6
GOVT E-1050/W
Politics and Moral Responsibility
Spring, 2015
***This is a Draft: Assignments and Due Dates are Subject To Change***
Logistics
Lectures: Thursday 7:40pm - 9:40pm in Maxwell-Dworkin G115
Instructor
Christopher Robichaud (Ph.D. in Philosophy, MIT)
Lecturer in Ethics and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Office Hours: Thursdays 5-6pm and by appointment
Office: Littauer 214, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Email:
Phone: (617) 384-8120
Administrative Assistant
Rosita Scarfo
Phone:617-496-1739
Email:
Office: Belfer 117C, Harvard Kennedy School
Teaching Assistants
Mark Diaz Truman, Head TA (Master’s in Public Policy, Harvard)
Office Hours: TBA
Section Meetings: TBA
Wynne Lanros (Master’s in Philosophy, Tufts)
Office Hours: TBA
Section Meetings: TBA
Overview
This course examines a constellation of topics at the intersection of moral responsibility on the one hand and personal and institutional action in the public arena on the other. It employs moral concepts such as those of moral praise and blame, personal and institutional responsibility, desert, atonement, punishment, and corruption, all in the service of understanding a wide range of pressing political issues.
GOVT E-1050/W complements GOVT E-1052/W: Contemporary Topics in Political Philosophy, though the latter is not a perquisite. Crucially, this course approaches contemporary issues in political philosophy from an agent-centered and case-centric standpoint.
Course Expectations and Requirements
1. Students are expected to fulfill the requirements of a writing intensive course. GOVT E-1050/W focuses on providing students with the writing skills needed to argue philosophically about matters of political interest; specifically, it teaches students how to 1) clearly articulate their views about the content of political values and norms, 2) argue for their position about these values and norms, and 3) use their position to illuminate and defend public policy decisions that are grounded on these values and norms.
Writing-intensive courses at the Harvard Extension School offer students the opportunity to develop writing skills for a specific academic discipline. These courses feature common elements. Students will:
· Develop core writing skills, as defined by the instructor, in the discipline of the course;
· Complete multiple writing assignments of varying lengths, at least two of which must be revised;
· Produce a minimum of 10-12 pages of polished writing, beyond required rough drafts, over the course of the term;
· Meet at least once in individual conference (in person, by phone, or online) with the instructor or TA to discuss writing in progress;
· Receive detailed feedback on their drafts and revisions, on both content and expression.
2. Students are expected to complete all the readings assigned for the course.
3. Students are expected to listen to the lectures each week.
4. Students are expected to exercise academic integrity in the course. There is zero tolerance for plagiarism. Please consult the link below for more on this important matter:
http://www.extension.harvard.edu/resources/career-academic-resource-center/plagiarism-proper-use-sources
5. Students are expected to fulfill all the formal requirements of the course, detailed below.
Formal Course Requirements:
(1) Three Response Papers
Each response paper is to be three pages long (typed, double-spaced, 12pt font), and each will count toward 15% of your final grade.
To succeed at the type of philosophical reasoning this course emphasizes, four skills are needed. (1) You must be able to read selections of philosophical reasoning and articulate accurately what the main arguments from the reading are. (2) You must be able to offer criticisms of philosophical arguments by diagnosing their weakness. (3) You must be able to offer your own arguments for a philosophical position, defending them against anticipated objections. (4) You must be able to apply these skills to specific cases, teasing out the ethical issues in these cases and then using philosophical analysis to evaluate the principles and values at play.
A central goal of this course is to develop these skills.
They will be illustrated in various ways in the lectures. The papers will ask you to put these skills into practice.
All response papers will include feedback from the teaching assistants. The second of these three papers will involve a rewrite as well. Since it will be the first place where you put forward your own reasoning—in the form of objections—and where at the same time you must also illustrate an understanding of the material—in order for your objections to work—this is a good paper to go through the process of a formal revision. You will be working with one of the course’s teaching assistants in doing this.
More details on what the papers exactly will involve will be presented in lecture. The specific assignments will be made available online at the start of the semester. Sample papers for each of the three assignments will also be made available online.
