Archive for category: Philosophy

Freedom and Responsibility

PHIL 4484, L01 EP4/Senior Values Seminar

“Does any man then hinder me from going with smiles and cheerfulness and contentment?… ‘But I will put you in chains.’ Man, what are you talking about? Me in chains?

You may fetter my leg, but my will not even Zeus can overpower” –

Epictetus, The Discourses, Book I, Ch. I

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance, a host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance. A planet of playthings, we dance on strings of powers we cannot perceive.

The stars aren’t aligned, or the gods are malign, blame is better to give than receive…

If you choose not to decide, you have still made a choice.

You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill.

I will choose a path that’s clear; I will choose free will. –

Rush, “Freewill”

 

Course Description

In this course we will debate the nature of freedom, responsibility, the standards of moral praise and blame, and the morality of punishment. We begin by discussing foundational questions: What is freedom and what does it require? Does freedom matter? Could scientists reveal to us that the laws of nature prevent us from being free? We will then explore problems arising from the foundational debates: Does moral responsibility require freedom? Does responsibility come in degrees? We will consider potentially mitigating conditions of responsibility: Should people be blamed (or praised) for their actions when upbringing, character, and environment appear to be largely matters of luck? Finally, we will consider the relationship between blame and punishment: What justifies the practice of punishing criminals? What is the ultimate purpose of punishment and blame?

 

It’s hard to paint people with evil or glory when you know that everyone’s got a tragic backstory

Free will’s an illusion; Morality is, too.

So, it’s not my fault that my parents messed me up, ‘Cause their parents messed them up –

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, “Nothing Is Ever Anyone’s Fault”

 

Required Readings

Free Will: the basics, Meghan Griffith (MG).

Free Will (2^nd ed.), ed. Gary Watson (GW).

All other readings posted on Blackboard (BB).

 

Recommended and enthusiast readings will be added to Blackboard as the course progresses.

Evaluation

Community Contribution                                                              Writing

Participation: 20%                                                                            Reflection Paper: 10%

Online Discussion: 15%                                                                   Peer Review: 10%

Presentations: 10% (5% each)                                              Research Paper: 25%

 

 

Diagnostics

Self-assessment and meetings (x3 each): 10%

NB: EP4 courses are required to have one formal oral presentation as well as 15 pages of ‘final draft’ essay writing which has been through a revision process. The course assignments are designed to respect these standards. Senior seminars help synthesize things you’ve been working on throughout your college career, with a particular eye toward cultivating an environment and ideas which will help you, post-college. So, bring your whole self to this course! This includes: is there something from your previous research or courses that you think is relevant to our discussions? Please let me know!

 

Explanation of Evaluation Criteria

Diagnostics: Senior seminars require hard work and striving for excellence (and discussions are at their most fun and fruitful when we’ve put in the work!). But I want our work to mean something for us beyond just meeting a requirement. As we’ll see, following our own motivations and rules we set for ourselves is deeply important! Each of us, I hope, will have something useful or meaningful to take from the course. To that end, we will focus on standards you have set for yourself. What goals are you hoping to achieve? How do you think you’re doing, and why? These assessments help me to help you. You will:

• Write an assessment, which is then:
• Submitted to me, after which:
• We will have a meeting to discuss how things are going, your interests, etc.

Further guidance on these assessments and meetings will be provided. But for now, the important dates to remember are: 9/16 (1^st diagnostics), 10/28 (2^nd diagnostics), and 12/16 (final diagnostics/course wrap-up).

Participation: Much of philosophy is an activity that we do together. To that end, participation is a necessary feature of the course. You will not be able to adequately participate in the class, let alone do well in the course, if you don’t attend regularly. You are allowed two unexcused absences, which cannot be used the day you present. After that, one percentage point from participation will be deducted for each additional day absent. Absences for major religious holidays, serious illness, deaths, and pandemic issues count as excused.

The form for requesting excused absences is now located in the fordham.edu portal. You can find it by selecting “My Pages” and clicking “Electronic Forms”.

Note: Let me know if there are any concerns about attendance or participation. If there is an issue preventing your attendance or participation long-term, check in with your dean as soon as possible.

