400 Level Courses

____________________________________________________________

Course Offerings for 2012-13:

Please note when prerequisites list level 4 as a requirement, this means the 4th year of your program.  It does not mean admitted to Honours. 

 

PHIL402*  Moral Philosophy I    3S

R. Kumar Winter Term

PREREQUISITE: Level 4 and registration in a PHIL Major or Medial plan and (a minimum GPA of 2.60 in PHIL250/6.0 and PHIL257/6.0) and (6.0 units in PHIL).

The terms of contemporary debates about the nature and significance of moral responsibility have largely been set by P.F. Strawson's classic paper, "Freedom and Resentment".  Starting with a close reading of Strawson's original paper, this seminar will focus on recent work on moral responsibility taht develops Strawsonian themes.  Questions  be considered include the significance of reactive attitudes, the nature of blame, voluntarism about responsibility, the preconditions for responsible agency, and the authority of moral norms governing responsibility attributions. 

____________________________________________________________________ 

PHIL 403* Current Issues in Moral Philosophy II 3S

K. Gordon-Solmon Fall Term

PREREQUISITE:  Level 4 and registration in a PHIL Major or Medial plan and (a minimum GPA of 2.60 in PHIL250/6.0 and PHIL257/6.0) and (6.0 units in PHIL). 

In this course, we will explore, in some depth, a range of issues in the ethics of procreation.  Topics will include abortion, assisted reproductive technologies, parental virtue, and the obligations of society toward those who bear and care for children.  This course will be organized in three parts.  In the first, introductory, part of the course, we will investigate three discrete topics in succession:  the morality of abortion, surrogacy and egg donation and its relation to issues such as organ donation and sales, and reproductive cloning.  In the second part of the course, we will focus on the duties that parents incur when they choose to have children.  Do parents have a general, pro tantoobligation to provide their children with the best available life prospects, and if so, what particular obligations does this ential?  If not, then what duties do parents have toward their children?  We will consider these questions with respect to both existing children and future children.  We will examine, in particular, the ethics of conception and embryonic selection, especially in relation to the non-identity problem, genetic enhancement, and parental virtue.  In the third and final part of the course we will turn to political philosophy.  In particular, we will consider the obligations of society to those who bear and raise children. 

Evaluation will be based on one seminar presentation (20%), a submitted final paper question and prospective bibliography (5%), and a final paper (75%).

___________________________________________________________________            

PHIL 405* Current Issues in Social & Political Philosophy I 3S

C. Sypnowich Fall Term

PREREQUISITE:  Level 4 and registration in a PHIL Major or Medial plan and (a minimum GPA of 2.60 in PHIL250/6.0 and PHIL257/6.0) and (6.0 units in PHIL). 

This is a course about the concept of equality in light of the philosophical contribution of the late G.A. Cohen, who until recently was the Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at All Souls College, Oxford.  One of the most original, incisive and influential political philosophers of our time, Cohen has left a corpus of work vital to the flourishing of the discipline. 

It might be said that equality is something everyone believes in; virtually all political philosophies across the spectrum claim to be egalitarian, be it in their insistence on individuals’ equal rights to liberty and property or the importance of redistributing wealth more equally.  We are all egalitarians now, we can proclaim, in the rather triumphalist mood that characterised many commentaries on the occasion of the millennium.  However, the concept of equality has also been challenged by a number of factors: the collapse of the Soviet Union and societies of ‘state socialism’; the rise of right-wing critiques of the welfare state, and controversy within egalitarian debate itself.

Cohen’s intellectual career, shaped by personal conviction and philosophical commitment, has confronted and illuminated many of these challenges.  This course looks at the idea of equality in light of contemporary debates, drawing on the work of Cohen, the philosophical context of his work and recent interpretations of his ideas, including the instructor’s recent work, both published essays and an excerpt from her manuscript ‘Equality Renewed,’ which is to a significant extent inspired by Cohen’s contribution.

Texts:

1) Sypnowich, Christine (ed.) The Egalitarian Conscience: Essays in Honour of G.A. Cohen (Oxford University Press 2006) – I hope to offer this on sale with Marilyn at cost (less than half of the bookshop price – no royalties to the editor!) (EC)  Available electronically and on reserve at Stauffer.

2) Articles to be distributed electronically (*)

3) Chapters 1, 3 and 6 from G.A. Cohen, Rescuing Justice and Equality (Harvard U.P., 2008)  -- on reserve at Stauffer (S)   (You may want to buy the book – it’s available at a reasonable price at Amazon.ca) 

Course structure :

This is a seminar, so it is imperative that students come to class prepared to talk about the course material.  The first couple of classes will be structured around lectures given by the instructor, with discussion.  Thereafter classes will be structured around students’ comment sheets to prompt discussion.  Comment sheets consist of a two-page, double-spaced short paper that sets out and analyses one or both of the readings.  Students should be prepared to discuss the comment sheet with the class.  Comment sheets will be submitted at the end of the class to be marked. 

