Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc. Bowling Green State University Department of Philosophy 305 Shatzel Hall Bowling Green, OH, 43403 peterjaworski@gmail.com
TEACHING DOSSIER 2011
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc.
CONTENTS EVIDENCE OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS BGSU Teaching Evaluation History I. Score Summary—My rating average for all classes as Instructor II. Scores for Individual Courses College of Wooster Teaching Evaluation History TEACHING SPECIALIZATION & EXPERIENCE Teaching interest Teaching history As Instructor As Teaching Assistant TEACHING PHILOSOPHY, METHODS & TECHNIQUES SAMPLE COURSE SYLLABI
Biomedical Ethics Business Ethics Philosophy of Punishment Philosophy of Death and Dying
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc.
EVIDENCE OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
BGSU Teaching Evaluation History
I. Score Summary—My rating average for all classes as Instructor:
Dimension of Evaluation Instructor’s teaching ability: Structure of the course: Instructor’s ability to help: Educational value of the course: All dimensions of evaluation:
II. Scores for Individual Courses:
Ratings Key 4 — Outstanding 3 — Superior 2 — Above Average 1 — Average 0 — Below Average
My Rating Between Superior and Outstanding (3.38) Between Superior and Outstanding (3.29) Between Superior and Outstanding (3.58) Between Superior and Outstanding (3.51) Between Superior and Outstanding (3.52)
Spring 2011: Lecturer for PHIL 2180: Law My Scores: 1) 3.39 2) 2.89 3) 3.28 4) 3.08 Dept. Avg.: 1) 3.16 2) 3.02 3) 3.11 4) 3.05 Lecturer for PHIL 2200: Business Ethics My scores: 1) 3.62 2) 3.29 3) 3.53 4) 3.56 Dept. Avg.: 1) 3.16 2) 3.02 3) 3.11 4) 3.05
Lecturer for POLI SCI 3010: Contemporary Political Ideologies My scores: Dept. Avg.:
Fall 2010: Lecturer for PHIL 2180: Law My scores: 1) 3.88 2) 2.88 3) 3.59 4) 3.72 Dept. Avg.: 1) 3.11 2) 2.94 3) 3.02 4) 2.97 1
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc.
Lecturer for PHIL 1250: Intro to Moral Philosophy My scores: 1) 3.00 2) 2.75 3) 2.83 4) 3.00 Dept. Avg.: 1) 3.11 2) 2.94 3) 3.02 4) 2.97
Co-lecturer for PHIL 2180: Punishment My scores: 1) 2.66 2) 2.26 3) 2.66 4) 2.31 Dept. Avg.: 1) 3.11 2) 2.94 3) 3.02 4) 2.97
Spring 2010: Lecturer for PHIL 232: Business Ethics My scores: 1) 3.58 2) 3.18 3) 3.55 4) 3.29 Dept. Avg.: 1) 3.09 2) 2.93 3) 3.12 4) 2.94
Summer 2008: Lecturer for PHIL 227: Philosophy of Law My scores: 1) 3.61 2) 3.30 3) 3.46 4) 3.53 Dept. Avg.: N/A
Fall/Winter 2007: Lecturer, PHIL 101: Introduction to Ethics Section 1: 1) 3.73 2) 3.45 3) 3.50 4) 3.59 Section 2: 1) 3.68 2) 3.36 3) 3.73 4) 3.27 Dept. Avg.: 1) 3.08 2) 2.92 3) 3.08 4) 2.98
Summer 2007: Co-lecturer for PHIL 227: Philosophy of Punishment My scores: 1) 3.93 2) 3.36 3) 3.64 4) 3.71 Dept. Avg.: N/A
