1
Ryan W. Davis
Faculty Development Plan
Department of Political Science
June 23, 2015
1. Scholarship
Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses
My research focuses on the value of autonomy and its role in moral and political life. I argue that
autonomy has a kind of priority to other, politically relevant values. Political institutions and actors
should respect the autonomy of persons, even when this comes at the expense of—say—aggregate
well-being. In particular, I argue for the following claims:
Voluntarism about Obligation: Persons have only those positive obligations that they willingly
assent to.
Independence: Persons have strong moral reasons to want to be control their own choices,
rather than have these choices determined by other agents or political institutions.
Autonomy: Persons have strong moral reasons to oppose actions that will undermine their
ability to exercise their rational capacities.
I believe it is a strength of my research program that the different papers I am working on, ranging from
fields such as law and global justice to democratic and religious ethics, share a coherent theme. My
hope is that this will allow for deeper investigation and a progressive development.
My work uses the methods of analytic philosophy, especially deductive and abductive inference. The
strength of this approach is its emphasis on clarity. The value of clarity is that it allows for a more
precise way of locating disagreements. Given the intractability of disagreement in philosophy, this
virtue seems especially important.
A central weakness of my research to date has been that I have not published in the most prestigious,
general journals in political science or philosophy. It has been challenging to design work that is of
sufficiently general interest in either of these fields. Second, much of my work has been connected to
politics, but not centered on core political themes.
Goals
(1) Publish in a major political science venue in the next year. I have been working with a political
theorist (Eric Beerbohm, Harvard) on papers on the concept of the common good, and on the
ethics of experiments in social science. My hope is that these will be of interest to political
science audiences, and that it will be possible to place them in related journals.
(2) Publish in a major philosophy venue in the next year. I have a series of philosophy papers
which, with sufficient revision, I hope will be competitive for placement at general journals. One
paper is on the relationship between legitimacy and justice, and a second is on the personal
value of liberty. I have also been revising papers on associative obligation, and on connections
between autonomy and symbolic value.
2
(3) Publish more papers in reputable field journals. This year I have had one paper appear for
publication (Religious Studies), and have another forthcoming (Journal of Philosophical
Research). A third is under revise and resubmit at the Journal of Social Philosophy, and another
has been conditionally accepted (Ethics & Global Society) I currently have two other papers
under review (American Political Thought, and Law, Economics, and Philosophy).
(4) Increase participation in conferences and workshops in the field. This year I have presented
papers at selective conferences at the University of Arizona and Northwestern. These occasions
have presented good opportunities for developing relationships with other philosophers. I also
presented a paper at the New England Political Science Association meeting and commented on
a paper at the American Philosophical Association Pacific Meeting, which was similarly
productive. I have been invited to present a paper at Wake Forest in the fall. I hope to continue
submitting to conferences and meetings where there will be people who work on connected
research areas and can give detailed feedback on my own work. My experience has been that
the American Philosophical Association meetings and smaller, selective workshops provide the
best opportunities for helpful feedback and networking within the field.
(5) Maintain relationships with other people in the field. I want to develop a practice of talking by
phone with other philosophers about our work. This is nearly as effective as and much more
economical than visiting other institutions. Political theorists and philosophers I would like to
get to know better include people like Mark Button (Utah), Robert Taylor (UC Irvine), Matt
Zwolinski (UC San Diego), Cynthia Stark (Utah), and Jonathan Quong (USC).
(6) Complete book manuscript. Working on a monograph length manuscript is one of my major
aims this summer, and I hope to have a completed manuscript by October.
2. Teaching
Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses
My teaching as aimed at (1) preparing students to engage in disciplined, philosophical reasoning and (2)
giving students a basic understanding of arguments in political philosophy. I also advised a senior thesis,
and would like to find more students interested in writing longer papers within political philosophy in
the future.
Strengths include that students generally found the subject matter of political philosophy to be
interesting and were highly motivated to engage with it. My writing assignments tried to break skills
down into manageable sub-parts. For example, the first assignment would request that students
reproduce the structure of an argument from the reading. The second assignment would require
students to challenge a premise from an argument they had reconstructed. The third assignment would
then have the students develop a single positive argument out of a single challenge to a premise of an
argument from of the readings. I think this strategy was fairly effective, but the tasks were still too
complex, and in the future I intend to ask students to decompose writing assignment into smaller subparts.
In general, I was very impressed by how BYU students were willing to work collaboratively with each
other in the classroom setting. This made class discussions a valuable use of time, and it was particularly
3
valuable when activities could facilitate students talking to each other about the subject matter.
