Philosophy 265

Philosophical Problems in the Law

 

Section 01:       TR  9:25-10:40            CNS 117                                             Fall 2007

 

Overview:  Philosophy 265 is an introduction to a number of important philosophical problems that arise in the law.  We will begin by inquiring into the nature of law and legal authority.  For example:  What, if anything, distinguishes law from the order of a gangster?  Is an unjust law a genuine law at all?  Is it ever advisable to punish someone for an act that was not illegal at the time it was committed?  We will then tackle some philosophical issues that arise out of the U.S. constitutional experience (e.g. should the Constitution be interpreted solely in light of “original intent”?), and apply our findings to the contested constitutional issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. Finally, we will examine the question of punishment, and the justice (or not) of the death penalty. Throughout the course we will examine competing views on each of these issues; the aim will be for students to think critically about these views, so that they may come to know first-hand what is required of a well-reasoned response to the course’s questions.

 

Professor:  Craig Duncan 

Email:  cduncan@ithaca.edu 

Homepage:  http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan

Coursepage:  http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/265/265.htm

            Office hours and location: Dillingham 213, Thurs 12:15-1:15, Friday 1-2

            Office phone:  274-3580

 

Required Course Materials:       

·        Louis P. Pojman and Jeffrey Reiman, The Death Penalty:  For and Against (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1998)

·        Andrew Altman, Arguing About Law, 2nd edition (Wadsworth, 2000)

·        Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation:  Federal Courts and the Law (Princeton University Press, 1997)

·        Ronald Dworkin, Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom (Vintage, 1994)

·        A short coursepack, available from the instructor

Course Requirements:  

·        Two papers (5-7 pages):  The first paper will be due Thursday, February 15th; the second paper will be due Tuesday, April 17th.  Paper topics will be distributed in advance.  You must write on one of the announced topics unless you submit an alternative topic in writing to me at least three days before the deadline and it is approved.  Extensions on paper deadlines will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances; extension requests must be made in writing (email is OK) well in advance of the deadline.  Papers not turned in on time will instantly receive a deduction worth one-third of a letter grade.  This deduction will increase daily, adding up to a full letter grade deduction for a paper 7 days late, with steeper deductions thereafter at my discretion.  Each paper will count 15% toward your overall grade.  Note:  The paper grades I assign will mean the following:

 

A-range:  Compelling exposition, clearly presented, together with original ideas of one's own that are exceptionally substantial, imaginative, and thought-provoking.  (In short, a paper must have “the Wow Factor” to get an A or A-.)

B-range:  Compelling exposition, clearly presented, together with a number of original and substantial ideas of one's own.

C-range:  Visible effort, but with significant misunderstanding, or unclear presentation, or little evidence of original thought.

D-range:  Visible lack of effort.

·        Moot Court:  Four times in the term we will devote a class period to a "moot court" debate regarding a case relevant to the course.  Four students will serve as lawyers (two on each side); any extra students will serve as judges.  More details on this activity will be given out shortly.  This activity is worth 15% of your overall grade.

·        Exams:  There will be a mid-term exam on Monday, February 20th, that is worth 15% of your overall grade.  There will be a final exam from 1:30-4pm on Tuesday, May 8th. The exam will be held in our usual classroom.  It will count 30% toward your overall grade.

·        Class Discussion:  Philosophy cannot be passively learned.  It requires active engagement, both with the texts and with individuals in the form of discussion.  For this reason class participation counts for 10% of your overall grade.  In order to get a good participation grade, you must have excellent attendance, do the assigned reading for each class period, and regularly take an active role in class discussions (excellent attendance alone will get you no higher than a C+). 

 

Note:  All papers and exams must be completed in order to pass the course.

 

Important dates:

                  Paper #1 due          2/20

                  Mid-term exam       3/1

                  Paper #2 due          4/17

                  Final exam              5/8  (1:30pm)

 

Tentative List of Reading Assignments: 

Please assume the following reading materials are assigned unless I tell you otherwise.   If you are unsure of a reading assignment, it is your responsibility to contact me or another classmate.  Readings labeled [W] are on the course webpage (see above for the address).  Readings labeled [CP] are in the coursepack. 

 

The Rule of Law

Thurs    1/25     Lon L. Fuller, “The Problem of the Grudge Informer” (W)

                        Altman, Arguing About Law, Chapter 1, pp. 1-19

 

Tues     1/30     NO CLASS (I’m out of town giving a talk), BUT read:

Altman, Chapter 1, pp. 19-35

Altman, Chapter 2, pp. 40-49

 

The Nature of Law

Thurs    2/1       Robert H. Jackson, “Opening Address for the United State, Nuremberg Trials” (CP)

                        Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., “Nuremberg: A Fair Trial?” (CP)

                        “Case Study: The Fugitive Slave Laws” [articles by Finkelman and Cover + “Official Report” + “Fugitive Slave Clause”] (CP)

Tues     2/6       Altman, Chapter 2, pp. 49-58

                        Lon L. Fuller, “Eight Ways to Fail to Make Law” (CP)

Thurs    2/8       Altman, Chapter 2, pp. 58-66

                        Riggs v. Palmer (W)

