TABLE OF CONTENTS PERSONAL STATEMENT... 2 TEACHING STATEMENT... 3 CV... 5 TEACHING EXPERIENCE & REFLECTIONS... 9 TEACHING MATERIALS...

TEACHING PORTFOLIO A. Arturo Javier- Castellanos Syracuse University, Philosophy Department 541 Hall of Languages, Syracuse NY, 13244-1170 aajavier@syr.edu, (917)520-9935 https://aajavierportfolio.wordpress.com/ (online portfolio) https://aajavier.mysite.syr.edu/ (research website) TABLE OF CONTENTS PERSONAL STATEMENT... 2 TEACHING STATEMENT... 3 CV... 5 TEACHING EXPERIENCE & REFLECTIONS... 9 TEACHING MATERIALS... 11 SAMPLE SYLLABI... 11 SAMPLE ASSIGNMENTS... 18 SAMPLE EXAMS... 20 SAMPLE HANDOUTS... 25 SAMPLE LECTURE NOTES... 32 STUDENT EVALUATIONS... 40 AS TEACHING ASSISTANT... 40 AS INDEPENDENT INSTRUCTOR... 41 CLASS OBSERVATIONS... 44 FROM FACULTY... 44 FROM PEERS... 57 LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM STUDENTS... 62 TEACHING INTERESTS... 65 1

PERSONAL STATEMENT February 24, 2017 Dear Members of the Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award Selection Committee, This is to apply for the Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award. I believe my progress as a teacher makes me a particularly good candidate for this award. I have taught a discussion section or class every semester since I first entered the philosophy program in 2012, and I have learned much in the process. I have had the good fortune of being a teaching assistant to Professors Robert Van Gulick and Mark Heller, who were both very involved in my progress through regular meetings and classroom observations. I have benefitted heavily from having Professors Kevan Edwards and Mark Heller observe my teaching, each having done so at least twice during different semesters. Their detailed feedback has provided a valuable sense of the areas where I have shown improvement, and the areas I need to work on. They have both made positive remarks about my classroom atmosphere, describing it as friendly and comfortable for the students. In addition, Prof. Heller has perceived substantial improvement in my teaching persona. In preparing my classes, I continuously seek to incorporate their feedback. If the student evaluations for the last course I taught are any guidance, these efforts are already paying off. As a PhD student, I have made satisfactory progress towards completing my degree. I finished my coursework and had my qualifying paper approved in the fall of 2015, and I successfully defended my dissertation proposal in June of 2016. My dissertation, Locality and Persistence, is conducted under the direction of Professors Mark Heller (advisor), Kris McDaniel and Andre Gallois. I am on track to complete my dissertation before February of 2018. I am grateful for your time and consideration. I am happy to provide additional materials upon request, and would be honored to receive this award. Sincerely, A. Arturo Javier- Castellanos. 2

TEACHING STATEMENT Before taking any philosophy classes, every student has already encountered some of the big questions. Does God exist? Can I survive the death of my body? How can I know there is an external world? These questions normally elicit a sense of puzzlement and excitement. My main goal as an instructor is to enable students to think critically and systematically about these questions while preserving, or in some cases restoring, that sense of puzzlement. To get students excited about a new philosophical issue, I often start by giving them an argument from plausible premises to a surprising conclusion. The main obstacle to this approach is that some students are convinced the argument must be flawed, but do not find the task of locating the flaw particularly exciting. My strategy here is to discuss objections in the order that beginner students are most likely to think of them. In discussing the morality of factory farming, for instance, I start with popular objections like: human beings are at the top of the food chain, animals also kill for food, death in a factory farm beats death in the wild, what if plants can feel pain? Though these objections are often bad, there are good reasons to give them a fair hearing in class. First, they tend to resonate with students far better than sophisticated, more plausible objections. For instance, I have had a student share his perspective as a hunter on whether death in a factory farm is preferable to death in the wild. Second, after covering these objections, the students are more interested in figuring out whether and where the argument goes wrong. In working on critical thinking skills, a familiar challenge is that students are sometimes reluctant to speak in class. One likely source of this reluctance is that nobody wants to say something unintelligent in front of their peers. There are a few things I do to address this challenge. First, students are enthusiastically encouraged to play devil s advocate, especially when discussing sensitive topics so that they do not feel like they have to risk personal criticism if they want to speak their minds. Second, we do teamwork before opening up discussion to the whole class to avoid putting anyone on the spot. Finally, I try to make them feel good about speaking in class. If someone anticipates a problem, for instance, I refer back to what they said later in class. If someone says something mistaken, I give other students a chance to correct them before jumping in, since students usually take criticism better coming from their peers than coming from the instructor. Another familiar challenge is that philosophical arguments often rely on concepts that are easy to grasp, but difficult to apply with the degree of precision expected in the philosophy classroom. As a result, students frequently overestimate their understanding of the concepts in question. My strategy here is to always introduce concepts and distinctions in the following order: examples, intuitive gloss, official definition, and genuinely tricky cases. This invites them to think of the official definition not as something they are supposed to simply memorize, but as an attempt at getting at the root of the concept in question. To test their understanding, I then have them respond to objections that trade on a subtle misunderstanding of the relevant concept. For instance, Don Marquis argues that killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of a future of value, where this means that the victim s future has value for the victim herself, though not necessarily for society. To test the 3