To get full credit for participation, you must be engaged in class. This is a seminar; discussion is encouraged! Know, too, that I’m aware that personalities differ and being talkative isn’t identical to contributing—though a useful goal is to speak at least once per class. Other ways of contributing to the class include emailing something philosophically or scientifically useful to the class before discussion, identifying new helpful readings, and more.

Online Discussion: Readings on the schedule will be read by the date they are listed. In order to facilitate discussion, philosophically useful questions, objections, or comments will be entered in a shared google document. (The link has been sent to your inbox.) Each week, you’ll enter at least one substantive question, comment, or objection, due by 12:01 am the day of the relevant class (by Tuesday at 12:01 am if the question is for Tuesday’s reading; Friday for Friday’s reading).

 If you’re particularly excited, angry, etc., about a reading, feel free to add more! Questions of clarification and interpretation are not only allowed; they’re also encouraged. If something isn’t clear, this is the perfect time to ask. Your question can even influence how we approach the material that day! However, clarificatory questions must demonstrate familiarity with the reading (e.g., don’t ask a definitional question that is directly answered in the text). For example:

Perfunctory: I don’t understand what Frankfurt means by “X”.

Wonderful: I don’t understand what Frankfurt means by “X”, because his definition of X seems to conflict with Reason R that he gave. It seems to conflict because Y.

Also Wonderful: I don’t understand what Frankfurt means by “X” because I’ve been assuming Y. I assume Y for Reason R. But I cannot see how to make sense of X given Y.

Further Wonderfulness: I don’t understand “X” because it seems ambiguous between understanding it in terms of Y or in terms Z.

Perfunctory: Doesn’t Strawson contradict himself?

Wonderful: It appears Strawson contradicts himself, since says P on page 5, but much of what he says on page 10 seems to presuppose not-P. I think he’s presupposing not-P on page 10 for the following reason(s)…

 

Perfunctory: I agree with Sartorio!

Wonderful: I agree with Sartorio and would like to add to her point in the following way:         It allows us to make sense of Intuition I, which we’ve been struggling with. [Or: it appears to be supported by Scientific Study S—etc., etc.]

Entries should be well-formed and show attentiveness to the reading(s). Perfunctory work will count as skipped. These entries needn’t be long; a few sentences will do the trick. Feel free, though, to use as much space as desired. You’re allowed to skip two questions/objections without penalty. Be prepared to discuss your questions and objections in class.

Presentations: You will lead class discussion twice this semester, in teams. These teams will be composed of the members of your peer review groups, which I will assign (with your input in mind) on September 23^rd. I will demonstrate the kind of presentation expected; further official guidance will be given in class. Your group will sign up for discussion dates on September 27^th.

Peer Review: You will be in a peer review group comprised of 3-4 people. In this group, you will provide constructive feedback, charitably and critically evaluating each other’s work. Further instructions and a rubric will be provided in class on 10/11.

 Reflection Paper: A 1,500-2,000 word critical reflection on the relationship between free will, determinism, and moral responsibility. In light of our course readings and discussion, I will provide a reflection question to which you will respond. This reflection will require you to defend a specific position in the debate (e.g., semi-compatibilism) and make scholarly use of the course readings. Peer reviews on reflection papers are to take special care to make sure that authors are providing the correct definitions and considering relevant objections and responses. Further instructions will be provided in class. Reflection papers will be submitted for peer review on 10/14 and submitted for grading on 10/21.

Research Paper:

• Paper Proposal: This will include the thesis you plan to defend, your main line of argument, and a list of at least two possible sources outside of course readings. Aim for depth, rather than breadth (e.g., “I will argue that Frankfurt’s counter-example to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities is insufficient for X reason”, rather than “I will show that semi-compatibilism is an indefensible position”). The proposal is due in class on 11/11. You will then have a meeting with me to discuss your proposal by 11/18.

I highly encourage you to come see me to talk about possible paper topics and sources! You are    also encouraged to come early and often to talk about freedom, responsibility, and the problems therein.

