Request for New Course
E ASTERN M ICHIGAN U NIVERSITY
D
IVISION OF
A
CADEMIC
A
FFAIRS
R
N
C
D
EPARTMENT
/S
CHOOL
: ___HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY_________________ C
OLLEGE
: ARTS & SCIENCES
C ONTACT P ERSON : ___ J.
M ICHAEL S COVILLE _________________________ _________________________________________
C ONTACT P HONE : 206-818-8763 C ONTACT E MAIL :
R EQUESTED S TART D ATE : T ERM ___F ALL __________Y EAR _2013__________
JSCOVIL 1@ EMICH .
EDU
PHIL 520 is part of the new M.A. Program in Philosophy. The M.A. has two emphases, philosophical methodology and issues of social justice. PHIL 520 will contribute to both emphases. The course will offer students the opportunity for indepth study of different methods of ethical theorizing. It will also provide students a supportive context for exploring the relevance of different ethical theories (or critiques of such theories) for a variety of specific ethical issues (some of which relate to issues of social justice).
PHIL 420W (with which PHIL 520 will be cross-listed) is being concurrently proposed as an undergraduate course in
Philosophy here at EMU. The M.A. level course will focus on additional, high-level writing, appropriate for graduate study in philosophy. In their final papers, successful graduate students will defend a philosophically interesting thesis related to the topic of the course, display mastery of philosophical writing skills, and show advanced understanding of, and critical engagement with, the relevant literature. A reasonable ideal for M.A.-level graduate students is to have their final papers be of sufficiently high quality as to be suitable for presentation at graduate/professional conferences.
1. Subject Code and Course Number: PHIL 520 (to be cross-listed with PHIL 420W)
2 . Course Title: Ethical Theory
3. Credit Hours: 3
4. Repeatable for Credit? Yes_______ No___x___ If “Yes”, how many total credits may be earned?_______
5. Catalog Description (Limit to approximately 50 words.):
A systematic study of different approaches to ethical theorizing focused primarily on the Western philosophical tradition.
Specific topics may include: the objectivity, rationality, and authority of ethical norms; theories of what is good and why; accounts of moral standing; varieties of consequentialism and deontology; neo-Kantian and contractualist views; virtue theory; feminist ethics; existentialist ethics.
6. Method of Delivery (Check all that apply.) a. Standard (lecture/lab) x
On Campus b. Fully Online x c. Hybrid/ Web Enhanced
7. Grading Mode:
Miller, New Course
Sept. 09
Normal (A-E) x
Off Campus
Credit/No Credit

New Course Form
8. Prerequisites: Courses that MUST be completed before a student can take this course. (List by Subject Code, Number and Title.)
9. Concurrent Prerequisites: Courses listed in #5 that MAY also be taken at the same time as a student is taking this course. (List by
Subject Code, Number and Title.)
10. Corequisites: Courses that MUST be taken at the same time as a student in taking this course. (List by Subject Code, Number and Title.)
11 . Equivalent Courses. A student may not earn credit for both a course and its equivalent. A course will count as a repeat if an equivalent course has already been taken. (List by Subject Code, Number and Title)
12. Course Restrictions: a. Restriction by College. Is admission to a specific College Required?
College of Business
College of Education
Yes
Yes
No x
No x b. Restriction by Major/Program. Will only students in certain majors/programs be allowed to take this course?
Yes No x
If “Yes”, list the majors/programs c. Restriction by Class Level Check all those who will be allowed to take the course:
Undergraduate Graduate
All undergraduates_______
Freshperson
All graduate students__x__
Certificate
Sophomore
Junior
Senior x
Second Bachelor___x_____
Post-Bac. Tchr. Cert._____
Masters
Specialist
Doctoral
UG Degree Pending_____
Low GPA Admit_______
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 2 of 14

New Course Form
Graduate for
Note: If this is a 400-level course to be offered for graduate credit, attach Approval Form for 400-level Course for
Credit. Only “Approved for Graduate Credit” undergraduate courses may be included on graduate programs of study.