students understanding of this concept, I give them a case where a child will become a serious danger to society. I then mistakenly suggest that the child therefore lacks a future of value, so that Marquis cannot explain why killing the child is wrong. Having to answer this objection forces them to diagnose a misapplication of the relevant concept. This shows them that applying the relevant concept is not trivial, and improves their understanding of it along the way. Finally, I seek to be mindful that tasks like writing a whole paper may be daunting to beginner students. Thus, I regularly give out assignments that focus heavily on specific skills that students can improve through very simple tasks. One such skill, for instance, is using analogies to rule out morally irrelevant features of situations. There are several papers that provide a good opportunity for this. In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, for instance, Peter Singer describes the case of someone passing by a pond, seeing a child at risk of drowning, and failing to wade in. After discussing this case, I give students the case of someone passing by an Oxfam booth, and deciding not to make a life- saving donation. Then I give them a bad excuse that applies to the second passerby but not to the first- - - for instance, that the drowning child s parents whose primary responsibility it is to care for the child are not around to save his live, but that the potential child victims of famine may have their parents around. Instead of simply having them explain why the excuse is bad, however, the students are instructed to describe a version of the drowning child case that illustrates why the excuse is bad. As a bonus, after using this method to work through several excuses, the students are left with a better appreciation of the force of the argument. 4

CV A. Arturo Javier- Castellanos Syracuse University, Philosophy Department 541 Hall of Languages, Syracuse NY, 13244-1170 aajavier@syr.edu, (917)520-9935 https://aajavier.mysite.syr.edu/ AREA OF SPECIALIZATION Metaphysics AREA OF COMPETENCE Ethics EDUCATION 2018 Syracuse University, Ph.D. in Philosophy. (Expected). 2013 National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). B.A. in Philosophy. TEACHING EXPERIENCE As Independent Instructor Spring 2017 Introduction to Moral Theory. Fall 2016 Introduction to Logic. As Teaching Assistant at Syracuse University Spring 2016 Introduction to Logic. Fall 2015 Philosophy of Feminism. Spring 2015 Theories of Knowledge and Reality. Fall 2014 Introduction to Moral Theory. Spring 2014 Introduction to Logic. Fall 2013 Theories of Knowledge and Reality. As Teaching Assistant at UNAM Spring 2013 Introduction to Logic II. Fall 2012 Introduction to Logic I. COURSES PREPARED TO TEACH Introduction to Philosophy. Introduction to Logic. Introduction to Ethics. Introduction to Metaphysics and Epistemology. Topics in Ethics. PUBLICATIONS 2016 Duplication and Collapse. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 5(3): 196-202. 2014 Some Challenges to a Contrastive Treatment of Grounding. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 3(3): 184-92. 5

