Syllabus: Fall 2007: Waseda Philosophy of Law Theme 82
Political and Moral Philosophy (Theme 82)
Syllabus
Waseda University Faculty of Law
Fall 2007
Friday 1pm-2:30pm
Lecturer: Dr. Geoffrey Roche (PhD. Auckland)
Webpage: www.wasedaphilosophyoflaw.blogspot.com
1. Course Description
This course will provide an introduction to some key concepts and approaches in political theory. The first part of the course will focus on the following core questions: What is law? What is the goal of lawmaking? Does law have a basis in nature? What are rights, and how are they to be protected in law? The second half of the course will deal with more concrete issues in political philosophy: how do we defend the deliberate infliction of pain or loss of liberty on our fellow citizens in the form of punishment?
2. Course Objectives and Goals
i. Subject specific outcomes
• The student will demonstrate the ability to utilize and evaluate key concepts in
ethical and political theory.
• The student will develop an understanding of some traditional models of ethical and political- theoretical decision-making.
• The student will acquire a commonly shared language and set of conceptual skills, including logical and critical thinking abilities for analyzing moral and political issues.
• The student will be able to reflect on and articulate their own set of values and be able to articulate them to others.
Understanding and skill in philosophical analysis of major ethical and political theories and problems will be demonstrated in two coursework essays and two examinations.
3. Transferable skills
•The student will demonstrate the ability to debate (ethical topics) in a clear and structured manner.
•The student will demonstrate the ability to assess the ethical arguments, viewpoints
and doctrines of others.
4. Course Methodology and Format
The course will be comprised of twelve one- and – a half hour classes, roughly grouped into two – class units. The first class of each pair will be a lecture, whereas the second class will be either a tutorial or (in the case of coursework presentations) a guided discussion or debate.
5. 1 Required Reading
All reading material will be distributed in class.
5.2 Recommended Reading
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online
http://www.plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
Victor Grassian Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and some Contemporary Moral
Problems New York: Prentice Hall, 1992
6.1 Assessment Process.
(i). Submit essays to the lecturer in class. Email submissions will only be accepted in extraordinary circumstances (such as illness). DO NOT hand in the only copy: always keep another copy.
(ii). Your work will be marked and ready to return to you within two weeks of the due date. You should collect your marked work in class or from the lecturer in person. It will be given enough commentary that you can understand how to improve your grade.
(iii). If you have any questions or concerns about the marking of your work, please discuss these with the lecturer in the first instance.
6.2 Assessment: Grade System
A (>92.5%): 4.0
AB (87.5%-92.5%): 3.5
B (82.5%-87.5%): 3.0
BC (77.5%-82.5%): 2.5
C (72.5%-77.5%): 2.0
CD (67.5%-72.5%): 1.5
D (60%-67.5%): 1.0
F (<60%): 0.0
6.3 Interpretation of Grades.
The marks can be interpreted as follows:
A range: essay showing analytical and argumentative power, with good command of the relevant facts and/ or arguments, and with evidence of the ability to organize them with clarity and insight.
AB range: essay showing analytical and argumentative power, with good command of the relevant facts and/ or arguments, but with less analytical or argumentative skill or less clarity of organization.
B-C range: competent work with no major problems, but misses important aspects of the discussion, or is inaccurate; has lapses in (but not without lacking) analytic and argumentative skills.
CD-D range: very poor quality work, showing little evidence of study or research.
0: Any script which fails to address the essay question or the objectives of the essay exercise.
One of the most common reasons for essays getting bad grades is irrelevance. Answer the essay question which was actually asked in the essay question (or, in the case of writing classes, the actual essay question you have chosen for yourself).
6.4 Plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a serious academic offense. Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty that occurs when a person passes off someone else’s work as his or her own. This can range from failing to cite an author for ideas incorporated into a student's paper to cutting and pasting paragraphs from different websites to handing in a paper downloaded from the internet. It also includes the act of running a non- English text through translation software. All are plagiarism.
1) Plagiarism is a serious offence. Students who plagiarize will receive a zero.
2) Plagiarism in most instances is easy to identify and expose. The very force that makes plagiarism easy and tempting to some students ― the internet ― makes its detection extremely easy. Most professors can locate the source of suspected plagiarism within minutes of searching the web. In this context, plagiarism is as much stupidity as it is dishonesty.
