DPLS 747fa08 Leadership and Classical Ethics
DPLS 747 Leadership and Classical Ethics
Fall 2008 2 Units
Instructor: Jon Stratton, Ph. D
Phone: 509.527.4222 or 509.301.7713
Email: dplsethics@hotmail.com
Day: Saturday, 8:00 – 12 Noon
Dates: September 6, 20, October 4, 18, 25
Location: FL 116
General Description of the Course’s Content
This course analyzes primary source material in four distinct voices vital to any philosophically informed discussion of leadership ethics – Plato, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. There are several seminal philosophical approaches to contemporary ethics – emotivism (C. L. Stevenson), prescriptivism (R. M. Hare), contract ethics (John Rawls) and discourse ethics (Jürgen Habermas) – that some philosophers regard as “classical” theories because they are so fundamental to current discussion. However, there is a virtually universal consensus that contemporary theories are extrapolations of the concepts embedded in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Mill. Indeed, Alfred North Whitehead once famously wrote that all philosophy is a footnote to Plato. Whitehead may been exaggerating for the sake of emphasis, but a good grasp of the primary ideas in these four thinkers will, without a doubt, serve as an excellent foundation for grasping seminal and current approaches in ethical theory.
It should be noted that the course is restricted to Western philosophical sources; the insights of religious traditions such as Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity are not addressed. This does not imply, of course, that these traditions are not worthy of study. Indeed, over the years they have influenced philosophical ethics. However, philosophy addresses ethics in a voice that the religious traditions do not; philosophy approaches ethics as an abstract, theoretical exploration. It is an intellectually rigorous activity that prioritizes questions and theory rather than answers and data. The religious traditions are more involved with ethics as a practical, applied way of life.
Philosophy is an abstract, purely theoretical investigation of meaning. It can be frustrating in its repudiation of closure, its passion for the open-ended question, and its downright refusal to be “brought down to earth.” William James describes this aspect of philosophy quite well in the opening paragraphs of his famous 1907 essay, “Pragmatism, a New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking.”
Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits. It works in the minutest crannies and it opens out the widest vistas. It “bakes no bread” as has been said, but it can inspire our souls with courage; and repugnant as its manners, its doubting and challenging, its quibbling and dialectics, often are to common people, no one of us can get along without the far-flashing beams of light it sends over the world’s perspectives. These illuminations at least, and the contrast effects of darkness and mystery that accompany them, give to what it says an interest that is much more than professional.
James’ insight here is important to our course. It will, at times, seem odd, even unfeeling, that we discuss the heartfelt and serious issue of right and wrong in such an abstract, distanced manner. Philosophy certainly has more passion for the activity of thinking about right and wrong than it does for rights and wrongs themselves. Since our course involves reading, discussing and analyzing the primary philosophical sources, you can expect a great deal of abstraction. We will encounter what James describes as the sublime and the trivial, and at times we may be repulsed by the doubting, the challenging, and the quibbling. But as we open our vistas and develop our intellectual courage we will find those far-flashing beams of light and those dark areas of mystery that are so vital to authentic ethical leadership.
The Course's Anticipated Outcomes
The primary sources are challenging in their rigor and subtlety. Class discussions will center on clarifying the readings as well as their implications for leadership. The goal in class discussion is not to find one philosopher who is “better” than the rest, but to understand the voice of each. The voice is a gestalt made up, for the most part, of the key terms, presuppositions, and goals inherent in the approach. The voice is something like the “spirit” of the philosophical approach. Your task in the course is to come to an intellectual and personal understanding of the similarities and differences between the voices we know as Platonism, Aristotelianism, Kantianism and Utilitarianism (as the philosophy of John Stuart Mill is known).
More specifically, the primary anticipated outcome of the course is your final essay. The final essay is a research paper that describes the “ideal” leader implied by (or embedded in) each of the classical philosophical voices we study. It requires an imaginative and intellectual extrapolation of each of the four philosophic voices to a speculative, yet specific description of the ideal Platonic, Aristotelian, Kantian, and Utilitarian ethical leader.
A secondary – and no less important – anticipated outcome of the course is your demonstration of a successful recognition of the four voices by completing the reading question responses and engaging in the class discussions.
Assignments
Readings: Each session comes with a reading assignment. Each student is responsible for reading the entire assignment. The assigned reading is attached to this syllabus along with the reading questions.
Reading Question Responses: Each session begins with a large group discussion that that focuses on the reading question responses. Each student is required to have word-processed notes (double-spaced) on all three questions that are helpful in contributing to the discussion. Your reading question responses describe your understanding of the text. The responses include informal cited page or margin numbers in order for participants to have ready access to specific sections of the texts you reference in your responses. You will be asked to orally share your responses to the questions in the discussion and to hand in a copy of your reading question responses at the conclusion of the class session. You may make use of secondary sources, but be sure to cite them. That way, others can benefit from your research. You should print two copies of the reading question responses, one to jot notes on during the discussion (that you will retain for further study) and one to hand in at the conclusion of class. The assignment you hand in will not be returned. Any questions or comments on the reading should be worked out during the class session. Please do not hand in any late reading question responses, as they cannot be accepted.
