Updated Syllabus 11/18

 

 

SYLLABUS

 

Courses: PPE Philosophy Seminar and Philosophy Tutorial

Seminar Time: Thursday (and sometimes on Tuesday) 1:15-4:00

Seminar Place: Kravis 100 (when not online or outside)

Tutorial Time: Tuesday, by appointment

Professor: Paul Hurley

Contact Info: paul.hurley@cmc.edu

Office Hours: W 3:00-5:00, F 3:00-5:00, ABA

 

INTRODUCTION

This is the syllabus for both the PPE Philosophy Tutorial and the PPE Philosophy Seminar.  Our focus will be on areas of philosophy of particular relevance to economics and politics – ethics, political philosophy, the philosophy of social science, and the philosophy of law.  It is important to keep in view throughout these courses one distinctive contribution of philosophy to the PPE triad.  Economics and political science are disciplines that are by their own methodological assumptions descriptive rather than prescriptive (political theory and jurisprudence are outliers here).  They are inquiries into what is the case with respect to market interactions and political interactions.  Ethics and political philosophy, by contrast, are primarily prescriptive.  They inquire into what we ought to do individually and collectively – into which institutions are legitimate and which actions are justified.  Economics determines which interactions are more efficient, but not, by its own admission, which are more just or fair, or whether and to what extent efficiency (as economists understand it) is a value, and if so how it weighs against competing values.  The primary focus of political science is upon questions such as which coercive political structures are more stable; the primary focus of political philosophy is upon which ones are more or less legitimate, and when coercive use of force by the state is justified.  When we ask not just whether a group can succeed in seceding, but whether it is justified in doing so, we have moved beyond empirical inquiry into ethics and political philosophy.  When we ask not just whether we can win a war, but whether the war is just, we are engaged not just in political science, but in political philosophy.  Such inquiry is important; indeed, much of the point of inquiry into what we ought to believe is to inform our decisions about what we ought to do. 

 

TUTORIAL

The tutorial component of this course is loosely modeled upon the traditional Oxbridge tutorial.  Each of you will be expected to produce six 5 page tutorial papers during the course of the term, and six 1-2 page (or the equivalent) comments on the tutorial papers of your peers.  I will divide you into two groups, a and b.  Each group will have a tutorial paper due roughly every other week (consult the syllabus), initially on a designated topic (the designated topics will be written in the final syllabus), and a comment due on the paper of a designated member of the alternative group roughly every other week.  Tutorial day is Tuesday.  Papers must be emailed to your commentator and to me by 3:00 PM on Monday (as a word doc); the commentator must come to the tutorial with copies of her comments for me and for the author.  We will have 55 minute tutorials, scheduled on the hour, throughout the day on Tuesday.  Your paper and comments will provide the basis for a three way discussion of the assigned text.  If you are the writer, you are expected during the tutorial to defend your answer to the tutorial question, including your exposition of the relevant arguments in the original text and, when appropriate, the structure and content of your own arguments and criticisms.  If you are the commentator, you are expected to evaluate the writer’s arguments, the extent to which he or she does justice to the relevant arguments in the assigned text, and the extent to which he or she answers the Tutorial Question effectively.  If there are mistakes, lacuna, irrelevant tangents, flawed arguments, and/or unsupported claims in the paper, it is the commentator’s job to find them and point them out. The quality of the tutorial discussion is incorporated into my overall evaluation of your papers and comments.  Each tutorial paper (including discussion) will be worth 1/8 of your overall tutorial grade; your 6 comments (including discussion) will together be worth 1/4 of your tutorial grade.