(2) Final Paper Draft
Your final paper will be ten pages long if you are an undergraduate student and fifteen pages long if you are a graduate student. You will need to submit a complete draft of it. A complete draft is ten pages if you are an undergraduate and fifteen pages if you are a graduate student. A complete draft is a complete version of your final paper, and must contain all the elements expected in the final paper. This draft will count for 15% of your final grade.
(3) Final Paper
Your final paper will be a revision of your complete draft. It will count for 25% of your final grade. Standards will be provided for what counts as an acceptable revision.
No research will need to be done for the final paper. I will provide a topic and readings that go along with it. You will be asked to write a paper that defends a position related to the topic, arguing it by way of engaging the articles attached to the topic. In short, you’ll be asked to write a paper that brings the skills developed in writing the response papers together. As such, the written response papers should be viewed as giving you the building blocks you’ll need to succeed in writing the final paper.
NOTE: It is the policy of this course that, barring medical or other serious emergencies (computer malfunctions and internet delays are not serious emergencies), late papers or papers written on the wrong topic or papers that do not fulfill the requirements provided in class or by email by me or the teaching assistants will receive a zero. Please be sure to do the correct assignment, on the correct reading, and submit it on time.
(4) Participation
You will be expected to participate on a regular basis. This means attending and contributing to the sections run by the teaching assistants each week. Participation counts for 15% of your final grade.
Additionally, non-distance and hybrid students who attend lecture in person for at least 10 of the 14 sessions will have their lowest response paper grade raised one letter grade (B- to a B, B to a B+, B+ to an A-, etc.). Attendance will be taken each class and to be eligible students must attend the entire lecture. This policy does not affect papers that did not originally receive a passing grade.
Distance students who make at least one substantive contribution to the online forum for at least 10 of the 14 weeks of the semester will have their lowest response paper grade raised one letter grade (B- to a B, B to a B+, B+ to an A-, etc.). This policy does not affect papers that did not originally receive a passing grade.
To be clear: these incentives are aimed at promoting interaction. It seeks to get local students into the classroom interacting with me and each other on a weekly basis, and to get distance students on the course forum interacting with the TAs and each other on a weekly basis. Local students are more than welcome to comment on the forums and distance students are more than welcome to drop in on a class if they're in town, of course.
Required Texts
Some of the readings will be available through links on the course webpage. A course packet will be available for all other readings for this course. No additional texts are required beyond that.
Please note: The availability of the course packet is a function of when HES has put all of the materials together. When it has, students enrolled in the course will be alerted. The instructor and teaching staff do not have control over when the materials will be finalized for purchase.
The readings for this course are primarily cases and philosophy; as such, the material is very dense, and adequately engaging it will require reading it at least once with time and care and, more often than not, reading it again after that. The challenge is worthwhile. Serious discussion about questions of value in public policy requires at least some exposure to serious writings, both to build a conceptual vocabulary and to see examples of good moral reasoning.
For a fun and easily-accessible introduction to some of the ideas covered in this course, explored by way of seeing how these ideas appear in superhero narratives, I invite you to read the following articles of mine at your leisure, included in the course packet:
· “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: On the Moral Duties of the Super-Powerful and the Super-Heroic,” Chapter 14 in Superheroes and Philosophy (2005), edited by Tom Morris and Matt Morris, pp. 177-193.
· “The Joker’s Wild: Can We Hold the Clown Prince Morally Responsible?” in Batman and Philosophy, edited by Mark D. White and Robert Arp, Wiley Press, 2008.
I also recommend that you look at the following helpful guidelines on writing and reading philosophy:
· James Pryor, “Guidelines on Reading Philosophy”
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/reading.html#Evaluate
· James Pryor, “Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper” http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
Due Dates For Assignments
Readings
All readings are to be read prior to the class in which they are discussed.
First Response Paper: due February 8 at 11:59pm
Provide a three page argument analysis of Arthur Applbaum, “Rules of the Game and Fair Play,” selection from Chapter Six of Ethics for Adversaries (1999), pp. 121-135. [Details on this assignment will be forthcoming.]
Second Response Paper, First Draft: due February 22 at 11:59pm
Provide a three page argument position on Bernard Williams, “Utilitarianism and Moral Self-Indulgence.”[Details on this assignment will be forthcoming.]