Fall/Winter 2006: Instructor, CAST 201: Introduction to Canadian Studies
Summer 2006: Co-lecturer, PHIL 219: Death and Dying My scores: 1) 3.71 2) 3.07 3) 3.57 4) 3.64 Dept. Avg.: N/A
Spring 2006: Teaching Assistant, PHIL 101: Intro to Philosophy through Film Section 1: 1) 2.95 2) 2.95 3) 3.30 4) 3.15 Section 2: 1) 3.61 2) 3.44 3) 3.11 4) 3.50 Dept. Avg.: 1) 2.85 2) 3.00 3) 3.11 4) 3.14 Fall/Winter 2005: Teaching Assistant, PHIL 103: Introduction to Logic Section 1: 1) 2.63 2) 3.00 3) 3.37 4) 3.37 Section 2: 1) 2.93 2) 2.60 3) 3.27 4) 2.60 Dept. Avg.: 1) 2.90 2) 3.01 3) 3.20 4) 3.18
Lecturer for PHIL 1250: Intro to Moral Philosophy My scores: 1) 3.00 2) 2.75 3) 2.83 4) 3.00 Dept. Avg.: 1) 3.11 2) 2.94 3) 3.02 4) 2.97
Co-lecturer for PHIL 2180: Punishment My scores: 1) 2.66 2) 2.26 3) 2.66 4) 2.31 Dept. Avg.: 1) 3.11 2) 2.94 3) 3.02 4) 2.97 2
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc.
Spring 2010: Lecturer for PHIL 232: Business Ethics My scores: 1) 3.58 2) 3.18 3) 3.55 4) 3.29 Dept. Avg.: 1) 3.09 2) 2.93 3) 3.12 4) 2.94
Summer 2008: Lecturer for PHIL 227: Philosophy of Law My scores: 1) 3.61 2) 3.30 3) 3.46 4) 3.53 Dept. Avg.: N/A
Fall/Winter 2007: Lecturer, PHIL 101: Introduction to Ethics Section 1: 1) 3.73 2) 3.45 3) 3.50 4) 3.59 Section 2: 1) 3.68 2) 3.36 3) 3.73 4) 3.27 Dept. Avg.: 1) 3.08 2) 2.92 3) 3.08 4) 2.98
Summer 2007: Co-lecturer for PHIL 227: Philosophy of Punishment My scores: 1) 3.93 2) 3.36 3) 3.64 4) 3.71 Dept. Avg.: N/A
Fall/Winter 2006: Instructor, CAST 201: Introduction to Canadian Studies
Summer 2006: Co-lecturer, PHIL 219: Death and Dying My scores: 1) 3.71 2) 3.07 3) 3.57 4) 3.64 Dept. Avg.: N/A
Spring 2006: Teaching Assistant, PHIL 101: Intro to Philosophy through Film Section 1: 1) 2.95 2) 2.95 3) 3.30 4) 3.15 Section 2: 1) 3.61 2) 3.44 3) 3.11 4) 3.50 Dept. Avg.: 1) 2.85 2) 3.00 3) 3.11 4) 3.14 Fall/Winter 2005: Teaching Assistant, PHIL 103: Introduction to Logic Section 1: 1) 2.63 2) 3.00 3) 3.37 4) 3.37 Section 2: 1) 2.93 2) 2.60 3) 3.27 4) 2.60 Dept. Avg.: 1) 2.90 2) 3.01 3) 3.20 4) 3.18
College of Wooster Teaching Evaluation History
I. Score Summary—My rating average for all evaluated classes as Instructor:
Instructor’s overall performance: Excellent (35) Very Good (14) Good (8) Fair (3) Poor (0)
Instructor had thorough knowledge: SA (50) A (10) N (0) D (0) SD (0)
3
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc.
TEACHING SPECIALIZATION & EXPERIENCE
Teaching interest
I would be especially interested in teaching the following courses:
Social & Political Philosophy History of Social and Political Philosophy Philosophy of Law Business Ethics Medical Ethics Ownership and Property
My primary area of expertise and interest is Social and Political Philosophy, as well as Applied Ethics. I am competent at teaching a range of courses in Normative Ethics as well.
