Consequentialism	Office hours: Mon 11-12, W 2-3, and by appointment
Spring 2007	Office: HUM 210
Professor Norcross	Phone: 713 348 2281 Email: norcross@rice.edu
Teaching Assistant Danielle Wenner	Email: Danielle.Wenner@rice.edu

Texts : Contemporary Ethics, William Shaw

Consequentialism and its Critics, Samuel Scheffler (ed.)

Course description: Could it ever be right to frame an innocent person for murder? Can we take the organs from one healthy person to save the lives of five sick persons? Is there a moral difference between killing someone and letting them die? Can we permissibly favor our own welfare over that of others? Must we always do the best we can? Are intentions relevant to the assessment of actions? Twentieth century moral theory has been fought over the battlefield of such questions as these. Consequentialist theories, of which utilitarianism is the best known example, typically claim that we should always produce as much good as possible, even if that involves violating rights and using other people as means. Deontological theories, on the other hand, tell us that certain actions cannot be justified by an increase in the general welfare, and some actions may not be justified no matter what the consequences of not doing them. In this course we will examine the debate between consequentialism and deontology in an attempt to determine which type of theory can provide a better guide to action. I will expect you to attend class fully prepared to discuss the assigned readings. Class participation will be an important factor in determining your grade.

Requirements (with weight towards final grade): homework (40%), final paper (50%), class participation, (10%). Since class participation is a requirement, and you can’t participate if you don’t show up, this class has the following attendance policy: more than six absences, for whatever reason, will result in failing the course. Since you never know when you might get sick, it is not a good idea to miss class, unless you absolutely have to.

Homework: For each of 12 weeks starting with Week 2 and ending with Week 13 you will write a 450-900 words (approx. 1 1/2-3 pages) reaction piece to the readings assigned for that week. The purpose of the assignments is for you to engage the reading(s), not to summarize it. Find something interesting in the readings that you want to talk about. You might want to take issue with something you read, to support it, or simply to point out how interesting or important it is. Your assignment should be emailed to Dani and put in your dropbox on the class Owlspace site. It should be double-spaced, and carefully proofed. Since the purpose of the homework assignments is for you to engage the readings before class, and thus be prepared to discuss the readings in class, your assignment will be emailed and added to your dropbox before the first class of the relevant week (usually a Monday).

Suggestions. Do the reading assignments well in advance. You will probably have to read the text two or three times before you have an adequate grasp of the material. Philosophy is hard. Don't expect to understand it all at the first reading. Make use of my office hours to discuss things you don't understand. Ask questions in class. Very few questions are too silly to ask.

Disability Accommodations : Any student with a documented disability needing academic adjustments or accommodations is requested to speak with me during the first two weeks of class. All discussions will remain confidential. Students with disabilities will need to also contact Disability Support Services in the Ley Student Center.

Partial Schedule of assignments (updated throughout the semester). Readings are from Contemporary Ethics (CE), Consequentialism and its Critics (CAC), and various online sources.

Dates	Assignment
Wk 1 (J8-J12)	Mill 1, 2
Wk 2 (J17-J19)	Mill 4, Sayre-McCord
Wk 3 (J22-J26)	CE ch. 1
Wk 4 (J29-F2)	CE ch. 2
Wk 5 (F5-F9)	CE ch. 3
Wk 6 (F12-F16)	CE ch. 4
Wk 7 (F19-F23)	CAC Williams, Railton
Wk 8 (F26-M2)	Dean Cocking and Justin Oakley, “Indirect Consequentialism, Friendship, and the Problem of Alienation”, Ethics, Oct. 1995. Elinor Mason,”Can an Indirect Consequentialist be a Real Friend?”, Ethics, Jan. 1998. Alastair Norcross, “Consequentialism and Commitment”, The Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 78, No. 4, December 1997
Wk 9 (M12-M16)	CE ch. 6
Wk 10 (M19-M23)	Norcross “Comparing Harms”, in resources on Owlspace.
Wk 11 (M26-M30)	Norcross “Two Dogmas of Deontology” CE ch. 7
Wk 12 (A2-A4)	CE ch. 8
Wk 13 (A9-A13)	CAC Foot Paper proposal due A13
Wk 14 (A16-A20)	CAC Scheffler, Nagel “War and Massacre”
Wk 15 (A23-A25)	Final paper due A25