Students often modelled best practices in respectful disagreement and dialogue. I was impressed to
look for more opportunities for class activities of this form.
Finally, I was struck by how much BYU students appreciated opportunities to apply the gospel to
philosophical questions. These were some of the most rewarding teaching experiences I had this year.
My weaknesses in teaching have been in organization, both of particular class sessions and in
articulating how the course as a whole progresses from one topic to the next. I also feel that I could be
more considerate of students who have a negative reaction to the method of analytic philosophy.
Goals
(1) In the Fall 2015 semester I will be teaching Political Science 202, which introduces a large
number of undergraduates to political philosophy. During the summer I want to prepare this
course so that it can be run efficiently once fall term classes begin. More specifically, I want to
prepare in advance a number of student activities and video presentations to break individual
class sessions into smaller components, which I believe will help to maintain students’ attention.
I want to increase the number and diversity of in-class student engagement activities.
(2) During the Spring Faculty development seminar, one idea suggested was to include students in
out-of-class activities. I would like to incorporate this idea, perhaps using out of class
experiences to illustrate object lessons from political philosophy or related social psychology.
(3) In my upper division course, I want to increase the number of writing assignments and shorten
the word limits on them. Drawing on other work on teaching philosophy, I hope that this will
direct students to focusing on narrow questions and moving carefully from one inference to
another. My plan is to have assignments where students must answer questions about political
concepts in only 400-600 words.
(4) In the past I feel that students have become lost when too many pages of reading were covered
in one session. I want to slow down more and work through texts more carefully.
(5) I want to design and integrate more gospel applications. The spring Faculty Development
Seminar pointed out some possibilities for doing this, and my previous experiences have been
very positive, but largely resulted from student initiative. I want to think more carefully about
how gospel applications can be connected to related themes from political philosophy.
(6) I want to include instruction about how students can contribute to making class a valuable
experience. I find there is considerable variance in how enjoyable classes are for students, and I
think that depends considerably on the students themselves, and how they interact with each
other. I want to be less passive in participating in bringing about good classroom dynamics.
3. Citizenship
Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses
My citizenship demands in the last year were light. I was part of the committee to review applications
for departmental hiring, in which I read the relevant files and participating in discussion. This was
informative for me in learning about what the department values in political science generally. I also
4
served as a judge for Political Science posters at the 2015 BYU Fulton Conference. I enjoyed this very
much, and learned that our department has extremely capable undergraduates in political science. This
made me want to create a program for training students in political theory to the same level of
proficiency. I also commented on a panel for the BYU’s 2015 Inquiry Conference (March 26-27, 2015).
This involved reading several papers from different disciplines and offering comments on them. I had a
great time in this experience and would like to do more such things in the future. During the Spring
Term, I commented on a paper of incoming Political Science Department member Adam Dynes at the
departmental Young Scholars Workshop. I have agreed to serve as the advisor to BYU’s debate team,
although with the caveat that I would not have much time to participate. I was told that this would be
acceptable, given that the students are only now in the process of trying to constitute the team again
(apparently there was once an active team). Finally, I collaborated with BYU’s Wheatley Institution to
bring Clifford Orwin, a noted political theorist, to BYU to give a talk. This talk was attended by a large
number of students and faculty from political science, religion, philosophy, and related fields. (I am not
sure what the final number was, but the HBLL Auditorium was almost filled to capacity.)
Goals
(1) I want to become sufficiently fluent in academic political science to contribute actively (and
helpfully) to the department’s Thursday group sessions. I believe I have made some progress on
this this year, but I hope to further improve by reading the papers carefully in advance. In the
longer term, I would like to become a better educated consumer of political science research
methods. Steps to accomplishing this include reading more in the literature on social science
methods, and possibly sitting in on Political Science 328.
(2) I would like to participate in inviting a political philosopher to speak at a Thursday Group
meeting, and perhaps also speak to a group of students.
(3) I also want to design activities to help prepare students for graduate study in political
philosophy. I have applied for a grant to support a reading group which would study the work of
some contemporary philosopher, and then invite them to BYU to discuss some of their work.
(4) I would like to work on collaborative projects with other members of the department. I have
discussed doing the theoretical part of an experiment with Jessica Preece. This would help me
to become more conversant in experimental methods, which would be valuable in discussing
others’ work.
(5) I would like to attend political philosophy events at other universities in Utah. Political
philosophers at other Utah schools have expressed interest to me in having more of a
connection with BYU, and I think this could be mutually beneficial.
