2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020
Browse
by subject...
    Schedule
view...
 

141 - 150 of 224 results for: all courses

PHIL 135: Existentialism (PHIL 235)

Focus is on the existentialist preoccupation with human freedom. What constitutes authentic individuality? What is one's relation to the divine? How can one live a meaningful life? What is the significance of death? A rethinking of the traditional problem of freedom and determinism in readings from Rousseau, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche, and the extension of these ideas by Sartre, Beauvoir, and Camus, including their social and political consequences in light of 20th-century fascism and feminism.
Terms: not given this year, last offered Spring 2014 | Units: 4 | UG Reqs: GER:DB-Hum, WAY-ER | Grading: Letter or Credit/No Credit

PHIL 135X: Citizenship (ETHICSOC 135, POLISCI 135)

This class begins from the core definition of citizenship as membership in a political community and explores the many debates about what that membership means. Who is (or ought to be) a citizen? Who gets to decide? What responsibilities come with citizenship? Is being a citizen analogous to being a friend, a family member, a business partner? How can citizenship be gained, and can it ever be lost? These debates figure in the earliest recorded political philosophy but also animate contemporary political debates. This class uses ancient, medieval, and modern texts to examine these questions and different answers given over time. We¿Äôll pay particular attention to understandings of democratic citizenship but look at non-democratic citizenship as well. Students will develop and defend their own views on these questions, using the class texts as foundations. No experience with political philosophy is required or expected, and students can expect to learn or hone the skills (writing / reading / analysis) of political philosophy.
Terms: Spr | Units: 5 | UG Reqs: WAY-ER, WAY-SI | Grading: Letter or Credit/No Credit
Instructors: Coyne, B. (PI)

PHIL 170: Ethical Theory (ETHICSOC 170, PHIL 270)

This course serves as a rigorous introduction to moral philosophy for students with little or no background. We will examine ideas from four important figures in moral thought: Plato, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. Each of these philosophers played an integral role in the development of moral philosophy, because each offers thoughtful, compelling answers to some of the discipline¿s most central questions. These questions include: What is involved in being a good person or living a good life? What should we value, and why? How are we motivated by morality? How (if at all) is morality a matter of what is customary or conventional? How (much) do the consequences of our actions matter? Importantly, this course is not only about learning what others have thought about the answers to these (and related) questions. By considering and criticizing the ideas and arguments of these philosophers, the aim is to cultivate our own ability to think systematically, rationally, and reflectively, and to make up our own minds about how to answer these kinds of questions.
Terms: Win | Units: 4 | UG Reqs: GER:DB-Hum, GER:EC-EthicReas, WAY-A-II, WAY-ER | Grading: Letter or Credit/No Credit

PHIL 170D: Trust and Trustworthiness (PHIL 270D)

An exploration of the place of interpersonal trust in ethical thought. What is it to trust another person? How is trusting related to, though different from, other attitudes we sometimes bear towards others (e.g. justified beliefs we form about others and their conduct; ethically significant expectations we have of others, etc.)? What is involved in acquiring/possessing the virtue of trustworthiness? How should trust (and trustworthiness) figure in our thinking about important ethical activities, for example promising, friendship, or the practice of politics?
Terms: not given this year, last offered Winter 2015 | Units: 4 | UG Reqs: WAY-ER | Grading: Letter or Credit/No Credit

PHIL 171: Justice (ETHICSOC 171, POLISCI 103, POLISCI 336S, PUBLPOL 103C, PUBLPOL 307)

In this course, we explore three sets of questions relating to justice and the meaning of a just society: (1) Liberty: What is liberty, and why is it important? Which liberties must a just society protect? (2) Equality: What is equality, and why is it important? What sorts of equality should a just society ensure? (3) Reconciliation: Are liberty and equality in conflict? If so, how should we respond to the conflict between them? We approach these topics by examining competing theories of justice including utilitarianism, libertarianism/classical liberalism, and egalitarian liberalism. The class also serves as an introduction to how to do political philosophy, and students approaching these topics for the first time are welcome. Political Science majors taking this course to fulfill the WIM requirement should enroll in POLISCI 103.
Terms: Aut | Units: 4-5 | UG Reqs: GER:DB-Hum, GER:EC-EthicReas, WAY-ER | Grading: Letter or Credit/No Credit
Instructors: Coyne, B. (PI)

PHIL 171P: 20th Century Political Theory: Liberalism and its Critics (ETHICSOC 130, POLISCI 130)

In this course, students learn and engage with the debates that have animated political theory since the early 20th century. What is the proper relationship between the individual, the community, and the state? Are liberty and equality in conflict, and, if so, which should take priority? What does justice mean in a large and diverse modern society? The subtitle of the course, borrowed from a book by Michael Sandel, is "Liberalism and its Critics" because the questions we discuss in this class center on the meaning of, and alternatives to, the liberal idea that the basic goal of society should be the protection of individual rights. Readings include selections from works by John Rawls, Hannah Arendt, Robert Nozick, Michael Sandel, Iris Marion Young, and Martha Nussbaum. No prior experience with political theory is necessary.
Terms: Win | Units: 5 | UG Reqs: WAY-ER | Grading: Letter or Credit/No Credit
Instructors: Coyne, B. (PI)

