Phil. 334-01 / Spring 2011 Dr. Rodney G. Peffer
Founders 169c/ 260-4092 Messages: F-162/ 260-4705
Office Hrs.: T/Th. 700-715 pm Web CT – to be announced Wed. 300-730 pm Phil. 334

ETHICS TOPICS COURSE: GLOB AL JUSTICE

Required Texts:

Rodney G. Peffer, Global Justice, Human Rights, and the Natural Environment (i.e. various published articles and unpublished essays that are components of this work that will either be put on ERES or emailed to you; there’s nothing to buy) David Schweickart, After Capitalism John Rawls, The Law of Peoples Thomas Pogge & Keith Horton (ed.), Global Ethics: Seminal Essays Thomas Pogge & Darrel Moellendorf (ed.), Global Justice: Seminal Essays Will Kymlicka, Politics in the Vernacular (Optional)

E-Reserve Essays are in:

Phil. 340 E-Reserves: Password = “war”
Phil. 338 E-Reserves: Password = “endangered”
Phil. 462 E-Reserves: Password = “worldpeace” A. Essays by Rodney G. Peffer (Peffer) B. Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice (MMSJ) I –XXI (Essays) = Essays by other authors divided into Sections

All ERES Readings are in my Phil. 462 ERES unless noted otherwise.

* = An important component of my next book.

Jan. 26 General Introduction to Course

Jan. 31 Basics of Political Philosophy/ Peffer’s Theory of Social Justice

The following 6 short essays by me are in the “Introductory Materials” sub-folder of the “Essays by Rodney G. Peffer” folder of my Phil. 462 ERES.

R.G. Peffer *“On the Nature of Morality” (Peffer – 3) (4th essay from bottom) “ “ “ "Main Types of Moral Theories" (Peffer - 1)
" " " "Is Morality Relative?" (Peffer - 3) (or via email) “ “ " "Main Questions of Social and Political Philosophy” (Peffer - 5) “ “ “ "Major Contemporary Political Philosophies/Theories” (Peffer - 6)

Optional: R.G. Peffer “Outline of the U.S. Bishops’ Pastoral Economic Justice for All (3)

R. G. Peffer (from) MMSJ Cha. 2: (80-85) (for definitions of “consequentialism,” etc.)

Manuel Velasquez “Consequentialist (Teleological) Theories” (8) (at end of 462 E-Reserves) “ “ “Nonconsequentialist (Deontological) Theories” (9) ( “ “ “ “ “ )

*Rodney G. Peffer “A Modified Rawlsian Theory of Social Justice: Justice as Fair Rights”(Peffer –
10)
Feb. 2 Basics of Political Philosophy/ Peffer’s Theory of Social Justice

R.G. Peffer "The Social Contract" (Peffer - 5) R.G. Peffer "Historical Background to the Theories of Hobbes and Locke" (Peffer - 2)

*Rodney G. Peffer “Why Tom Regan is Wrong to Assert that Rawls’s Contractarian Theory Does Not
Accord Moral Status to Children and Others Who Do Not Have a Sense of Justice” (338) (4) (ERES or via Email)

*Rodney G. Peffer “Radical Rawlsianism, Political Liberalism, and Cosmopolitanism“ (Peffer – 30)

Feb. 7 Peffer’s Theory of Social Justice & It’s International Application - 1

*R.G. Peffer "Towards a More Adequate Rawlsian Theory of Social Justice" (Peffer- 18)

*Rodney G. Peffer “Security and Subsistence Rights as Basic and the Problems We Face at the Start of the 21st Century” (UNESCO paper) (12 pp) (340 E-RES)

Feb. 9 Peffer’s Theory of Social Justice & It’s International Application – 2

*Rodney G. Peffer “World Hunger, Moral Theory, and Radical Rawlsianism” (Peffer – 30)

Pay special attention to section (7b) “Amartya Sen’s Analysis: A Critique” (462) (78-82)

