SYLLABUS
AS 301/605 Ethics and
Animals
Course Description
This course will provide an overview of the current
debates about the nature and extent of our moral obligations to animals.
Which, if any, uses of animals are morally wrong, which are morally
permissible (i.e., not wrong) and why?
What, if any, moral obligations do we, individually and as a society (and a
global community), have towards animals and why? How should animals be treated? Why?
We will explore the most
influential and most developed
answers to these questions – given by philosophers, scientists, and animal
advocates and their critics – to try to determine which positions are
supported by the best moral reasons. Topics include:
Students will write a number papers that develop positions
on theoretical and practice issues concerning ethics and animals, giving
reasons for their support, or defending themselves from possible objections
and criticisms.
|
Prerequisites
None. No
philosophical background in required for this course: the core readings,
while written by professional philosophers (i.e., philosophy professors in
universities), are intended for broad audiences (but they are often
challenging, nonetheless!).
However, since this course will survey the results of
scientific research on the mental and emotional lives of various animals,
occasionally address how (US) law regards animals, and uncover the
environmental impacts of animal use (especially animal agriculture), students
are encouraged to take courses and do research on these topics concurrently
or prior to this course for a richer educational experience.
Note: Students come to this course with varying
backgrounds and familiarity with philosophy, ethics, logic and related
fields: some might have no background here and others might have
undergraduate and/or graduate degrees in related fields. The instructor is
very much willing and able to adjust the course in various ways to better fit
individual students’ backgrounds, interests, goals, etc. The instructor asks
students for input on how the course might best fit their individual needs:
please discuss these issues with the instructor. Help him make the course the
best it can be for you!
|
Course Learning
Outcomes
At the conclusion of the course, undergraduate students
will be able to:
In addition to the above Learning Outcomes, graduate level
students will be able to:
·
apply and extend moral concepts to animals issues, such as
other uses of animals, beyond those discussed in class;
·
analyze arguments concerning animals beyond those discussed
in class, identified through independent scholarly research;
·
relate ethics and animals to other fields of study and
practice by demonstrating relationships, connections and implications, as
well as devise and create potential solutions to ethical problems found in
contexts that are not addressed through course readings and discussion.
|
Grading
Class Participation
As an online, instructor-mediated course, students are
expected to attend class by logging into the course a minimum of 5 times a
week and making at least 5 substantive postings (i.e., at least a half page to a full page, single spaced) throughout the week:
The goal here is for students to engage the course through
different kinds of posts; not just responses to the prompts, not just
discussion with other students, not just raising issues of your own choosing,
but a little of everything! These postings should respond to the assigned
discussion questions as well as raise any questions, observations, criticisms
and any other responses to the readings and issues. Class weeks will end on
Sunday night, at midnight, Pacific time zone (3 AM Eastern). New lectures will
be posted every Monday morning. This deviates from the “official” HSU
schedule but the instructor has found that this seems to work better for most
students, given their busy schedules, since it allows a full weekend to work
on the course. Class participation will be measured in several ways. First,
students’ attendance will be recognized through your contributions to the
postings. Second, the quality of students’ postings will shape the
participation grade. To fully benefit from and contribute to the course,
students should raise questions that stimulate discussion about aspects of
the readings or the comments of the instructor or classmates. Everyone should
actively share thoughts based on their ideas and experiences. However, there
is a lot of “content” in this course and students will be asked to
demonstrate that they understand this content, often by explaining it in
their own words (which often is not easy!): if someone can explain a theory
or argument to someone else, that shows that they likely really understand
it.
For each discussion week, students will be able to earn 15
points. Each of the five required posts will be graded on a scale from 3 to 0
as follows:
3 points – an excellent post
shows understanding of the material, is analytical, integrates readings, and
furthers discussion;
2 points – a good post shows
familiarity with topic and responds to instructor or classmate’s questions or
comments on the week’s topic
1 point – a poor post does not
show familiarity with the readings beyond reading a classmate’s comments or
is off-topic.
A more detailed grading rubric for weekly posts and
writing assignments is at the end of this syllabus.
Students who do not make five substantive posts will
receive a “0” for each missing post. Students are encouraged to post more
than five times. The instructor will grade the five strongest posts.
Any students who face difficulties in posting during a
particular week (e.g. travel, family emergencies, illness) should please
inform the instructor immediately. Accommodations will be made to complete a
comparable assignment. However, students are urged to make every effort to
participate regularly in class.
|
50%
|
||||||||||
Writing Assignments
Over the course of the semester, students will be required
to write argumentative essays, i.e., papers where you
(1)
advance a thesis (e.g., about whether some use
of animals is morally permissible or not, whether some argument in favor (or
against) some use of animals is sound or not, whether some theory about
animal ethics is valid or not, etc.),
(2)
give positive reasons in its favor, and
(3)
raise and respond to potential questions and
objections.