I am always happy and eager to teach core introductory courses, especially general introductory courses and those in moral, political and applied philosophy.
Teaching history
Course Introductory courses (Ethics) Biomedical Ethics Business Ethics Philosophy of Law Philosophy of Punishment Death and Dying Introduction to Canadian Studies Contemporary Political Ideologies
As Instructor
College of Wooster
PHIL 1001
Times Taught 5 1 2 2 3 1 1 1
Ethics, Justice & Society 4
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc.
PHIL 215 PHIL 1001 PHIL 1002
Bowling Green State University
Spring 2011 Fall 2010 Spring 2010 Summer 2008 Fall/Winter 2007 Summer 2007 Fall/Winter 2006 Summer 2006
Biomedical Ethics Ethics, Justice & Society Ethics, Justice & Society
PHIL 212: Philosophy of Law PHIL 232: Business Ethics POLISCI 3010: Contemporary Political Ideologies PHIL 212: Philosophy of Law PHIL 226, Philosophy of Punishment PHIL 1250: Contemporary Moral Issues PHIL 232: Business Ethics PHIL 227: Philosophy of Punishment PHIL 101: Introduction to Ethics PHIL 227: Philosophy of Punishment (as co-instructor) CAST 201: Introduction to Canadian Studies PHIL 219: Death and Dying (as co-instructor)
As Teaching Assistant
Fall 2009 Spring 2006 Fall/Winter 2005
PHIL 212: Philosophy of Law PHIL 101: Intro to Philosophy through Film PHIL 103: Introduction to Logic
5
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc.
TEACHING PHILOSOPHY, METHODS & TECHNIQUES I take teaching very seriously, and spend a great deal of time trying to further improve my abilities as a teacher. I often experiment in my classes with a wide variety of teaching methods. I am most proud of using technology, like Skype, to bring “visitors” to my classes. I have done this several times. Most recently, Member of Parliament Scott Reid spoke to my Philosophy of Law class over Skype about his preferred method of constitutional interpretation. When I set out to teach a philosophy course, I have two goals in mind: To succeed at making students appreciate the everyday relevance of philosophy and philosophical method to the lives of my students, and to provide an interactive, dialogue-based learning environment. In my experience, students often enter a philosophy classroom convinced that philosophy is an intellectually elite subject. Nothing could be further from the truth (at least not in my classes). My first mission is to dissuade students from thinking that philosophy is an impractical and “intellectually elite” subject. While questions like, “what is the meaning of life?” and “can we know anything at all?” are important to the discipline of philosophy, they are not central. When I set out to pursue philosophy academically, I wasn’t looking for answers to those questions. I wasn’t looking for answers at all. I was looking for a method -- a way to think, to argue, to understand, and to make connections between arguments and positions. Philosophy is best when it presents itself not as a compendium of various positions you can take on a range of issues, but, rather, as a formal strategy for constructing, analyzing, and critiquing arguments in general. In practice, my strategy is to focus on the questions that I ask of my students. Instead of asking “can we know anything at all?” I ask them, “what reasons do we have to believe that empirical evidence gives us good grounds to believe this or that?” Instead of focusing on the answer or conclusion, I try to focus on the procedure or the method of coming to a conclusion. Put succinctly, I believe that philosophy is primarily about form, and partly about the answers or conclusions. Viewed through this frame, the applicability of philosophy to everyday life becomes clearer.
6
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc. The second goal flows from the first, and it is to foster an interactive, dialoguebased learning environment. At this point, I’ve had the opportunity to try a variety of different teaching methods—including a lecture-based format, with power-point presentations and without, as well as a more relaxed environment where I ask the students to provide a summary of the assigned readings, to provide criticisms, guided by my questions. I have discovered that the latter method is much better than the first, given my skill set. In practice, I begin class with either a game (like the “prisoner’s dilemma”) or a remarkable thought experiment (like the trolley problem). Throughout, I probe the students to tell me what they think the “right” answers are, and then I ask them to elaborate on those, followed by a request for different answers, or different explanations. While everyone has a tendency to think that their opinions are integral to their identities, and are liable to take disagreement personally, I try to diffuse potential conflict by framing the questions as investigations into possible positions on an issue. Alternatively, I ask them what they think a philosopher like Immanuel Kant, or John Stuart Mill might have to say about the issue. That is, at bottom, my teaching philosophy: Motivate students to care by giving them reasons to think that philosophy is essential to everyday life, and foster understanding and retention by creating an interactive and exploratory teaching environment.