PRESENTATIONS Refereed 2017 Spontaneous Loss of Parts and the Grounding Problem. American Philosophical Association Pacific Division Meeting. Seattle, Washington. (Scheduled). 2016 Universalism, Modal Realism and Junk. 2 nd IIFs- UNAM Philosophy Graduate Conference. Mexico City, Mexico. 2015 Some Challenges to a Contrastive Treatment of Grounding. American Philosophical Association Central Division Meeting. St. Louis, Missouri. Invited 2016 Two 3D Cohabitants Are One Too Many Thinkers. Syracuse University ABD Workshop. 2016 Spontaneous Loss of Parts and the Grounding Problem. American Association of Mexican Philosophers 9 th Annual Conference. Syracuse University. 2015 What Is So Bad About Claiming that the Vast Majority of People Are Wrong About Tables? Philosophy Working Papers Group at Syracuse University. 2014 Metaethical Contextualism, Moral Judgments, and Judgments of Etiquette. Philosophy Working Papers Group at Syracuse University. 2011 Tres argumentos lockeanos en favor del convencionalismo sobre las clases naturales. 3 rd Colloquium on Contemporary Philosophy at the Acatlán School of Higher Studies, UNAM. Invited Commentary 2017 On Kolja Keller s Vagueness and Luminosity. The Creighton Club New York State Philosophical Association 162 nd Meeting, Syracuse University. 2016 On Travis Timmerman s Doomsday Is Not So Bad (but You Should Probably Lament It Anyways). Syracuse University ABD Workshop. 2015 On Byron Simmons Fundamental Non- Qualitative Properties. Syracuse University ABD Workshop. 2014 On Anthony Adrian s Of Time s Dependence on Change. American Association of Mexican Philosophers 7 th Annual Conference, Stanford University. WORKS IN PROGRESS Two 3D Cohabitants Are One Too Many Thinkers. Do We Survive the Overdetermination Argument? 6

GRADUATE COURSEWORK Language, Epistemology and Metaphysics Fall 2015 Independent Study (Location and Mereology) with Mark Heller. Spring 2015 Topics in Metaphysics with Karen Bennett. Spring 2015 Ontology with Mark Heller. Fall 2014 Proseminar: Language, Epistemology, Mind and Metaphysics with Kris McDaniel. Fall 2014 A priori and philosophical intuitions with Andre Gallois. Spring 2014 Deontic Modals with Jannice Dowell. Spring 2014 Philosophy of Action with Kim Frost. Fall 2013 Proseminar: Logic and Language with Michael Caie. Fall 2013 Hyperintensionality with Kris McDaniel. Value Theory Fall 2015 Population Ethics with Ben Bradley. Spring 2015 Independent Study (Death) with Ben Bradley. Spring 2014 Proseminar: Moral and Political Philosophy with Ben Bradley. Fall Fall Fall History 2015 Kant s Critique of Pure Reason with Kris McDaniel. 2014 Descartes Metaphysics with Kara Richardson & Kris McDaniel. 2013 Proseminar: History of Philosophy with Fred Beiser. GRANTS & AWARDS 2017 American Philosophical Association Graduate Student Travel Grant. 2017 Syracuse University Graduate Student Organization Travel Grant. 2017 Syracuse University Philosophy Department Travel Grant. 2016 Syracuse University Graduate Student Organization Travel Grant. 2016 Syracuse University Philosophy Department Travel Grant. 2015 American Philosophical Association Graduate Student Travel Grant. SERVICE 2017 External Speaker Committee member. Syracuse University Philosophy Graduate Student Conference. 2016 Co- Organizer. Minorities in the Media MAP Undergraduate Event. 2016 Assistant Organizer. Syracuse Philosophy Annual Workshop and Networking (SPAWN). 2015 Guest Instructor. Syracuse University s Philosophy for Children Program with Southside Academy Charter School. 2015-2016 Co- president. American Association of Mexican Philosophers. 2015-2016 President. Syracuse Philosophy Graduate Student Organization. 2014-2015 2014- present Co- organizer. Syracuse University s Working Papers Workshop. Submission Referee. Syracuse University Philosophy Graduate Student Conference. 7

DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Many philosophers have argued that there is widespread coincidence between material objects that wherever there is a statue, for instance, there are in fact countless statue- shaped objects. This view generates a host of problems. Coupled with the mainstream assumption that human beings are material objects, for instance, it seemingly entails that if I stub my toe, there are now countless beings in pain. In my dissertation, I offer a novel argument for widespread coincidence, tackle the problems it generates, and discuss whether and how it bears on the issue of how material objects persist. REFERENCES Mark Heller, Professor, Syracuse University, heller@syr.edu 8