Note: Only 500-level graduate courses can be taken by undergraduate students. Undergraduate students may not register
600-level courses d. Restriction by Permission. Will Departmental Permission be required? Yes
(Note: Department permission requires the department to enter authorization for every student registering.)
No
13. Will the course be offered as part of the General Education Program? Yes No x x
If “Yes”, attach Request for Inclusion of a Course in the General Education Program: Education for Participation in the Global Community form. Note : All new courses proposed for inclusion in this program will be reviewed by the General Education Advisory Committee. If this course is NOT approved for inclusion in the General Education program, will it still be offered? Yes No
Within the Department :
14 . Will this course will be a requirement or restricted elective in any existing program(s)? Yes No x
If “Yes”, list the programs and attach a copy of the programs that clearly shows the place the new course will have in the curriculum.
Program
Program
Required
Required
Restricted Elective
Restricted Elective
15. Will this course replace an existing course?
Yes No x
16. (Complete only if the answer to #15 is “Yes.”) a. Subject Code, Number and Title of course to be replaced: b. Will the course to be replaced be deleted? Yes No
17. (Complete only if the answer #16b is “Yes.”) If the replaced course is to be deleted, it is not necessary to submit a Request for
Graduate and Undergraduate Course Deletion. a. W hen is the last time it will be offered?
Term Year b. Is the course to be deleted required by programs in other departments?
Contact the Course and Program Development Office if necessary. Yes No c. If “Yes”, do the affected departments support this change? Yes No
If “Yes”, attach letters of support. If “No”, attach letters from the affected department explaining the lack of support, if available .
Outside the Department : The following information must be provided. Contact the Course and Program Development office for assistance if necessary.
18 . Are there similar courses offered in other University Departments?
If “Yes”, list courses by Subject Code, Number and Title
Yes No x
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 3 of 14

New Course Form
19.
If similar courses exist, do the departments in which they are offered support the proposed course?
Yes No
If “Yes”, attach letters of support from the affected departments. If “No”, attach letters from the affected department explaining the lack of support, if available.
20. Attach a detailed Sample Course Syllabus including: a.
Course goals, objectives and/or student learning outcomes b.
Outline of the content to be covered c.
Student assignments including presentations, research papers, exams, etc. d.
Method of evaluation e.
Grading scale (if a graduate course, include graduate grading scale) f.
Special requirements g.
Bibliography, supplemental reading list h.
Other pertinent information.
NOTE: COURSES BEING PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN THE EDUCATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE GLOBAL
COMMUNITY PROGRAM MUST USE THE SYLLABUS TEMPLATE PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL EDUCATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THE TEMPLATE IS ATTACHED TO THE REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF A COURSE IN THE
GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM: EDUCATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY FORM.
(Complete only if the course will require additional University resources. Fill in Estimated Resources for the sponsoring department(s). Attach separate estimates for other affected departments.)
Estimated Resources: Year One Year Two Year Three
Faculty / Staff
SS&M
Equipment
$_________
$_________
$_________
$_________
$_________
$_________
$_________
$_________
$_________
Total $_________ $_________ $_________
1. Department/School
Vote of faculty: For ____ 6 ______ Against _____ 0 _____ Abstentions
(Enter the number of votes cast in each category.)
_____ 0 _____
Richard Nation
Department Head/School Director Signature
10 September 2012
Date
2. College/Graduate School
A. College
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 4 of 14

New Course Form
College Dean Signature
B. Graduate School (if Graduate Course)
Graduate Dean Signature
Date
Date
Associate Vice-President for Academic Programming Signature Date
[Note: this syllabus represents one possible version of PHIL 520]
Eastern Michigan University
Prof. J. Michael Scoville
Course description
This course offers an in-depth exploration of three influential types of ethical theory: utilitarianism (act- and ruleutilitarianism), neo-Kantianism (realist and constructivist varieties), and a neo-Aristotelian flourishing view. We will focus discussion on three important texts in ethical theory—J. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams’ Utilitarianism: For and Against ,
Christine Korsgaard’s Sources of Normativity , and Richard Kraut’s What Is Good and Why: The Ethics of Well-Being . In addition, we will read a number of essays from contemporary philosophers who interpret, defend, and/or critique the views expressed in these primary works.