For guidelines on writing a philosophy paper, please see
this page and/or Google the topic of writing philosophy: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
Additional guidance on producing presentations to support
ethical views will be provided later.
Philosophy papers sometimes seem daunting, but they need
not be: they are basically a little “sales pitch” for an idea:
“You should believe this claim …;
here’s why …; here are some common
questions and objections you might have …
and my responses to them … to
try to show you that these are not good objections to my idea; and here’s my
conclusion, reviewing what I’ve done.”
Undergraduates are required to write 3 papers. (16% of
total grade each), and can write an additional paper for extra credit. One
essay should be a short essay; the others should be longer essays: there is
value in practicing writing both shorter and longer pieces.
Graduate students are required to write 4 papers. (12.5%
of total grade each). One essay should be a short essay; the others should be
longer essays: there is value in practicing writing both shorter and longer
pieces.
A paper topic on theories of animal ethics in defense of
animals is required: students are free to choose the topics of their other
papers, and assignment prompts are provided for each week’s topic(s).
Students can also propose an alternative paper assignment,
to serve as one of their paper assignments: this might be a research paper, a
critical response paper to some article or book that makes a moral argument
concerning animals, and other possibilities, such as a final reflective paper
that summarizes what unique insights into ethics and animals (and moral
thinking, generally) that you have gained from this course.
To augment traditional argumentative paper assignments,
students may also propose, in lieu of one argumentative essay, some
alternative assignments to demonstrate their understanding the issues and
abilities to engage the relevant moral arguments, such as:
The goal here would be to produce a valuable educational
product that differs from the typical philosophical essay but serves the goal
of helping different populations of people think more carefully and
critically about moral issues concerning animals.
Students should email their papers to the instructor at nathan.nobis@gmail.com. Please paste
the text into the body of an email and
attach the files to the email. Please clearly indicate what the paper is in
the subject line (e.g. “Paper 1 on Animal Minds”).
Students are encouraged to post their essays or educational
products on the discussion boards to allow other students to benefit from
each other’s work, and help students improve their work, through discussion,
questions and debate, to serve as “peer review.” Students will also be
allowed unlimited opportunities to revise their papers, provided the
revisions result in deep, significant improvement. Papers should focus on the readings from the course: a function of
the paper is to demonstrate familiarity with and understanding of these
readings. Any papers that focus
on outside readings, at the expense
of demonstrating understanding of our assigned readings, will be deficient.
However, students are encouraged to draw from outside sources, and will be
credited for doing so.
Students will have a week to complete each paper after we
discuss the relevant topics: e.g., one week we will discuss theories of
animal ethics in defense of animals; that discussion will formally end or
close Sunday night; students have until the next Sunday night to submit your paper on that topic. This means
that while students are working on this paper we will be moving on to the
next topic, with new discussion questions for that week. This requires
organization and keeping up on the readings and assignments, of course!
Assignments will be graded on analysis, argument, and
writing (e.g., clarity, organization) on a scale from 100 to 0. Due dates for
papers are firm. Unless students receive an extension in advance of the due
date, late papers will be penalized. For example, an “A” paper will receive
an “A-“ if it is one day late, a B+ if it is two days late, a B if it is
three days late, and so on.
Assignments and due dates are as follows:
|
|||||||||||
100%
|
Policy Statements
Code of Academic Integrity:
HSU Code of Academic
Integrity, a necessary foundation of a learning community, is expected of all
students. Code violations are unacceptable and are subject to academic
penalties, including failure of the course. A record of the violation is
submitted to the Dean of Academic Affairs. Repeated violations may result in
suspension or dismissal from the university. Violations of academic integrity
include cheating on examinations, plagiarism, and submission of papers for
credit in two or more courses without faculty permission. Plagiarism is the
act of presenting the intellectual work of others as if it were one's own. This
includes: words, ideas, artwork, computer programming, etc. Some common forms
of plagiarism are (1) submitting someone else's paper as one's own; (2)
copying a passage from another source without citing the source; (3)
expressing a published idea or theory in different words, without crediting
the source of the idea. Plagiarism constitutes intellectual dishonesty and
undermines trust between members of the academic college community. It
is the student’s responsibility to understand and avoid plagiarism and
cheating. Therefore, ignorance and lack of intent are not valid
excuses. Penalties involving plagiarism are serious offenses and can
result in loss of grade and loss of class standing.
