Phil 300-111
LAW, ETHICS, SOCIAL JUSTICE
Course dates: Monday, May 21, 2012 through Monday, June 25, 2012
Meetings: Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 6:00-8:55pm in Kupfrian203
Instructor: Rolanne Henry, PhD, J.D.
417 Cullimore
973-596-5608
rolanne.henry@njit.edu Subject: PHIL 300
Office Hours: Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 12-1:00 pm; 5:00-6:00 pm
COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING
The course requirements include: Homework responses: 15%; Researched papers: 35%; Forum, in-class
participation, portfolio: 15%; Mid-Term: 15%; Final Exam: 20%;
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
The University Code on Academic Integrity reminds us that NJIT is “an institution dedicated to the
pursuit of knowledge through teaching and research. NJIT expects that its graduates will assume
positions of leadership within their professions and communities. Within that context, NJIT strives to
develop and maintain a high level of ethics and honesty among all members of its community.” Each
student is, therefore, required to sign the Honor Code Agreement. The URL for University Code on
Academic Integrity: http://www.njit.edu/academics/pdf/academic-integrity-code.pdf.
The Honor Code Agreement in Part 2, Article III, Section 3, must be posted on each
student’s Portfolio.
POLICIES
Attendance is expected by NJIT and unexcused absences (those other than medical, etc.)
may result in a lowered grade. Use of cell phones or recording devices is not permitted in
the classroom, and all sound from the phone must b e turned off.
TEXTBOOK
Justice. A Reader. Ed. Michael J. Sandel (Oxford UP 2007)
ISBN #978-0-19-533512-5
COURSE OUTLINE
Monday, May 21 and Wednesday, May 23
Read: Chapter 1, pp. 3-7. The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884);
Chapter X, pp. 295-299 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book II Moral Virtue and
Book X Pleasure, Happiness. For Book V go to
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html
Note: Plato in Laws writes, “For that state in which the law is subject and has no authority, I
perceive to be on the highway to ruin; but I see that the state in which the law is above the
rulers, and the rulers are the inferiors of the law, has salvation, and the very blessings which
the Gods can confer.” This idea of the RULE OF LAW, not of men, evolved in the Englishspeaking world from the time of the Magna Carta (1215) through the English civil wars
(1642-1646 and 1648-1649) and the Glorious Revolution (1688-1689) of the seventeenth century.
Thursday, May 24
Read: Chapter 2, pp. 9-47 Utilitarianism—Jeremy Bentham (1789); John Stuart Mill (1861)
Write: Respond to the following-1.
What do you think Aristotle would have to say regarding the justice/injustice of race-and genderbased quotas in education and employment? Do you agree or disagree with him? Why?
2. Go to the Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) case at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0430_0387_ZS.html or look up this
Supreme Court case in Lexis Nexis where the service provides help to understand the case. You
must use LexisNexis as an NJIT database because use requires payment of license. Read Justice
Stewart’s majority opinion and Justice White’s dissent. Choose one position or the other and
debate the issue in terms of justice as you presently understand the concept. Refer by name to the
ethics philosophy that helps you to debate the justice in the case. Upload your thoughts in
moodle before the class meets.
Wednesday, May 23
Read: Chapter 3 Milton and Rose Friedman, “Free to Choose,” pp. 49-60; Read Chapter 4 John Locke,
Second Treatise of Government,” pp. 83-126. Questions to consider for class discussion—1) Consider
what the connection is between property and labor. What is the type of labor that creates a property
interest? Even if there is a preexisting patent that has created a property interest in an invention (is that
labor?) for someone else, can you add to it to create a different unowned thing and obtain a property
interest in the new product? What rules are needed to decide such a claim that would be “fair”?
2) Locke thinks that government should be guided by majority rule. He also thinks that government
exists to protect the unalienable right to property. Are these ideas in conflict? What if a low to moderate
income majority wants to impose a higher tax rate on a rich minority? What would utilitarians say?
What would libertarians say? Express some of your thinking in writing in moodle.
Thursday, May 24 and Wednesday, May 30
Read CH 6—Kant: Freedom as Autonomy, pp. 158-201. Respond in moodle to the
following: 1) Is Kant right that you must always have humanity or human reason as your
end? Is there something immoral about someone who seeks only pleasure? Why or why
not? 2) According to Kant, morality is doing the right thing just because you know it is right
to do so. Kant imagines a person, who is naturally sweet and kind and loving. She always
does the right thing, but only because being good brings her pleasure. Kant thinks,
therefore, that these actions do not show that she is morally worthy. Do you agree? Why
or why not? 3) Kant thinks that every rational human being has dignity, and that everyone’s
worth is infinite. What do you think? Do murderers have dignity? 4) If all people have
dignity and infinite worth, then how do we make choices about life and death? Consider the
scarcity of organs for transplant. Draw upon all the philosophies as you consider this and
any of the other questions. 5) According to Kant, the goal of morality is freedom. But for
Kant, freedom is not just doing whatever you want. It’s living by your own reason.
Brainwashing, advertising, cravings, and desires, for example, make you not free. Is Kant
right about freedom?
Monday, May 28 Memorial Day—no class
Thursday, May 31
Eminent Domain
Read: Excerpts from Plato, Protagoras and Crito; from Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan (as supplied in
class). Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) [locate this U.S. Supreme Court case in LexisNexis]. Look at the provisions for eminent domain in New Jersey statutes—N.J.Stat section 20 (2012)
Title 20 #s 1-30.
Write: Make a list of the issues raised in the Kelo case and the related arguments on each side. What
ideas from the philosophers studied thus far support any of these arguments?
Monday, June 4—MID TERM EXAMINATION
Wednesday, June 6
Read: Rawls, A Theory of Justice, pp. 203-221 and 223-226; Nozick, pp. 60-73 and 226-235.
DUE: Research Paper Assignment—Tentative thesis, outline, and Annotated Bibliography of at least five
substantial sources.
Thursday, June 7 and Monday, June 11
THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
1.
Read the following briefs in the Supreme Court case #11-398, Department of Health and
Human Services v. Florida relating to the minimum care provision.
www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources
At “Preview Links” click on “Merit Briefs”. Then click on “March 2012”. Find March 27,
2012.
Click on “Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida 11-398 minimum coverage
provision. Under “Amicus Briefs” and “In Support of Respondents” find
Brief for the American Center for Law & Justice
and “In Support of Petitioners” find
Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars in Support of Petitioners
Brief for the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund
Brief for National Women’s Law Center
Skim the briefs filed by the Respondents and the Petitioners
Listen to the two hour oral argument on the minimum care provision
www.supremecourt.gov Click on “oral arguments” (argument audio) for Case #11-398 on
the minimum care provision (individual mandate) argued on Tuesday, March 27
2.
Make a list of the legal and social justice issues, the main supporting
pro/con arguments and briefly note the positions of those filing the assigned briefs.
3.
Indicate the likely contributions any of the philosophers studied would make on these
issues.
Wednesday, June 13 and Thursday, June 14
Readings on justice issue chosen by the class
DUE: RESEARCH PAPER DRAFT WITH WORKS CITED
Wednesday, June 20
Class Presentations of the Research Paper
Thursday, June 21
DUE: RESEARCH PAPER
Presentations of the Research Paper
Review for Final Examination
Monday, June 25—FINAL EXAMINATION