(I agree with most of what Armatya says about the world hunger problem but, as I explain in the above section of my “World Hunger ….” article, I have two important points of disagreement with him on this issue. One is that he only endorses one half of the “National
Food Self-Reliance” strategy for developing countries to solve their hunger, starvation, malnutrition, and under-nutrition problem: namely, that every country should have Food Entitlement System of some sort. The other part of this strategy is for developing countries to be sure that they grow enough of their own food staples to feed their populations without importing large quantities of food staples from other countries. Sen, as many other economists, argues that every country should take advantage of whatever “comparative advantage” it has in organizing their economies so that they maximize their national income (by, for example, growing mainly export crops – like flowers or pineapples – rather than growing their own food staples, and then using some of the profits to buy food staples on the international market, if necessary). But international commodity markets are notoriously fickle and unpredictable, so it is a real gamble to pursue this “comparative advantage” strategy in the area of basic food staples, rather than making sure that enough arable land is used to grow staples such that a country can make sure its residents have adequate nutrition, without risking not reaching that goal by relying on international markets. Now, of course, most countries have room to grow export crops as well as staple crops, and there is certainly nothing wrong with growing export crops so long as the country’s government makes sure that enough staples are grown in the country. The second disagreement I have with Sen is that sometimes in his writings he has proposed an overly-strong causal connection between countries having political democracy and countries being able to solve their hunger problem (i.e. be able to make sure that all of its citizens have adequate nutrition). He is not consistent on this throughout his many writings but at times he seems to claim that political democracy is either a necessary or sufficient condition (or perhaps both) for a country to solve this important problem. But clearly it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for reaching this goal since (1) there are countries that do not have Western-style political democracy but have solved the hunger problem inside their countries (e.g. Cuba), and there our countries that have Western-style political democracy but have not solved their endemic hunger problems (e.g. Sen’s country of origin, India). This is not to say that political democracy is not good in-and-of-itself, or even that it can’t help solve the hunger problem in particular cases; but the claim that it is either a necessary or sufficient condition (or both) to solve this problem is simply not true.)

*Rodney G. Peffer “International Justice and U.S. Relations with Cuba” (15) (Essays XVII – or Handout)

Feb. 14 Peffer’s Theory of Social Justice vs. Some Opposing Theories - 1

vs. Amartya Sen’s Capabilities Approach (I argue that even if Sen’s Capabilities Approach is theoretically superior, unlike Rawls’s Primary Goods Approach, it is impossible to apply to any real society and, thus, my version of Rawls’s theory is better)

*R.G. Peffer “What is to be Distributed?” (Peffer – 12)

vs. Ethical Egoism & Hobbesian Mutual Advantage Contractarianism
R.G. Peffer “Hobbesian Arguments for Anthropocentrism: A Critique” (338) (6) (via Email)

Optional: R.G. Peffer “Are Psychological Egoism and Its Denial Equivalent?” (Peffer - 4)

vs. Right-Libertarianism (Laissez Faire Capitalism & a Minimal State) *R.G. Peffer “On Nozick’s Repudiation of Libertarianism” (Peffer -10 … or Handout)

*Rodney G. Peffer “Catholic Social Thought, Rawlsian Theories of Justice, Minimal State Libertarianism, and the Question of What is Minimally Morally Acceptable” (Peffer - 30)

Feb. 16 Peffer’s Theory of Social Justice vs. Some Opposing Theories - 2

vs. Communitarianism & Virtue Theory (I need to write chapter giving a more through critique of Communitarianism & Virtue Theory, especially in the context of the “Asian Values Debate,” Confucianism as an ongoing cultural influence in China and Chinese culture, and China’s government’s push for a “Harmonious Society”)

Rodney G. Peffer “Peffer on Communitarianism and Virtue Theory” (3)

vs. Radical Gender-System Femimism (Here I need to write a chapter explaining why I am opposed to this particular type of Feminism, although I support other versions of Feminism and I support Gender Egalitarianism. But the question here is whether my over-all theory accommodates the legitimate concerns of women … and of disadvantaged ethnic or racial groups in many societies. This last topic will be addressed more thoroughly at the end of the course when we consider multi-culturalism and related issues. But here I want ask specifically whether my theory leaves anything out or contains elements that are not compatible with the legitimate concerns of women, as a group that to one degree or another, in one form or another, is discriminated against – and sometimes brutally suppressed – in various societies.)

R.G. Peffer “Schools of Feminist Thought/Theories” (An outline) (Peffer - 8)

R.G. Peffer “Philosophical and Empirical Aspects of the Study of Equality”* (Peffer - pp. 11-18) “Social Justice, Gender Equality, and the Family” - A Friendly Critique of Okin)

Vandana Shiva “Vandana Shiva, "Development, Ecology, and Women" (In 462, Folder “XXI. Third
World Perspectives on Development and Justice”)

vs. the Radical Gender System Feminist view that there cannot be any innate cognitive or affective differences between male & female members of our species, and to even suggest that such (statistical) differences might exist is sexist (and thus must be vigorously opposed & condemned)