3) All parties to plagiarism are considered equally guilty. If you share your coursework with another student and he or she plagiarizes it, you are considered as guilty as the one who has plagiarized your work, since you enabled the plagiarism to take place. Under no circumstances should a student make his or her coursework available to another student unless the professor gives explicit permission for this to happen.
6.5 Assessment: policy on late assignments
6.5.1. In principle it is unfair to students who submit work on time to allow other students extra time to complete their work. Extensions are therefore granted only in
exceptional circumstances (bereavement or illness. Club activities do not qualify).
Extensions will be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as sickness (a medical certificate must be provided) or bereavement. Application should be made to the lecturer.
6.5.2. It is the responsibility of students to organize their workload and to ensure that their data is backed up. Therefore, extensions will not be granted for reasons such as
disorganization, pressure of work in other subjects, or malfunction of computer or
printer. Topics and deadlines are announced well in advance. Students should plan
their assignment schedule carefully and begin work well before the deadline. I.e. now.
6.5.3. Essays handed in late when no extension has been granted will be penalized by 20 per cent for every working day that the work is late. For this purpose
the day is defined as ending at 5pm. The lecturer may choose to mark but not provide
comments on late assignments.
6.6. Assessment and Coursework.
Course objectives are fulfilled through coursework and exams.
Essay 1
Deadline: Friday, Week 6
Question: Class discussion questions. More questions will be posted in Week 2.
Word Limit: 1000 words.
Essay 2
Deadline: Friday, Week 12
Question: Class discussion questions. More questions will be posted in Week 6.
Word limit: 1000 words.
Percentage of Assessment: Coursework: 70%.
PLUSSAGE: Your coursework grade is the higher of the two essays that you submit.
(So, if your first essay receives 68% and the second essay receives 75%, your coursework grade will be 75% overall). If you only write one essay of acceptable (that is, pass) standard, your grade will be half its mark.
Final Examination: Friday, Week 14, during class time.
Percentage of Assessment: 30%
Exam type: write TWO essay answers.
7.1 Schedule of Topics and Core Readings
Week I and II Natural Law: St. Augustine
Here we consider the following questions: is whatever the law states necessarily lawful? Or can a law be essentially unjust? And how do we decide whether a law is just or not? That is, What is the moral standard that we should use to evaluate law? We will consider two philosophers who have dealt with these issues: St. Thomas Aquinas.
Reading: Handouts.
Discussion: In 1945, At the end of World War II, all captured major German war criminals were tried for “crimes against humanity” (also described as “violations of international law” or “crimes contrary to the elementary dictates of humanity”) in what are termed the Nuremberg Trials. For the trial to take place at all, there was a basic question in philosophy of law that had to be answered. As German law had been changed by the Nazis to allow for theft, exploitation, a war of aggression, and the murder of millions of people, it was of course not possible to find the defendants guilty of violating German law.
The judges assumed that the German generals had violated rules of a “higher law” applicable at all times and all places, that is, Natural Law. Do you think this decision was just?
Week III and IV. Socrates and Obedience to the Law
At the age of 70, the philosopher Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth, and for worshipping alien gods. His friend Crito tried to convince Socrates to escape and avoid execution. Socrates, considering this act to be an act of civil disobedience, believed that following the law, even if it lead to death, was preferable.
Socrates argued that, by violating the law, he would contribute to the destruction of Athens. He had benefited all his life from living under Athenian laws. The law, after all, made it possible for his parents to marry and therefore made possible his existence, and they were responsible for his good execution. Hence, Socrates believed, he owed Athens and its laws a debt of gratitude.
Is this a good argument?
Reading: Plato Crito in The Last Days of Socrates trans. Hugh Tredennick and
Harold Tarrant. London: Penguin, 1993, pp. 69-93.
Discussion: Was Socrates’s reasoning sound?
Week V and VI. John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
Here we will discuss John Rawls (1921-2002) 1971 work A Theory of Justice, arguably the most important ethical work of the 20th Century. In this book Rawls reinvents social contract theory, creating a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. Of particular interest is Rawls’ concept of “the difference principle,” according to which social inequalities cannot be justified unless they are to the advantage to even the least privileged.
Reading: Rawls A Theory of Justice Revised edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The
Belknap Press, 1999. (excerpts).
Discussion: According to Robert Nozick (to be discussed next week), Rawls’ demand that we consider the welfare of the underprivileged is unwarranted. Do you agree? If so, do you think Rawls’s theory is flawed?
