THE5141 Ethics and Social Justice Dr. Noda 1 the 5141 Ethics And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE5141 Ethics and Social Justice Dr. Noda THE 5141 Ethics and Social Justice in the Age of Globalization Fall 2016, 3 credits Wed. 6:30 pm – 9:20 pm Keisuke Noda, Ph. D. [email protected] (845) 332 9443 Office Hours TBA COURSE DESCRIPTION This course covers major approaches to normative ethics: utilitarianism (Bentham and John Stuart Mill), deontological ethics (Kant), and virtue ethics including Aristotelianism, biblical ethics, Confucianism, and Care ethics. The first half of the course examines each ethical theory in relation to moral and ethical dilemmas. The course examines the strength and weakness of each theory as well philosophical issues underlying moral discourses. The course reviews other ethical positions including relativism (individual and cultural), egoism, divine command ethics, and others. The second half of the course examines a range of social justice questions related to wealth and poverty, gender, race, the environment, human rights, religion, and others. Throughout the course, students will examine the intersection of religious beliefs and ethical reasoning. The course combines instructor presentations, in-class discussion and case-study work. OUTCOMES Upon completion of the course, students will be able to: 1. Articulate major ethical theories, and their strength and weakness. 2. Articulate how ethical theories are applied to specific moral dilemmas. 3. Articulate fundamental philosophical issues underlying ethical discourses. 4. Demonstrate critical thinking skills in salient social issues by articulating how one’s faith plays out in ethical reasoning on social issues. REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION 1. Class participation (including in-class presentations and short writing assignments) 25 points 2. Midterm exam (take home exam) 20 points 3. Reflection paper #1 15 points 4. Reflection paper #2 15 points 5. Position paper 25 points Students are expected to attend and to be engaged in all class sessions. Unexcused absences or persistent tardiness will result in a lower final grade. Students will volunteer or be assigned to make class presentations and/or present in-class pro/con arguments. Short writing assignments are given throughout the course. If students missed a class, they are required to review the class recording on Adobe and submit one page reflection on each class meeting. The midterm exam is a take home exam. It will cover the ethical theories/positions covered in the first half of the course and their application. Students are required to submit two reflection papers and one position paper according to guidelines distributed by the instructor. Late submission will be penalized. (see guidelines for writing assignments) 1 THE5141 Ethics and Social Justice Dr. Noda Special Requirements for M.Div. students for final position paper. M.Div. students are required to take a case from ministerial ethics issues. Two resources are on the Reserve at the Library. Students do not have to take a case from them. Stivers, Laura A., Christine E. Gudorf, and James B. Martin-Schramm. Christian Ethics: A Case Method Approach. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2012. Trull, Joe E., and James E. Carter. Ministerial Ethics: Moral Formation for Church Leaders. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2004. Grades for the course will not be changed nor incompletes granted unless there are extenuating personal circumstances which made completion of course requirements impossible. Additional work submitted to improve grades after completion of the course will not be accepted. Course Needs Progressing Good Excellent Assessment Outcomes improvement methods Articulate Comprehension Articulate major Articulate all Demonstrate Exam major ethical of major ethical ethical major ethical comprehensive Reflection theories, and theories/position theories/positio theories and understanding paper #1 their strength s is less than n with their positions; of all major Class and 50%. strength and articulate their ethical theories discussion weakness. weakness. distinct and positions; s Demonstrate characteristics, articulate their Position 50~60 % of strength and distinct paper comprehension. weakness. characteristics, Demonstrate strength and 70~80 % of weakness. comprehension Demonstrate . over 80% of comprehension . Articulate Articulate how Articulate how Articulate how Articulate how Exam how ethical each ethical each ethical each ethical each ethical Reflection theories are theory/position is theory/position theory/position theory/position paper #1 applied to applied to a is applied to a is applied to a is applied to a Class specific variety of cases; variety of cases; variety of variety of discussion moral articulation of demonstrate cases; cases; critically s dilemmas. ethical reasoning awareness of demonstrate analyze