2009 Theories of Justice Syllabus

Justice Studies 830

Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 9:10-12:00

Murkland 104

nick.smith@unh.edu

Office hours: Mondays and Wednesdays from 12:00-1:00 and by appointment.

Course Objectives:

This class will be an exercise in cooperative learning.  Class meetings will be organized around discussions and group work, and we will regularly review each other’s writing and divide responsibilities for in-class presentation of materials.  Your preparation and participation will therefore be essential not only for your own success in the course, but for your classmates’ as well.

In this course we will be discussing one of the most difficult personal and philosophical questions: Are ethical principles real, true, and universal, or are they merely relative social constructions?  When we claim that slavery is wrong, for example, do we mean that it is wrong in all places and at all times?  Or is this belief merely our culturally biased opinion?  If ethical principles are universal (meaning that they exist in all places and at all times), where do they come from?  If ethics are relative, then is enlightenment possible?  In other words, is ethical enlightenment a myth perpetuated by philosophers and theologians, or is it the primary truth that should guide our attempts to live good and meaningful lives?  And if ethical principles are relative, does that mean that we are merely the product of our culture?  If that’s the case, how can we claim to be free or to think for ourselves?  We will begin by reading a few articles by anthropologists and sociologists arguing for the relativity of ethics and then study Immanuel Kant’s Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals and his short essay “What is Enlightenment?”  We will then compare Kant’s perspective with Utilitarianism, and apply the competing theories to current ethical issues in economic justice and punishment.

Punishment in the contemporary United States is a massive and costly enterprise.  As of 2001, approximately 5.6 million living adult residents of the United States had served time in a federal or state prison.  In that same year, federal, state, and local governments in the United States spent $57 billion punishing these individuals, which does not include $72 billion to provide police protections and $38 billion to maintain the court system.  An American resident is more than eight times more likely to be incarcerated than a German resident and nearly nineteen times more likely than a Japanese resident.  Despite the fact that our incarceration rates are so disproportionately high when compared to rates of other wealthy democracies, we suffer far more violent crime per capita than similar nations.  In 2001, the reported offense rate per 100,000 for homicide in the United States was 5.6 while in Germany the rate was 3.23.  For rape, the numbers are more disproportionate, with 31.8 in the U.S. compared with 10.45 in Germany.  The comparison with Japan is still more dramatic, with Japanese homicide rates at 1.10 and rape rates at 1.85 per 100,000.  The United States invests more in punishment than any other nation–both in terms of financial expenditure and the loss of freedom for millions of convicts–yet this price does not appear to result in a safer society.  Given this, we must ask fundamental questions regarding punishment: What justifies punishment?  What are the objectives of punishment?  How should we accomplish those objectives?  How important are those objectives when compared with other objectives, such as personal liberty?  Imagine, for example, that we retained all of our current laws but one punishment applied for violating any of them: regardless of whether you were convicted of murder or exceeding the speed limit, you would be executed.  Surely we could all be more confident that such a threat would reduce criminal activity, but with this security would come the anxiety that you or a loved one would be killed for committing a minor offense.  This leads us to ask whether we can practically pursue the goals of punishment without compromising other things we value.  Punishment suspends the freedom of millions of people every year and intentionally subjects them to pain and suffering.  How could such an enormous, resource-consuming, and apparently sadistic institution have a place in modern life? We will consider the following questions:

-Why should we punish?  To “balance the scales of justice”?  To exact revenge?  To deter crime?  To remove the offender from free society?  To reform the offender? 

-Is punishment a moral act, or is it simply a form of social control?   

-Is punishing children different from punishing criminal offenders?

-Is there a difference between torture and punishment?

-Is torture ever justifiable?

-Is death ever justifiable punishment?

-Does punishment strip the punished of her dignity?

-Which rights should prisoners loose?  The right to vote?  The right to privacy?  The right to be a parent?

-Should convicts have the option of paying a fine rather than serving time? 