Week VII and VIII Robert Nozick
In his 1974 work Anarchy, State and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues for an “entitlement theory” of justice based on individual rights. Acknowledging that his theory may appear to be callous towards the needy and underprivileged, he nevertheless insists that any encroachment on our property rights (such as tax for public welfare) is a violation of our property rights.
Reading: Robert Nozick Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
Discussion: How does Nozick’s theory of justice differ from that of Rawls? Who has the more plausible theory, do you think?
Week IX and X Foucault: Discipline and Punish
Michel Foucault (1926-1984) was a French historian and philosopher. Here we will look at his analysis of the prison system as a technology of control and surveillance, and as a metaphor for the structures of power evident in medical science, education and the military. Of particular interest is his contention that modern Law and Order has more to do with normative judgment and hierarchical observation than any obviously ethical principle.
Reading: Michel Foucault Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1977.
Discussion: Foucault thinks that there is an important difference in how criminals were punished before and after the Age of Enlightenment. How does Foucault think the nature of punishment has changed? Does Foucault think that this change is for the better or for the worse? Is his view justified, do you think?
Week XI and XII Justifications of Punishment
Here we will discuss a central question in legal and political philosophy: should legal punishment be used? If so, how can the State legitimately inflict sanctions and punishments on its citizens? We will discuss consequentialist, retributive and ‘mixed’ theoretical approaches to this problem.
Reading: Anthony Duff “Legal Punishment” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-punishment/ accessed September 19th,
2007.
Victor Grassian “Punishment and Rehabilitation” in Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and some Contemporary Moral Problems. 2nd
Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992, pp.342-370.
Discussion:
a). It is common legal practice to punish people more for a completed crime than for an unsuccessful attempt to commit that crime. This is true even if the criminal has done everything in his power to commit that crime and fails due to some unforeseen circumstance (for example his gun jams). Can a Utilitarian justification be given for this practice? Can a retributive justification be given?
b). Assuming we could test people for criminal tendencies, what would a utilitarian say about the desirability of forcing everyone to undergo such tests? What would a retributivist say? What do you think?
Week XIII Review Class
Week XIV Examination
Essay Topics
All class discussion topics are approved essay topics. More essay questions will be announced in Week II.
Syllabus
Waseda University Faculty of Law
Fall 2007
Friday 1pm-2:30pm
Lecturer: Dr. Geoffrey Roche (PhD. Auckland)
Webpage: www.wasedaphilosophyoflaw.blogspot.com
1. Course Description
This course will provide an introduction to some key concepts and approaches in political theory. The first part of the course will focus on the following core questions: What is law? What is the goal of lawmaking? Does law have a basis in nature? What are rights, and how are they to be protected in law? The second half of the course will deal with more concrete issues in political philosophy: how do we defend the deliberate infliction of pain or loss of liberty on our fellow citizens in the form of punishment?
2. Course Objectives and Goals
i. Subject specific outcomes
• The student will demonstrate the ability to utilize and evaluate key concepts in
ethical and political theory.
• The student will develop an understanding of some traditional models of ethical and political- theoretical decision-making.
• The student will acquire a commonly shared language and set of conceptual skills, including logical and critical thinking abilities for analyzing moral and political issues.
• The student will be able to reflect on and articulate their own set of values and be able to articulate them to others.
Understanding and skill in philosophical analysis of major ethical and political theories and problems will be demonstrated in two coursework essays and two examinations.
3. Transferable skills
•The student will demonstrate the ability to debate (ethical topics) in a clear and structured manner.
•The student will demonstrate the ability to assess the ethical arguments, viewpoints
and doctrines of others.
4. Course Methodology and Format
The course will be comprised of twelve one- and – a half hour classes, roughly grouped into two – class units. The first class of each pair will be a lecture, whereas the second class will be either a tutorial or (in the case of coursework presentations) a guided discussion or debate.
5. 1 Required Reading
All reading material will be distributed in class.
5.2 Recommended Reading
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online
http://www.plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
Victor Grassian Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and some Contemporary Moral
Problems New York: Prentice Hall, 1992
6.1 Assessment Process.
(i). Submit essays to the lecturer in class. Email submissions will only be accepted in extraordinary circumstances (such as illness). DO NOT hand in the only copy: always keep another copy.
(ii). Your work will be marked and ready to return to you within two weeks of the due date. You should collect your marked work in class or from the lecturer in person. It will be given enough commentary that you can understand how to improve your grade.