Notice to Students with
Disabilities:
Humane Society University is
committed to providing access to and inclusion in academic programs for
students with disabilities by providing reasonable accommodations.
Equal access for qualified students with disabilities is an obligation of the
university under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act as
amended in 1998. A student is not required to disclose his/her
disability to the university unless accommodations are requested. Students
wishing to request such accommodations should contact the Dean of Students
Affairs at studentsaffairs@humanesocietyuniversity.org.
Academic Freedom
Humane Society University
upholds the principles of academic freedom, which grants scholars the freedom
to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient
to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for
repression, job loss, or imprisonment.
|
Weekly schedule
0 – Pre-week
|
This week we get acquainted with each other, the course
plan and the ANGEL system.
|
|
1 – Intro to Ethics, Logic & Animals & Ethics
|
Assignments: This is an introduction to some
‘foundational’ material and concepts that we will apply to animals in
subsequent weeks: please read and respond to discussion questions; respond to
others’ responses: raise new questions and concerns: discuss!
|
|
2 – Animal Minds
|
Read and discuss!
Optional paper
on these topics due in a week.
Please post drafts of your paper on the discussion boards
for others’ comments: please email paper to instructor.
|
|
3 – Arguments in Defense of Animals
|
Read and discuss!
Required paper
on these topics due in a week. Please post drafts of your paper on the
discussion boards for others’ comments: please email paper to instructor.
|
|
4 – Arguments “Against” Animals
|
Read and discuss!
Optional paper on these topics due in a week.
|
|
5 – Wearing and Eating Animals
|
Read and discuss!
Optional paper on these topics due in a week.
|
|
6 – Animal Experimentation and Animals in Science
|
Read and discuss!
Optional paper on these topics due in a week.
|
|
7 – Pets, Zoos, Hunting and other Uses of Animals
|
Read and discuss!
Optional paper on these topics due in a week.
|
|
8 – Activism & Animals
|
Read and discuss!
Optional paper on these topics, due in a week.
|
Required Texts
The course is organized around an initial presentation of
three of the most influential methods of moral thinking for human to human interactions. We then
see how these ethical theories have been extended to apply to human to animal interactions, i.e.,
how humans ought to treat non-human animals.
These perspectives are:
·
a demand for equality or equal moral consideration of
interests (developed by Peter Singer);
·
a demand for respect of the
moral right to respectful treatment
(developed by Tom Regan); and
·
a demand that moral decisions be made fairly and impartially and the use of a novel thought experiment
designed to ensure this (developed by Mark Rowlands, following John Rawls).
We will see what these moral theories imply for the
general “moral status” of various kinds of animals and for particular uses of
animals, e.g., for food, fashion, experimentation, entertainment, and other
purposes. We attempt to evaluate these theories as true or false,
well-supported or not and the arguments based on them as sound or unsound.
We will also survey general moral theories that imply that
we have few, if any, moral obligations to animals and other arguments given
in defense of various uses of animals. One challenge for teaching an ethics
and animals class is that there are fewer defenses of harmful animal use developed by professional ethicists
than critiques of animal use. Since the common view is that animal use does
not raise serious moral issues, perhaps people often do not see much need to
defend that assumption. Nevertheless, we will find materials that provide the
strongest and most common defenses of various uses of animals so that we
might evaluate the arguments in favor of these positions.
There are four required books (in addition to many online
readings): they are all available online, used and are inexpensive:
1.
Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, 3rd
Edition (Ecco 2002, 1990, 1975). http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/
A classic, the book that started
the modern animal protection movement.
2. Tom Regan, Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of
Animal Rights (Rowman
& Littlefield, 2004). http://tomregan-animalrights.com
A descendent of a classic, Tom
Regan’s 1983 The Case for Animal Rights. In addition to an argument that many
animals possess moral rights, the book tells the stories of animal advocates’
personal development (including Regan’s) and discusses the influence of the
media and animal use industries have in shaping how people often address
ethics and animals. The best general introduction to ethics & animals
issues.
3.
Mark Rowlands, Animals Like Us (Verso, 2002). http://www.markrowlandsauthor.com/
According to PETA (People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals) some
people think Animals Like Us is the next Animal Liberation.
Note:
Rowlands has some other, more recent books that would work also, e.g., Animal
Rights: All That Matters.
4.
Lori Gruen, Ethics and Animals: An Introduction
(Cambridge University Press, 2011): http://www.lorigruen.com/
This book provides review and
commentary on many of the arguments above.
A good “secondary source”
that gives an overview of the many philosophical positions on theoretical and
practical issues concerning ethics and animals.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment