Courses
Winter 2012
Philosophy 27/Political Science 27: Ethics and Society [Syllabus]
In this course we will explore several pressing ethical issues, all of which involve decisions that can make the difference between life and death: euthanasia, abortion, war, and aid to the needy. We will consider whether death can ever be good for a human being, whether killing a human being for her own good is ever morally permissible, whether there is a morally significant difference between killing and letting die (and, more generally, between doing harm and allowing it to occur), whether human fetuses are moral persons, whether abortion is never, sometimes, or always morally permissible, whether killing noncombatants in a just war is ever morally permissible, whether there is a morally significant difference between intending harm and merely foreseeing harm, and whether each of us has a moral obligation to help those in desperate need. The immediate aim of the course is to help you understand and evaluate arguments for and against various answers that might be provided to these questions. The ultimate aim of the course is to help you arrive at your own reasoned, justified, and well-informed position on the relevant issues.
Philosophy 111: History of Philosophy - Early Modern [Syllabus]
This course focuses on the development of Early Modern metaphysics and epistemology through the works of René Descartes (1596-1650), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), John Locke (1632-1704), George Berkeley (1685-1753), and David Hume (1711-1776). The Early Modern period is governed by gradual evolution away from the doctrines of Aristotle (384-322 BCE), as incorporated into the Catholic theological framework articulated by his prominent medieval supporters, most notably Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), and towards a new way of looking at the world that is sympathetic to the emerging sciences conducted within the research program of corpuscularian mechanism. It is common to think of the main figures of this period as divided into two camps: rationalists (Descartes and Leibniz), for whom some ideas are innate and reason can penetrate into the fundamental truths about the nature of the universe, and empiricists (Locke, Berkeley, and Hume), for whom there are no innate ideas and all knowledge of non-self-evident truths is founded on sense experience. But the interplay between these five philosophers reveals a far more complex story, one in which the rationalist/empiricist division is only one of many. Understanding the evolution of metaphysics and epistemology in the Early Modern period is one of the keys to understanding the views of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
[Prerequisites: Departmental Stamp, course designed for philosophy majors.]
Fall 2011
Philosophy 120: Introduction to Symbolic Logic [Syllabus]
[Note: Computer Lab is SEQUOYAH 142, not Solis 105]
In this course, we will learn how to determine, of any proposed argument that may be represented in first-order predicate logic, whether or not it is deductively valid. To this end, we will learn how to symbolize arguments formulated in English by learning how to symbolize the English sentences that constitute the premises and conclusions of these arguments; we will learn the rules of a natural deduction system and learn how to apply those rules to determine the logical status of any argument symbolized in accordance with those rules; and we will also learn semantic methods for determining validity and invalidity. Those who acquire the knowledge and skills taught in this course will be able to distinguish between good and bad reasoning in the most rigorous way possible. [Note: If you are a philosophy major, PHIL 10 is a prerequisite for this course. If you are not a philosophy major and you have not taken PHIL 10, then you need to obtain my consent in order to enroll.]
Philosophy 206A [Syllabus]
When I say that I know that I have hands, is that true? When you say that I know that I won’t have enough money to go on safari this year, is that true? When you say that I know that my Mega-Millions lottery ticket will lose, is that true? This course discusses a recent influential debate about the semantics of knowledge-attributions and the nature of knowledge. Call “Invariantism” the view that the truth-values of knowledge-attributions do not vary with context of use or circumstance of evaluation (in virtue of the semantic properties of “knows”). Call “Intellectualism” the view that a subject’s knowledge is not a function of her practical interests. Classical Invariantism, the combination of Invariantism and Intellectualism, was the standard view until fairly recently. However, strong pressures on Classical Invariantism (particularly the problem of skepticism, the lottery paradox, and intuitions about ordinary language cases) have led to a plethora of alternative theories. One kind of view retains Intellectualism but abandons Invariantism. There are two theories of this sort: Contextualism and Relativism. Contextualists hold that the truth-values of knowledge-attributions vary with context of use, but do not vary with circumstance of evaluation. (Contextualists differ over what explains the variation: Pure Contextualists hold that “know” is an indexical or that knowledge-attributions contain a hidden parameter for epistemic standards; Contrastivists hold that knowledge is a ternary relation and the range of the hidden parameter is a contrast class of propositions, so that knowing is a matter of knowing p rather than q.) Relativists hold that the truth-values of knowledge-attributions vary with circumstance of evaluation, but do not vary with context of use. Another kind of view retains Invariantism but abandons Intellectualism. This kind of theory has been called “Subject-Sensitive Invariantism” (by DeRose, who is not a fan), “Interest-Relative Invariantism” (by Stanley), and “Sensitive Moderate Invariantism” (by Hawthorne). Our task in this course is to determine which of these five theories (Classical Invariantism, Pure Contextualism, Contrastivism, Relativism, Subject-Sensitive Invariantism) has the better of the argument(s).