7
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc.
SAMPLE COURSE SYLLABI
Biomedical Ethics
Text Ronald Munson, Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics (8th edition) Course Description This course examines the ethical problems that arise within medicine and health care. Ethical questions relating to the physician-patient relationship, reproductive rights, abortion, AIDS, physician-assisted suicide, patient autonomy, and the allocation of resources will be addressed. Course Goals & Learning Objectives 1) Concepts Students will be able to identify key principles and theories within medical ethics as well as to compare and contrast these theories for the purpose of medical policy. 2) Context Students will be able to analyze and evaluate dilemmas facing medical professionals and how they relate to the principles and theories of medical ethics. 3) Application With a good understanding of the principles, dilemmas, and theories of medical ethics, students will be able to compare, contrast, and evaluate how these might affect contemporary decisions that often occur in specific medical situations. Requirements and Methods of Assessment 1) 10%: Attendance and Participation: Attendance and active participation in class is essential. You should be prepared to explain and discuss the readings assigned for that day. 2) 30%: Case Presentations: Each student will be assigned to a group, and the group will present one decision scenario from any of the chapters in the syllabus (more below). 3) 20%: Presentation Analysis: You will write a 2 – 3 page analysis of the topic you 8
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc. selected to present on. You are expected to deal with both the arguments you presented, as well as the comments you received in class (so take notes). Analyses are due at the beginning of class and must be turned in directly to me. DO NOT E-MAIL YOUR ESSAYS TO ME. 4) 25%: Final Exam: The final exam will be cumulative. It will consist of multiple choice and short answer questions. Schedule January 12 Intro & Overview 14 Moral principles: Utilitarianism (741-750) 16 Moral principles: Deontology (750-759) 19 Moral principles: Natural Law/Theology/Care (764-769, 784-790) 21 Moral principles: Major moral principles (769-781) 23 NO CLASS 2 Research ethics (3-29) 4 Research ethics cases (38-40, 212-215, 238-242) 6 Research ethics cases (47-51, 55-69) February 9 Physicians, Patients & Others (98-112) 11 P, P & O (113-125) 13 Debate 1: Animal experimentation 16 P, P & O (125-134, 152-160) 18 P, P & O (161-163, 198-200, 238-242) 20 Debate 2: The sliding scale 23 Genetic control (270-295) 25 Embryo debate (312-333) 27 Debate 3: Dax March 2 Genetic choice (333-351) 4 NO CLASS 6 SPRING BREAK 25 Reproductive control (364-377) 27 Reproductive control cases (377-383) 30 Reproductive control (383-395) April 1 Debate 4: Choosing babies (333-351) 3 Debate 5: Saviour Siblings (414-422) 9
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc. 6 Paying for healthcare (510-525) 8 Paying for healthcare (525-533) 10 Debate 6: Paying for healthcare (533-540) 13 Abortion (547-554) 15 Abortion (555-565) 17 Debate 7: Anti-Abortion (573-576, 594-598, 605-611) 20 Debate 8: Pro-Abortion (576-594) 22 Euthanasia (676-684) 24 Euthanasia (689-703) 27 Debate 9: Euthanasia (703-735) 29 Debate 10: Selected by students May 1 Overview FINAL EXAM
10
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc.