“Diane Halpern quote on Innate Sex Brain Differences” (1) (via email) Louann Brzendire – “The Female Brain” in “Gender Equality & Feminist Theory” (3) Folder of 462 ERES
Time Magazine – “The Most Important Sex Organ” (on the differences between male & female brains) (5) in “Gender Equality & Feminist Theory” Folder of 462 ERES

Optional: Doreen Kimura “Sex Differences in the Brain” (10) from Scientific American (1992) in “Gender
Equality & Feminist Theory” Folder of 462 ERES Optional: Larry Cahill “His Brain, Her Brain” (10) from Scientific American (2005) in “Gender
Equality & Feminist Theory” Folder of 462 ERES

Rodney G. Peffer (plus, possibly, other short commentaries or essays)

Feb. 21 Peffer’s Theory of Social Justice & Marxism

R.G. Peffer (from) Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice (462) Introduction (3-32) Chapter 8 (Part) “Marxist Critiques of Justice and Rights” (317-Top 319) ( the rest is optional) Chapter 9 (Part) “Marxist and Leftist Objections to Rawls’ Theory of Justice: A Critical
Review” (361-415) Chapter 10 (Part) “Social Justice and Marxist Empirical Theory” (433-460)

Feb. 23 Peffer’s Theory of Social Justice, Marxism, & Democratic Market Socialism

*R.G. Peffer “What is Still Valid in the Communist Manifesto?” (Essays VI – 10) (I need to expand this essay to elaborate on what is still true and useful in the Classical Marxist tradition, and the many theses that are either not true or not useful … or both)

*R.G. Peffer “Marxism, Markets, and the ‘Sanctity’ of Socialist Property Relations” (Peffer - 20)

*R.G. Peffer “Rawlsian Theory, Contemporary Marxism, and the Difference Principle” (Peffer – 25)

Rodney G. Peffer (plus, possibly, other short commentaries or essays)

Feb. 28 Integrating Environmental Concerns and Perspectives into My Theory- 1: Social Justice, Extreme Poverty, Population Pressures, & Sustainability

*R.G. Peffer “World Justice, Carbon Rights Schemes, & Planetary Management Authorities” (This essay is partially based on the video “After the Warming, Part II”) (338) (20)

*R.G. Peffer “Fateful Triangle: Extreme Poverty, Population Pressures, and Environmental Degradation and Destruction” (ERES) (PPT 20)
(Peffer - 20)
March 1 Integrating Environmental Concerns and Perspectives into My Theory - 2: The Moral Status of Domestic Animals, Wild Animals, & Nature

*R.G. Peffer “Holmes Rolston III’s ‘Feeding People vs. Saving Nature’: A Critique” (20-25) (via email) (I need to type this up) *R.G. Peffer’s “Ethics and Other Organisms: Basic Concepts” (338) (8)

*R.G. Peffer “Some Plausible Cut-Off Points for Moral Standing/Considerability and Levels of
Moral Significance/Weight” (1 page chart and a 3 page commentary (338 – Peffer’s essays) (4)

*R.G. Peffer “From Two-Factor Egalitarianism to a Three-Factor Environmental Ethics” (via email)

(I need to write a chapter elaborating my Environmental Ethical Theory that combines (1) Weak(er)
Animals Rights Theory, (2) Two-Factor Egalitarianism, and (3) certain aspects of a Respect for Nature view and show how this Theory is compatible with – and can be integrated with – my Theory of Social Justice)

Rodney G. Peffer (plus, possibly, other short commentaries or essays)

Spring Break: March 5-9

March 13 Economics & Social Justice: the Institutional Framework - 1

*R.G. Peffer “Definitions of Capitalism & Socialism” (2) (462 or via email)
*R.G. Peffer “Markets, the Profit Motive, and the Environment” (3) *R.G. Peffer “ “ “ “Notes on Readings on Markets, Property, and Market Socialism” (5) *R.G. Peffer “ “ “ “Public Vs. Private Ownership of Various Parts of an Economy” (2)

David Schweickart “Preface”(xiii-xxi) “Chapter 1” (1-20) “Chapter 2” (21-44)

Rodney G. Peffer (possibly, short commentaries or essays)

March 15 Economics & Social Justice: the Institutional Framework - 2

David Schweickart “Chapter 3” (45-85) “Chapter 4” (87-126)

March 20 Economics & Social Justice: the Institutional Framework - 3

David Schweickart “Chapter 5” (127-160) “Chapter 6” (161-180)

*Rodney G. Peffer “Six Suggested Modifications of Schweickart’s Institutional Framework for
Economic Democracy” (338) (12) (As you will see, I am in almost complete agreement with Schweickarts’s analysis of capitalist economies, command-economy “state-socialist” societies, and the feasibility of a politically democratic, civil-liberties-respecting form of self-managing market socialism. I have only some minor suggestions for improving his theory/institutional framework. And I think that something like this is probably necessary to avoid catastrophic environmental and social problems and to solve the grave problems that already exist – like extreme poverty and world hunger.)

