virtues of character)
Also: Klinkenborg, 116-126 and Wilkerson, 332-363
May
M5
W7
Bennett, “The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn” (M); NE 7.1-7.4 (akrasia)
Paper #3 draft due in class. Workshop.
Also: Klinkenborg, 126-135 and Wilkerson, 364-412
Paper #3 rewrite due Monday May 12 by 5p in LA 101 (mailbox “Clarke”)
Paper Topics
First Paper Topic
Explain, in your own words, the point that Glaucon seeks to establish with the story of the ring of Gyges. Then consider
whether Foot and/or Phillips would be able to justify morality to someone who possesses the ring (to give such a person
compelling reasons to behave morally). Be sure to develop and defend your answers with specifics from the texts we’ve read.
Length: Four double-spaced pages, normal font size (11 or 12) and margins. 1000-1200 words, depending on the font. Please
indicate the word count at the top of your paper.
Due in class Monday February 24.
Rewrite due Thursday February 27 by 5p in LA 101 (mailbox “Clarke”)
Second Paper Topic
Critically discuss the charge that utilitarianism is too permissive. Carefully explain what the charge is and why you do, or do
not, take it to be justified. Make use of the pieces we read by Rawls and Hare in your discussion.
Length: Four double-spaced pages, normal font size (11 or 12) and margins. 1000-1200 words.
Please indicate the word count at the top of your paper.
Due in class Monday March 24.
Rewrite due Thursday March 27 by 5p in LA 101 (mailbox “Clarke”)
Third Paper Topic
(a) Consider whether Huck Finn’s decision not to turn Jim in to the authorities is an example of courage, as Aristotle conceives
it. Explain why or why not. Then (b) consider whether Huck’s decision is consistent with Kant’s categorical imperative. Explain
why or why not. (Here I recommend focusing on one formulation of the imperative.) Finally, (c) briefly discuss which of these
ideals—
Aristotle’s conception of virtue or Kant’s conception of moral goodness—you find more compelling, and why. Be sure to use
specifics from the relevant texts in developing your answers. Huck Finn’s decision is described in Bennett, pp. 124-127.
Due Monday May 12 by 5p in LA 101 (mailbox “Clarke”)
Length: Six double-spaced pages, normal font size (11 or 12) and margins. 1350-1450 words.
Please indicate the word count at the top of your paper.