SAMPLE COURSE SYLLABI
Business ethics
Course Description and Goals 1. Understanding of the relevant issues and debates in business ethics. 2. Be able to use ethical frameworks to understand, analyze, and evaluate ethical dilemmas and business practices. 3. Be able to write and discuss business from an ethical standpoint. Text Boatwright, John R., Ethics and the Conduct of Business, 5th ed., 2007. Requirements and Grading 1) Attendance & Participation: 15% 2) Critical Analysis 15% 3) Case Presentation 30% 4) Exams 20% each Attendance & Participation You are expected to attend all classes, and to come prepared to discuss the reading(s) for that day. Plan on participating regularly by asking questions, engaging other students in discussion, and being prepared to defend a point of view (even if, in the end, you don’t endorse that point of view). Philosophy is a skill set that allows you to analyze and understand various positions. The best philosophers are clear, concise, and sympathetic. Our task is to see why a different opinion from our own might be persuasive (what it has “going for it”). It is not merely to dig in our heels and defend the positions we’ve already adopted. Participation in class will help all of us become better philosophers. This grade constitutes 15% of your overall grade. Critical Analysis CAs provide you with real-life dilemmas encountered by business professionals. They give you a chance to exercise philosophical reasoning vital to good ethical thinking. The CA will be presented at the completion of a unit (see below for unit breakdown). Each case study will have specific content requirements that culminate in a full written case study analysis. The case study should be no shorter than a page and no longer than 3 pages double spaced. You will have a choice of completing any one case study at any point during the semester (although earlier is probably better). 11
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc. Case Presentation Case Presentations give students an opportunity to work with others in ethical reasoning in real life scenarios. Each student will be a member of a presentation group responsible for one 15 minute presentation from any case or decision scenario not discussed in class. Presentations will focus on information relevant to the issue, ethical principles involved, and possible solutions. Groups will be expected to advance a position on the issue in a mock press conference, IRB (independent review board) or ethics committee hearing. Your peers will act as the committee in question and hopefully challenge your recommendations. Exams There will be a total of two exams given during the semester. The first exam will be an essay exam covering the material discussed during the first part of the course. The second exam will also be an essay exam covering only the material discussed in the last half of the course. You must take both exams. The exam questions will make reference to specific information from the lectures and the readings, so be sure to study the assigned readings carefully and to keep abreast of what happens in lecture. Each exam will be worth 20% of your final grade. Break-Down of Topics There are 15 weeks in the semester. We have 3 weeks of leeway, to cover a topic more comprehensively, to watch a movie, and to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to present their case presentation. As the class goes on, we will revisit and revise this schedule to adjust to your preferences. Week 1 & 2 Readings: Ch. 1 Ethics and the World of Business Ch. 2 Welfare, Rights, and Justice 1. Intro to Business Ethics 2. What is ethics? 3. Introducing utilitarianism Week 2 1. Utilitarianism contd. 2. Illustration of the market Week 3 Reading: Ch. 3 Equality, Liberty, and Virtue 1. Introducing Kantianism 2. Kant contd. 3. Rawls, Libertarianism Reading: Ch. 4 Whistle-Blowing Week 4 Reading:
Ch. 5 Trade Secrets and Conflict of Interest
12
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc. Week 5 Reading:
Ch. 6 Privacy
Week 6 Reading:
Ch. 7 Discrimination and Affirmative Action
Week 7 Reading:
Ch. 9 Unjust dismissal
Week 8 Reading:
Ch. 11 Occupational Health and Safety
Week 9 Reading:
Ch. 10 Marketing, Advertising, and Product Safety
Week 10 Reading:
Ch.12 Corporate Social Responsibility
Week 11 - 12 Reading:
Ch.14 International Business Ethics
13
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc.
SAMPLE COURSE SYLLABI Philosophy of Punishment
Fall 2010 MW 4:30-5:25 p.m., Hayes Hall 108 Instructor Peter Jaworski Email: peterj@bgsu.edu Phone: (419) 372-7216 Office: Shatzel Hall, Rm. 327
Teaching Assistant Jacob Sparks Email: jacob.sparks@gmail.com Phone: Office: Shatzel Hall, Rm. 340
Course Description This course will give an overview of topics in philosophy of punishment. Topics discussed will include the justifications of punishment, the problems of punishment, and capital punishment. The course is designed as a seminar in which students present and discuss the course material. Course Requirements Since this course is designed as a seminar, class participation is of utmost importance. You must come to class prepared. While attendance will only occasionally be taken, class participation will be expected, and will be graded. If you do not attend class, you cannot participate. Mere attendance is also not enough; we expect you to actively participate in class in order to get full participation credit. Every student will also be required to lead class discussion for one class, by giving a 15minute “Expert Presentation” followed by class discussion. The remainder of your grade will come from a “Response Paper” of two to three (2 - 3) pages, a Paper early in the semester of two to three (2 - 3) pages, and a “Final Paper” of three to four (3 - 4) pages in length. The response paper will be due one week after the “Expert Presentation” that you will be paired with, while the final paper will be due at the end of class. Grade Breakdown 30% Expert Presentation 15% Response Paper 10% Paper 1 14
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc. 25% Paper 2 20% Class Participation Expert Presentations Each student is expected to become an “expert” on one of the readings for this course. Experts are expected to come to class on the day their reading is assigned with a prepared 15-minute presentation on their reading. This presentation should include a thorough outline of the reading as well as the expert’s own reactions to it. The expert is expected to take and defend a serious position with regards to the arguments and conclusions presented in the reading. After each presentation, both the class as well as Jacob and Peter will be invited to ask the expert questions about the reading; these questions may be either clarificatory or may ask the expert to address some part of the reading’s argument or their own position. The readings are, for the most part, at a high level of philosophical abstraction, and are challenging. It is our hope that you take up the challenge with excitement and care. This task will require serious work as the expert will be expected to take a position on the reading’s conclusions. Students should be prepared to hand in a copy of their presentation notes to Jacob at the end of class. Response Papers In addition to his or her expert presentation, each student is expected to write a short response paper (2 - 4 pages) to another student’s presentation. Each student will be assigned as respondent to a specific reading. The purpose of assigning respondents is two-fold: First, students will know when arriving in class that they will need to be prepared to respond to that day’s presentation. Second, and perhaps more importantly, this ensures that each expert will have the benefit of reading a response paper from one of their classmates. Response papers are to be handed in at the beginning of the following class. One copy should be handed in to the instructors and another to the expert being responded to. Final Paper Each student is expected to hand in one final paper of three to four (3 - 4) pages in length at the end of class. This paper should be a rigorous philosophical investigation into one of the topics discussed over the course of the class. It is recommended that students write this paper on the topic of their expert presentation, as this will afford them the benefit of not only their own previous work on the topic but of the feedback of both the instructors and their assigned respondent. This is not, however, a requirement, and if a student chooses to write on another relevant topic of interest, he or she may do so. Class Participation Students are expected to attend class and participate in class discussion. The attendance policy is not rigid and students will not be penalized some fraction of a grade or even failed based purely on attendance. However, a balance of both attendance and participation in the discussion when attending will count towards a student’s participation grade. Failure to attend on the day of one’s expert presentation or assigned day as respondent will result in a zero for that assignment as well as a significant loss of 15
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc. participation points. Academic Dishonesty It is the instructors’ hope that this section of the syllabus is merely a formality. Please do not plagiarize. In all but the most extremely exceptional cases, students found presenting others’ work as their own will fail the course. Required Text A Philosophy and Public Affairs Reader: Punishment. Simmons, Cohen, Cohen, and Beitz, editors. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. 1995. Readings Below is a tentative list of readings. This list may change in order or content at any time. Week 1: Introduction 8/23/10 Introduction 8/25/10 The Crito Week 2: Justification of Punishment 8/30/10 Jeffrie Murphy, Marxism and Retribution (3) 9/1/10 Cont. Week 3: Justification of Punishment 9/6/10 NO CLASS 9/8/10 Murphy, cont. Week 4: Justification of Punishment 9/13/10 Alan Goldman, The Paradox of Punishment (30) 9/15/10 Cont. Week 5: Justification of Punishment 9/20/10 Warren Quinn, The Right to Threaten and the Right to Punish 9/22/10 Cont. Week 6: Justification of Punishment 9/27/10 CS Nino, A Consensual Theory of Punishment 9/29/10 Cont. Week 7: Justification of Punishment 10/4/10 Jean Hampton, The Moral Education Theory of Punishment 10/6/10 Cont. Week 8: Punishing the Young 10/11/10 NO CLASS (Fall Break) 10/13/10 PBS Frontline: Kids who get life in prison Week 9: Problems of Punishment 10/18/10 Martha C. Nussbaum, Equality and Mercy 16
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc. 10/20/10
Cont.