R.G. Peffer - “James O’Connor’s ‘Two Contradictions of Capitalism’ & ‘Ecological Socialism’” (338) (2)

Joel Kovel & Michael Lowy “An Eco-socialist Manifesto” (338) (7) (or via email)

Rodney G. Peffer (possibly, short commentaries or essays)

March 22 John Rawls’s The Law of Peoples - 1

John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (1-62)

Please Review my “World Hunger….” (7a) “Contra Rawls’s The Law of Peoples” (462) (74-78). As you will see from that section of my article, I disagree with Rawls’s view of how his theory should be applied internationally. I argue for a much more cosmopolitan view which demands that the economic components of a theory of social justice be applied internationally, especially since there is now a very highly integrated international economy. In the case of both Rawls’s own theory and my version of his theory, I believe that both the Basic Subsistence Rights Principle and the Difference Principle should be applied internationally. But I don’t think that the other components of the theory (e.g. the principles demanding political democracy, civil liberties, and fair equality of opportunity can or should be applied internationally. They cannot be applied directly internationally because this would require a common constitution and political system (or a common system of education and career opportunities) which don’t exist, and may never exist. This doesn’t mean that states or people (or groups of people, like Amnesty International) can’t use non-coercive means to encourage respect for people’s security rights, civil liberties, etc. around the world; but it does mean that – absent external aggression by other states or extreme forms of internal aggression against their own people (e.g. ongoing genocides, mass rape campaigns, or something of the sort – states and coalitions of states should not use armed force against other countries in order to try to enforce these standards. This is simply to recognize the rights of political sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries, and the international principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries (except in extreme cases). On the other hand, none of this means that one cannot argue for and try to facilitate the evolution of more and more extensive (and stronger and stronger) international institutions aimed at preventing major wars, rescuing the natural environment, and protecting people’s Basic Security and Subsistence Rights around the world … perhaps with the ultimate goal of creating an international federation of democratic, socially just societies. These issues are discussed in more detail towards the end of this course when we consider issues in the area of the ethics of war and peace,)

March 27 John Rawls’s The Law of Peoples - 2

John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (63-128) [You don’t have to read the last section: “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” (128-180)] Rodney G. Peffer (possibly, short commentaries or essays)

March 29 Multiculturalism, Nationalism, & Cosmopolitanism - 1

Thomas Pogge - “Introduction to the Two-Volume Collection” (10) (in both Global Ethics and Global Justice)

Rodney G. Peffer - “Habermas and Rawls” (20 – Power Point) (462 or email)

Jurgen Habermas - “Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the future of Europe” ( Global Justice, 285-310) (Both Rawls and Habermas argue that national unity does not need to be based on a uniform ethnic group or culture, or even on a specific comprehensive political philosophy or vision of the good life; rather it can be achieved on the general acceptance of a more general political point of view (or philosophy) based on fidelity to the most basic principles of social justice: Basic Rights, Civil Liberties, and Political Rights (Democracy). This view has come to be known as “Constitutional Patriotism.” It seems that most contemporary political philosophies found in most contemporary societies can fit within this framework of “Constitutional Patriotism,” including liberal egalitarianism, liberal-socialist egalitarianism, communitarianism, most versions of feminism, many varieties of conservatism, and even quasi-libertarianism (so long as it endorses protection of subsistence rights as well as security rights).

April 3 Global Justice, Nationalism, & Cosmopolitanism - 2

Charles Beitz - “Justice and International Relations” (Global Justice 21-48) 27

Thomas Pogge - “An Egalitarian Law of Peoples” (Global Justice 461-494) 33 Thomas Pogge - “'Assisting' the Poor” (Global Ethics 531-564) 32 Rodney G. Peffer (possibly, short commentaries or essays)

Easter Break: April 5-9

April 10 Global Justice, Nationalism, & Cosmopolitanism – 3

Alasdair MacIntyre - “Is Patriotism a Virtue?” (Global Ethics 119-138) 19

Michael Walzer - “The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics” (Global Ethics 51-72) 21

Thomas Hurka - “The Justification of National Partiality (Global Ethics 379-404) 25