 

SEMINAR

Although some of the meetings of our seminar will be on Tuesdays (particularly at the beginning and the end of term), our primary seminar day and time is Thursday, from 1:15 to 4:00.  Each of you will be expected to post on the blog every week, with a couple of bye weeks.  At least 8 of your weekly posts should be original posts on the material to be discussed in the upcoming seminar; some of the others should be comments on posts by others.  The original posts must be posted to the blog the day before the seminar.  You must contribute at least 5 of these 8 original posts before the midsemester break (including one for our seminar meeting on January 20^th). The focus of these blog posts should be the arguments in the text that will be discussed in the upcoming seminar; your posts will provide a jumping off point for class discussion.  These posts will account for 2/5 of your seminar grade.  1/5 of your seminar grade will be determined by the quality of your participation in class discussion.  Half of that grade will be determined by yours truly, the other half (confidentially) by your peers.  The final 2/5 of your grade will be based upon a 15-20 page paper due at the end of the semester.        

 

POLICIES

Attendance: Come, come on time, come prepared, and come to in person classes with a copy in hand of the text to be discussed in seminar/tutorial.  Lack of attendance (and chronic lateness) will adversely impact your grade, quite dramatically at the extremes.  Class time takes priority over other commitments.  When we are in person, class is a screen free zone.  Be sure to have hard copies of the relevant texts to bring to in person class meetings.

More on Attendance: We have been struggling mightily to get back to in person instruction.  Although we will be starting instruction online, the goal is to return to in person instruction soon.  When we do, let’s make the most of it!  If at any point in the semester you are under HHB mandated quarantine/isolation, I will make arrangements with you to continue your instruction on Zoom during that period.  These arrangements will be adjusted to fit the circumstances, and what constitute appropriate adjustments in the circumstances will be at my discretion.  If the majority of the class at any point is in quarantine/isolation, for example, we might temporarily move the seminar and tutorials entirely on to Zoom.  If, as is more likely, only a small number of students are required to quarantine/isolate at some point, I might set up separate small group meetings with these students, or a zoom tutorial meeting for an impacted tutorial pair. These are only examples of the options to which I might have recourse, and they are only options for students in covid quarantine.

Video Etiquette: Please observe the following policies so that we can collectively work to build a productive classroom when online:

§  Arrive at class on time, as per usual.

§  Videos must be turned on and kept on for the duration of class. Much of communication, even on Zoom, is non-verbal.

§  Mute yourself when not speaking if you are in an environment with distracting background noise.

§  Minimize disruptions (inform your cohabitants when you have class time and not to interrupt). Put other applications in “Do Not Disturb” or “Downtime”.

 

Academic Integrity: I REALLY hate cheating! Possible violations of standards for academic integrity will be reported to the Academic Standards Committee and prosecuted most aggressively.  If in doubt, cite!!

Extensions: Because of the cooperative, synchronized nature of this academic enterprise, it is very difficult to grant individual extensions for tutorial papers. Such extensions will only be granted in the most extreme cases.

Mutual respect: Much of what we read is likely to make some among us uncomfortable, perhaps even to cause offense.  Some of these readings certainly make me uncomfortable, and I find some of the views expressed within them offensive.  But they engage with important and often extremely influential ideas, and if these influential ideas have uncomfortable and even offensive implications, it is vital to explore how and why this is true; indeed, it is irresponsible not to do so.  These classes will not work as spaces of shared inquiry unless we are prepared to challenge each other’s claims and arguments and to explore controversial ideas.  But they also will not work effectively as such spaces if we fail to treat each other with consideration and respect.  We will proceed accordingly.   

Visiting Authors: I am making arrangements for several of the authors we will be reading this term to meet with us during our seminar time to discuss their work, some in person and some online.  These direct, student driven discussions with the authors are an extraordinary opportunity; be prepared to make the most of them!   Unless otherwise specified, plan to post on the blog for these meetings, and proceed on the assumption that the authors will have access to your blog posts.  In particular cases some of our authors may prefer written questions to blog posts (I have offered them the option); we will adjust accordingly.  

 

TEXTS

You are required to obtain hard copies of certain texts for the course, and I will distribute excerpts from many others electronically in PDF format or as handouts.

The texts that you are required to obtain for the two courses are John Locke’s 2^nd Treatise, Karl Marx’s The Marx-Engels Reader, John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice, Tommie Shelby’s Dark Ghettos, Antonin Scalia’s A Matter of Interpretation, Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom, Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Elizabeth Anderson’s Private Government, and Richard Beitz’s The Idea of Human Rights.  Please keep in mind that the original purpose of the PPE stipend was to defer costs of the purchase of your books.