Week 10: Problems of Punishment 10/25/10 Michael Davis, Harm and Retribution 10/27/10 Cont. Week 11: Problems of Punishment 11/1/10 A. John Simmons, Locke and the Right to Punish 11/3/10 Cont. Week 12: Capital Punishment 11/8/10 David A. Conway, Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Some Considerations in Dialogue Form 11/10/10 Cont. Week 13: Capital Punishment 11/15/10 Jeffrey H Reiman, Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty: Answering van den Haag 11/17/10 Cont. Week 14: Canadian Supreme Court Decision 11/22/10 Excerpt from Canadian Supreme Court decision 11/24/10 NO CLASS (Thanksgiving) Week 15: Capital Punishment 11/29/10 Stephen Nathanson, Does it Matter if the Death Penalty is Arbitrarily Administered? 12/1/10 Cont. Week 16: Capital Punishment 12/6/10 Ernest Van Den Haag, Refuting Reiman and Nathanson 12/8/10 Cont.
17
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc.
SAMPLE COURSE SYLLABI Philosophy of Death and Dying Summer 2006 TTh 6:15 - 9:25pm Instructors David Faraci Email: faracid@bgsu.edu Phone: (732) 233-8867
Peter Jaworski Email: peterjaworski@yahoo.com Phone: (419) 601-2401
General Remarks Preparing for this course, it is easy to get lost in the sheer amount of literature available on the topic. Because of this, some choose to approach this course narrowly; they pick one of the incredible number of sub-topics available and engage it in depth. Others choose to attempt to cover the wide breadth of material on this topic, addressing everything from the definition of death to cross-cultural burial rituals to the ethics of killing. This course will be somewhere in between; the course is divided loosely into four units addressing four questions: What is death? Is death bad? What happens after death? How do we deal with death? What is important to understand in this course is that the instructors are less concerned with fully answering these questions and more concerned with working with the students in developing an understanding of what it is to approach these questions philosophically. With this in mind, the instructors expect this course to revolve around discussion amongst the students, rather than around the lectures given by the instructors. Ideally, any given class period will hear much more from the students than from either of the instructors. The structure of the course and the assignments are designed with this in mind. Expert Presentations Each student is expected to become an “expert” on one of the readings for this course. Experts are expected to come to class on the day their reading is assigned with a prepared 15-minute presentation on their reading. This presentation should include a thorough outline of the reading as well as the expert’s own reactions to it. The expert is expected to take and defend a serious position with regards to the arguments and conclusions presented in the reading. After each presentation both the class and instructors will be invited to ask the expert questions about the reading; these questions may be either clarificatory or may ask the expert to address some part of the reading’s argument or their own position. Readings will be assigned on the second day of class based on interest 18
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc. and philosophical background. The readings are, more or less, of two types. Some of the readings are published papers in philosophy. These tend to be dense, but are also arguments, and thus somewhat easier to outline and respond to. Other readings are from texts, such as Western Attitudes Towards Death and, while less dense reading, will require serious work as the expert will still be expected to take a position on the reading’s conclusions. Students should be prepared to hand in a copy of their presentation notes to the instructors at the end of class. Response Papers In addition to his or her expert presentation, each student is expected to write a short response paper (~2pp) to another student’s presentation. Each student will be assigned as respondent to a specific reading. The purpose of assigning respondents is two-fold: First, students will know when arriving in class that they will need to be prepared to respond to that day’s presentation. Second, and perhaps more importantly, this ensures that each expert will have the benefit of reading