and Position in the process of ethical some critical assess the paper application is reasoning in the analysis on complexity of very limited. process of ethical ethical application. reasoning in reasoning in the process of the process of application. application and the interpretive dimension of their application. Articulate Articulate how Articulate how Articulate how Articulate how Reflection fundamental ethical reasoning ethical ethical ethical paper #2 2 THE5141 Ethics and Social Justice Dr. Noda philosophical is intertwined reasoning is reasoning is reasoning is Class issues with other intertwined with intertwined intertwined discussion underlying philosophical other with other with other s ethical issues; the scope philosophical philosophical philosophical Position discourses. of issues; the issues; the issues such as paper comprehension is scope of scope of human nature, too simplistic. comprehension comprehension good and evil, is basic. is good. justice, power, wealth, happiness, religious faith, and values. Demonstrate Limited sign of Indicate ethical Demonstrate Demonstrate Position critical student’s own reasoning by grasp of ethical the mastery of paper thinking ethical articulating reasoning by ethical Reflection skills in reasoning; student’s own articulating reasoning by paper #2 salient social unable to position; student’s own articulating Class issues by distinguish one’s arguments lack position with a student’s own discussion articulating belief from convincing fair level of position with s how one’s rational evidence, evidence, convincing faith plays arguments. reasoning, and reasoning, and evidence, out in ethical background background reasoning, and reasoning on knowledge. knowledge. background social issues. knowledge, combined with critical analysis of own process of reasoning. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty that occurs when a student passes off someone else's work as their own. This can range from failing to cite an author for ideas incorporated into a student's paper, to cutting and pasting paragraphs from different websites, to handing in a paper downloaded from the Internet. It also includes buying or submitting a paper written by a third party. All are considered forms of “plagiarism” and a violation of the Seminary’s academic integrity policy. The instructor has the option of having the student repeat or fail the assignment. In cases of serious or repeated violations, the instructor has the option of having the student fail the course or of reporting the student to the Vice President of Academic Affairs for disciplinary action. Possible disciplinary actions include probation, suspension or withdrawal. TEXTS Sandel, Michael. Justice: What Is the Right Thing to Do? NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009. ISBN: 978-0-374-53250-5. $15.00 Wilkens, Steve. Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics: An Introduction to Theories of Right and Wrong. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. ISBN: 978-0830839360. $15.32 Major ethical theories/positions are explained in a plain language from a Christian perspective. 3 THE5141 Ethics and Social Justice Dr. Noda See also “Harvard University’s Justice with Michael Sandel” http://www.justiceharvard.org/ Books on Reserve: Fedler, Kyle D. Exploring Christian Ethics: Biblical Foundations for Morality. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Hollinger, Dennis P. Choosing the Good: Christian Ethics in a Complex World. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002. Neusner, Jacob, and Bruce Chilton. The Ethics of Family Life: What Do We Owe One Another? Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2001. Sandel, Michael J. Justice: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. A collection of primary sources used for cases/issues in his text. Stivers, Laura A., Christine E. Gudorf, and James B. Martin-Schramm. Christian Ethics: A Case Method Approach. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2012. Trull, Joe E., and James E. Carter. Ministerial Ethics: Moral Formation for Church Leaders. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2004. DVD on Reserve: Achbar, Mark, Jennifer Abbott, and Joel Bakan. The Corporation. [New York]: Zeitgeist, 2004. Documentary film. Alvarez, Kyle Patrick, et al. The Stanford prison experiment. 2015. Cuomo, Chris. Basic Instincts 5 The Milgram Experiment Re-Visited. [New York]: ABC News Productions, 2007. Documentary film. Ferguson, Charles H., et al. Inside job. Culver City, Calif: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2011. Gibney, Alex, et al. Enron the smartest guys in the room. Los Angeles, Calif: Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2005. Documentary film. Kornbluth, Jacob, Jennifer Chaiken, Sebastian Dungan, Robert B. Reich, Svetlana Cvetko, Dan Krauss, Marco D'Ambrosio, and Robert B. Reich. Inequality for all. 2014. Online Resources on Debatable