Among the texts from which I will provide excerpts as PDFs or handouts are Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, John Rawls’ Briefer Restatement, Cheryl Harris’s “Whiteness as Property,” Gabbrielle Johnson’s “Are Algorithms Value-free?” and “Algorithmic Bias,” Corey Brettschneider’s When the State Speaks…, Arthur Ripstein’s “Roads to Freedom” chapter from his Force and Freedom, Briana Toole’s “Standpoint Epistemology as Ideology Critique,” Tommie Shelby’s “Ideology, Racism, and Critical Race Theory,” and Elizabeth Anderson’s “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of Preference.”

                                                         

SCHEDULE

We will be behind and perhaps even ahead of this schedule at various points during the term.  Such departures will be announced in class; you are responsible for keeping track of them.

Jan. 18: Seminar. Introduction and Hobbes (Leviathan chs. XIII-XVII) PDF.

Jan. 20: Seminar. Locke, 2^nd Treatise, chs. I-V (with a particular focus on V); excerpt from Adam Smith’s Lectures on Jurisprudence PDF (Everyone posts on the blog)

Jan. 25: Locke, 2^nd Treatise, chs. VI-XII, a writes

Tutorial Question: What is Locke’s account of legitimate government as the result of a social contract? Which aspects of Locke’s argument that a contract is the basis for legitimate government are being rejected by Smith in the excerpt from Lectures on Jurisprudence, and on what grounds?

Jan. 27: Seminar. Cheryl Harris, “Whiteness as Property” PDF.  Before break, 1709-1750; after break, 1750-1791.

Feb. 1: Tutorial. Marx, “The German Ideology,” b writes

Tutorial Question: On p. 160 Marx appears to suggest that the is not voluntarily adopted to free us from nature; instead, the state is brought about by natural forces that oppress and enslave us.  Moreover, he suggests that these same natural forces will eventually result in real human freedom -- in voluntary control of our lives.  Explain why and how Marx takes natural forces both to enslave us through the state and, eventually, inevitably, to secure our real voluntary control over our lives.

Feb. 3: Seminar. Before break, Tommie Shelby, “Ideology, Racism, and Critical Race Theory,” handout.  After break, Briana Toole, “Standpoint Epistemology as Ideology Critique,” handout.

Prof. Toole visiting

Feb. 8: Tutorial. Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” a writes

Tutorial Question: Marx claims to demonstrate that there is a contradiction “between the state and its general presuppositions” [32] in states that ground their legitimacy in the appeal to the fundamental rights and liberties of individuals (like the United States). Such societies achieve political emancipation, he argues, but real human enslavement is presupposed by this political emancipation.  What is his case for this claim, and in particular, what role does his discussion of the “rights of man” play in making this case?

Feb. 10: Seminar. Before break, Thomas Kuhn, excerpts from Structures of Scientific Revolutions and The Essential Tension, handout.  After break, Gabbrielle Johnson, “Are Algorithms Value-free?”, handout.  It is also a good idea to read at least the first few sections of her “Algorithmic Bias” paper PDF.

Prof. Johnson visiting

Feb. 15: Tutorial. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, ch. I (esp. secs. 1-6); ch. II (esp. secs. 10-15), b writes

Tutorial Question: Rawls maintains that although the agreement achieved behind the veil of ignorance is only hypothetical, it provides actual people with grounds for accepting his two principles of justice.  Present and critically evaluate his grounds for holding that this merely hypothetical agreement binds actual people.

Feb. 17: Seminar. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, ch III, secs. 20-24 and 29, ch IV, secs. 31-33.