Second Response Paper, Revised Draft: due March 22 at 11:59pm
This is a revision of your second response paper. You must meet with your teaching assistant prior to handing in this revised draft. [Details on this assignment will be forthcoming.]
Third Response Paper: due April 5 at 11:59pm
Provide a three-page case analysis on “Placebo Trials in Africa.” [Details on this assignment will be forthcoming.]
Final Paper, First Draft: Due April 19 at 11:59pm
Write a ten page (undergrad) or fifteen page (grad) paper (an argument analysis, plus critique, plus position) on TBA [Details on this assignment will be forthcoming]
Final Paper, Revised Draft: Due May 10 at 11:59pm
This is a revision of your final paper. You must meet with your teaching assistant prior to handing in this revised draft. [Details on this assignment will be forthcoming.]
Addendum: Social Network Policy
I have an online presence through various social networks and am delighted if you’re interested in connecting with me via these sites. I’m also perfectly content if you are not. The views I express on these sites are entirely my own and are not to be confused in any way with me speaking in the capacity of my role at the Harvard Kennedy School or the Harvard Extension School. In light of that, while I’ll happily accept Facebook friend requests, Twitter followers, etc., I will not initiate such contact. The idea is to do whatever you’re comfortable with.
Schedule of Topics and Readings
1. Introduction
January 29
· Case: The Woman in the Corridor
· Paul Bloom et al., “Forum: Against Empathy” Boston Review http://www.bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy (Please read all contributions.)
2. Arguing for Policy
February 5
· Case: Gregory M. Stankiewicz, “The Controversial Curriculum,” in Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, eds., Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments (1997), pp. 327-333.
· Jonathan Haidt, “The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives,” Ted Talk, http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en
· Jonathan Haidt, “The Moral Foundations of Politics,” Chapter 7 in The Righteous Mind.
· Tom Bailey and Valentina Gentile. “Introduction,” pp. 3-11, Rawls and Religion.
3. Promoting Agendas
February 12
· Case: George W. Bush on Iraq’s Nuclear Weapons,” in Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 4th. Ed. (2006), eds. Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, pp. 88-95.
· Arthur Applbaum, “Rules of the Game and Fair Play,” selection from Chapter Six of Ethics for Adversaries (1999), pp. 121-135.
· Eric Alterman, “George Bush and the Post-Truth Presidency,” Chapter VI of When Presidents Lie.
· John Blake, “Of Course Presidents Lie,” CNN.
4. Negotiating Loyalties
February 19
· Case: Bart Stupak and the Passage of the ACA
· Dennis Thompson, Political Ethics and Public Office, Chapter Four
· Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, “The Value of Compromise,” Chapter One of The Spirit of Compromise.
· Richard Weisberg, “The Politics of Compromise,” Chapter 2 of In Praise of Intransigence
5. Maintaining Integrity
February 26
· Case: The Prison Master’s Dilemma
· Mark Young, “Sharks, Saints and Samurai” in Negotiation Journal April 2008.
· Bernard Williams, “Utilitarianism and Moral Self-Indulgence.”
· Nina Strohminger, “The Self is Moral”, in Aeon, http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/why-moral-character-is-the-key-to-personal-identity/.
6. Pushing Your Cause
March 5
· Case: “Role Responsibility, Official Disobedience, and the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act.”
· Arthur Isak Applbaum, “Democratic Legitimacy and Official Discretion,” in Ethics for Adversaries (1999), pp. 207-239.
7. Taking Extreme Measures
March 12
· Case: Nelson Mandela, selections from Long Walk to Freedom (1994), 234-239, 269-274, 282-283.
· Frantz Fanon, selections from The Wretched of the Earth (1963), 2-4, 5-7, 23-24, 42-44, 50-52.
· Avishai Margalit, “Two Pictures of Compromise” and “The Morality of Rotten Compromises,” Chapters 1 and 5 of On Compromise and Rotten Compromises.
Ethics and Leadership
8. Founding a State
March 26
· Case: Duncan Pickard, “Claiming Legitimacy: The First Weeks of the National Transitional Council of Libya.”
· Ronald Heifetz, “Leadership” and “Leadership and Values,” Chapters 2 and 3 in Political and Civic Leadership, edited by Richard Couto.
· Arthur Isak Applbaum, “All Foundings Are Forced,” pp. 1-43, draft.