Winter 2011
Philosophy 27/Political Science 27: Ethics and Society [Syllabus] [Paper Topic] [Final Study Questions]
In this course we will explore several pressing ethical issues, all of which involve decisions that can make the difference between life and death: euthanasia, abortion, war, and aid to the needy. We will consider whether death can ever be good for a human being, whether killing a human being for her own good is ever morally permissible, whether there is a morally significant difference between killing and letting die (and, more generally, between doing harm and allowing it to occur), whether human fetuses are moral persons, whether abortion is never, sometimes, or always morally permissible, whether killing noncombatants in a just war is ever morally permissible, whether there is a morally significant difference between intending harm and merely foreseeing harm, and whether each of us has a moral obligation to help those in desperate need. The immediate aim of the course is to help you understand and evaluate arguments for and against various answers that might be provided to these questions. The ultimate aim of the course is to help you arrive at your own reasoned, justified, and well-informed position on the relevant issues.
Philosophy 158: History of Early Modern Philosophy [Syllabus] Course Notes are available on UCSD WebCT
This course focuses on the development of Early Modern metaphysics and epistemology through the works of René Descartes (1596-1650), Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), John Locke (1632-1704), George Berkeley (1685-1753), and David Hume (1711-1776). The Early Modern period is governed by gradual evolution away from the doctrines of Aristotle (384-322 BCE), as incorporated into the Catholic theological framework articulated by his prominent medieval supporters, most notably Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), and towards a new way of looking at the world that is sympathetic to the emerging sciences conducted within the research program of corpuscularian mechanism. It is common to think of the main figures of this period as divided into two camps: rationalists (Descartes, Malebranche, and Leibniz), for whom some ideas are innate and reason can penetrate into the fundamental truths about the nature of the universe, and empiricists (Locke, Berkeley, and Hume), for whom there are no innate ideas and all knowledge of non-self-evident truths is founded on sense experience. But the interplay between these six philosophers reveals a far more complex story, one in which the rationalist/empiricist division is only one of many. Understanding the evolution of metaphysics and epistemology in the Early Modern period is one of the keys to understanding the views of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
[Prerequisites: Departmental Stamp, course designed for philosophy majors.]
Fall 2010
Philosophy 120: Introduction to Symbolic Logic [Syllabus]
In this course, we will learn how to determine, of any proposed argument that may be represented in first-order predicate logic, whether or not it is deductively valid. To this end, we will learn how to symbolize arguments formulated in English by learning how to symbolize the English sentences that constitute the premises and conclusions of these arguments; we will learn the rules of a natural deduction system and learn how to apply those rules to determine the logical status of any argument symbolized in accordance with those rules; and we will also learn semantic methods for determining validity and invalidity. Those who acquire the knowledge and skills taught in this course will be able to distinguish between good and bad reasoning in the most rigorous way possible. [Note: If you are a philosophy major, PHIL 10 is a prerequisite for this course. If you are not a philosophy major and you have not taken PHIL 10, then you need to obtain my consent in order to enroll.]
Philosophy 200: Paradoxes (Proseminar for First Year Graduate Students) [Syllabus]
In this course, we will discuss a variety of famous paradoxes in philosophy. Each meeting will be devoted to a different paradox and will be hosted by a different member of the UCSD philosophy faculty. Topics to be discussed include the paradoxes of material constitution, the paradox(es) of nuclear deterrence, the toxin puzzle, the paradox of moral conflict, Russell’s paradox, moral luck, Zeno’s paradox(es), the lottery paradox, and the liar paradox. The main idea behind the seminar is to provide an entertaining entry into central philosophical sub-fields (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of logic, and philosophy of mathematics) and introduce students to half the UCSD philosophy faculty.
Winter 2010
Philosophy 105: British Empiricism [Syllabus] [First Paper] [Second Paper] [Berkeley’s Argument for Idealism] [Berkeley’s Argument for God’s Existence] [Berkeley’s Arguments from Variation and Change] [Berkeley’s Master Arguments] [Abstract Ideas] [Hume on Necessary Connection]
This course focuses on the development of British Empiricism through the works of John Locke (1632-1704), George Berkeley (1685-1753), and David Hume (1711-1776). Rejecting the tradition of Aristotelian Scholasticism and the innatism of the Rationalist René Descartes (1596-1650), Locke held that all ideas are ultimately derived from experience, and that our knowledge extends no further than those ideas. In addition, Locke contributed to our understanding of difficult metaphysical issues, including (i) free will, (ii) the nature of substance, and (iii) personal identity. Berkeley, claiming that Locke’s metaphysics leads to an unacceptable skepticism about the existence and nature of sensible things, attempted to prove that there is no such thing as material substance, and that the only things that exist are minds (including God) and ideas. Hume advocated a scientific attitude to understanding the human mind, which led him to new and shocking doctrines concerning (i)-(iii) and to a form of skepticism that Berkeley would have found repugnant. Understanding British Empiricism is one of the keys to understanding the metaphysics and epistemology of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). [Prerequisites: Upper Division Status, at least one philosophy course recommended.]