TEACHING EXPERIENCE & REFLECTIONS As Independent Instructor Introduction to Logic (Fall 2016) I assigned Patrick Hurley s Logic: The Essentials. Assessment was based on four exams and biweekly homework assignments. One complaint I often heard in logic classes where I had been a TA was that the difficulty of the problems we did in class did not always match the difficulty of the problems they had to solve in the homework. This is because covering the basics in class usually takes a long time. To address this problem, I decided to have a wide range of difficulty levels in class, even if it meant spending a little less time on the basics. I took some problems from the book, made some modifications to them, and we solved them together in class before I assigned the original problems for homework. This compromise worked really well. Another thing that worked well was giving students a practice exam before every exam, and grading it before the real exam so they knew how well they did relative to my grading standards. Some students let me know they appreciated this on their end- of- term evaluations. As Teaching Assistant Introduction to logic (Spring 2016) I led two recitations, and was responsible for grading their assignments and exams, as well as holding office hours. In recitation, we basically solved problems together. Typically I had a volunteer come to the board, I walked them through the problem, and then I asked the rest of the students for input if the volunteer stumbled. These recitations went really well. I received good feedback both from the main instructor, who observed one class, and from the students. One thing that helped here was focusing on my teaching persona. Sometimes logic can be dry, so it is especially important to make recitation as entertaining as possible. I had some success at this. The only challenge I had was I realized that students find translations into predicate logic especially difficult. The difficulty level has to be increased very gradually, and the book does not do a great job at this. Once I figured this out, however, it was not difficult to come up with easier problems and build up from there. Philosophy of Feminism (Fall 2015) This was the first intermediate course I was a TA for. I led two discussion sections, and was responsible for grading their assignments and exams, and holding office hours. In section, we did a combination of review, discussion and classroom activities. The activities were mainly argument extraction and analysis. I had some moderate participation in class. Some students were eager to speak, but it was hard to get everyone involved. My takeaway was that intermediate courses require less review, and the sections should be heavily focused on discussion instead. 9

Theories of Knowledge and Reality (Spring 2015) I led two discussion sections, and was responsible for grading their assignments and exams. After each exam, the main instructor and all the TAs would meet to calibrate their grading. Before the meeting, we selected a few exams for everyone to grade. Once everyone had graded them, we met to discuss whether the grades we had given were fair. These meetings were incredibly helpful in getting a sense of how much detail it is reasonable to expect from students in their exam answers. In section, we did a combination of review and discussion. The sections went reasonably well, though I did face a couple of challenges. After visiting one of my sections, the main instructor pointed out I have a tendency to try to persuade students too vigorously. This tendency can be an asset, as some students will engage in argument. However, it can also stifle discussion. Throughout the rest of the semester, I learned to keep this tendency in check, and to find alternative ways of engaging students. I also realized the questions I was asking were too open- ended, so I also worked on learning to ask the right questions to elicit participation. Introduction to Moral Theory (Fall 2014) I led two discussion sections and was responsible for grading their assignments and exams, holding office hours and replying to emails. In section, we did a combination of discussion and review. The sections went well. The only issue I had was concerning the grading. A few students reported that their exam grades did not match their subjective feeling of how well they did on their exams. The main factor was that the exam questions were open- ended, but it was not good enough that the students gave their unsupported opinion; there were specific things we were looking for in a good answer. So the moral is that one needs to be exceedingly clear with respect to one s expectations. This is especially important in an ethics class, where it is not uncommon for students to come in with the misconception that anything goes. Introduction to Logic (Spring 2014) I led two recitations, and was responsible for grading their assignments and exams, holding office hours and replying to emails. We basically solved problems together in class as described above. In this course, I tried to make the students feel like what we did in class was a shared project, for instance by inviting them to help each other out when solving problems on the board. After visiting one of my sections, my teaching mentor commended this approach. Theories of Knowledge and Reality (Fall 2013) This was the first class I was a TA for at Syracuse University. This turned out to be a good thing, as the main instructor was very involved in how his TAs conducted their sections. We met every week to discuss how our sections went the previous week, and we received specific instructions as to what to cover in section. The sections were a combination of review and discussion. 10