PHIL 172: History of Moral Philosophy (ETHICSOC 172)

prerequisites: Phil 2 and Phil 80. Not for graduate students.
Terms: not given this year | Units: 4 | UG Reqs: GER:DB-Hum, WAY-A-II, WAY-ER | Grading: Letter or Credit/No Credit

PHIL 172B: Recent Ethical Theory: Moral Obligation (PHIL 272B)

Some moral obligations are "relational," "directional," or "bipolar" in structure: in promising you to act in a certain way, for example, I incur an obligation to you to so act and you acquire a corresponding claim or right against me that I so act. This entails that if I violate my obligation to you, I will not merely be doing something that is morally wrong, but will be wronging you in particular. What does explain this? Do all moral obligations have this structure? We will discuss how different moral theories (consequentialist, deontological, contractualist) try to account for such obligations. Readings include Adams, Anscombe, Darwall, Feinberg, Hart, Parfit, Raz, Scanlon, Skorupski, Thompson, Thomson, Wallace, and Wolf.
Terms: not given this year, last offered Autumn 2015 | Units: 4 | UG Reqs: GER:DB-Hum, WAY-A-II, WAY-ER | Grading: Letter or Credit/No Credit

PHIL 172N: Prudence and Morality (PHIL 272N)

We sometimes think we should do something just because it will benefit us in the future, even though we don¿t particularly feel like doing it now (e.g. we exercise, go to the dentist for a check-up, or set aside money for retirement). And we sometimes think we should do something for the sake of another person, even when it is inconvenient, costly, or unpleasant (e.g. we stop to help a stranded motorist, donate to charity, or tell someone an embarrassing truth rather than a face-saving lie). When we do the former, we act prudently. When we do the latter, we act morally. This course explores the debate among philosophers about the source of our reasons for acting prudently and morally. Some argue that our reasons to be prudent and moral stem directly from the fact that we are rational ¿ that it is contrary to reason to ignore our own future interests, or the interests of other people. Others disagree, arguing that the source of these reasons must lie elsewhere. Course readings will include work by Thomas Nagel, Bernard Williams, Christine Korsgaard, Derek Parfit, Philippa Foot, and others.
Terms: not given this year, last offered Autumn 2013 | Units: 4 | UG Reqs: WAY-ER | Grading: Letter or Credit/No Credit

PHIL 174B: Universal Basic Income: the philosophy behind the proposal (ETHICSOC 174B, ETHICSOC 274B, PHIL 274B, POLISCI 134E, POLISCI 338)

Universal basic income (or UBI) is a regular cash allowance given to all members of a community without means test, regardless of personal desert, and with no strings attached. Once a utopian proposal, the policy is now discussed and piloted throughout the world. The growth of income and wealth inequalities, the precariousness of labor, and the persistence of abject poverty have all been important drivers of renewed interest in UBI in the United States. But it is without a doubt the fear that automation may displace workers from the labor market at unprecedented rates that explains the revival of the policy in recent years, including by many in or around Silicon Valley. Among the various objections to the proposal, one concerns its moral adequacy: Isn't it fundamentally unjust to give cash to all indiscriminately rather than to those who need it and deserve it? Over the years, a variety of scholars have defended the policy on moral grounds, arguing that UBI is a tool of equality, liber more »
Universal basic income (or UBI) is a regular cash allowance given to all members of a community without means test, regardless of personal desert, and with no strings attached. Once a utopian proposal, the policy is now discussed and piloted throughout the world. The growth of income and wealth inequalities, the precariousness of labor, and the persistence of abject poverty have all been important drivers of renewed interest in UBI in the United States. But it is without a doubt the fear that automation may displace workers from the labor market at unprecedented rates that explains the revival of the policy in recent years, including by many in or around Silicon Valley. Among the various objections to the proposal, one concerns its moral adequacy: Isn't it fundamentally unjust to give cash to all indiscriminately rather than to those who need it and deserve it? Over the years, a variety of scholars have defended the policy on moral grounds, arguing that UBI is a tool of equality, liberal freedom, republican freedom, gender equity, or racial equity. Many others have attacked UBI on those very same grounds, making the case that alternative policy proposals like the job guarantee, means-tested benefits, conditional benefits, or reparations should be preferred. Students will learn a great deal about political theory and ethics in general but always through the specific angle of the policy proposal, and they will become experts on the philosophy, politics and economics of UBI. The seminar is open to undergraduate and graduate students in all departments. There are no pre-requisites.
Terms: Win | Units: 4 | UG Reqs: WAY-ER | Repeatable for credit | Grading: Letter (ABCD/NP)
Filter Results:
term offered
updating results...
number of units
updating results...
time offered
updating results...
days
updating results...
UG Requirements (GERs)
updating results...
component
updating results...
career
updating results...
© Stanford University | Terms of Use | Copyright Complaints