PHIL 4020/5020 -- Topics in the History of Philosophy: British Ethical Theorists from Sidgwick to Ewing
Spring 2019
MW 3:00-4:15
HLMS 177

Professor
Chris Heathwood
heathwood@colorado.edu
Office: Hellems 192
Hours: Mondays and Wednesdays, 4:30 - 6:00 p.m., and by appointment

Course Description
A study of the important doctrines, arguments, and themes advanced among a group of British moral philosophers active in the late nineteenth century and first half of the twentieth century.  The most well-known and influential thinkers in the group are Henry Sidgwick, G.E. Moore, and W.D. Ross.  Other central figures include Hastings Rashdall, J.M.E. McTaggart, H.A. Prichard, E.F. Carritt, C.D. Broad, and A.C. Ewing.

Their primary contributions in moral philosophy were in theoretical ethics, especially in the normative ethics of behavior, axiology, and metaethics.  In normative theory, they didn't form an entirely unified school: in the ethics of behavior, some were consequentialists, others deontologists; in axiology, most were pluralists but one leading figure was a hedonist.  They agreed more in metaethics: they were all non-naturalists and intuitionists.  They shared other commitments as well, such as about which moral concepts are central and a commitment to the idea of underivative moral truths.  As Thomas Hurka writes in his recent book on this school, "these shared views make the group a distinctive school in the history of moral philosophy, pursuing the subject differently than earlier writers such as Aristotle, Hobbes, and Kant and than many present-day ones."

Our main aims in the course are to understand and evaluate the school's views and arguments.  We will also be interested in understanding the relations and influences among the members and among their ideas.  The course will be structured around Thomas Hurka's recent book, British Ethical Theorists from Sidgwick to Ewing, the organization of which is topical rather than by figure.  We will read Hurka's book chapter-by-chapter all the way through alongside relevant excerpts from the primary sources.  Hurka advances his own interpretations of the texts as well as his own evaluations of their ideas and arguments.  We will be concerned to understand and evaluate these as well.

This course defaults to fulfilling the 4000-level History Requirement for philosophy majors and the Open History Requirement for Ph.D. students.  But if you prefer, it can, in your case, count instead towards the Values requirement for the major or the Value Theory requirement for the Ph.D.  Philosophy majors should let Garrett Bredeson know if they want it to do this; Ph.D. students should let Karen Sites know.  For M.A. students, the course will default to counting towards the Ethics and Social or Political Philosophy requirement.

Readings
The only reading that you are required to buy is the Hurka book:

• Thomas Hurka, British Ethical Theorists from Sidgwick to Ewing (Oxford University Press, 2015).

I ordered in paperback it at the CU Bookstore.

But I recommend buying copies of at least these three books as well, each of which is now a classic:

• Henry Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, 7th edition (MacMillan and Co., 1907).
• G.E. Moore, Principia Ethica (1903)
• W.D. Ross, The Right and the Good (1930).

You might also consider picking up:

• C.D. Broad, Five Types of Ethical Theory (1930)
• G.E. Moore, Ethics (1912).

But you aren't required by buy any of our primary sources because they are available free online.  On the Course Schedule below, I'll provide links to all of the primary sources that we will be reading from when they are due.  Here are multiple links to each of the "big three" primary texts up front and well as some links to other books we'll regularly be reading excerpts from:

• Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, 7th edition (1907): searchable pdf; html edition; many other formats.
• Moore, Principia Ethica (1903): searchable pdf; html edition.
• Rashdall, The Theory of Good and Evil (1907), Volume I and Volume II.
• Ross, The Right and the Good (1930): non-searchable pdf; ProQuest Ebook Central version.
• Broad, Five Types of Ethical Theory (1930).
• Ross, Foundations of Ethics (1939).
  
• Ewing, The Definition of Good (1948).

Course Requirements
1. Technology.  Classrooms should be free from external intrusions.  Accordingly, our classroom will be an internet-free zone.  Thus, please turn off or silence your cell phone when you get to class.  And please never text in class.  If you need to communicate with someone from the outside world during class, please leave the room to do so.

You also shouldn't use a laptop.*  Students who use laptops in class do less well in college, even when they are just taking notes, as do those who sit near them.  (See this quick slideshow by Andrew Mills at Otterbein University, which has, at the end, links to guides for how to take better notes by hand.)

(*If you really feel that you will benefit from using a laptop, and you think you can do it in a way that won't be distracting to others, talk to me about it.)

2. Weekly Commentary.  Most weeks you are required to submit a short writing assignment (200-400 words) on that week's reading.  These are due by email on Thursdays by midnight.  The assignment is to come up with with (i) one critical comment on the reading, (ii) one comprehension question, (iii) some point, doctrine, or argument that you liked or found interesting and worth thinking about.  It can be either on the Hurka or on that week's primary-source reading.  For these assignments, do not write a summary of any of the content of the reading; these are rather supposed to be your own thoughts about the material.