Texts:

All of our texts will be available online via the Course Schedule.

If you prefer to own copies of the texts, I suggest ordering the following:

Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

Stephen Nathanson, Economic Justice

Course Structure and Requirements:

First, you will write a final paper of a minimum of 5000 words. For more information on what I expect from papers and how I grade responses and larger essays, see my:

     Writing, Rewriting, and Grading Philosophy Papers

     My Insider’s Guide to Academic Success (note the section on response papers)

Second, we will be meeting individually outside of class to discuss your work.  In addition to these mandatory meetings, I hope to be in contact with all of you regularly through office hours, email, phone, or appointment.

Third, the will have an on-line discussion board through Blackboard.  When arguing issues on the discussion board, please be considerate and act as you would in class.

Foruth, some of the books and essays we will be engaging are possibly the most difficult yet rewarding texts ever written.  You must allow yourself ample time to work through each reading, complete it when scheduled, write your response paper, and come to class prepared to work through your questions.

Grading:

The final paper will count for 70% of your grade, and your class and Blackboard participation will count for 30% of your grade.

The best thinking occurs after the first draft of a paper, and therefore any essay or response paper may be rewritten for a grade as many times as you are capable.  I may revoke this privilege if papers are being resubmitted with only superficial revisions.  Grades will be given on both first drafts and the revisions, with only the grade on the final revision calculated into your final average.  First drafts submitted without making a genuine effort to complete the assignment to the best of your ability will be penalized as if late.

As indicated, late papers will not be accepted.

You will find that attendance is crucial in this class.  You are allowed no unexcused absences during the term.  Every unexcused absence will result in your final grade being docked one increment (e.g. from a B to a B-). 

I may provide opportunities for extra credit at my discretion. 

For more information on grading for the course, see Writing and Rewriting Philosophy Papers and My Insider’s Guide to Academic Success.

Grading Scale in Percentages:

93-100=A; 90-92.9=A-; 87-89.9=B+; 83-86.9=B; 80-82.9=B-; 77-79.9=C+; 73-76.9=C; 70-72.9=C-; 67-69.9=D+; 63-66.9=D; 60-62.9=D-; Below 60=F

Code of Conduct:

All work in this course is governed by the University of New Hampshire Student Code of Conduct (www.unh.edu/student-life/judprograms/codeofconduct.htm).  If you have any concerns regarding these matters, please see me.  Please be aware, however, that I strongly encourage you to speak to one another outside of class about readings and papers.

Plagiarism and Academic Honesty:

Plagiarism is a form of lying, cheating, and stealing.  You commit a moral offense against me, your classmates, the University, and the true author of the work.  In my previous job with the U.S. Court of Appeals I was required to draft orders for the execution of capital offenders.  I will not be squeamish about failing you for academic dishonesty.

Internet plagiarism is rampant, and I have already failed students at UNH because of this.  You cannot copy ANYTHING from the internet and use it in your papers without citing the source.  Not only is this the most common form of plagiarism, it is very easy to catch.  I belong to on-line document checking services, and I use them to catch cheating. 

Another common form of cheating is to submit the same paper for two courses.  In some circumstances I will allow students to combine papers for courses, but you must have my permission (and the permission of the Professor of the other course) to do so.

If you are not moved by moral arguments, consider the consequences of academic dishonesty.  You will fail the course and risk expulsion from the University.

Disabilities:

Some of my best students have been diagnosed with learning disabilities, and I encourage any student requiring special accommodations because of a learning or other disability to speak with me as early in the semester as possible.  I welcome the opportunity to work with you.  Students with disabilities may also receive support from the ACCESS Office (www.unh.edu/disabilityservices).

Center for Academic Resources and the Connors Writing Center:

For those who would like additional help with your writing or studying beyond what I can provide, please take advantage of the Center for Academic Resources (www.cfar.unh.edu) and the Connors Writing Center (www.unh.edu/writing).