The course aims to enable students to appreciate, and to become participants in, debates about some influential ethical theories and about some fundamental issues at play in contemporary ethical philosophy. Exams, papers, presentations, and class participation are designed to achieve this aim.
Catalog description
A systematic study of different approaches to ethical theorizing focused primarily on the Western philosophical tradition.
Specific topics may include: the objectivity, rationality, and authority of ethical norms; theories of what is good and why; accounts of moral standing; varieties of consequentialism and deontology; neo-Kantian and contractualist views; virtue theory; feminist ethics; existentialist ethics.
Required texts
Korsgaard, Christine M. 1996. The Sources of Normativity . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kraut, Richard. 2007. What Is Good and Why: The Ethics of Well-Being . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Smart, J. J. C., and Bernard Williams. 1973. Utilitarianism: For and Against . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Other course readings will be made available on e-reserves.
Student assessment
Grades for this course will be determined by student performance in the following areas:
(1) Two essay exams (worth 20% each, or 40% of overall grade).
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 5 of 14

New Course Form
(2) Final paper (=35% of overall grade). Your final paper is intended to be a substantial philosophical essay on a topic clearly related to the class. The paper should address a topic that has not already been thoroughly discussed in class.
Papers should be 15-20 pages in length (double-spaced, including bibliography). You will compose your paper in stages: proposal, outline with list of intended sources, partial draft, oral presentation, final draft. At certain stages
(i.e. proposal, outline), you will hand in a relevant assignment for comment. At other stages (i.e. partial draft, oral presentation), you will be required to share your work with the class, or with part of the class, in order to receive feedback. As appropriate, you will revise your paper based on the feedback you receive from me and from your peers.
Successful graduate student papers defend a philosophically interesting thesis related to the topic of the course, display mastery of philosophical writing skills, and show advanced understanding of, and critical engagement with, the relevant literature. A reasonable ideal for M.A.-level graduate students is to write final papers of sufficiently high quality as to be suitable for presentation at graduate/professional conferences.
(3) Being prepared for class, paying attention, contributing to class discussions, etc. (=20% of overall grade). Note: there may be occasional “pop” quizzes and/or in-class assignments throughout the term. These quizzes and/or assignments will count toward your participation grade. Except in special circumstances (which must be documented), you cannot make up missed in-class quizzes/assignments.
(4) Two in-class presentations (2.5% each, 5% of overall grade). You will be expected to (1) summarize the main point(s) of the reading assigned for that day, and (2) raise some questions for discussion. Presentations should be limited to about 10 minutes, and you will be expected to take an active role in facilitating class discussion following the presentation.
(5) A minimum of five short responses for in-class presentation. These will be counted as part of your participation grade. On assigned days, you will be asked to write out a serious exegetical question, objection, or a creative application in response to the reading assigned for that day. The statement of your question, objection, or creative application should be typed, and no more than one page in length. You will be expected to send this to me as an email attachment the night before the reading will be discussed in class. In class you will present your question, objection, or creative application, and we will discuss this as a group.
Final Paper Assignment
1. General remarks about grading
I will assess your papers by considering whether you have a clear and interesting thesis, whether you make a plausible case for your view, and whether you take relevant matters into account (including reasonable objections to your position).
Further, failure to complete any of the stages of the paper assignment (proposal, outline with list of intended sources, partial draft for peer workshop, oral presentation) will result in the lowering of your paper assignment grade by at least one third of a grade (e.g. an A will drop to an A- if you failed to hand in a proposal).
2. Final paper format & style
Your final papers should be typed, double-spaced, with at least 1” margins. Please choose a readable, 12-point, font.
Number your pages and make sure your name is on the paper. Footnotes or endnotes are acceptable, but not required. A bibliography of sources used (or referred to) is required. The paper should be formatted according to a professional standard, such as that provided by the Modern Languages Association, the American Psychological Association, or the
Chicago Manual of Style.
Your papers should be written in clear English. Unclear expression, confusing presentation of your own or others’ view(s), omission of important considerations, and/or dogmatism will negatively affect your grade.
3. Grading paradigms
A typical “A” paper: The paper offers a particularly focused and thoughtful response to the topic. A clear and interesting thesis, cogent argument, skillful use of relevant texts/ideas, and sensitivity to relevant objections are all characteristic
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 6 of 14

New Course Form of an “A” paper. Unusually creative or insightful arguments or interpretations may put a paper in the “A” range, even if the paper has certain other shortcomings.
A typical “B” paper: The treatment of the topic is competent and mostly accurate, and the position presented is reasonable. However, the paper lacks precision and fails to adequately explain or address relevant texts, ideas, or objections. In general, “B” range papers are good, but less sophisticated and impressive than those in the “A” range.
A typical “C” paper: The paper shows some understanding of the relevant issues, but is marred by a lack of clarity, mediocre exposition and argument, and a failure to attend to relevant matters (including relevant objections to the position presented).
A typical “D” paper: The treatment of the topic is seriously deficient. For example, the thesis and supporting discussion are confusing and unmotivated, and relevant texts/ideas/objections are not explained or addressed.
A typical “E” paper (failure): The discussion is totally out of focus, confused, and irrelevant.
In general, papers will receive higher grades if they exemplify clear exposition and argument, and show good sense for what is relevant to the topic. Papers reliant on sprawling summaries, excessive quoting, and inept exposition and argument will receive lower grades. Papers that display vagueness, awkward phrasing, wordiness, poor organization, and/or serious errors in word choice will also likely receive lower grades. Pluses and minuses will be used for papers that fall in between the above paradigms.
Grading scale for the course
A (93-100)
A- (90-92.99)
B+ (88-89.99)
B (83-87.99)
B- (80-82.99)
C+ (78-79.99)
C (73-77.99)
C- (70-72.99)
F (below 69.99)
Other policies & expectations
Note on academic dishonesty .
You should familiarize yourself with the University’s definitions and policies concerning academic dishonesty (see the Student Conduct Code , available at: www.emich.edu/ studentconduct/conductcode.php). Any form of academic dishonesty—cheating, falsification, and/or plagiarism—will result, at minimum, in a failing grade (“F,” earning 0 points) for the relevant assignment, with no possibility of making it up. You may also receive a failing grade (E) for the course. There may be other penalties as well, such as referral to the Office of Student Conduct and Community
Standards for disciplinary action. If you are unsure about whether something you are doing would be considered academic dishonesty, please consult with me.
Attendance and participation . I expect you to attend class regularly, and to be an active presence in class discussions. If you miss class, it is your responsibility to get in touch with me concerning any announcements or handouts you may have missed.
Late papers . Late papers will be accepted but will be diminished one third of a grade per day late (e.g. an A will drop to an A-). Except under extraordinary circumstances (which must be documented), I will not accept papers turned in later than one week following the original due date.
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 7 of 14

New Course Form
Missed exams . Make-up exams will only be given in extraordinary circumstances (which must be documented), and must take place as soon as possible after the date of the missed exam. If you miss or cancel a scheduled make-up exam, you will not be given another opportunity to take the exam.
Having difficulty with the course?
If you find the material in this class difficult, I would be glad to assist you in your effort to understand. You may meet with me during office hours without appointment, or by appointment outside of office hours. You should also feel free to seek help via email. When students fail or receive a low grade in my courses, it is usually because they do not seek help when they need it. If you are struggling, I strongly urge you to get in touch with me sooner rather than later.
Classroom conduct . Free discussion, rational inquiry, and thoughtful expression are encouraged in this class. Classroom behavior that interferes either with my ability to conduct the class, or with the ability of students to participate in class, is not acceptable. Examples of inappropriate classroom behavior include: routinely entering class late or departing early; texting, using cell phones, or listening to headphones during class; talking in class without first raising your hand to be called on; talking while others are speaking; expressing your views in ways that are disrespectful to others in the class. If you legitimately need to carry a pager/cell phone for use in class, prior notice and instructor approval is required.
Religious holidays . It is the policy of EMU to recognize the rights of students to observe religious holidays without penalty to the student. Students are expected to provide advance notice to their instructors to make up work, including examinations that they miss as a result of their absence from class due to observance of religious holidays.
Students with disabilities . If you wish to be accommodated for a disability, EMU Board of Regents Policy 8.3 requires that you first register with the Disability Resource Center in 240 EMU Student Center. You may contact the Center by telephone (734.487.2470). Students with disabilities are encouraged to register with the Center promptly as you will only be accommodated starting from the date you register with them. No retroactive accommodations are possible.
F and J International Students . The Student Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) requires F and J students to report the following to the Office of International Students (OIS), 229 King Hall within ten (10) days of the event:
• Changes in your name, local address, major field of study, or source of funding
• Changes in your degree-completion date
• Changes in your degree-level (ex. Bachelors to Masters)
• Intent to transfer to another school
Prior permission from OIS is needed for the following:
• Dropping ALL courses as well as carrying or dropping BELOW minimum credit hours
• Employment on or off-campus
• Registering for more than one ONLINE course per term (F-visa only)
• Endorsing I-20 or DS-2019 for re-entry into the USA
Failure to report may result in the termination of your SEVIS record and even arrest and deportation. If you have questions or concerns, contact the OIS (at 734.487.3116), not the course instructor.
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
“The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a Federal law designated to protect the privacy of a student’s education records and academic work. The law applies to all schools and universities which receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education and is applicable to students at EMU. All files, records, and academic work completed within this course are considered educational records and are protected under FERPA. It is your right, as a student in this course, to expect that any materials you submit in this course, as well as your name and other identifying information, will not be viewable by guests or other individuals permitted access to the course. The exception will be only when you have given explicit, written, signed consent. Verbal consent or email is insufficient.”
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 8 of 14

New Course Form
Reading Schedule
Week 1
Introduction
J. J. C. Smart, “An outline of a system of utilitarian ethics” (in Utilitarianism: For and Against ), pp. 3-42
Week 2
J. J. C. Smart, “An outline of a system of utilitarian ethics,” pp. 42-75
Bernard Williams, “A critique of utilitarianism” (in Utilitarianism: For and Against ), pp. 77-118
Week 3
Bernard Williams, “A critique of utilitarianism,” pp. 118-150
Peter Railton, “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 13(2): 134-171
(Spring, 1984)
Week 4
Brad Hooker, “Rule-consequentialism and Doing Good for the World” (Ch. 8 in Ideal Code, Real World [Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2000)
Michael Slote and Philip Pettit, “Satisficing Consequentialism,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , supp. vol. 58 (1984), pp.