Assessment :  

1)       50% based on the best five of six comment sheets;

2)       50% based on the final essay

____________________________________________________________________

PHIL 407* Social and Political Philosophy III 3S

N. Choi Winter Term

PREREQUISITE:  Level 4 and registration in a PHIL Major or Medial plan and (a minimum GPA of 2.60 in PHIL250/6.0 and PHIL257/6.0) and (6.0 units in PHIL). 

________________________________________________________________            

PHIL 410* History of Philosophy  3S

R. Murty Fall Term

PREREQUISITE: Level 4 and registration in a PHIL Major or Medial plan and (a minimum GPA of 2.60 in PHIL250/6.0 and PHIL257/6.0) and (6.0 units in PHIL).

Introduction to Indian Philosophy

Required text:  A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy by S. Raddhakrishnan and C. Moore, Princeton University Press, 1957. 

After an introductory survey of the progression of Inidan philosophy, we will devote at least half f the semester to an intense study of the Upanishads and the philosophical ideas they contain.  The second half of the semester will focus on the Bhagavad Gita and the six systems of Indian philosophy of later periods.  The course will culminate in an overview of Vedanta and Neo-Vedanta philosophies.  If time permits, we will explore some contemporary thought, especially the question of how the Upanishads influenced the Gandhian approach to a political philosophy in the modern context.

The final grade for the course will be based on two essays and class participation.  

________________________________________________________________

PHIL 421* Ethical Issues II 3S

C. Overall Winter Term

PREREQUISITE:  Level 4 and registration in a PHIL Major or Medial plan and (a minimum GPA of 2.60 in PHIL250/6.0 and PHIL257/6.0) and (6.0 units in PHIL). 

Topic: Issues in Procreative Ethics

This course explores some contemporary ethical and social policy questions concerning human procreation. Feminist and non-feminist perspectives on these issues will be discussed. Possible topics include the following:

• What are the scope and limits of reproductive rights, for both women and men?
• What is the moral status of embryos and fetuses?
• Are there good (or bad) reasons for procreating?
• Can there be an obligation to procreate? Or not to procreate?
• Is David Benatar justified in his belief that it is always “better never to have been”—so that there is a prima facie reason never to procreate?
• Should prospective parents be licensed, as Hugh LaFollette argues?
• Does a moral commitment to producing good generate an obligate to procreate as many children as possible (Derek Parfit’s “repugnant conclusion”)?
• Is it morally justifiable to have eight, fourteen, or nineteen children (like some reality show “personalities”)?
• Is Julian Savulescu right in claiming that human beings have a duty of procreative beneficence?
• Is it impossible to harm a future child because without the harm, the child would be a different person (Derek Parfit’s “non-identity problem”)?
• Are future parents justified in using technology to select the characteristics (including the sex) of their future children?
• Is there a problem with permitting—and funding—post-menopausal pregnancy?
• Should contract pregnancy be banned? What about the selling of gametes and embryos?
• Would ectogenesis (gestation in an artificial uterus) be bad?
• Can human cloning be justified?

In this course there will be an emphasis on class discussion and on the development and refinement of philosophical writing skills. Readings will be drawn from contemporary anthologies and from online philosophy journals.

________________________________________________________________ 

PHIL 451* Epistemology II 3S

L. Maclachlan Winter Term

PREREQUISITE:  Level 4 and registration in a PHIL Major or Medial plan and (a minimum GPA of 2.60 in PHIL250/6.0 and PHIL257/6.0) and (6.0 units in PHIL).

THE PROBLEM OF DUALISM AND THE ENIGMA OF PERCEPTION

             The problem of dualism has its source in different conceptual schemes or discourses which are well established parts of ordinary language.  There is a discourse about physical things, which includes the language of natural science and a discourse about mental states, within which we can distinguish experiential states and intentional states, like beliefs.  The basic division among philosophers is between materialists and phenomenal realists.  There is a distinction between reductive materialism and eliminative materialism, and there is also the anomalous monism of Donald Davidson and the view of Daniel Dennett, who allows that mental discourse can be neither reduced nor eliminated, but somehow manages to downgrade it.  There are also various flavours of phenomenal realism.  There is dualism (not necessarily Cartesian dualism): there is epiphenomenalism: there is panpsychism: there is the sceptical view of Colin McGinn, who argues that mental and physical discourse must both be accepted at their face value, but we do not possess the concepts necessary to integrate them in a single system.

