SYLLABUS
Courses: PPE Philosophy Seminar and Philosophy Tutorial
Seminar Time: Thursday (and sometimes on Tuesday) 2:30-5:30
Tutorial Time: Tuesday, by appointment
Professor: Paul Hurley
Contact Info: #77140; paul.hurley@cmc.edu
Office Hours: W 3:00-5:00, F 4:00-6:00, 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. I urge you to to keep in view throughout the course the 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 it makes sense to believe is the case is to inform our decisions about what it makes sense 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 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 e-mailed to your commentator and to me by 3:00 PM on Monday (word docs are strongly preferred). We will have 50 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 to defend your exposition of the relevant arguments in the original text and 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, 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 2:30 to 5:30. Each of you will be expected to post on the blog every week, with a couple of bye weeks. At least 7 of your weekly posts should be original posts on the material to be discussed in the upcoming seminar; others can 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 4 of these 7 original posts before the midsemester break (including one for our seminar meeting on January 26th). The focus of these blog posts should be the arguments in the text to be discussed in the upcoming seminar; they provide a jumping off point for class discussion. Your 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 page paper due May 14th at 5:00 PM.
POLICIES
Attendance: Come, come on time, come prepared, and come 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.
Video Etiquette: Please observe the following policies so that we can collectively work to build a productive classroom:
§ 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 nature of this academic enterprise, it is very difficult to grant individual extensions for tutorial papers. (The final seminar paper is an exception.) Such extensions will only be granted in extreme cases for what I judge to be good cause.
Civility: Much of what we read is likely to make some among us uncomfortable, perhaps even to cause offense. Some of these reading certainly make me uncomfortable, and I find some of 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. But they also will not work effectively as such spaces if we fail to treat each other with mutual consideration and mutual respect. We will proceed accordingly.
Visiting Authors: I have made arrangements to have many of the authors we will be reading this term meet with us during our seminar time to discuss their work. 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. Two of these seminars with authors, the meetings with Prof. Shelby and Prof. Anderson, will be conducted jointly with the Murty track.
TEXTS
You are required to obtain certain texts for the course, and I will distribute excerpts from many others electronically in PDF format.
Among the texts that you are required to obtain for the two courses are John Locke’s 2nd 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, Corey Brettschneider’s Democratic Rights, and Seana Shiffrin’s Speech Matters. All of these are available for purchase at the bookstore. Please keep in mind that the original purpose of the PPE stipend was to defer costs of the purchase of books.
Among the texts from which I will provide excerpts as PDFs are Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, John Rawls’ Briefer Restatement, Cheryl Harris’s “Whiteness as Property,” Gabbrielle Johnson’s “Are Algorithms Value-free?” and “Algorithmic Bias,” Stephen White’s “On the Moral Objection to Coercion,” Amy Berg’s “Bright Lines in Juvenile Justice,” Arthur Ripstein’s “Roads to Freedom” chapter from his Force and Freedom, Richard Posner’s The Economics of Justice, 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. 26: Seminar. Introduction and Hobbes (Leviathan chs. XIII-XVII), PDF; Locke, 2nd Treatise, I-IV.
Jan. 28: Seminar. Locke, 2nd Treatise, chs. V-XII; excerpt from Adam Smith’s Lectures on Jurisprudence PDF (Everyone posts on the blog)
Feb. 2: Tutorial. Cheryl Harris, “Whiteness as Property,” pp. 1709 – 1750, PDF, a writes.
Tutorial Question: Cheryl Harris argues not only that in the United States “the status of being white” became “a valuable asset that whites sought to protect,” but that these expected benefits “have been affirmed, legitimated, and protected by law,” effectively enforcing “a property interest in whiteness.” Present Harris’ account of the role of the American political and legal systems in affirming, legitimating, and protecting this property interest.
Feb. 4: Seminar. Cheryl Harris, “Whiteness as Property,” to the end
Feb. 9: Tutorial. Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” b writes
Tutorial Question: Marx argues that political systems such as ours achieve political emancipation, but not real human emancipation (see, for example, p. 32); indeed, that they rationalize real human enslavement. Present his account, with particular attention to the roles that he takes the rights of citizen and the rights of man to play within this system rationalizing real human enslavement.