4. Relationship to Department Goals and University Needs and Aspirations
I believe that integrating political theory more closely with the rest of political science, which is an
implicit aim of my citizenship and teaching goals listed above, coheres with departmental goals for this
subfield. The department is supportive of political philosophy, and department members are
remarkably willing (in comparison with any other political science department with which I’ve been
associated) to actively engage with work in political philosophy. Department members have also
indicated to me that they would like to provide resources to students to prepare them for graduate
5
study. Eventually, I would like to be able to help students progress enough to make it possible to
engage in research collaborations with them. In other sub-fields in political science, research
collaboration with students is extensive, and this seems instrumental in helping many students get into
top departments for graduate study in political science.
I believe my goals in scholarship and teaching (particularly on higher levels of gospel involvement), are in
harmony with university needs and aspirations. Many of these goals were developed after participating
in the Spring Faculty Development Seminar, and are adapted from general principles espoused there.
5. Resources
The department has been very supportive in providing resources to achieve these goals. My primary
resource needs are funding to travel to conferences to build relationships with and get feedback from
other philosophers, and also funding to bring philosophers to BYU. I have looked into outside funding
for these purposes, and the department has also expressed willingness to support these aims.
6
Course Development Grant Proposal
In the fall of 2015 I will be teaching Poli 368. This is a Special Topics in Political Philosophy course, which
will be entitled Personal Morality and Political Obligation. A syllabus for the class is included below.
A central aim of this course is to develop skills in philosophical reasoning and writing. To this end, I have
included a series of short writing activities, each of which will focus on a narrowly structured
philosophical task. Examples include doing a close reading of a specific passage, reconstructing an
argument by clearly stating its conclusion and each premise supporting the conclusion, and responding
to a prompt that asks specific questions about the content of an author’s argument. Each assignment
will have a word limit designed to constrain any unnecessary prose. The aim of these assignments is to
improve the ability of students to write and think clearly.
Although some of these ideas have been incorporated from philosophy courses at other schools, several
tasks remain to be performed. For this reason I am requesting $300 in funding to complete the
preparation for and implementation of this course design. Funding will be used to hire a student
teaching assistant who is already familiar with philosophical methods to perform two important
functions:
(1) The TA will assist in selecting passages for close readings, finding relevant objections in the
literature to some of the readings for the class, and developing prompts that utilize these
objections to frame highly specific questions.
(2) Read several of the short writing assignments from each student in the class, and produce a
written response to the assignments. These written responses will do one of three things. For
some assignments, they will simply provide a model for how the assignment should be
completed correctly. For other assignments, they will provide comments on how the student’s
response could be improved. Finally, they will sometimes engage directly with the student’s
response, challenging the response or pointing out insights within the response that might be
developed further by the student as part of an ongoing conversation.
I anticipate that both of these functions could be completed by around 30 hours of TA work over the
course of the semester, which could be funded by $300. If there is remaining funding, I would also like
to purchase a book on student engagement techniques which was recommended to me by a teaching
mentor at my graduate institution.
7
PERSONAL MORALITY AND POLITICAL OBLIGATION
Fall, 2015
Brigham Young University
Department of Political Science
POLI 368R--001
TTh 8:00-9:15 am
121 MARB
Instructor: Ryan Davis
rwdavis@byu.edu
Office Hours: TTh 2:00-3:00 pm
Course Description:
What do we owe to members of our particular political communities? Are there (or, should there be)
special bonds of obligation between fellow citizens? Are there special moral requirements that apply
within political societies, but not between them? Should we be proud of our political community? Are
there special norms of political expression or communication within political communities? Many
people (including many philosophers) believe that the political states are morally important in one or
more of these ways. The project of this course will be to look closely at the possible grounds of such
alleged obligations, with an aim of figuring out whether there in fact are any.
A first step in this project is to think about how we acquire special obligations to particular other
persons. In this course, we will focus especially on the reasons we have in virtue of loving another.
Some philosophers argue for an analogue between relationships with compatriots and relationships
with loved ones. According to this view, we have special obligations to our fellow citizens for the same
kinds of reasons that give us special obligations to those we love.
The first part of this course will consider the moral reasons that justify and follow from love.
Next, we will look at arguments connecting our special relationships with particular other persons to
political obligations to a particular state. Finally, we will consider more detailed cases of how we might
acquire obligations to groups, such as through a shared history, or a common future. Hopefully, we will
refine our own views about what we can, and cannot, morally demand of each other.