a response paper from one of their classmates. Response papers are to be handed in at the beginning of the following class. One copy should be handed in to the instructors and another to the expert being responded to. Final Paper Each student is expected to hand in one final paper (4-5pp) at the end of class. This paper should be a rigorous philosophical investigation into one of the topics discussed over the course of the six weeks. It is recommended that students write this paper on the topic of their expert presentation, as this will afford them the benefit of not only their own previous work on the topic but of the feedback of both the instructors and their assigned respondent. This is not, however, a requirement, and if a student chooses to write on another relevant topic of interest, he or she may do so. Class Participation Students are expected to attend class and participate in class discussion. The attendance policy is not rigid and students will not be penalized some fraction of a grade or even failed based purely on attendance. However, a balance of both attendance and participation in the discussion when attending will count towards a student’s participation grade. Failure to attend on the day of one’s expert presentation or assigned day as respondent will result in a zero for that assignment as well as a significant loss of participation points. Readings Below is a tentative list of readings. This list may change in order or content at any time. Readings assigned to an expert are marked with a bolded E and a number in front of them. You will note that some readings have two experts assigned to them. Some of these readings will be split up so that each expert will present on one-half of that reading. In other cases, the instructors will ask two students to work together as co-experts. On these occasions, presentations will last 25-30 minutes rather than the standard 15. This will be decided on a case-by-case basis. If changes are made in the order of the list, steps will be taken to ensure that this will not put undue stress on the affected expert(s). Students will not, for example, arrive to class to discover that they have suddenly become the expert for that class period. Changes made in the content of the course will similarly be made taking into account the assigned expert(s) for the affected reading(s). 19
Peter M. Jaworski, M.A., M.Sc. Schedule 6/27/06 Introduction 6/29/06 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, What is Death? *EXAMPLE EXPERT* Excerpt from Lucretius, On the Nature of Things *EXAMPLE EXPERT* Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 7/6/06 Nagel, Death E1&2: Rosenbaum, How to Be Dead and Not Care: A Defense of Epicurus 7/11/06 E3&4: Feldman, Some Puzzles About the Evil of Death E5: Gardner, Chapter 5 of Grendel 7/13/06 E6: Flew, Can We Survive Our Own Deaths? E7: Mill, Immortality E8: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Phaedo’s Theory of Soul 7/18/06 E9: Perry, A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality Film, Defending Your Life 7/20/06 E10&11: Aries, “Forbidden Death” from Western Attitudes Toward Death E12: Rosenblatt, “Cross-Cultural Variation in the Experience, Expression, and Understanding of Grief” from Ethnic Variations in Dying, Death, and Grief 7/25/06 E13: Doerflinger, Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life? E14: Rachels, The Morality of Euthanasia E15: Excerpts from Shakespeare, The Life and Death of King John 7/27/06 E16&17: Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral E18: Warren, The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion E19: Tolstoy, The Death of Ivan Ilych 8/1/06 E20-21: Hook, The Ethics of Suicide E22: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Morality and Rationality of Suicide 8/3/06 Wrap-Up Grading 30% Expert Presentation 15% Response Paper 35% Final Paper 20% Class Participation Office Hours Office hours will be on an as-needed basis. If you would like to arrange to meet with one or both of the instructors, please contact them by phone or email. Academic Dishonesty It is the instructors’ hope that this section of the syllabus is merely a formality. Please do not plagiarize. In all but the most extremely exceptional cases, students found presenting others’ work as their own will fail the course.
20