Final Essay: The final essay, due four weeks after the course is completed (Saturday, November 22) is a research-based analysis of each philosophical voice we study and an extrapolation of that analysis to a speculative description the “ideal leader” each voice implies. The essay should have at least four sections, one on each philosophic voice studied. More specifically, each section should describe both the philosophical voice upon which we focused in reading and class discussion, as well as ideas you have come to understand more fully on your own. This descriptive element is mostly drawn from your reading and class discussion notes. Each section should also describe the ethical leadership style advocated by the philosophical voice under discussion. This second description is speculative, since none of the texts we study provide a literal direction for ethical leadership. You should, of course, support your speculations by referring to the text. Your essay’s introduction and summary can identify similarities and differences among the philosophic voices, or any other theme that succeeds in pulling the four sections together. You may make use of secondary sources in your essay, but do not neglect your research into the primary sources we study in class. Please use APA format. The article by Karen Gocsik, “What is a Scholarly Paper?” is an excellent description of the type of final essay this course requires. Guidelines for the APA format and Gocsik’s article can be found at http://www.gonzaga.edu/Academics/Colleges-and-Schools/School-of-Professional-Studies/Ph.D.---Leadership-Studies/Current-Students/Dissertation-Templates,-Blue-Book,-Paper-Format,-and-IRB-Information.asp
Grades
Grades in the course are the grades earned on the final essay. The reading responses and discussions are not graded. This should encourage the taking of risks inherent in exploring and interpreting philosophic texts.
Session Schedule
Please try to be in place at the obvious times. As much as possible, we will adhere to this schedule rigorously.
8:00—9:00: Large Group Discussion; share responses to reading questions
9:00—9:15: Break
9:15—10:20: Lecture – rather than interrupt the lecture, please jot down your comments and questions. You will be asked to turn them in after the break for class discussion.
Session 1. Classical Ethics – the voices of Platonism, Aristotelianism, Kantianism, and Utilitarianism
Session 2. Plato
Session 3. Aristotle
Session 4. Kant
Session 5. Mill
10:20—10:45 Break (please write out comments and questions and hand them in)
10:45—11:30 Response and discussion regarding written comments and questions
11:30—12:00 Extrapolations for leadership – shared speculations (this anticipates the final essay)
Texts for the Course (Available in the Gonzaga University Bookstore)
Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics Trans. Irwin Hackett Publishing Company. ISBN 0-87220-464-2
Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Trans. Ellington. Hackett Publishing Company. ISBN 0-87220-166-X
Mill, Utilitarianism Hackett Publishing Company. ISBN 0-87220-605-X
Plato, Five Dialogues Trans. Grube, Hackett Publishing Company. ISBN 0-87220-633-5Some Secondary Sources
Don’t overlook the introductions to our texts; all of them are worthwhile secondary sources. Copleston and Solomon are both excellent print sources that are sufficient for our course. The other print sources here are more specialized, but relatively accessible and much more detailed than either Copleston or Solomon.
Two internet sources – The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – can be very helpful.
Annas, Julia. Platonic Ethics, Old and New. A contemporary study that goes far beyond our course, but you may find some insights that help with Plato.
Borchert, Donald. Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2nd Edition. This is an excellent source, as is the first edition, edited by Paul Williams.
Copleston, Frederick. The History of Philosophy. 9 Volumes. Copleston remains the single best source for introductory material on any philosopher from the pre-Socratics to the mid-twentieth century. His work on Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Mill is detailed and reliable.
Irwin, Terence. Plato’s Ethics. This scholarly work with a specific thesis regarding Plato’s views may be helpful, but it is not an introductory text. Don’t overlook Irwin’s introduction, notes, and glossary in our Hackett edition of the Nicomachean Ethics.
Solomon, Robert. Introducing Philosophy. Solomon has written several introductory texts, all of them very good. This general introduction will probably clarify issues in all four philosophers.
Sullivan, Roger J. An Introduction to Kant’s Ethics. This is a relatively recent study that examines Kant’s ethics by considering his political views. The author is a Kant scholar, but this text is more accessible than most Kant studies.
Taylor, A. E. Aristotle. A scholar, Taylor published this book in 1955; it remains a solid source in the field.
Taylor, A. E. Socrates. Taylor may give you more than you want to know, but he is quite reliable.
Wood, Allen W. Kant’s Ethical Thought. This scholarly introduction to Kant’s ethics is, in part, a detailed study of the Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Reading Schedule and Discussion QuestionsSeptember 20: Read Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Plato.
Discussion Questions: Please provide specific responses, citing margin or page numbers that indicate specific references to the text. Your response to each question should be three paragraphs in length.
What do you think is the main point Plato is making in the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro about the nature of right and wrong?
What does Socrates mean in the Apology when he says, “The unexamined life is not worth living?”
What is Socrates’ position on the moral relationship between the individual and society in Crito?
October 4: Read Books I – IV and VIII – IX in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle
Discussion Questions: Please provide specific responses, citing margin or page numbers that indicate specific references to the text. Your response to each question should be three paragraphs in length.
Book I – II What does Aristotle mean by the terms happiness, virtue, and the mean?
Book III- IV Explain the virtues of bravery and of magnanimity by describing Aristotle’s view of each virtue’s excesses and deficiencies.
Book VIII-IX Explain each of the three types of friendships and why Aristotle believes that friends are necessary
October 18: Read the Preface, First Section, and Second Section of Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant.
Discussion Questions: Please provide specific responses, citing margin or page numbers that indicate specific references to the text. Your response to each question should be three paragraphs in length.
First Section: Explain – “There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.”
First Section: Explain – “An action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose that is to be attained by it, but in the maxim according to which the action is determined.”
Second Section: Explain – “Hence there is only one categorical imperative and it is this: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
October 25: Read Chapter I and II in Utilitarianism, Mill.
Discussion Questions: Please provide specific responses, citing margin or page numbers that indicate specific references to the text. Your response to each question should be three paragraphs in length.
Chapter II What is Mill’s “greatest happiness principle?”
Chapter II What is Mill’s point in regard to his claim that “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied?”
Chapter II, What is Mill’s point in writing, “The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself good. A sacrifice which does not increase or tend to increase the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted.”