Rodney G. Peffer (possibly, short commentaries or essays)

April 12 Global Justice, Nationalism, & Cosmopolitanism - 4

Brian Barry - “Humanity and Justice in Global Perspective” (Global Justice 179-210) 21

Joseph H. Carens - “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders” (Global Justice 211-234) 23

Robert Goodin - “What is so Special about Our Fellow Countrymen” (Global Justice 255-284) 29

Rodney G. Peffer (possibly, short commentaries or essays)

Rodney G. Peffer (possibly, short commentaries or essays)

April 17 Global Justice, Nationalism, & Cosmopolitanism - 5

Jeremy Waldron - “Special Ties and Natural Duties” (Global Justice 391-420) 28

Charles Beitz - “Cosmopolitan Ideals and National Sentiment” (Global Ethics 107-118) 11 plus
Richard Rorty - “Who Are We? Moral Universalism and Economic Triage” (Global Ethics 313-324) 11

Thomas Pogge - “Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty” (Global Justice 355-390) 35

Rodney G. Peffer (possibly, short commentaries or essays)
April
April 19 Global Justice, Nationalism, & Cosmopolitanism – 6

David Miller - “The Ethical Significance of Nationality” (Global Justice 235-254) 19

David Miller - “Distributing Responsibilities” (Global Ethics 481-506) 25

Richard Miller - “Moral Closeness and World Community (Global Ethics 507-530) 23

Rodney G. Peffer (possibly, short commentaries or essays)

April 24 The Ethics of War & Peace, Nationalism, & Cosmopolitanism - 2

2 Group Presentations (30 minutes long on the two articles you and your partner have been assigned) *Rodney G. Peffer “Normative Theories Concerning War” (5) (340 E-RES)

”Quotations on War, Violence, Patriotism, etc.” (340 E-RES, 25 pp)

Patrick Hayden “Security Beyond the State: Cosmopolitanism, Peace and the Role of Just War
Theory” (21) (340 E-RES)

Rodney G. Peffer “Walzer and Peffer on the Vietnam War” (10) (340 E-RES) (ERES or via email)

“How Cuba Liberated Southern Africa” (@ 10 pp) (340 ERES or via email)

*Rodney G. Peffer “Political Realism: An Analysis and Critique” (@ 20 pp.) (E-RES or via email) [I need to finish writing this essay in order to show that (1) it is not inevitable that states act always and only in their own national interests (defined as their security, economic, and geopolitical interests) in order to show that wars need not forever ravage this planet and that (2) it is possible – though far from certain – that, over time, we can develop international institutions that will maintain peace, achieve social justice, and save the natural environment]

April 26 The Ethics of War & Peace, Nationalism, & Cosmopolitanism - 2

*Rodney G. Peffer “The U.S. War in Iraq, Just War Theory, and Neoconservatism: A Critique of
Current U.S. Foreign Policy” (written in 2006) (23) (340 E-RES)

*Rodney G. Peffer – “Hiroshima, the American Empire, and the U.S. War in Iraq” (30 pp, not counting footnotes) (340 E-RES) (there is a lot of overlap between the last 2 sections of this essay and the previous unpublished essay) *Rodney G. Peffer “J. Angelo Corlett’s Views on Secession, Terrorism, and the U.S.: A Critique”
(340 ERES) (20)

May 1 The Ethics of War & Peace, Nationalism, & Cosmopolitanism - 3

Articles on the 2010 US/NATO Libyan Military Intervention (to be assigned)
May 3 Multiculturalism, Nationalism, & Cosmopolitanism - 1

*Rodney G. Peffer “Liberal Multiculturalism: An Outline” (20 pp. Power Point Presentation) (462 or email) (This is based primarily on Will Kymlicka's works.)

Will Kymlicka, Politics in the Vernacular
Introduction (1-16) Liberal Culturalism: An Emerging Consensus? (39-48) Human Rights and Ethnocultural Justice (69-90)

May 8 Multiculturalism, Nationalism, & Cosmopolitanism - 2

Will Kymlicka, Politics in the Vernacular
Minority Nationalism and Multination Federalism (91-119) From Enlightenment Cosmopolitanism to Liberal Nationalism (203-220) Cosmopolitanism, Nation-States, and Minority Nationalism (221-241) Rodney G. Peffer (possibly, short commentaries or essays)

