Description of Courses Taught
Jennifer Lawson
University of North Florida (2006-09)
Introduction to Phil
Overview
Philosophy deals with the deepest questions the human species has asked. In my classes, I carefully navigated my students through issues such as the existence of God, artificial intelligence, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and logic. I used standard materials.
I began the course with a cursory prep on informal logic. I graded students’ essays on the ability to avoid informal fallacies. Therefore, I didn’t necessarily care what they argued as long as the logic was good.
I used a modified version of the Socratic Method. I actually led discussion and directed it, but encouraged class discussion where students didn’t attack each other but attacked me. I often began my lesson by going over things on the chalkboard. Then I would lead discussion. It was important to me that my students knew how to navigate the issues rather than learning from rote, being perplexed, or anything else.
I kept office hours and encouraged students to come to me with questions, look over papers, and general guidance about philosophy, college, and careers. I believed I trained philosophers, rather than people who just took an Intro class.
I tried to be entertaining. But this was college. My students were there for serious business. I gave them my best every time—even if I felt exhausted at the end of the day.
I began the course each time by telling my students we were equals. I really meant this. We were dealing with issues together because I don’t know everything. This also helped me avoid discrimination in any form because I took all of my students to be equal partners in our education.
I used Blackboard. I posted grades very soon so my students could know how they were doing.
__________________
Below is the outline of a lecture on John Stuart Mill’s ethics, from his book Utilitarianism, delivered in a lecture hall to over 100 students at the University of North Florida.
Mill Lecture Sample from Introduction to Philosophy
By Jennifer Lawson
Introduction
Mill begins his discussion by talking about ‘intuitive’ moral theories. By this he means moral theories that propose to come to solutions to moral problems a priori rather than inductively or empirically. Recall, a priori means ‘by reason alone’. Rarely do thinkers in the intuitive school make a list of a priori principles, according to Mill. Kant, however, does. His a priori principle is the categorical imperative: “Act according to the maxim you could will to be a universal law.”
When we look at the categorical imperative, though, what we see is that Kant does not show that immoral acts are actually logical contradictions. What he does show is that, if we look at the consequences of an immoral action, the consequences are such that no one would want them. So, Kant’s theory actually deals with consequences and whether consequences are favorable or not, according to Mill.
Greatest Happiness Principle
The Greatest Happiness Principle (or, the Principle of Utility) is that actions are right insofar as they promote happiness and wrong insofar as they promote the reverse of happiness.
What is happiness? Pleasure. What is the reverse of happiness? Pain.
Higher and Lower Pleasures
Utilitarian theory had been accused of being a ‘swine theory’. That is, people found it insulting that all humans should do is maximize pleasures. This is because they took pleasure to be mere bodily pleasure.
Mill, however, says we need to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are pleasures of the mind: Reading literature, going to the opera. Lower pleasures are bodily pleasures. Human beings value both and higher pleasures have more value than lower pleasures.
When we are faced with two pleasures, Mill says that the way we determine which pleasure is of greater value is this: For any person competently acquainted with both pleasures, the one s/he chooses as the more pleasurable is the more valuable one.
No human would choose to be an animal and no educated person would choose to be a dunce. Why? Because humans have dignity. “Better to be a human unsatisfied than a pig satisfied.”
Rejection of Virtue Theory
Mill rejects virtue theory. That is, he doesn’t think character traits of motivations are incredibly valuable the way a virtue theorist might. What is important, again, is the consequences of actions and whether those consequences produce happiness, or pleasure.
Mill says that some people think utilitarianism makes people cold and unfeeling, that it doesn’t take into account important traits of human beings. Mill replies that utilitarianism is about right action. Assessing virtues is about judging people. Furthermore, there is nothing incompatible with valuing good persons in utilitarianism. And, good people can do bad things, while bad people can do good things.
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Bentham advocated act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism is the position that we should tally the consequences of each act we perform. Mill, on the other hand, advocate rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is the position that many social rules we have came about because of what we have learned about pleasure and pain in the past. We already know that stealing creates pain. Our society prohibits stealing. This is a rule for us: Don’t steal. An act of stealing would be immoral because it breaks a rule which we’ve already decided on.
We should consult the principle of utility only when faced with dilemmas.
______________________
SAMPLE INFORMAL LOGIC LESSON FROM INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
By Jennifer Lawson
Claims
When you are confronted with an argument, the first thing you want to do is figure out what kind of claims are being made. This way, you will know how to assess the claims.
A claim can be:
Empirical: The truth or falsity can be assessed by looking into the world.
Example: “All crows are black.”
It would be hard to examine every crow in the world, but if you really want to assess this claim to see if it’s true, you’d look into the world.
A Priori: The truth or falsity cannot be assessed by looking into the world. Usually these claims are said to be assessed by mere reason: thinking about it, examining the concepts.
Example: “A bachelor is an unmarried male.”
Normative: Normative claims are prescriptive. They purport to say what ought to be.
Example: “You should never kill another human.”
Here are some further examples:
My arm is bleeding. (Empirical)
A triangle is a three sided figure. (A priori)
Shouldn’t you make better use of your time? (Normative)
There cannot be a square circle. (A priori)
Smoking increases your risk for heart disease. (Empirical)
Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife. (Normative)
Logic
We make a distinction between inductive and deductive arguments.
An inductive argument is one which, if the premises are true, the conclusion is only probable.
Example:
Every time I have gone to my mom’s house and knocked on the door, her dog, Flip, ran to the door and barked. I am about to knock on my mom’s door. Therefore, Flip will bark.
This is only probable because (A) Flip could have died. (B) Flip could be in the back yard. (C) Flip may have been trained to not bark when someone knocks at the door. Or any number of other reasons. Still, it is probable that Flip will bark next time I knock.
A deductive argument is one which, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Example:
Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
If the premises are true, then the conclusion that Socrates is mortal is necessarily true.
Deductive arguments can be called valid and sound.
When an argument is vaild, that means it’s in a good form. Validity describes a good logical form.
When an argument is sound, that means its form is good and it has true premises.
Here are some examples of vaild argument forms:
Modus Ponens
p→q
p
therefore, q Modus Tollens
p→q
not q
therefore, not p Hypothetical Syllogism
p→q
q→r
therefore, p→r Disjunct
p or q
p
therefore, not q
If the statements put inside these variables are true, the conclusion must be true.
For example, let’s look at Modus Ponens:
If one is a dog, one goes to heaven.
Spot is a dog.
Therefore, Spot goes to heaven.
This is an example of Modus Ponens. This argument is valid. And, if the premises were true, it would also be sound.
Comments
Post a Comment