139-163, 165-176
Week 5
Thomas Nagel, “Value” (Ch. 8 in The View from Nowhere [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986])
Thomas Nagel, “Ethics” (Ch. 9 in The View from Nowhere )
Week 6
Samuel Scheffler, “The Defence of Agent-Centred Restrictions: Intuitions in Search of a Foundation” (Ch. 4 in The
Rejection of Consequentialism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988])
Christine Korsgaard, “The Reasons We Can Share: An Attack on the Distinction between Agent-Relative and Agent-
Neutral Reasons” (Ch. 10 in Creating the Kingdom of Ends [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986])
Week 7
Christine Korsgaard, Ch. 1 (in Sources of Normativity )
Korsgaard, Ch. 2 (in Sources of Normativity )
Week 8
Korsgaard, Ch. 3 (in Sources of Normativity )
Korsgaard, Ch. 4 (in Sources of Normativity )
Week 9
G. A. Cohen, “Reason, humanity, and the moral law” (Ch. 5 in Sources of Normativity )
Raymond Geuss, “Morality and identity” (Ch. 6 in Sources of Normativity )
Thomas Nagel, “Universality and the reflective self” (Ch. 7 in Sources of Normativity )
Week 10
Christine Korsgaard, “Reply” (Ch. 9 in Sources of Normativity )
Richard Kraut, Ch. 1 (in What Is Good and Why )
Week 11
Kraut, Ch. 2 (in What Is Good and Why )
Kraut, Ch. 3 (in What Is Good and Why )
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 9 of 14

New Course Form
Week 12
Kraut, Ch. 4 (in What Is Good and Why )
Concluding thoughts
Week 13
In-class peer review workshops
Week 14
In-class final paper presentations
PHIL 520: Ethical Theory
Bibliography
Alexander, Larry. 1985. “Pursuing the Good – Indirectly.” Ethics 95(2): 315-332.
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1993. Value in Ethics and Economics . Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Andrew, Barbara S., Jean Keller, and Lisa H. Schwartzman, eds. 2005. Feminist Interventions in Ethics and Politics: Feminist
Ethics and Social Theory.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Anscombe, G. E. M. 1958. “Modern Moral Philosophy.” Philosophy 33(124): 1-19.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers . New York and London: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Aristotle. 1956. On the Soul . Tr. J. A. Smith. In The Complete Works of Aristotle (The Revised Oxford Translation), Volume One .
Ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
——. 1999. Nicomachean Ethics (second edition). Ed. and Tr. Terence Irwin. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett
Publishing Company, Inc.
Attfield, Robin. 1987. A Theory of Value and Obligation . London and New York: Croom Helm Ltd.
Ayer, A. J. 1952. “A Critique of Ethics.” In Language, Truth and Logic . New York: Dover.
Baier, Annette C. 1995. Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brambrough, Renford. 1979. Moral Skepticism and Moral Knowledge . London: Routledge.
Copp, David, ed. 2006. The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crisp, Roger, ed. 1996. How Should One Live? Essays on the Virtues . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
——. 2006. “Hedonism Reconsidered.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73(3): 619–645.
Darwall, Stephen. 1998. Philosophical Ethics . Boulder: Westview Press.
——. 2002. Welfare and Rational Care . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
——. Ed. 2003. Virtue Ethics . Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
——. 2006. The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
De Beauvoir, Simone. 2000. The Ethics of Ambiguity . Tr. Bernard Frechtman. New York: Citadel Press/Kensington
Publishing Corp.
Dewey, John. 1988. Human Nature and Conduct 1922: The Middle Works of John Dewey 1899-1924, Volume 14.
Ed. Jo Ann
Boydston. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dorsey, Dale. 2010. “Three Arguments for Perfectionism.” Noûs 44(1): 59-79.
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 10 of 14

New Course Form
Dreier, James, ed. 2005. Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory . Oxford: Blackwell.
Driver, Julia. 2001. Uneasy Virtue . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
——. 2005. “Virtue Theory.” In Dreier 2005.
——. 2012. Consequentialism (New Problems of Philosophy) . New York: Routledge.
Dworkin, Gerald. 1995. “Unprincipled Ethics.” In Midwest Studies in Philosophy 20.
Foot, Philippa, ed. 1967. Theories of Ethics . Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
——. 2001. Natural Goodness . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
——. 2002. Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Frankfurt, Harry. 1988. The Importance of What We Care About . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
——. 2004. The Reasons of Love . Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Fraser, Nancy, and Axel Honneth. 2003. Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange . Tr. Joel Golb, James
Ingram, and Christiane Wilke. London and New York: Verso.
Griffin, James. 1986. Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance . Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action . Tr. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Harmon, Gilbert. 1977. The Nature of Morality . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Held, Virginia. 1990. “Reason, Gender, and Moral Theory.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research : 321-344.
——. 1993. Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture, Society, and Politics . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
——. 2006. The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hooker, Brad. 2000. Ideal Code, Real World . Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.