May10 Multiculturalism, Nationalism, & Cosmopolitanism

Jurgen Habermas - Kant’s Cosmopolitan World Order at 150 Years Remove (40)
David Held - “Democracy: From City-States to a Cosmopolitan Order?” (Global Justice 311-344)
Citizenship in an Era of Globalizationi: Commentary on Held (317-326)

Rodney G. Peffer (possibly, short commentaries or essays)

Final Exam Period: Thurs. May 17: 11 am-1 pm Term Paper due by beginning of Final Exam Period – 15-20 pp. (150 pts.) (See the more detailed assignment to be handed out.) Also, a 300 word abstract of the paper (10 pts.) is to be included. Please single space the abstract and place in the middle of your title page of the term paper. Right to Modify Syllabus:
I reserve the right to make minor modifications to the syllabus and class assignments as the need arises, in my judgment.

GRADING: Possibly 5-10 10 pt. In-class quizzes 50-100 ? Attendance Points (2 pts. Each time specified) @ 10 Midterm Paper (12-15 pp.) 150 (Possible) Presentation & Short Paper 1 50 Video Journal (on all the videos we watch during the semester) @ 25 Term Paper (15-20 pp.) 200 Written Abstract (300 words) 10 Verbal Abstract 5 Total Points: Approximately 430-530

Grading Breakdown:
I grade on a strict percentage basis, but I divide the percentages to exactly reflect a plus grade, a straight grade, and a minus grade. Therefore:

A+ = no such thing; A = 100-93.3%; A- = 93.2-90%
B+ = 89.9-86.6%; B = 86.5-83.3%; B- = 83.2-80%
C+ = 79.9-76.6%; C = 76.5-73.3%; C- = 73.2-70%
D+ = 69.9-66.6%; D = 66.5-63.3%; D- = 63.2-60%
F = 59.9% and below

(Unfortunately, USD no longer accepts grades of A+ or puts them on transcripts so 100% to 93.4% is now only counted as a straight ‘A’. However, for purposes of possible recommendations I will enter any grade 96/6% and above as an ‘A+’ on my records so that I would be able to say that the student actually earned an ‘A+’ even though this won’t show on her or his USD transcript. By the way, in order to receive a recommendation from me you need to have scored at least an ‘A-‘ in one of my courses.)

COURSE POLICIES

Honors Code: Although I support USD’s honor code and expect all students to abide by it, it has been my experience that the temptation to not obey all of its rules is sometimes too much for some students if there are not additional incentives provided to obey them. Therefore, among other precautions and penalties concerning plagiarism and other forms of cheating I have adopted the following policies. First, if you are caught submitting a bought paper or a recycled paper (from past students who have taken the course) or a paper substantially plagiarized from any source you will receive not only an 0/100 on that paper but also automatically get an ‘F’ for the course, with my personal recommendation that you not be allowed to retake it again to change the grade. Also, if you submit a video note entry for a video from a class period in which you were not in attendance – and for which you did not have my permission to make up – you will receive -25 points for each such submission. (The same penalty attaches to a video journal entry that has been copied from someone else’s video journal.) If you are caught using notes while taking an in-class quiz you will receive -25 points rather than whatever you would have scored on the 10 point quiz (a possible point swing of up to minus 35 points). (So DON’T DO IT!: just write your own papers and do your own work and everything will be ok.)

Photos: If I don’t already have access to a photo of you (through my.sandiego), and you intend to stay in the class, you must submit a photo of yourself to me by the beginning of the second week of class -- let’s say by the 2nd meeting for once per week classes, by the 3rd meeting of twice per week classes, and by the 4th meeting for three times per week classes. This is so I can make a seating chart on which I can view the photos and correlate them with you in class.

Quizzes:
The quizzes will be 15-30 minute essay quizzes over that particular period’s readings. I will not ask you to write on any reading assigned for earlier periods. I will always specify what line to start writing on when we have a quiz and you are supposed to start on that line on each and every page. (This is a result of finding out some years ago that some students were pre-writing quizzes and handing them in after pretending to write them in class. When the line you must start each page on is specified this is no longer possible.) During quizzes you can not have anything on your desk accept blank sheets of paper and your writing utensil and you can not wear earphones or have any access to electronic information. These quizzes are closed book and closed notes and anyone caught using either of these will have the choice of either receiving minus 50 points for the quiz or being reported to the Dean’s office (where the possible penalties could even lead to expulsion from the university). Please be informed that I don’t think that all or most of you would do such things but a few people might be tempted to do such things and I believe that it is unfair to the people who do the work honestly to let anyone else get as good or better grades in an unfair manner.