Feb. 11: Seminar. Gabbrielle Johnson, “Are Algorithms Value-free?” PDF It is also a good idea to read at least the first few sections of her “Algorithmic Bias” paper. PDF
Prof. Johnson visiting
Feb. 16: Tutorial. Marx, The German Ideology,” a writes
Tutorial Question: Marx argues that up to his time in all ideology, that is to say, in all history, philosophy, politics, religion, and law, “men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura.” But he also argues that “this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life processes as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life processes.” (154) What is Marx’s explanation of this inversion?
Feb. 18: Seminar. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, ch. I (esp. secs. 1-6); ch. II (esp. secs. 10-15)
Feb. 23: Tutorial. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, ch III, secs. 20-24 and 29, ch IV, secs. 31-33, b writes
Tutorial Question: In sec. 23 Rawls introduces and motivates 5 fundamental constraints on the concept of right. In sec. 29 he provides additional arguments for his two principles of justice that are grounded in some of these constraints on the concept of right. Present and critically evaluate these arguments. Be sure to provide an account of the role that stability plays in these arguments.
Feb. 25: Seminar. Shelby, Dark Ghettos, Chs 1, 2, and 6
Prof. Shelby visiting
March 2: Tutorial. Shelby, Dark Ghettos, chapters 7 and 8, a writes
Tutorial Question: Shelby has argued in earlier chapters that the United States suffers from serious injustices in its basic structure. In ch. 8 he argues that such injustices compromise both the state’s “authority to punish” and the state’s “moral standing to condemn crimes.” (228) Present and critically evaluate his arguments for these two conclusions.
March 4: Seminar. Amy Berg, “Bright Lines in Juvenile Justice.” PDF Also read sec. 39 of Rawls’ A Theory of Justice.
Prof. Berg visiting
March 9: BREAK!!!
March 11: BREAK!!!
March 16: Tutorial. Seana Shiffrin, Speech Matters, chs. 1 and 2, b writes
Tutorial Question: Present Shiffrin’s accounts of lying and deception, explaining in the process why not all lying is deception and not all deception is lying. With this distinction clearly in view, present and critically evaluate her account of the distinct wrong of lying.
March 18: Seminar. Seana Shiffrin, Speech Matters, ch. 3
Prof. Shiffrin visiting (audio only)
March 23: Tutorial. Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom, excerpt, PDF, a 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 conclude that the libertarian understanding of individual freedom and liberty must be profoundly flawed. Conclude, in particular, 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.
March 25: Seminar. Stephen White, “On the Moral Objection to Coercion.” PDF
Prof. White visiting
March 30: Tutorial. Corey Brettschneider, Democratic Rights, Chs 1 and 2, b writes
Tutorial Question: Brettschneider argues that proceduralist accounts of democracy have debilitating shortcomings, but that standard attempts to avoid proceduralism run afoul of the problem of constraint. He argues that his value theory of democracy steers between these two difficulties, avoiding the pitfalls of proceduralism without running afoul of the problem of contraints. Present and critically evaluate his arguments for this claim.
April 1: Seminar. Brettschneider, Democratic Rights Chs 3 and 5.
Prof. Brettschneider visiting
April 6: Tutorial. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation. pp. 3-37, a writes
Tutorial Question: Scalia is often characterized as defending an original intent approach to statutory interpretation, but this is hard to square with his argument that such an appeal to “the intent of the legislature” is hard to “square with some of the (few) generally accepted concrete rules of statutory construction.” (16) Present and critically evaluate his arguments against such appeals to legislative intent (“Subjective legislative intent” [17]).
April 8: 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 13: Tutorial. Richard Posner, excerpt from The Economics of Justice, PDF, b writes
Tutorial Question: Writer’s Choice
April 15: Seminar. Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part I, Secs. I and II, and Sec III, chap. II
April 20: Tutorial. Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments cont’d, Part II, Sec. II, a writes
Tutorial Question: Writer’s Choice
April 22: Seminar. Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, Chs. 1, 2, 3, and 5.
April 27: Tutorial. Amartya Sen cont’d, Development as Freedom, Chs. 6 and 10, b writes
Tutorial Question: Writer’s Choice
April 29: Seminar. Elizabeth Anderson, “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of Preference.” PDF
May 4: Seminar. Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government.
May 6: Seminar. Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government cont’d
Prof. Anderson visiting
May 14: Final Seminar Papers Due.
Comments