Syllabus - Syllabus and Course Outline Philosophy 320,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Syllabus and Course Outline – Philosophy 320, sections 14-15 Fall 2007 Prof. Rachel Waterstradt 1. Course Description and Principle Topics a. Prerequisites and Recommended Background b. Student Learning Outcomes c. Summary d. Policy on Plagiarism/Academic Dishonesty 2. Coursework a. Thinker Quizzes b. Position Papers c. Final Paper d. Attendance e. Grade Policy 3. Required Texts and Descriptions a. Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals and selections b. Nietzsche, selections c. Kierkegaard, Works of Love (selections) d. Arendt, Responsibility and Judgement and selections e. Individual Paper Text 4. Reading and Assignments Calendar 5. FAQ and Advice Attachments: Policy on Academic Honesty Final paper text/group assignment sheet Grade Sheet
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Syllabus for: Philosophy 320, sections 14 and 15 Tuesday, 4:30-7:00 p.m., St. Robert’s #356 Tuesday, 7:15-9:45 p.m., St. Robert’s #357 Instructor: Prof. Rachel Waterstradt University Hall, #3750 Office Hours: Tuesday, 1:00-4:00 p.m. Friday, 2:00-3:00 p.m. Contact Information: Cell – 310-748-8965 Office – x81937 (department secretary – office extension difficulties) e-mail – 1. Course Description/Principal Topics: This course will be focused on ethical theories concerning individual decision and action . The required texts draw special attention to the ultimate reason for the goodness or badness of an ac- tion. The four thinkers we will study together this semester reflect different answers to the ques- tion, “What ought I to do and why would that be good?” – the central question of ethics (and, as Socrates argued, of philosophy itself). If an action is determined as good because the doer of that action conceivably benefits in some way, then all one would have to do justify pursuing that course of action would be to convince others of the benefit she attains via the action. If an action is determined to be good, right and even necessary irregardless of whether that action satisfied the desires of the doer, then one has to argue for the rightness of that course of action and argue for the importance and necessity of a view larger than simply a person’s desires. Although the four thinkers’ arguments differ, their positions are united in one respect: an action is good or bad or evil because of the argument (or lack of argument) behind it. Every thinker who has put pen to paper regarding ethics agrees on this point. These four were chosen because they each separ- ately argue that external circumstance and the times one lives in do not dictate the argument – an extremely interesting approach given the direction of our discussions throughout the course of the semester and in the position you develop in your papers (especially the final paper). The thinker quizzes are a concrete gauge of your understanding of the mechanics of each
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/23/2008 for the course PHIL dfs taught by Professor Waterstradt during the Spring '08 term at Loyola Marymount.

Page1 / 17

Syllabus - Syllabus and Course Outline Philosophy 320,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online