TEACHING MATERIALS Sample Syllabi Introduction to Logic Fall 2016 Meetings: MWF 12:45-1:40pm, 237 Sims. Instructor: A. Arturo Javier- Castellanos (aajavier@syr.edu) Office hours: by appointment. Course description: The goal is to help you improve your critical thinking skills by teaching you to identify some characteristic features of good arguments. Along the way you will also develop a better understanding of the meaning of English sentences by analyzing their logical structure. Grading: Participation: %5 Homework assignments: %15 Exam 1: %20 Exam 2: %20 Exam 3: %20 Exam 4 (noncumulative): %20 Late assignments: each student must turn in their homework in hard copy at the beginning of class on the day the assignment is due. Late assignments will not be accepted unless you obtain explicit permission from me prior to the due date. Missed exams: with the exception of extreme circumstances and emergencies, you are not allowed to make up missed exams. If you cannot make an exam, get in touch with me before the day of the exam. Homework grades: at the end of the course, you may drop your three lowest homework assignment grades. Extra credit: no extra credit. Textbook: Patrick Hurley s Logic: The Essentials. You must bring a physical copy of the book to class. My suggestion is that you rent a copy through the following website for no more than $30~ dollars: http://www.cengage.com/search/productoverview.do?n=16+33&ntk=p_epi&ntt= 123601408517006230847861404521226707297&Ntx=mode%2Bmatchallpartial Electronic devices: you are not allowed to use electronic devices in class unless you obtain explicit permission from me. If there is a reason you need to use electronic devices, please come talk to me in person. Statement on academic integrity: Syracuse University s academic integrity policy holds students accountable for the integrity of all work they submit. Students should 11

understand that it is their responsibility to learn about course- specific expectations, as well as about university- wide academic integrity expectations. The university policy governs appropriate citation and use of sources, the integrity of work submitted in exams and assignments, and the veracity of signatures on attendance sheets and other verification of participation in class activities. The presumptive penalty for a first instance of academic dishonesty by an undergraduate student is course failure, accompanied by a transcript notation indicating that the failure resulted from a violation of academic integrity policy. For more information and the complete policy, see http://academicintegrity.syr.edu. Statement regarding disability- related academic adjustments: if you believe that you need academic adjustments (accommodations) for a disability, please contact the Office of Disability Services (ODS), located in Room 309 of 804 University Avenue, visit the ODS website, visit the ODS website http://disabilityservices.syr.edu, or call (315) 443-4498 or TDD: (315) 443-1371 for an appointment to discuss your needs and the process for requesting academic adjustments. ODS is responsible for coordinating disability- related academic adjustments and will issue students with documented Disabilities Accommodation Authorization Letters, as appropriate. Since academic adjustments may require early planning and generally are not provided retroactively, please contact ODS as soon as possible. Tentative schedule (individual lessons are subject to change, exam dates are not) M 08/29 Deductive vs. inductive arguments, soundness and validity. Reading material (RM): 1.3, 1.4 Assignment (A) 1: Exercise 1.4, pts. I&V (full) due F. RM: 5.1: pp. 237-241. W 08/31 Translation in propositional logic: and, not and or. F 09/2 If, iff, unless, etc. RM: 5.1: pp. 241-246. A 2: Exercise 5.1 pts. I&II (full) due W. M 09/5 W 09/7 NO CLASSES. Formulas and forms, major connectives, truth functions. RM: 5.2: pp. 250-256. A 3: Exercise 5.2 pts. I, II (full) and III (1-15) due F. F 09/9 Review. A 4: Exercise 5.2 pts. III (16- M 09/12 Truth tables: How to classify statements (tautologies, etc.) and pairs of statements (logically equivalent, etc.) 25)&IV (full) due M. RM: 5.3 A 5: Exercise 5.3 pt. I&II (full) due F. W 09/14 How to use truth tables to assess RM: 5.4, pp. 267-270. 12