Course Objectives:
This course will be run as a seminar, or as a kind of advanced reading group on the material. Seminars
provide a discussion setting: students are encouraged to speak directly to each other. The purpose of
this course is to provide students with an opportunity to develop skills and work that anticipates
graduate study in political philosophy or cognate fields. In particular, this course will try to help
students:
(1) Gain knowledge of a specific debate bridging ethics and political philosophy.
(2) Advance in understanding of philosophical methodology. Attention will be given to articulating
premises clearly and to understanding inferential validity. Argumentative tools such as
deduction, abduction, induction, and reflective equilibrium will be considered.
8
(3) Improve writing in focus, clarity, and philosophical rigor.
Grading:
(1) Mid Term Exam (15%)
This exam will occur cover the first half of the course, and will include a short answer section
and an essay section.
(2) Final Exam (30%)
This exam will be comprehensive, but will focus on the second half of the course. It will include
multiple choice, short answer, and essay sections.
(3) Short Writing (15%)
There will be a total of eight short writing assignments throughout the semester. The purpose
of these assignments will be to engage the readings while developing skills in philosophical
writing. These assignments will be narrow and specific. They will focus on a single writing task,
and will have a word limit designed to eliminate unnecessary detail and prolix writing.
Philosophical writing should aim for maximal clarity. These assignments will include, for
example, argument reconstructions, responding to prompts related to the reading, and close
readings of important passages. Short writing assignments will each be graded out of 10
possible points, with a grade of “check+” (10 points), “check” (8 points), or “check minus” (5
points). To receive full credit, the writing must completely and correctly reply to the prompt. A
check indicates a reply that may be inaccurate in some minor ways, incomplete, or unclear. A
check minus indicates a failure to comply with the requests of the prompt, significant error or
misunderstanding of the text. Any reply that exceeds the word limit will receive a “check
minus.”
(4) Final Paper (20%)
This paper will defend a thesis that is related to the themes of course, and will be around ten
pages. The paper should include a detailed engagement with at least one of the readings from
class. It should also include at least three outside sources from academic philosophical books or
journals. The essay should present a novel, valid argument for its thesis in which each premise
is clearly delineated. The paper should also use the philosophical tools developed during the
semester, including close reading, argument reconstruction, and case analysis.
(5) Participation (10%)
Part of the work of this course is to carefully do the readings and come to class prepared to
discuss them. If philosophical reading were described in one word, it would be: slow. Read
slowly. We will be interested not in the general sense given by the argument, but in the details
9
of the argument. Is the argument valid? Is it sound? (Note: these are logical technical terms,
and their meanings may not correspond exactly to how these words are used in conversational
English.) Participation should be informed and respectful. If a comment is informed by the
reading and respectful of others, it can appropriately express any opinion.
(6) Attendance (10%)
Coming to class is part of the work of this course. The grade percentage for this area will be
calculated simply by taking the percentage of classes attended. If a class is missed for any
reason, the class can be made up by submitting a 500 word précis of that day’s reading within
one week of the absence. If more than a week has passed since the absence, then it can only be
made up if the absence was relevantly justified (illness, important family issue, etc.)
(7) Extra Credit
There will be at least two opportunities for extra credit, which will be described in more detail as
they arise.
Required Readings:
Harry Frankfurt, The Reasons of Love (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).
Samuel Scheffler, Death and the Afterlife (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
Reading Schedule:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Tues., Sep. 1
Thurs., Sep. 3
Tues., Sep. 8
Thurs., Sep. 10
Tues., Sep. 15
Thurs., Sep. 17
Tues., Sep. 22
Thurs., Sep. 24
Tues., Sep. 29
Thurs., Oct. 1
Tues., Oct. 6
Thurs., Oct. 8
Tues., Oct. 13
Thurs., Oct. 15
Tues., Oct. 20
Thurs., Oct. 22
Tues., Oct. 27
Introduction
Harry Frankfurt, Reasons of Love, ch. 1.
Harry Frankfurt, Reasons of Love, ch. 2.
Harry Frankfurt, Reasons of Love, ch. 3.
Kyla Ebels Duggan, “Against Beneficience,” Ethics (2008)
Christine Korsgaard, “Reasons We Can Share,” (1996)
J. David Velleman, “Love as a Moral Emotion,” Ethics (1999)
Velleman, “Love as a Moral Emotion,” continued. Peer Reading.
Kieren Setiya, “Love and the Value of Life,” Phil Review (2014)
Samuel Scheffler, “Relationships and Responsibilities,” (1997)
Workshop session: “Skepticism about Associative Obligation”
No class. I am out of town.