Tues     2/13     Altman, Chapter 2, pp. 66-76

                        H. L. A. Hart, “Law as the Union of Primary and Secondary Rules” (CP)

                        [ + get started on the reading for Thurs 2/15, as it is a bit long]

 

Constitutional Interpretation            

Thurs    2/15     Altman, Chapter 3, pp. 79-102

                        Griswold v. Connecticut (W)

                        Robert Bork, “The Right of Privacy” (CP)

                        Paper #1 due

Tues     2/20     Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, pp. 3-47

Thurs    2/22     Comments by Wood and Dworkin in Scalia, pp. 49-63 & 115-127

                        Altman, Chapter 3, pp. 102-107

Tues     2/27     Scalia’s response, pp. 129-149

Thurs    3/1       MID-TERM EXAM

Tues     3/6       MOOT COURT DEBATE #1:  The Trial of the Berlin Border Guards                                              

Read:  “Trial of Border Guards” (CP)

                        Roe v. Wade (W)

 

Case Study:  Roe v. Wade

Thurs    3/8       Dennis Horan and Thomas Balch, “Roe v. Wade: No Basis in Law, Logic, or History” (excerpt) (CP)

                        Dworkin, Chapter 1

Tues     3/20     Dworkin, Chapter 2

Thurs    3/22     Dworkin, Chapter 3

                        Francis J. Beckwith, “Pluralism, Tolerance, and Abortion Rights” (CP)

Tues     3/27     Dworkin, Chapters 4 & 5

Thurs    3/29     Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey

                        Dworkin, Chapter 6

Tues     4/3       MOOT COURT DEBATE #2:  Abortion

                        Read: Altman, Chapter 8, pp. 238-249

 

The Constitution and Equality: Race and Same-Sex Relations

Thurs    4/5       Altman, Chapter 8, pp. 249-279

Tues  4/10        Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health (W)

                        Robert H. Knight, “How Domestic Partnerships and ‘Gay Marriage’ Threaten the Family” (CP)

                        Andrew Sullivan, “Marriage or Bust:  Why Civil Unions Aren’t Enough” (W)

                        Jeffrey Rosen, “Immodest Proposal” (CP)

Thurs 4/12        Lawrence v. Texas (W)

                        William Saletan, “Incest Repellant? If Gay Sex is Private, Why isn’t Incest?” (W)

                        John Corvino, “Homosexuality and the PIB Argument” (W)

Tues     4/17     MOOT COURT DEBATE #3:  Same Sex Marriage

                        Read Pojman/Reiman, Chapter 2, pp. 67-100

                        Paper #2 due

 

Punishment and the Death Penalty

Thurs    4/19     Read Pojman/Reiman, Chapter 2, pp. 100-132

 

Tues     4/24     Read Pojman/Reiman, Chapter 1, pp. 1-33

Thurs    4/26     Read Pojman/Reiman, Chapter 1, pp. 33-66

 

Tues     5/1       Read Pojman/Reiman, Chapters 3 & 4

Thurs    5/3       MOOT COURT DEBATE #4:  The Death Penalty

 

Tues     5/8       FINAL EXAM from 1:30-4pm in the usual classroom

 

Teaching Policies: 

 

Attendance 

During classtime I will often introduce material that is not covered in the reading assignments.  You will be held responsible for knowing this material.  If you do not come to class, you will not know this material, and your performance on essays and exams will suffer.  So come to class. 

 

Academic Conduct

Students are expected to conform to the Standards of Academic Conduct printed on pages 116-118 of the 2001-2002 Student Handbook.  Please familiarize yourself with these standards.  Violations will be reported to the Ithaca College Conduct Review Board.  Additionally, you will receive a grade of zero on any assignment that is not completed according to these standards.

Plagiarism is one very serious violation of these standards.  I will not tolerate it.  There are good reasons for my zero-tolerance policy—reasons well summarized by the philosopher Hugh LaFollette, from whom I quote below:

  

“Why Shouldn't I Plagiarize?

(1) It undercuts the aims of education. If you plagiarize you will not learn the skills you should learn – you are merely copying someone else's words and ideas – and that you already knew how to do.

     (2) It is theft. And all theft is wrong, whether it is theft of an idea or an object.

(3) You harm other students. By plagiarizing you make professors more suspicious of students. This encourages them to make assignments that are plagiarism-proof rather than ones that are educationally sound.

(4) You will get caught. Think about it for a minute: if you plagiarize from a good source – one that is likely to help your grade – the prof may well know (or can easily find) the source. And if your writing style drastically changes from sentence to sentence or from paper to exam, that will be obvious to even a causal observer. To plagiarize well – to plagiarize in a way that is likely to land you a decent grade and minimize the chance you will get caught – you would have to know the material so well, that it would be easier – and more educationally beneficial – to write the essay yourself."[1]

Classroom Behavior.

            I care about your education, and I put a lot of time into preparing lectures and classroom activities.   Hence it is disrespectful not to give me your attention in class.  If you cannot do this, please stay home. 

 

Special Needs

            If you have a special need owing to an identified disability, please let me know.  I am happy to work with you together with the office of Academic Support Services for Students with Disabilities.  You should contact them at x4-1005.

 

 

 


[1] From the website of Hugh LaFollette (http://www.etsu.edu/philos/classes/hhl/plagiari.htm).