DPLS 746 - Leadership and Applied Ethics
Summer 2006                                 2 Credits

Instructor: Jon Stratton, Ph. D
Phone 509.527.4222 or 509.301.7713
Email: dplsethics@hotmail.com

6—10 PM
RC 240
Mondays (June 19, 26, July 10, 14, 24)

Text: Applied Ethicists and Their Critics, ed. Boonin and Oddie.  Oxford University Press, 2005 (Available in the Gonzaga University Bookstore)

General Description of the Course’s Content

      Ethics can be studied from at least two perspectives; we can examine character or actions.  The first is an examination of the makeup of a good person, sometimes called the “sagacious” approach because it emphasizes the wisdom of the moral “sage.”  The second is focused on the application of right decisions to real world, complex ethical issues.  This course takes the latter route.  Our world is entangled in complex and contradictory social, economic, and political forces.  It is difficult enough to understand any one of these forces within the complex of world events.  It is a colossal challenge to grasp the ethical elements entrenched within them.  An ethical point of view must not only grasp the complexity of the interplay of social, economic, and political forces in an issue in order to understand it, but also must separate out their ethical elements and respond to them.
     The course is an investigation of four areas of current philosophical concern in practical ethics: family relations, taking life, commercial activities, and state power.  Within these general areas can be found some of the most pressing ethical issues of the day, including obligations to parents, same-sex marriage, racial profiling, marketing human organs, surrogate motherhood, capital punishment, bans on tobacco and cloning.  While popular views may regard these issues as “political” issues that are matters of mere opinion that are eventually “decided” only by the power to persuade, philosophers regard them as serious moral issues that call for reasonable discussion that determines the best course of action in moral terms.
     The moral philosopher is not satisfied with the world “as it is,” but always seeks to point the way to a world that is “as it ought to be.”  Nor is the philosopher content to allow political persuasion to be the last word on moral issues.  A philosopher’s response to practical moral issues has two sides; it is first a clear description of the rights and wrongs in regard to the issue and second, a judgment about the best course of action that will enhance what is right and diminish what is wrong.  Without question, all ethical approaches are idealistic, since they seek to raise ideas about right over realities that are judged to be wrong.  Applied ethics is driven by an idealistic hope for a “better world” because it refuses to be content with accepting the world as it is.  At the same time, applied ethics must attempt to be “as practical as possible” in its idealistic remedies for what is wrong with the world.  It needs to maintain its love for the good without falling into a quixotic irrelevance in the world of daily life.
     Argumentation is the primary tool that philosophers use.  An argument consists of a conclusion that is supported by premises.  The premises are statements of evidence.  There are many types of evidence; data from the social and physical sciences are the most well known.  Evidence can also come from theory, from personal observations, insights, as well as from sensitivity to the moral obligations we share. Philosophical arguments place great importance on logical reasoning.  No matter how certain the data, a poorly reasoned argument will be subject to devastating criticism.  For example, the premises “All cats are animals and all dogs are animals” will never be accepted as supporting the conclusion all dogs are cats!  For philosophers, the reasoning in an argument is always as important as the accuracy and clarity of the premises.  Only conclusions that are logically supported by the premises are acceptable. 

The Course’s Anticipated Outcomes
     
The primary anticipated outcome of the course is your successful comprehension of the philosophical arguments given in support of and against a variety of practical moral issues in today’s world.  The secondary outcome is your successful and appropriate response to those ethical issues.

How the Course Reaches its Anticipated Outcomes

The primary outcome of the course is reached by providing to the class a report on a set of readings that explains the arguments both in favor of and against a specific moral issue.  You and your partner describe the data as well as the reasoning the arguments display.  This activity takes place in a written report that you orally present to the class.  The secondary outcome is reached by your term paper, which not only contains the arguments your presented in your report to the class, but in which you come to a clear and specific conclusion regarding your philosophical stance on the issue.  Your work will be evaluated in terms of its clarity, grasp of the issue, moral sensitivity, and quality of reasoning.

Session Schedule
6:00-6:15 Informal discussions
6:15-7:30 Student report
7:30-7:50 Long Break
7:50-9:05 Student report
9:05-9:15 Short Break
9:15-10:00 Class Discussion

Assignments

Reports
You work with a partner on your report.  If the class has an odd number of students, one student will either work alone or will work on a complex issue with two other students.  At any rate, it is up to the partners to decide how they will divide the work, give the report, and respond to questions from the class.

The reports have three written components:

• Summary – explain the arguments in the assigned reading
• Justification – defend and/or criticize the arguments by presenting their strengths and weaknesses.  You should be an advocate for at least one of the readings.
• Response – you need to address questions from the class as well as questions in the “Questions for Consideration” section in the text.

Reports are written, completed on a word processor, double-spaced, with endnotes that reference all citations. Most reports will be 5 pages in length (double-spaced).

You may need to research outside material in order to provide a good report since your task is to comprehend and explain the assigned reading.  However, editorial material in the text has valuable background information and should be sufficient for your needs.  Do not hesitate to refer to the editors’ introductions in your report or your paper.

Reading Assignments
Reports will be on the following readings on the assigned dates.  Every student is assigned to read the assignment before the class session.  Please do not come to class without having already read the entire assignment.

June 19 

No reading assignment for this session 
Introductions
Review of Syllabus
Lecture:  Ethics and Argumentation
Review of topics
Report Selection

June 26 

Report 1 – Is Neglecting One’s Parents Wrong?  Jane English, Joseph Kupfer,
Nicholas Dixon, pp. 281-304.
Report 2 – Is Adultery Wrong?  Richard Wasserstrom, Michael Wreen, Bonnie Steinbock, Don Marquis, pp. 207-238.

June 26 

Report 3 – Is Killing in War Wrong?  Robert Fullinwider, Lawrence A. Alexander, pp. 27-38.
Report 4 – Is Capital Punishment Wrong? van den Haag, Jeffrey Reiman, Stephen Nathanson

July 10

Report 5 – Is Marketing Human Organs Wrong?  Ruth Chadwick, G. V. Tadd, Mark K. Nelson, pp. 489-513.
Report 6 – Is Commercial Surrogate Motherhood Wrong?  Elizabeth S. Anderson, Richard J Arneson, Alan Wertheimer, pp. 514-531.

July 17

Report 7 – Is a Government Ban on Human Cloning Wrong?  Leon R. Kass, David B. Elliott, David B. Hershenov, pp. 680-691.
Report 8 – Is a Government Ban on Tobacco Wrong?  Robert Goodin, Daniel Shapiro, Graham Oddie, pp. 638-679. 

July 24

Report 9 – Is Same-sex Marriage Wrong?  Jeff Jordan, David Boonin, Andrew Sullivan, pp. 355-370
Report 10 – Is Racial Profiling Wrong?  Michael Levin, Chana Berniker Cox, Laurence Thomas, Louis J. Pojman, pp. 423-467.

The final paper is due 12:00 Noon on Monday, July 31.  You may email the paper as an attachment in Microsoft Word to the email address on this syllabus.  Emailed papers cannot be returned.  If you prefer your paper returned, you may mail it with a self addressed envelope with appropriate postage to:

Jon Stratton
Philosophy Department
Walla Walla Community College
Walla Walla, WA 99362