|
INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS Sandra LaFave
Welcome to Philosophy 3!
COURSE
OBJECTIVES
GETTING HELP
Disabled students: West Valley College makes reasonable accommodations for persons with documented disabilities. College materials will be available in alternate formats (Braille, audio, electronic format, or large print) upon request. Please contact the Disability and Educational Support Program at (408) 741-2010 (voice) or (408) 741-2658 (TTY) for assistance.
All Students: FREE TUTORING for this class is available on campus.
I
recommend that you have at your disposal a reference text on the basics of
English composition and standard English usage, such as you used in English 1A.
You are expected to understand and adhere to the FULL contents of
this syllabus from the first week of class. This syllabus is our
contract. It describes all assignments and special policies regarding
attendance, grading and other matters relevant to this class. Unless
you contact me during the first week of class with any objections,
I will assume you understand and agree to the terms and conditions
as presented here.
CALENDAR
GENERAL
INFORMATION
My
office hours are Monday and Wednesday 11:00 to 12:30 PM. Hours by
arrangement are Tuesday and Thursday 2-3 PM. No appointment is needed
for office hours. If you want to see me at some other time, please
make an appointment.
I
will not return
calls or email for information that is available on this syllabus.
EXPECTATIONS REGARDING STUDENT CONDUCT
All students This course is worth 3 units. "Units" means Carnegie units. By law, to earn 1 Carnegie unit, a student must spend at least 3 hours a week on a class. (A 1-unit class, in other words, requires 3 hours of student work per week in an 18-week semester.) Therefore, since this is a 3-unit class with two additional hours (to reflect the increased workload for this class), you will be expected to spend, at minimum, 11 hours a week on this class. Please plan accordingly!
All students are expected to know the rules regarding plagiarism. Plagiarism is a serious violation of the academic code. It is cause for expulsion in many schools. Ignorance is not an excuse. Other teachers may not enforce the rules; that is also NOT an excuse. If you are unclear about what constitutes plagiarism, educate yourself! Look closely at all the eye-opening examples here. Students are often surprised to learn that what they consider standard practice is actually plagiarism. Any direct quote or close paraphrase without proper citation — any use of anybody else’s words without giving proper credit — is plagiarism. In addition to the usual kinds of plagiarism (stealing sentences, paragraphs, papers, etc. from books or journals or web sites), it is also plagiarism to “answer” an essay question by cutting and pasting sentences from the study guide for this class. Remember I wrote the study guide. If you cut and paste from the study guide, you are plagiarizing my own sentences back to me. I will notice. Any student who violates the academic code (e.g., by cheating or plagiarism) will, at minimum, receive a final course grade of F. This rule is rigidly enforced. According
to the catalog, instructors may drop students "... when accumulated hours of
absences exceed ten percent of the total number of hours the class meets during
the semester." I may exercise this option. But the main responsibility lies
with you. If you want to drop the class, it is YOUR responsibility to do so.
The last day to drop with a W is usually about one month
before the end of the semester. Check the Schedule of Classes for the exact date.
In summary,
GRADING
Philosophy
3 meets the IGETC Critical Thinking/English Composition requirement for
transfer to CSU or UC. Therefore, this class focuses heavily on English
composition skills, in addition to critical thinking (argument analysis). The
grading policy reflects this: grades are based primarily on essay writing.
Grades will be based on:
If you add up the total required points, you get 1000. So your final grade is determined as follows:
A 900 or more total points B 800 - 899 total points C 700 - 799 total points D 600 - 699 total points F fewer than 600 total points
Page
counts here refer to pages of text.
Illustrations, pictures, cartoons, or other visual aids do not count as text.
Some
instructors permit you to hand in a paper, receive comments, revise
the paper, and hand it in again for a higher grade. I do NOT do
that. However, the course tutors
will review your papers in advance if you give them enough lead
time. Some
instructors permit you to drop your lowest grade. I do NOT do that. You may write an additional paper for extra credit,
(250 points) on the topic you did NOT choose in the table above.