You can just type your commentary directly into the body of the email if you like (though an attachment is also fine).  Whichever format you choose, please divide up your commentary into three mini-sections: (i) critical comment(s); (ii) comprehension question(s); (iii) something I liked or found especially interesting.

The first Weekly Commentary is due the second week of class (on Thursday, January 24th; we will be on chapter 1 of the Hurka).  The last one is due the twelfth week of class, on Thursday, April 11th.  No weekly commentary is due in week six (on Thursday, February 23rd), the week we have a cancelled class.  If I have counted right, that leaves ten of them.  Of these ten, you may skip two.

If you don't hear back from me about it after you turn yours in, you can assume I judged it to be "good" or "acceptable."  If instead I thought it was either "weak," on the one hand, or "excellent," on the other, I'll let you know that.

3. Short Midterm Paper.  Two papers are required for the course.  The first is a short midterm paper, 2,000 to 3,000 words (not including footnotes and bibliography) -- sort of like a "discussion note" for a journal (see, e.g., the discussion notes in this journal issue).  This paper is due to me by email on the Friday before spring break: Friday, March 22nd.  Although I dislike Microsoft Word as much as you do, please send it to me as a Word .docx file.  This makes it easy for me to comment on it electronically and get it back to you by email.

I have a pretty detailed document giving some guidance on writing a philosophy paper: my Philosophy Paper FAQ.  This document is aimed at undergraduates, but read it carefully even if you are a graduate student.

If you do a Commentary in week ten, the week the midterm paper is due, you can have until the following Monday to turn it in: Monday, March 23rd.  This is so that it doesn't interfere with your finishing up the midterm paper.

4. Final Paper.  The second, final paper is a little longer: 3,000-6,000 words (not including footnotes and bibliography).  Your second paper can be a revised and expanded version of your first paper.  In giving you feedback on your first paper, I'll try to indicate whether or not I think it has promise as your longer paper.  If I can, I might suggest some directions in which to take it.

5. Presentation (graduate students only). The last two weeks of class will be spent on graduate student presentations.  Each graduate student will get half of a class meeting (about 35 minutes) to present a rough draft of his or her final paper (for about 20 minutes) and to get feedback on it (for about 15 minutes).  It would be helpful for the speakers to provide a handout, or some other visual aid, during the presentation.  Attendance is required by all students for these class meetings.  That there is no new reading during this period will enable you (both graduate students and undergraduates) to do the extra research and reading and re-reading required for your own final paper.

6. First Question (undergraduates only).  For each graduate student presentation (see previous paragraph), one undergraduate student will be assigned to ask the first question during the post-presentation Q&A.  These can be prepared in advance.  The graduate student speaker will thus need to furnish the undergraduate student with a draft of the paper (but it can be very rough).  The undergraduate student is allowed to run their question by the graduate student in advance and even get guidance from the graduate student on it (but this is not required).

7. Attendance.  Of course I expect you to attend all of our class meetings.  If you have to miss a day, please let me know in advance, so I'm not worried about you.

But I am also going to have some policies about this.  Undergraduates get four free missed days (two weeks worth of classes).  For each missed day after that, your final grade in the class will be reduced 1/3 of a letter grade (A to A–, B+ to B, B– to C+, etc.).  This includes both "excusable" and "inexcusable" absences, so don't use any of your free missed days for frivolous reasons.

There is no strict policy like this for graduate students.  But I expect graduate students to have very few to no absences.  Having too many will hurt your grade too.

8. Participation.  This is a heavily discussion-oriented class and I expect everyone to participate in the discussion.  Indeed, classroom discussion is what small classes like this are all about.  Don't be afraid to ask dumb questions (if not now, when?).  Don't be afraid to challenge anything I say.  Don't be afraid to challenge anything a classmate says.  Don't be afraid to explore or endorse unpopular views.  Whatever contributions you make to our discussions, just do it with kindness and respect.  To participate, just raise your hand at any time and I'll call on you.  Participation will also count towards your grade.

Grading
Because grade inflation is even more severe in graduate school than in college, I use different grading standards for graduate students than for undergraduates.

For graduate students, I use 'A' to mean exceeds expectations, 'A–' to mean meets expectations, and 'B+' to mean fails to meet expectations.  The most common grade in the class among graduate students will probably be an A–, but some A’s and B+’s, and perhaps even some B’s, will also be given.  Your final grade for the class will be determined by your weekly commentaries, your midterm paper, your presentation, your final paper, and your attendance and participation.

For undergraduates, generally speaking, 'A' is for excellent work, 'B' is for satisfactory work, and 'C' is for less than satisfactory work.  For undergraduates, the average course grade that I usually give is about a B–, even for classes that are mostly majors.  Since this is a smaller, elective class, maybe that average will be different.  Your final grade for the class will be determined by your weekly commentaries (20%), your midterm paper (20%), your first question (5%), your final paper (40%), your participation (15%), and your attendance (as described above).