• Rough Draft Comments: Part of philosophy is learning to evaluate and (constructively!) critique written work. To that end: you will turn in rough drafts of your papers on 12/6. I will stamp the drafts and return them to you. You will then evaluate and give comments on each other’s work. Your peer review group will consist of the members of your presentation team. You will be graded on the quality of comments given to your peers.

 

• Paper: A roughly 3,000 word research paper defending a philosophical thesis, based on the course proposal turned in. Adequate papers must consider objections and replies, along with the reviewer comments you received. The paper, along with your original stamped rough draft and the completed reviewer comments is due on 12/16 at 1:30 pm.

 

Further information on the proposal, draft comments, and paper will be given in class.

Course Policies

 

1. Etiquette: This course will be run as a seminar. While I will present and explain philosophical views on non-presentation days, much of our class time will involve discussion. As with all primarily discussion-based learning, respect and participation are the keys to a great experience. Students are expected to come prepared and ready to engage with the material. The expectation is that everyone is treated with respect—no talking over others, interrupting, sleeping, working on other assignments, etc. will be permitted. If you find yourself falling asleep, feel free to stand up in the back of the classroom.

 

Philosophy classes are places to try out ideas to which we might not be committed, follow arguments where they lead, and disagree! My expectation is that we’re all taking steps in good faith, but it is important to note that these kinds of conversations can seem risky in the wrong environment. And we want the right one. The guiding principle here, which I’m confident we’ll follow, is: Don’t be a jerk.

 

2. Screens Policy: Expectations of respectful engagement extend to the use of computers. Screens are to be used for course goals only. Texting, surfing the web, and social media use are not permitted. I reserve the right to revoke in-person screen privileges for anyone abusing this policy. I highly recommend printing out hard copies of the readings and engaging sans screens whenever possible.

 

3. Appointments:

 

1. For regular office hours: Feel free to simply come by during the relevant time! These are first come, first served. But I will do my best to see everyone who comes.

 

1. If you would like to schedule an appointment outside of regular office hours: Send an email request at least two days ahead of the desired appointment date, so we can work out a mutually beneficial arrangement. When emailing, please send a list of times at which you’re absolutely unavailable (i.e., in class, working). I will then check my schedule and determine our best timing. I will do my absolute best to meet appointment requests (including ones that cannot, for some reason, be made in the two-day window), but availability at certain times cannot be guaranteed. My calendar fills up quickly!

 

4. Email: Emails will be answered within two business days. While I aim to answer email as quickly as possible, students should not expect a response in less than 24 hours. If you haven’t heard from me within two business days, please feel free to send me a follow up – I sometimes miss one!

 

Philosophical and other substantive questions are best dealt with in a meeting, so emails should be limited to administrative issues and very brief philosophical questions. If something is taking longer than three to four sentences to ask or explain, that’s a good sign that you should stop by office hours or set up an appointment. [This is a test to see if you have read the syllabus. If you see this, please email me a song you enjoyed this summer.] Make sure to include the information and formatting that professional correspondence requires (e.g., your name, section number, et cetera). Any email inquiring about information readily available on the syllabus or blackboard may be disregarded. Use your institutional email for course correspondence.

Disability and Accommodation: I am deeply committed to each student receiving an equal learning opportunity. If you have accommodation needs, make sure to contact the Office of Disability Services. Additionally, if there is anything you think I should know which might affect your work, how you should be tested, et cetera, feel free to come talk to me—I want you to have everything you need in order to be able to do your best work. But know you do not have to discuss anything with me to be appropriately accommodated.

 

Academic Integrity

Honesty is the foundation of academic work. All students are expected to be familiar with and abide by Fordham’s Undergraduate Policy of Academic Integrity, found here:

http://www.fordham.edu/info/21684/regulations/3695/the_fordham_university_undergraduate_ policy_on_academic_integrity

While you’re encouraged to discuss material with friends and family, note that such discussions must be properly identified and include the relevant acknowledgements. Any outside sources or ideas (including from one’s neighbor, material that isn’t a direct quotation, et cetera) must be properly cited. Academic dishonesty will not be tolerated. Students found plagiarizing or cheating in any way are subject to an ‘F’ on the assignment and possibly in the course. If you have any doubts about citation or the permissibility of an action, please see me.