This is the only extra credit opportunity. I do not give additional, special extra
credit assignments to individual students. This
class can be taken for credit/no credit. This means that if you
get an A, B, or C, you get a final grade of "CR" and 3 units; otherwise,
you get "NCR" and no units. You must declare your intention to take
the class with this option during the first six weeks of class.
Criteria
for Grading Exams and Papers
Please do
not ask me "what I want" on written assignments until you have carefully read
this section and the Key to Paper Comments. Exams
will consist of at least two essay questions each; each exam answer should be
at least three typewritten pages long. Page count here refers to
pages of text. Cover sheets and works
cited pages are generally not necessary, and do not count as pages of text. All
papers must be typed double-spaced. If your
paper comes out too short, it is probably not detailed enough. If your
paper comes out longer than the minimum required, that's not a problem: please continue to double-space and use a normal
font size. On exams
and papers, I will be looking for the following 3 elements, each explained
below:
Competent English skills
I will now
explain what I mean by each of these criteria.
Demonstrated familiarity with
assigned reading and lectures The
primary purpose of papers is to present and analyze the arguments in the
reading and lectures. You are not responsible for generating any new arguments;
your job is to paraphrase the arguments and counterarguments from your texts
and lectures. If you do not present
the arguments in the assigned reading and lectures, you have not done the
assignment. Papers MUST demonstrate familiarity with all assigned readings in JR and SS on any topic assigned. The papers
must state explicitly which authors
gave which arguments. Do not merely summarize class notes in
your paper. Do not vent your
unanalyzed personal feelings or relate your autobiography — although you can
certainly argue for positions that
accord with your personal feelings. All
quotes or close paraphrases require appropriate footnotes or endnotes. Note
that using direct quotes without proper attribution constitutes plagiarism.
Direct quotes should be taken from the readings themselves, not from the editors' introductions to
the readings. Critical awareness Papers
must also demonstrate critical awareness; that is, you must analyze and critique all
relevant arguments and potential
counter-arguments. You must explain any logical and
factual errors and obvious
fallacies. The dialog format can make this task
easier and more fun. For example, you might present and critique the arguments
for and against ethical subjectivism by writing a dialog between a subjectivist
and a non-subjectivist; you might present the arguments for and against
utilitarianism by writing a dialog between a utilitarian and a Kantian. I assign
the paper so you can demonstrate skill and clarity in marshaling, presenting,
and criticizing arguments. You are not
expected to present "new" positions or break any new ground. You are not required to "state your own
personal views." Please do not
feel compelled to make one author or position come out "the winner" the
issues we will be discussing are often complicated, and every contributor may
say at least some worthwhile things. Competent English skills All assignments must demonstrate competent English writing skills, though these count somewhat less than clear presentation and analysis. You get up to 9 obvious technical errors (#1-20) per assignment with no penalty. However, if there are more than 10 obvious grammar or spelling errors, your grade will be lowered one letter (10%); more than 20 errors, two letters (20%); more than 30 errors, three letters (30%), etc. Each instance of a misspelling counts as one error. Passing the English test does not guarantee that you will receive no deductions on your essays. It is possible you have never had an English teacher as picky as I am. You may have passed all your previous English classes; that is no guarantee you will succeed here. In their effort to engage you in writing, English teachers — especially in California — often ignore elementary errors in English grammar and spelling; and as a result, students often are unaware of their mistakes. I urge you not to blow off the time allocated for basic English skills! Please use the English skills links, which contain many explanations and drills. And read the paper comments carefully, please, so you can correct your mistakes next time! To see just how detailed the scrutiny of your work in this class will be, look at the sample graded papers.