(iii). If you have any questions or concerns about the marking of your work, please discuss these with the lecturer in the first instance.
6.2 Assessment: Grade System
A (>92.5%): 4.0
AB (87.5%-92.5%): 3.5
B (82.5%-87.5%): 3.0
BC (77.5%-82.5%): 2.5
C (72.5%-77.5%): 2.0
CD (67.5%-72.5%): 1.5
D (60%-67.5%): 1.0
F (<60%): 0.0
6.3 Interpretation of Grades.
The marks can be interpreted as follows:
A range: essay showing analytical and argumentative power, with good command of the relevant facts and/ or arguments, and with evidence of the ability to organize them with clarity and insight.
AB range: essay showing analytical and argumentative power, with good command of the relevant facts and/ or arguments, but with less analytical or argumentative skill or less clarity of organization.
B-C range: competent work with no major problems, but misses important aspects of the discussion, or is inaccurate; has lapses in (but not without lacking) analytic and argumentative skills.
CD-D range: very poor quality work, showing little evidence of study or research.
0: Any script which fails to address the essay question or the objectives of the essay exercise.
One of the most common reasons for essays getting bad grades is irrelevance. Answer the essay question which was actually asked in the essay question (or, in the case of writing classes, the actual essay question you have chosen for yourself).
6.4 Plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a serious academic offense. Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty that occurs when a person passes off someone else’s work as his or her own. This can range from failing to cite an author for ideas incorporated into a student's paper to cutting and pasting paragraphs from different websites to handing in a paper downloaded from the internet. It also includes the act of running a non- English text through translation software. All are plagiarism.
1) Plagiarism is a serious offence. Students who plagiarize will receive a zero.
2) Plagiarism in most instances is easy to identify and expose. The very force that makes plagiarism easy and tempting to some students ― the internet ― makes its detection extremely easy. Most professors can locate the source of suspected plagiarism within minutes of searching the web. In this context, plagiarism is as much stupidity as it is dishonesty.
3) All parties to plagiarism are considered equally guilty. If you share your coursework with another student and he or she plagiarizes it, you are considered as guilty as the one who has plagiarized your work, since you enabled the plagiarism to take place. Under no circumstances should a student make his or her coursework available to another student unless the professor gives explicit permission for this to happen.
6.5 Assessment: policy on late assignments
6.5.1. In principle it is unfair to students who submit work on time to allow other students extra time to complete their work. Extensions are therefore granted only in
exceptional circumstances (bereavement or illness. Club activities do not qualify).
Extensions will be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as sickness (a medical certificate must be provided) or bereavement. Application should be made to the lecturer.
6.5.2. It is the responsibility of students to organize their workload and to ensure that their data is backed up. Therefore, extensions will not be granted for reasons such as
disorganization, pressure of work in other subjects, or malfunction of computer or
printer. Topics and deadlines are announced well in advance. Students should plan
their assignment schedule carefully and begin work well before the deadline. I.e. now.
6.5.3. Essays handed in late when no extension has been granted will be penalized by 20 per cent for every working day that the work is late. For this purpose
the day is defined as ending at 5pm. The lecturer may choose to mark but not provide
comments on late assignments.
6.6. Assessment and Coursework.
Course objectives are fulfilled through coursework and exams.
Essay 1
Deadline: Friday, Week 6
Question: Class discussion questions. More questions will be posted in Week 2.
Word Limit: 1000 words.
Essay 2
Deadline: Friday, Week 12
Question: Class discussion questions. More questions will be posted in Week 6.
Word limit: 1000 words.
Percentage of Assessment: Coursework: 70%.
PLUSSAGE: Your coursework grade is the higher of the two essays that you submit.
(So, if your first essay receives 68% and the second essay receives 75%, your coursework grade will be 75% overall). If you only write one essay of acceptable (that is, pass) standard, your grade will be half its mark.
Final Examination: Friday, Week 14, during class time.
Percentage of Assessment: 30%
Exam type: write TWO essay answers.
7.1 Schedule of Topics and Core Readings
Week I and II Natural Law: St. Augustine
Here we consider the following questions: is whatever the law states necessarily lawful? Or can a law be essentially unjust? And how do we decide whether a law is just or not? That is, What is the moral standard that we should use to evaluate law? We will consider two philosophers who have dealt with these issues: St. Thomas Aquinas.