Kyla Ebels Duggan, “The Beginning of Community,” Phil Quarterly (2010)
Anna Stilz, “Why Does the State Matter Morally?” (2012).
Simon Keller, “Patriotism as Bad Faith,” (2005)
Midterm
Simon Keller, “Four Theories of Filial Duty,” Phil Quarterly (2006).
10
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Thurs., Oct. 29
Tues., Nov. 3
Thurs., Nov. 5
Tues., Nov. 10
Thurs., Nov. 12
Tues., Nov. 17
Thurs., Nov. 19
Tues., Dec. 1
Thurs., Dec. 3
Tues., Dec. 8
Thurs., Dec. 10
J. David Velleman, “Family History,” Philosophical Papers (2005).
Sally Haslanger, “Family, Ancestry, and the Self,” (2012).
Dan Moller, “Anticipated Emotions and Emotional Valence,” (2011).
Dan Moller, “Justice and the Wealth of Nations,” (2014).
Kolodny, “Which Relationships Justify Partiality?”(2010).
Kolodny, “which Relationships Justify Partiality,” continued.
Scheffler, The Afterlife, Part. 1
Scheffler, The Afterlife, Part 2
Scheffler, The Afterlife, Part 3
The Afterlife, responses by Kolodny and Shiffrin
Review.
Final Exam: Thursday, Dec. 17, 7:00-10:00 am, 121 MARB
Assignment Schedule:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Thurs., Sep. 10
Thurs., Sep. 17
Thurs., Sep. 24
Thurs., Oct. 1
Thurs., Oct. 15
Thurs., Oct. 29
Thurs., Nov. 5
Thurs., Nov. 12
Thurs., Dec. 28
Response Paper—400 words.
Argument Reconstruction—800 words.
Argument Critique—500 words.
Close Reading—400 words.
Close Reading Critique—500 words.
Case Reasoning—400 words.
Response Paper—1000 words.
Response Paper—500 words.
Final Paper—2500 words.
Please note: the number of words listed is the maximum number of words that can be used for the
assignment.
University Policies:
Plagiarism
While all students sign the honor code, there are still specific skills most students need to master over
time in order to correctly cite sources, especially in this new age of the internet; as well as deal with the
stress and strain of college life without resorting to cheating. Please know that as your professor I will
notice instances of cheating on exams or plagiarizing on papers. General information about the honor
code can be found at honorcode.byu.edu. Details about Academic Honesty are found
at http://saas.byu.edu/catalog/2010-2011ucat/GeneralInfo/HonorCode.php.
11
Writing submitted for credit at BYU must consist of the student's own ideas presented in sentences and
paragraphs of his or her own construction. The work of other writers or speakers may be included when
appropriate (as in a research paper or book review), but such material must support the student's own
work (not substitute for it) and must be clearly identified by appropriate introduction and punctuation
and by footnoting or other standard referencing.
The substitution of another person's work for the student's own or the inclusion of another person's
work without adequate acknowledgment (whether done intentionally or not) is known as plagiarism. It
is a violation of academic, ethical, and legal standards and can result in a failing grade not only for the
paper but also for the course in which the paper is written. In extreme cases, it can justify expulsion
from the University. Because of the seriousness of the possible consequences, students who wonder if
their papers are within these guidelines should visit the Writing Lab or consult a faculty member who
specializes in the teaching of writing or who specializes in the subject discussed in the paper. Useful
books to consult on the topic include the current Harbrace College Handbook, the MLA Handbook, and
James D. Lester's Writing Research Papers.
Discrimination
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination against any participant in an
educational program or activity that receives federal funds. The act is intended to eliminate sex
discrimination in education. Title IX covers discrimination in programs, admissions, activities, and
student-to-student sexual harassment. BYU’s policy against sexual harassment extends not only to
employees of the university but to students as well. If you encounter unlawful sexual harassment or
gender based discrimination, please talk to your professor; contact the Equal Employment Opportunities
Office at 422-5895 or 367-5689 (24-hours); or contact the Honor Code Office at 422-2847.
Learning Atmosphere
Brigham Young University is committed to providing a working and learning atmosphere which
reasonably accommodates qualified persons with disabilities. If you have any disability which may
impair your ability to complete this course successfully, please contact the University Accessibility
Center (422-2767). Reasonable academic accommodations are reviewed for all students who have
qualified documented disabilities. Services are coordinated with the student and instructor by the UAC
office. If you need assistance or if you feel you have been unlawfully discriminated against on the basis
of disability, you may seek resolution through established grievance policy and procedures. You should
contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Office at 422-5895, D-282 ASB.
12