F 09/16 M 09/19 W 09/21 validity. Review. Using the shortcut method to assess validity. Using the shortcut method to assess consistency A 6: Exercise 5.4 pts. I (even only) &II (full) due F. RM: 5.5 pp. 274-278. A 7: Exercise 5.5 pt. II (full) due F. RM: 5.5 pp. 278-280. A 8: Exercise 5.5 pt. III (full) due F. F 09/23 General review. M 09/26 EXAM 1: soundness and validity, translation, truth tables, shortcut method. W 09/28 Natural deduction in propositional logic: first set of rules of implication (MP, MT, HS, DS). RM: 6.1 pp. 302-309. A 9: Exercise 6.1 pts. I (even), II (even) &III (1-15) due F. F 09/30 Review A 10: Exercise 6.1 pt. III (16-25) due M. M 10/3 Second set of rules of implication (CD, simp., conj., add.). RM: 6.2 pp. 314-319. A 11: Exercise 6.2 p. III (full) due F. W 10/5 First set of replacement rules. RM: 6.3 pp. 323-328. A 12: Exercise 6.3 pt. III (1-20) due F. F 10/7 Review. A 13: Exercise 6.3 pt. III (21-35) due M. M 10/10 Second set of replacement rules. RM: 6.4 pp. 336-341. A 14: Exercise 6.4 pt. III (full) due F. W 10/12 Conditional proof. RM: 6.5 pp. 349-352. A 15: Exercise 6.5 pt. I (no need to solve them without using CP) due F. F 10/14 Review M 10/17 Indirect proof. RM: 6.6 pp. 354-358. A 16: Exercise 6.6 pt. I (no need to solve them without using CP or IP) due F. W 10/19 Using natural deduction to prove logical truths. F 10/21 General review. M 10/24 EXAM 2: natural deduction in propositional logic. W 10/26 Translation in predicate logic: RM: 7.1 pp. 364-366. RM: 6.7 pp. 360-361. A 18: Exercise 6.7 (full) due F. 13

monadic predicates and connectives. A 19: Exercise 7.1 (1-6) due F. F 10/28 Quantifiers. RM: 7.1 pp. 366-371. A 20: Exercise 7.1 (7-30) due M. M 10/31 Harder translation problems. A 21: Exercise 7.1 (31-60) due F. W 11/2 Relational predicates. A 22: Exercise 8.6 (on Blackboard) due F. F 11/4 Review. M 11/7 Identity. A 23: TBA. W 11/9 General review. F 11/11 EXAM 3: translation in predicate logic. M 11/14 Natural deduction in predicate logic: quantifier rules. RM: 7.2 pp. 374-382. A 24: Exercise 7.2 pt. I (full) due F. W 11/16 Quantifier negation rule. RM: 7.3 pp. 386-388. A 25: Exercise 7.3 Pt. I (1-10) due F. F 11/18 Review. M 11/21 NO CLASSES W 11/23 (Thanksgiving break). F 11/25 M 11/28 Review. A 26: Exercise 7.3 Pt. I (11-20) due F. W 11/30 Conditional proof and indirect proof. RM: 7.4 pp. 391-394. A 27: Exercise 7.4 Pt. I (1-10) due F. F 12/2 Review. A 28: Exercise 7.4 Pt. I (11-25) due M. M 12/5 ND problems involving identity. A 29: TBA. W 12/7 TBA. F 12/9 TBA. M 12/12 EXAM 4: natural deduction in predicate logic. 14

Introduction to Moral Theory Spring 2017 Meetings: MW 3:45-5:05pm, Shaffer Art Building 205. Instructor: A. Arturo Javier- Castellanos (aajavier@syr.edu) Office hours: Tuesday 10am- 12pm, Bird Library Café. Course description: The course divides into four parts. The first part will provide familiarity with a sample of moral problems. The second part will provide familiarity with a range of theories about what makes a person s life go well or bad for that person. The third part will provide familiarity with a range of theories about what makes a given action right or wrong. The fourth part will provide familiarity with a range of theories about the nature of moral claims. Grading: Attendance: %5 Homework assignments: %15 Exam 1: %20 Exam 2: %20 Exam 3: %20 Exam 4 (noncumulative): %20 Late assignments: late assignments will not be accepted unless you obtain explicit permission from me prior to the due date. Missed exams: with the exception of extreme circumstances and emergencies, you are not allowed to make up missed exams. If you cannot make an exam, get in touch with me before the day of the exam. Extra credit: no extra credit. Textbook: (1) Shaffer- Landau (ed.), The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems (3 rd edition). (2) Shaffer- Landau, The Fundamentals of Ethics (3 rd edition). Electronic devices: you are not allowed to use electronic devices in class unless you obtain explicit permission from me. If there is a reason you need to use electronic devices, please come talk to me in person. Statement on academic integrity: Syracuse University s academic integrity policy holds students accountable for the integrity of all work they submit. Students should understand that it is their responsibility to learn about course- specific expectations, as well as about university- wide academic integrity expectations. The university policy governs appropriate citation and use of sources, the integrity of work submitted in exams and assignments, and the veracity of signatures on attendance sheets and other verification of participation in class activities. The presumptive penalty for a first instance of academic dishonesty by an undergraduate student is course failure, accompanied by a transcript notation indicating that the failure 15