Attendance Points:
Also, I reserve the right to give those present 2 “attendance points” at any time during a class period. But these points are not “extra credit” points: they are merely added into the total points for the course. If you have a legitimate and documented excuse for missing any class in which I awarded attendance points just let me know and, upon seeing your documentation, I will give you those points.

Video Journal:
The video journal is due the last day of class but you don’t have to type your notes or even rewrite them so long as they are legible. Just be sure to put your name, date, and the title of the video (as I specify it in class) on each page of notes. I will be taking roll or handing around an attendance sheet every time we have a video and you must be present in order to get (up to) five points for each video entry. If you have an excused absence you can make up the video. However, if you are absent when the class watched the video and do not have an excused absence you are not allowed to make up the video or hand in video notes for that period without my express permission. If anyone hands in a video entry for a period in which they were absent (and for which they did not have my permission to make up) they will receive minus 25 points, rather than (up to) plus 5 points.

Papers:
Please note that all papers assigned for this course are expected to be primarily based on the readings and to contain information about the ethical-environmental theories and perspectives to be found in those readings. Purely or primarily empirical papers – especially those written for other classes on environmental topics – are not acceptable substitutes and will not be accepted. You are welcome to bring in empirical theories and information and analyses but you are required to bring in the ethical-environmental theories and perspectives discussed in this course as well. As evidence that you are basing your paper at least in part on the readings and discussions of this course – and as a prophylactic against the possibility that someone could submit a “bought” paper – it is a requirement that you incorporate relevant (and relatively short) quotations from our readings into your papers. However, you should avoid excessively long quotations or having a great many quotations, neither of which are necessary or acceptable. As a ball park figure let us say that, on the average, a paper ought to have about one such quote per page (or at the most two). For your information it is not a good idea to hand in a paper that was written by someone else for this course in the past. I have kept an extensive record of good papers written for this course and starting last year all the papers for the course are being fed into Stanford University’s extensive electronic archives of written papers. So if someone were to submit a paper that even included a paragraph from another paper (not counting direct quotes from authors), the Stanford search engine would find it. The moral is: do your own work and you won’t have any problems. Your papers can be longer than the maximum length listed (within reasonable limits) but they can not fall significantly below the minimum length without having points taken off for this.
Citations of quotations from our readings need only have the author, work, and page number put in parentheses at the end of the sentence(s) being quoted. If you quote outside sources – which is permissible but not required – you must give a complete citation; i.e. the author, work, publisher, city of publisher, publication date, and page number(s). In your papers you are required to summarize and critique the major theories and theorists covered in the course. By “critique” I mean to state whether you agree with the main points advocated by the theory/theorist and explain why or why not. Thus, a critique can be either negative (disagreeing) or positive (agreeing) or part of each. Moreover, a critique may be either internal or external and either empirical or normative (i.e. moral) with respect to any particular point or thesis. An “internal” critique involves pointing out a mistake in the argumentation or reasoning of the theory; e.g. a formal or informal logical fallacy, a mistaken definition, an unclear or ambiguous concept, etc. An “external” critique involves pointing out any mistakes the theory/theorist has made in terms of either empirical claims or normative (moral) claims in your opinion. To dispute an empirical claim you should be able to cite empirical evidence (e.g. scientific opinion) to the contrary. To dispute a moral claim you will be you will be relying primarily on your own considered moral judgments … especially considered in light of the theories and perspectives discussed by the various authors assigned. Finally, at the end of each paper you should state what theory you think is best. You can combine parts of different theories so long as you make sure the parts are consistent with each other.3

Making up Assignments:
You can make up any assignment with a legitimate and verifiable excuse, such as illness or a family emergency. (You should be prepared to provide a doctor’s note or a note from the Dean of Students Office, if asked by me to do so.) If you’re not sure if your absence can be counted as excused you can talk to me about your situation.
However, if you know in advance that you will not be able to attend a specific class you can – with sufficient notice to me – take any quiz we might have in advance, whether or not your absence would have been counted as excused. If you do then the quiz will be graded (and counted) if the class has a quiz that day but not graded or counted if it doesn’t. But if you don’t have a legitimate excuse for missing the class you are not eligible for making up the video (either in advance or afterwards) or for any attendance points that may be awarded during the class.
Sometimes students do not arrive in San Diego until after a course begins. Other times students add the course after it has already begun. My policy for students who can not (or do not) make it to the beginning meetings of a class -- but who do not have medical or other official excuses for missing those classes -- is to require them to summarize the readings of the days they missed in 3 to 5 pages (for all the readings together, not each reading). If we have a quiz on any of those days you miss then I will grade those summaries as 10 pt quizzes. But you must do all the summaries whether or not we have the quizzes. If you do not submit the summaries by the time that midterm grades are due, then I will deduct 10 points from your accumulated points for every summary you have not turned in by then. (The main rationale for this policy is that those students attending these beginning classes had to do the readings because they know that they may have to summarize them in class on any particular day, so it seems only fair that someone adding the course late or arriving after it starts should also do the assigned readings. Requiring the summaries make sure that students who start the course late do actually do the required readings.)