Philosophy 202: The DDA and the DDE [Course Webpage]
This is a core ethics graduate seminar on two main topics, the doctrine of doing and allowing (DDA) and the doctrine of double effect (DDE). The main purpose of the seminar is to discuss the prospects for a principled, defensible non-consequentialist ethics driven by one or both of these doctrines. The DDA includes the claim that there is a morally significant difference between doing harm and merely allowing it to occur. The DDE includes the claim that there is a morally significant difference between intending harm and merely foreseeing its occurrence. We will begin by considering how best to formulate the distinction between doing and allowing for moral purposes. Does the distinction map onto the distinction between causing and not causing? Does it map onto the distinction between action and omission? Does it map onto some other distinction? Is the distinction exclusive and/or exhaustive? We will then consider the moral status of enabling harm, i.e., removing an obstacle to a causal sequence that leads to harm. Is enabling harm morally equivalent to allowing harm? Is it morally equivalent to doing harm? Or is it morally equivalent to neither? We will discuss the famous Trolley Problem (and some of its numerous progeny), which constitutes an objection to the DDA. We will also consider a raft of objections from DDA-skeptics (some of them consequentialists) who think that the DDA has no place in moral theory. We will then move on to the DDE, looking briefly at its history and the classical formulation inspired by Aquinas's defense of the moral permissibility of self-defense. We will consider objections to the classical formulation, and discuss various ways of defending the moral relevance of the intend/foresee distinction in the face of these objections. According to one objection, the DDE is otiose because all of the moral facts that the DDE can be used to explain can be explained equally well (if not better) by the DDA. According to another, proponents of the DDE misunderstand the relation between intention and permissibility. According to yet another, the existence of alternative descriptions of intentions-in-action renders application of the DDE morally arbitrary. We will also consider an objection derived from a variant of the Trolley Case (Loop Trolley). Some of these objections have resulted in further elaborations of the DDE, as well as revisionary proposals designed to capture some of the intuitions that support the intend/foresee distinction. At the end of the seminar, we will consider criticisms of both the DDA and the DDE deriving from recent work in experimental philosophy.
Fall 2009
Philosophy 27/Political Science 27: Ethics and Society [Syllabus]
In this course we will explore several pressing ethical issues, all of which involve decisions that can make the difference between life and death: euthanasia, abortion, war, and aid to the needy. We will consider whether death can ever be good for a human being, whether killing a human being for her own good is ever morally permissible, whether there is a morally significant difference between killing and letting die (and, more generally, between doing harm and allowing it to occur), whether human fetuses are moral persons, whether abortion is never, sometimes, or always morally permissible, whether killing noncombatants in a just war is ever morally permissible, whether there is a morally significant difference between intending harm and merely foreseeing harm, and whether each of us has a moral obligation to help those in desperate need. The immediate aim of the course is to help you understand and evaluate arguments for and against various answers that might be provided to these questions. The ultimate aim of the course is to help you arrive at your own reasoned, justified, and well-informed position on the relevant issues.
Philosophy 120: Introduction to Symbolic Logic [Syllabus]
In this course, we will learn how to determine, of any proposed argument that may be represented in first-order predicate logic, whether or not it is deductively valid. To this end, we will learn how to symbolize arguments formulated in English by learning how to symbolize the English sentences that constitute the premises and conclusions of these arguments; we will learn the rules of a natural deduction system and learn how to apply those rules to determine the logical status of any argument symbolized in accordance with those rules; and we will also learn semantic methods for determining validity and invalidity. Those who acquire the knowledge and skills taught in this course will be able to distinguish between good and bad reasoning in the most rigorous way possible. [Note: If you are a philosophy major, PHIL 10 is a prerequisite for this course. If you are not a philosophy major and you have not taken PHIL 10, then you need to obtain my consent in order to enroll.]