Hume, David. 1978. A Treatise of Human Nature (second edition with text revised and notes by P. H. Nidditch). Ed. L. A.
Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
——. 1983. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals . Ed. J. B. Schneewind. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett
Publishing Company, Inc.
Hursthouse, Rosalind. 1999. On Virtue Ethics . Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
——. 2005. “Are Virtues the Proper Starting Point for Morality?” In Dreier 2005.
Hursthouse, R., G. Lawrence, and W. Quinn, eds. 1995. Virtues and Reasons . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kagan, Shelly. 1998. Normative Ethics . Boulder: Westview Press.
Kant, Immanuel. 1930/1963. Lectures on Ethics . Tr. Louis Infield. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company,
Inc.
——. 1993a. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (third edition). Tr. James W. Ellington. Indianapolis/Cambridge:
Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
——. 1993b. Critique of Practical Reason (third edition). Tr. Lewis White Beck. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company/Library of Liberal Arts.
——. 1996. The Metaphysics of Morals . Tr. and ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 11 of 14

New Course Form
——. 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgment . Ed. Paul Guyer. Tr. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Kazez, Jean. 2007. The Weight of Things: Philosophy and the Good Life . Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Koehn, Daryl. 1998. Rethinking Feminist Ethics: Care, trust and empathy . London and New York: Routledge.
Korsgaard, Christine M. 1996a. The Sources of Normativity . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
——. 1996b. Creating the Kingdom of Ends.
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
——. 2004. “Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals.” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values,
Delivered at the University of Michigan, February 6. (Available online at: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/Essays.htm.)
——. 2008. “Interacting with Animals: A Kantian Account.” (This is a revised version of Korsgaard’s Dewey Lecture given at the University of Chicago Law School in 2008. Available online at: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/Essays.htm.)
Kraut, Richard. 2007. What Is Good and Why: The Ethics of Well-Being . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
LaFollette, Hugh, ed. 1999. The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory . Oxford: Blackwell.
Lear, Jonathan. 2000. Happiness, Death, and the Remainder of Life . Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
——. 2006. Radical Hope: Ethics in the Face of Cultural Devastation . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Little, Margaret Olivia. 2001. “On Knowing the ‘Why’: Particularism and Moral Theory.” Hastings Center Report 31(4).
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1984. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (second edition). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press.
——. 1999. Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues . Chicago and La Salle: Carus Publishing
Company.
Mackie, J. L. 1977. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong . New York: Penguin.
McNaughton, David. 1996. “An Unconnected Heap of Duties?” Philosophical Quarterly 46.
McNaughton, David, and Piers Rawling. 2007. “Deontology.” In Ethics in Practice (third edition). Ed. Hugh LaFollette.
Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Mill, John Stuart. 2001. Utilitarianism (second edition). Ed. George Sher. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing
Company, Inc.
Moore, G. E. 1922. “The conception of intrinsic value.” In Philosophical Studies . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
——. 1993. Principia Ethica (Revised Edition). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Murdoch, Iris. 1971. The Sovereignty of Good . London and New York: Routledge.
Nagel, Thomas. 1970. The Possibility of Altruism . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
——. 1979. Mortal Questions . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
——. 1986. The View From Nowhere . Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Norcross, Alastair. 2005. “Reasons Without Demands: Rethinking Rightness.” In Dreier 2005.
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia . Basic Books, Inc.
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 12 of 14

New Course Form
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach . Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
——. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership . Cambridge and London: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Nussbaum, Martha, and Amartya Sen, eds. 1993. The Quality of Life . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
O’Neill, Onora. 1989. Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons . Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.
——. 2011. On What Matters: Volume One . Ed. Samuel Scheffler. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
——. 2011. On What Matters: Volume Two . Ed. Samuel Scheffler. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Putnam, Hilary. 2004. Ethics Without Ontology . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Railton, Peter. 1984. “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 13(2): 134-
171.