Extra Credit Points:
Except under very unusual circumstances I do NOT allow students to do Extra Credit assignments, either during the semester or afterwards. The only exception is if I were to say that the entire class is eligible for extra credit if they attend a lecture and event relevant to the course and write (and turn in) a2-3 page summary/reaction to it. I never allow individual students to do extra credit assignments that are not available to the entire class. However, if you know of an event – lecture, etc. – wither at USD or in the San Diego community that you think is especially relevant to the class please feel free to propose it to me as a class extra credit possibility. I will let you know whether I will accept it as such.

Pass-Fail Option:
You have the right to take the course pass-fail (unless Philosophy is one of your majors or minors) but the only rational reasons for taking a class pass-fail at USD are (1) if you’re carrying a very high grade point average and a ‘C’ grade would bring it down or (2) you are carrying a very low grade point average and have to score all A’s or B’s this particular semester in order to not be disqualified from attending USD. It is NOT a good idea to take any course pass-fail simply because you are planning to not put very much work into the course. The reason for this is that if you happen to fall below the points required for a ‘C-‘ then you will get an ‘F’ in the course instead of a ‘D+’, ‘D’, or ‘D-‘. I do not pay any attention to who is taking the course pass-fail until I fill out the final grade report and I will not simply change the points someone has received (or allow anyone to do extra credit assignments) simply on the basis that they were taking the course pass-fail and didn’t quite have enough points for a ‘C-‘. Moreover, I will not consent to someone changing from a pass-fail option to a straight grade option after the class is over. This is because over the years I have had a number of students who got ‘A’s in my courses who were not allowed by the Dean’s office to change from the pass-fail to a straight grade option as well as students who received a high ‘D+’ who were not allowed to make this change and if I now allowed students to make such changes I feel that it would not be fair to all of these previous students.

Let us all try to remember to turn off our telephones, etc. in class and, if possible, also turn off the sound on any computers in use. You are not allowed to talk on your telephone in class! If you are expecting an emergency (or extremely important) call please set your phone to vibrate and then leave the classroom if you need to use it. By the way, you do not need to ask permission to leave the classroom but if you are leaving early for some reason and not coming back it is polite and respectful to inform a professor of this before class starts.

Using a computer in class:
Obviously you are permitted to use your computers in class (except when taking a quiz) but I expect that anything you are using it for is somehow related to the class. You can take notes on it and you are also welcome to surf the web but, if you do, please try to keep your surfing to topics and websites that are relevant to the class. This means not reading or answering your e-mail or going to sites that have nothing to do with the class that day. I am quite tolerant of computer use in my classes but I don’t like to see someone laughing or giggling at their computer screen or more than one person staring at someone’s computer screen. (This makes me curious to know what is so interesting and I may well come to take a look myself.)

Conversing in class:
Questions or comments relevant to whatever is being discussed in class are always welcome, although you should normally raise your hand and wait to be called on before speaking. (Exceptions to this would be, for example, if I had my back to the class while writing on the blackboard for a while or if we get into an ongoing discussion.) All discussions are expected to be civil and respectful. (The past few years I have had in a few students who seem not to accept this constraint; I hope that this is not a general trend.)

I am also relatively tolerant of people speaking to each other in class as long as it is relatively rare and the communications are relatively short and relatively quite. However, if you are talking with your neighboring students too much and/or too loudly – and especially if you are laughing or giggling among yourselves, rather than laughing or giggling at something the whole class, including me, has heard or seen – I will, for at least the first time it happens, try to be polite about it by asking you “Do you have a question?” or (in cases in which you and your neighbor are giggling or laughing on your own) “Did I say something funny?”. These are my polite attempts to let you know that you are talking (or giggling or laughing) too much in the sense that it is becoming a distraction for me. However, if you persist in continuing the behavior then I may not be quite so polite the next time but may simply tell you that you are distracting me and you should stop doing whatever it is that is distracting me. A little common sense and common courtesy go a long way in this context. Or, to put it another way: this isn’t elementary school.