Winter 2009
Dimensions of Culture 2: Justice
The course examines the history of the Bill of Rights and the function of the federal judiciary under the United States Constitution, and then discusses the proper interpretation and application of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. We will consider famous Equal Protection cases concerning racial discrimination (Plessy, Brown, Korematsu), affirmative action (Bakke, Grutter, Gratz, Seattle Schools), sex discrimination (Bradwell, Muller, Reed, Frontiero, Craig, and United States v. Virginia), discrimination on the basis of wealth (Rodriguez), and discrimination on grounds of alienage (Plyler). We will also consider famous Due Process cases concerning contraception (Griswold, Eisenstadt), abortion (Roe, Casey), homosexual conduct (Bowers, Lawrence), gay marriage (Goodridge, Kerrigan, In Re Marriage Cases), the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment (Cruzan), and the right to die (Glucksberg).
Lecture Notes (posted as soon as they are ready)
Lecture 2 (1/7): The Bill of Rights
Lecture 3 (1/9): Constitutional Interpretation I
Lecture 4 (1/12): Constitutional Interpretation II
Lecture 8 (1/23): Palko and Carolene Products, fn.4
Lecture 12 (2/2): Seattle Schools
Lecture 13 (2/4): Bradwell and Muller
2/6: Lecture canceled (illness)
Lecture 14 (2/9): Frontiero and Craig
Lecture 15 (2/11): United States v. Virginia (VMI Case)
Lecture 23 (3/6): In Re Marriage Cases
STUDY QUESTIONS FOR DOC2 FINAL
Philosophy 201: Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature
Graduate Seminar, co-taught with Don Rutherford
This seminar will be devoted to a careful examination of David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40), focusing on the lesser-studied practical philosophy of Books II and III. Hume was just 28 when he published his masterpiece, which he later said “fell dead-born from the Press; without reaching such distinction as even to excite a Murmur among the Zealots.” He spent the rest of his career attempting to present his insights in a more compelling manner, leading to the Essays Moral and Political (1741-2, 1748); An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (1748, 1758); An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals (1751); and Four Dissertations (1757, containing “The Natural History of Religion,” “Of the Passions” and “Of the Standard of Taste”). Hume’s contributions to moral philosophy are huge. The case he mounts against moral rationalism, the doctrine that moral judgments are grounded in reason alone, remains extraordinarily influential. We will attempt to tease out the different strands of Hume’s critical argument, as well as the support he offers for his own positive account of morality as based on a distinctive “moral sentiment.” Getting clear on what Hume means by this requires that we look carefully at Book II of the Treatise, where he develops his account of the passions. And this in turn presupposes that we have understood Hume’s landmark contributions to theoretical philosophy in Book I: his views on the proper method of enquiry; the theory of ideas and impressions; the distinction of relations of ideas and matters of fact; the discussion of causation and necessary connection; and finally, his perplexing engagement with skepticism. Working forward through the text we will be concerned with investigating the arguments Hume offers for particular claims, as well as whether the Treatise as a whole hangs together as a systematic work, with later books building on the conclusions of earlier ones.
Fall 2008
Philosophy 120: Introduction to Symbolic Logic [Syllabus] [Reverse Truth Tables Assignment] [Practice Mid-Term Symbolization Answers]
In this course, we will learn how to determine, of any proposed argument that may be represented in first-order predicate logic, whether or not it is deductively valid. To this end, we will learn how to symbolize arguments formulated in English by learning how to symbolize the English sentences that constitute the premises and conclusions of these arguments; we will learn the rules of a natural deduction system and learn how to apply those rules to determine the logical status of any argument symbolized in accordance with those rules; and we will also learn semantic methods for determining validity and invalidity. Those who acquire the knowledge and skills taught in this course will be able to distinguish between good and bad reasoning in the most rigorous way possible. [Note: If you are a philosophy major, PHIL 10 is a prerequisite for this course. If you are not a philosophy major and you have not taken PHIL 10, then you need to obtain my consent in order to enroll.]
Philosophy 100: Socrates and Plato [COURSE WEBPAGE]
The course examines and evaluates the main philosophical positions advocated and defended by Socrates and Plato, as they appear in Plato’s dialogues. Topics to be covered include: Socrates’ theory of definition; Socrates’ acceptance, and Plato’s denial, of (i) hedonism [the thesis that the good is pleasure], (ii) the impossibility of weakness-of-will, and (iii) moral intellectualism [the thesis that virtue is a kind of knowledge]; Socrates’ and Plato’s (rather different) defenses of the claim that virtue (justice in particular) is sufficient for happiness; the paradox of inquiry, the doctrine of recollection, and Plato’s arguments for the immortality of the soul; and Plato’s theory of forms, his theory of knowledge, and (if there is time) the emendations to those theories forced upon him by considerations raised in the Parmenides and Theaetetus. Prerequisites: Upper-division status; at least one UCSD philosophy course recommended.