It is your job to edit and proofread your papers. A note on style: The imaginary "audience" for
your essay is the average high-school graduate — someone who knows nothing
about the subject matter but can follow an argument. You can assume the reader
is interested; don't worry too much about capturing the reader's attention;
e.g., don't start a paper on the ethics of abortion with "Jane's hands were
shaking as she stepped through the line of demonstrators on her way into the
clinic." Many attention-getting gambits are fallacious. Your model is a layperson's
"brief" — a piece of reasoning using clear language and logic. Define all
technical terms, use plain English and straightforward sentences. You are
striving for a sober, even-handed, modest analysis. Don't oversimplify. Take
your time. The Key to Paper Comments lists most
of my usual comments.
Technical errors/Style
issues
1 Incorrect use of
apostrophe 2 Missing apostrophe 3 Singular-plural mismatch 4 Run-on sentence 5 Sentence fragment 6 Spelling error 7 Use parallel construction 8 Sentence or paragraph too long
9 Referent of pronoun or pointer
not clear 10 Wordy, "fat," redundant 11 Capitalization error 12 Word order confusing 13 Punctuation error 14 Quote marks beginning and end 15 Avoid dictionary definitions; philosophical usage is
often different from ordinary language. If you feel you
must use a dictionary to define a philosophy term, at least use a
specialized
philosophical dictionary. 16 Underline or italicize book titles.
17
No space before punctuation; space after.
18
Bad word break
19
Must have a space before an open quote, but no space after one. 20 Direct quotes
require quotation marks and citations.
21
This is an odd (and perhaps unintentionally humorous) choice of words, evoking
irrelevant associations or mental images. 22 Active voice would be clearer and more vigorous here. 23 Don't say someone "feels" when you mean "thinks" or
"believes" or "argues." 24 I know what you mean, but this is not a standard
English word or idiom. 25 Sloppy imprecise word choice Problems in presentation of content30 Biographical information about the author is usually
not relevant to evaluation of philosophical argument. Students often include it
as "padding." But soundness of argument depends only on correct logic and facts.
31
Speculations about psychological influence of author's childhood, background,
etc., are usually not relevant to evaluation of philosophical argument. 32 HUH? Vague. This is either "word salad" (I haven't a
clue), or I can think of more than one thing this could mean. Ask me if you
can't imagine why I found it unclear.
33
It is more respectable among scholars to cite from the original text if
available, rather than a commentator's introduction or paraphrase. Also, citing
a commentator's paraphrase or introduction does not demonstrate the required
familiarity with assigned reading. 34 This quote does not seem related to what comes before
or after it. 35 Quote is out of context. The author is arguing against this view. (Did you read all the pages?) 36 You need to explain this more fully. 37 So? I don't see the relevance of this to the paper. 38 To a philosopher this would be a perfectly reasonable
question! 39 For maximum clarity, use grammatical statements — not questions — to state
premises and conclusion of an argument. 40 This seems a great deal of fuss over nothing much. No
one disputes your claim. 41 A claim isn't more true just because it's strongly felt or believed. 42 You don't need to be so tentative here. 43 Watch the weasel words. 44 Your account of this argument is oversimplified and/or
distorted. (Perhaps you do not yet fully understand it.) Remember the principle
of charity. 45 This reads like a first draft. Organization needs work.
46 I don't see the analogy here. 47 I don't see how this follows. 48 I see alternatives besides the ones mentioned. 49 This seems overstated. 50 Why? This is a conclusion. You need to support it. 51 Avoid vague relational claims. More specific statement
of the connection is needed here. 52 This seems simply untrue.
Extremely serious problems
60 Your words? Please be prepared to show me your sources.
61 Your paper does not demonstrate sufficient familiarity
with lecture content and/or the assigned reading. 62 Your paper doesn’t show sufficient argument and
counter-argument. 63 A paper must be more than a string of quotes or a
"quote-quilt."
Sandy's X10 Host Home Page | Sandy's Google Sites Home Page Questions or comments? sandy_lafave@yahoo.com |