Reading: Handouts.
Discussion: In 1945, At the end of World War II, all captured major German war criminals were tried for “crimes against humanity” (also described as “violations of international law” or “crimes contrary to the elementary dictates of humanity”) in what are termed the Nuremberg Trials. For the trial to take place at all, there was a basic question in philosophy of law that had to be answered. As German law had been changed by the Nazis to allow for theft, exploitation, a war of aggression, and the murder of millions of people, it was of course not possible to find the defendants guilty of violating German law.
The judges assumed that the German generals had violated rules of a “higher law” applicable at all times and all places, that is, Natural Law. Do you think this decision was just?
Week III and IV. Socrates and Obedience to the Law
At the age of 70, the philosopher Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth, and for worshipping alien gods. His friend Crito tried to convince Socrates to escape and avoid execution. Socrates, considering this act to be an act of civil disobedience, believed that following the law, even if it lead to death, was preferable.
Socrates argued that, by violating the law, he would contribute to the destruction of Athens. He had benefited all his life from living under Athenian laws. The law, after all, made it possible for his parents to marry and therefore made possible his existence, and they were responsible for his good execution. Hence, Socrates believed, he owed Athens and its laws a debt of gratitude.
Is this a good argument?
Reading: Plato Crito in The Last Days of Socrates trans. Hugh Tredennick and
Harold Tarrant. London: Penguin, 1993, pp. 69-93.
Discussion: Was Socrates’s reasoning sound?
Week V and VI. John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
Here we will discuss John Rawls (1921-2002) 1971 work A Theory of Justice, arguably the most important ethical work of the 20th Century. In this book Rawls reinvents social contract theory, creating a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. Of particular interest is Rawls’ concept of “the difference principle,” according to which social inequalities cannot be justified unless they are to the advantage to even the least privileged.
Reading: Rawls A Theory of Justice Revised edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The
Belknap Press, 1999. (excerpts).
Discussion: According to Robert Nozick (to be discussed next week), Rawls’ demand that we consider the welfare of the underprivileged is unwarranted. Do you agree? If so, do you think Rawls’s theory is flawed?
Week VII and VIII Robert Nozick
In his 1974 work Anarchy, State and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues for an “entitlement theory” of justice based on individual rights. Acknowledging that his theory may appear to be callous towards the needy and underprivileged, he nevertheless insists that any encroachment on our property rights (such as tax for public welfare) is a violation of our property rights.
Reading: Robert Nozick Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
Discussion: How does Nozick’s theory of justice differ from that of Rawls? Who has the more plausible theory, do you think?
Week IX and X Foucault: Discipline and Punish
Michel Foucault (1926-1984) was a French historian and philosopher. Here we will look at his analysis of the prison system as a technology of control and surveillance, and as a metaphor for the structures of power evident in medical science, education and the military. Of particular interest is his contention that modern Law and Order has more to do with normative judgment and hierarchical observation than any obviously ethical principle.
Reading: Michel Foucault Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1977.
Discussion: Foucault thinks that there is an important difference in how criminals were punished before and after the Age of Enlightenment. How does Foucault think the nature of punishment has changed? Does Foucault think that this change is for the better or for the worse? Is his view justified, do you think?
Week XI and XII Justifications of Punishment
Here we will discuss a central question in legal and political philosophy: should legal punishment be used? If so, how can the State legitimately inflict sanctions and punishments on its citizens? We will discuss consequentialist, retributive and ‘mixed’ theoretical approaches to this problem.
Reading: Anthony Duff “Legal Punishment” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-punishment/ accessed September 19th,
2007.
Victor Grassian “Punishment and Rehabilitation” in Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and some Contemporary Moral Problems. 2nd
Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992, pp.342-370.
Discussion:
a). It is common legal practice to punish people more for a completed crime than for an unsuccessful attempt to commit that crime. This is true even if the criminal has done everything in his power to commit that crime and fails due to some unforeseen circumstance (for example his gun jams). Can a Utilitarian justification be given for this practice? Can a retributive justification be given?
b). Assuming we could test people for criminal tendencies, what would a utilitarian say about the desirability of forcing everyone to undergo such tests? What would a retributivist say? What do you think?
Week XIII Review Class
Week XIV Examination
Essay Topics
All class discussion topics are approved essay topics. More essay questions will be announced in Week II.
posted by G. Roche | 8:23 AM
|
0 comments