Feb 22: Tutorial. Jean Hampton, “Feminist Contractarianism,” handout, a writes

Tutorial Question: The great thinkers of the Western tradition commonly hold that justice is the virtue that governs interactions among strangers and among fellow citizens as citizens, and is unnecessary within close personal relationships.  Hampton argues that such an understanding is profoundly mistaken: justice, properly understood, is a central virtue structuring even the most intimate, loving relationships (parent/child, husband/wife, friend/friend).  She develops a test for assessing the justice of such relationships.  What is her argument, and what is her test?  Critically evaluate one or the other.

Feb. 24: Seminar. Robert Nozick, excerpt from Anarchy, State and Utopia

March 1: Tutorial. Arthur Ripstein, excerpt from Force and Freedom, b writes

Tutorial Question: Ripstein’s argument in ch. 8 can be understood as taking the form of a reductio ad absurdum against libertarian accounts.  Adopt libertarian principles of liberty and freedom, see the form that such a society would take, see that a society structured in accordance with these principles does not in fact secure anything that we recognize as individual liberty and freedom, and conclude that the libertarian understanding of individual freedom and liberty is profoundly flawed; indeed, that a much more robust role for the state is a precondition for securing the conditions of individual liberty/freedom properly understood.  Present and critically evaluate his argument.  Be sure to clarify what Ripstein takes freedom properly understood to be, and how it contrasts with the libertarian alternative.     

March 3: Seminar. Corey Brettschneider, excerpts from Democratic Rights, and When the State Speaks…

Prof. Brettschneider visiting on Zoom 2:45-4:00 (We will start in person and move to Zoom for the 2:45 visit from Brettschneider.)

March 8: Tutorial. Elizabeth Anderson (hopefully with sophomore Murtys), Private Government, a writes

Tutorial Question: What, according to Anderson, is private government?  What, on her account, are the three kinds of freedom relevant to assessing private government? How, on her view, has the theory of the firm obscured the nature and operation of private government in the workplace?  Critically evaluate some central aspect of her argument.

March 10: Seminar. Elizabeth Anderson (hopefully with sophomore Murtys), Private Government cont’d

Prof. Anderson visiting on Zoom 2:45-4:00 (We will start in person and move to Zoom for the 2:45 visit from Anderson.)

March 15: BREAK!!!

March 17: BREAK!!!

March 22: Seminar. Tommie Shelby, Dark Ghettos, Chs 1, 2, and 6

March 24: Seminar. Tommie Shelby, Dark Ghettos, chapters 7 and 8

Tommie Shelby visiting on Zoom 1:15 to 2:45 (We will start on Zoom and move to in person after break)

March 29: Tutorial. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, pp. 3-37, b writes

Tutorial Question: Present and critically evaluate Scalia’s arguments against approaches to statutory interpretations that are grounded in the appeal to the intent of the legislators – to subjective legislative intent, and for a reasonable construction textualist approach.

March 31: Seminar. Antonin Scalia (and commentators). A Matter of Interpretation cont’d, Scalia/Tribe/Dworkin exchange, pp. 37-47, 65-94, 115-127, and 133-149.

April 5: Tutorial. Adam Smith, A Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part I, Secs. I and II, and Sec III, chap. II, a writes

Tutorial Question: Writer’s choice, but focus on the unsocial passions.

April 7: Seminar. Adam Smith, A Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part II, Sec. II,

April 12: Tutorial. Simon Blackburn, excerpt from Ruling Passions, handout, b writes

Tutorial Question: Writer’s choice, but include a discussion of the role of the distinction between empirical and theoretical games.

April 14: Seminar (with junior Murtys).  Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, Chs. 1, 2, 3, and 5.

April 19: Tutorial (with junior Murtys).  Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom cont’d, Chs. 6 and 10, a writes.

Tutorial Question: TBD

April 21: Seminar. Elizabeth Anderson, “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of Preference,” handout

April 26: Tutorial. Richard Beitz, The Idea of Human Rights, chs 1 and 2, b writes

Tutorial Question: Writer’s choice

April 28: Seminar. The Idea of Human Rights cont’d, chs. 3 and 5.

May 3: Seminar. Annie Deckey, Senior Thesis on Privacy and Gerrymandering

Annie Deckey visiting