Rawls, John. 1955. “Two Concepts of Rules.” Philosophical Review 64: 3-32.
——. 1993. Political Liberalism . New York: Columbia University Press.
——. 1999. A Theory of Justice (revised edition). Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
——. 2001. Justice As Fairness: A Restatement . Ed. Erin Kelly. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Reader, Soran, ed. 2005. The Philosophy of Need (Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement: 57).
Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, irony, and solidarity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
——. 1999. Philosophy and Social Hope . London and New York: Penguin Books.
Ross, W. D. 1930. The Right and the Good . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1957/1985. Existentialism and Human Emotions . New York: Citadel Press/ Kensington Publishing Corp.
Scanlon, T. M. 1975. “Preference and Urgency.” The Journal of Philosophy LXXII(19): 655-669.
——. 1998. What We Owe To Each Other . Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Scheffler, Samuel, ed. 1988. Consequentialism and its Critics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
——. 1994. The Rejection of Consequentialism: A Philosophical Investigation of the Considerations Underlying Rival Moral Conceptions
(revised edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
——. 2012. Equality and Tradition: Questions of Value in Moral and Political Theory . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, Amartya. 1992. Inequality Reexamined . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
——. 2000. Development As Freedom . New York: Anchor Books.
Sen, Amartya, and Bernard Williams, eds. 1982. Utilitarianism and Beyond . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shafer-Landau, Russ. 2003. Moral Realism: A Defence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
——. Ed. 2007. Ethical Theory: An Anthology . Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Shaw, William. 2005. “The Consequentialist Perspective.” In Dreier 2005.
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 13 of 14

New Course Form
Shue, Henry. 1996. Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U. S. Foreign Policy . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Singer, Peter, ed. 1993. A Companion to Ethics . Oxford: Blackwell.
——. 1995. Animal Liberation (second edition). London: Pimlico.
——. 2011. Practical Ethics (third edition). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Slote, Michael. 1995. “Agent-Based Virtue Ethics.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 20.
Slote, Michael, and Philip Pettit. 1984. “Satisficing Consequentialism.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , supp. vol. 58.
Smart, J. J. C. 1956. “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism.” Philosophical Quarterly 6.
——. 1973. “An outline of a system of utilitarian ethics.” In Utilitarianism: For and Against . J. J. C. Smart and Bernard
Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strawson, Peter. 1962. “Freedom and Resentment.” Proceedings of the British Academy , 48.
Sumner, L. W., 1995. “The Subjectivity of Welfare” Ethics 105(4): 764-790.
——. 1996. Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Thompson, Michael. 1995. “The Representation of Life.” In Hursthouse et al. 1995.
Thomson, Garrett. 2005. “Fundamental Needs.” In Reader 2005.
Timmons, Mark, and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, eds. 1996. Moral Knowledge?
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vallentyne, Peter. 2005. “Against Maximizing Act Consequentialism.” In Dreier 2005.
Wallace, James D. 1978. Virtues and Vices . Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
——. 1988. Moral Relevance and Moral Conflict . Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
——. 2009. Norms and Practices . Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Walzer, Michael. 1985. Interpretation and Social Criticism . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
——. 1994. Thick and Think: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad . Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Williams, Bernard. 1973. “A critique of utilitarianism” In Utilitarianism: For and Against . J. J. C. Smart and Bernard
Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
——. 1981. Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers 1973-1980 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
——. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
——. 1993. Shame and Necessity . Berkeley: University of California Press.
——. 1995. Making Sense of Humanity and other philosophical papers . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wiredu, Kwasi. 1996. Cultural Universals and Particulars: An African Perspective . Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1993. “A Lecture on Ethics” [1929]. In Philosophical Occasions: 1912-1951 . Ed. James Klagge and
Alfred Nordmann. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Wolf, Susan. 1982. “Moral Saints.” The Journal of Philosophy 79(8): 419-439.
Wood, Allen. 1999. Kant’s Ethical Thought . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, Michael. 2001. The Nature of Intrinsic Value . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09 Page 14 of 14