             The enigma of perception is connected with the problem of dualism.  The generally accepted theory of perception is that from the sensory input from an external world, we somehow or other acquire beliefs about the external world responsible.  The problem of perception is to explain in detail how we get from the antecedent physiological process, which must be described, perforce, in physical language to the set of beliefs about the world which are captured through mental discourse.  The traditional answer was that we infer from sensations produced in the mind to their external causes, but this answer presupposesour knowledge of an external world causally interacting with human beings.  The traditional answer was not as misguided as many people think today, since the assumptions on which its pattern of inference depends are generally recognized as true.  But there remains a fundamental enigma, since we have to explain how we originally acquire the knowledge of the external world as a causal system which the traditional theory assumes.

           The course will work systematically through my two recent books: Why Consciousness is Reality(Mellen Press, 2010) and The Enigma of Perception(McGill-Queen’s University Press, forthcoming).  For Philosophy 451 the work for the course will consist in four short papers, spaced throughout the term.

_________________________________________________________________

PHIL 466* Philosophy of Art 3S

D. Knight Winter Term

PREREQUISITE:  Level 4 and registration in a PHIL Major or Medial plan and (a minimum GPA of 2.60 in PHIL250/6.0 and PHIL257/6.0) and (6.0 units in PHIL). 

_________________________________________________________________ 

PHIL467/867  Hermeneutics   3S

P. Fairfield Fall Term

PREREQUISITE: Level 4 and registration in a PHIL Major or Medial plan and (a minimum GPA of 2.60 in PHIL250/6.0 and PHIL257/6.0) and (6.0 units in PHIL).

_________________________________________________________________

PHIL 471* Philosophy of Medicine 3S

S. Sismondo Winter Term

PREREQUISITE:  Level 4 and registration in a PHIL Major or Medial plan and (a minimum GPA of 2.60 in PHIL250/6.0 and PHIL257/6.0) and (6.0 units in PHIL). 

Topic: Political Economies of Pharmaceutical Knowledge

In this course we examine the production, distribution, and consumption of knowledge about drugs – legal, regulated, and patented drugs. As we will learn, the case is a pathological one, because pharmaceutical companies go to great efforts to shape scientific knowledge about their products, and to transfer that knowledge to researchers, physicians, and potential consumers. But the case is one that raises many issues worth discussing. We will talk about, for example, such ontological and epistemological topics as: the natures and construction of diseases, conflicts of interest, integrity in research, and the nature of bias within science. There also will be scope to discuss more ethical topics, such as: the bounds of cosmetic pharmaceuticalization, the place of the market in health care, and the the enrolment of research subjects. This is an interdisciplinary course, and we will read a wide variety of articles, by philosophers, anthropologists, historians, journalists, and medical researchers. Evaluation will be based on short written commentaries, participation, a presentation, and a final paper.

__________________________________________________________________ 

PHIL 473* Philosophical Logic 3S

A. Mercier Fall Term

PREREQUISITE:  PHIL361/3.0 and PHIL362/3.0.

Extensions of classical and non-classical logics

In this course, we will do an in depth study of extensions of classical logic: second- and higher-order logics and modal logics (Leibnizian and Kripkean) in their many manifestations (alethic, deontic, temporal, epistemic), as well as survey various proposals for non-classical logics (i.e. logics which give up on the axiom of bivalence): multi-valued logics, fuzzy logics, and paraconsistent logics. 

A solid grounding in first-year predicate calculus with identity (PHIL 361 & 362), as demonstrated by a test at the beginning of the course.  Students who have taken (only) PHIL361 should apply directly to the instructor.

___________________________________________________________________

PHIL 497* Ethics and Animals 3S

W. Kymlicka Fall Term

PREREQUISITE:  Level 4 and registration in a PHIL Major or Medial Plan or (level 4 and registration in a ENVS Medial Plan or ENSC Major plan or ENSC, EGPY, EBIO, ECHM, EGEO, ELSC, or ETOX Specialization Plan) and (a minimum GPA of 2.60 in PHIL250/6.0 and PHIL257/6.0) and (6.0 units in PHIL). 

This course sits at the intersection of two recent developments in political theory: the first is the demand by animal rights theorists to include animals as full members of the moral community; the second is the trend towards using "citizenship" as the central organizing concept for advancing claims of justice (reflected, for example, in the way that demands for women's rights, gay rights, disability rights, children's rights, minority rights etc have all been rearticulated as movements for new forms of citizenship).  Given these two trends, it is natural to consider whether the claims of animal rights can also be articulated in terms of citizenship.  In this course, we will examine to what extent citizenship theory can illuminate some of the central moral issues that arise in human-animal relations, and conversely, to what extent the case of animals can illuminate the strengths and limits of "citizenship" as  a concept for articulating claims of justice.  In particular, the case of animals forces us to reconsider traditional assumptions about the capacities required for citizenship (eg., capacities for deliberation or participation) and about the nature of political communities (eg., the rules of membership, territorial boundaries, etc).
 
__________________________________________________________________