resulted from a violation of academic integrity policy. For more information and the complete policy, see http://academicintegrity.syr.edu. Statement regarding disability- related academic adjustments: if you believe that you need academic adjustments (accommodations) for a disability, please contact the Office of Disability Services (ODS), located in Room 309 of 804 University Avenue, visit the ODS website, visit the ODS website http://disabilityservices.syr.edu, or call (315) 443-4498 or TDD: (315) 443-1371 for an appointment to discuss your needs and the process for requesting academic adjustments. ODS is responsible for coordinating disability- related academic adjustments and will issue students with documented Disabilities Accommodation Authorization Letters, as appropriate. Since academic adjustments may require early planning and generally are not provided retroactively, please contact ODS as soon as possible. Tentative schedule (individual lessons are subject to change, exam dates are not) W01/18 Arguments, and soundness M01/23 Abortion: the future of value argument Required: Don Marquis, Why abortion is immoral (EL). W01/25 Abortion: Thomson s defense Required: JJ Thomson, A defense of abortion (EL). M01/30 The moral status of animals Required: Alastair Norcross, Puppies, pigs and people, (EL). W02/01 Poverty and hunger Required: Peter Singer, Famine, affluence, and morality (Blackboard). M02/06 Testimonial injustice Required: Miranda Fricker, Epistemic injustice, chap. 1 (Blackboard). W02/08 Review M02/13 Exam 1 W02/15 Hedonism: advantages and initial objections Suggested: FoE, chap. 1 M02/20 Hedonism: Mill s response to the swine Required: John Stuart objection W02/22 Hedonism: The experience machine and other problems (false happiness, autonomy and trajectory of life) Mill, Hedonism (EL). Required: Robert Nozick, The experience machine (EL). M02/27 Objective list theories Suggested: Ben Bradley, Pluralism (Blackboard). W03/01 Desire satisfaction theories: advantages Suggested: FoE, chap. 3. 16

M03/06 Desire satisfaction theories: problems Suggested: FoE, chap. 4. W03/08 Exam 2 M03/13 W03/15 Spring break M03/20 The trolley problem Required: JJ Thomson, The trolley problem (Blackboard). Required: Plato, Euthyphro, (EL). W03/22 Divine command theory and the Euthyphro Dilemma M03/27 Ethical egoism FoE, Chap. 8. W03/29 Consequentialism Required: JJC Smart, Extreme and restricted utilitarianism (EL). M04/03 Consequentialism (continued) Suggested: FoE, chap. 10. W04/05 Kantian ethics Required: Kant, The goodwill and the categorical imperative (EL). M04/10 Kantian ethics (continued) Suggested: FoE, chap. 11 W04/12 Exam 3 M04/17 Moral relativism Suggested: FoE, chap. 19 W04/19 Moral nihilism Suggested: FoE, chap. 20 M04/24 Moral objectivism Required: David Enoch, Why I am an objectivist in ethics (and why you are, too) W04/26 Moral objectivism (continued) Suggested: FoE, chap. 21 M05/01 Review 05/04 Final exam 17

Sample Assignments Moral Theory Assignment (01/08/17) Assignment 4 Due date: Monday, February 20 1. Instructions. According to Hedonism, what makes someone s life good for that person is a high balance of pleasure over pain (including discomfort, emotional distress, suffering, and so on)- - - the higher the balance of pleasure over pain, the better off you are. This view entails that: ALL people whose lives have a high balance of pleasure over pain have a good life. ONLY people whose lives have a high balance of pleasure over pain have a good life. Try to come up with a plausible counterexample to each claim. If you claim someone s life is good or bad, make sure to explain why. If you claim someone s life has a high balance of pleasure over pain, make sure to explain why as well. See below for a model answer. Note: A high balance of pleasure over pain means that the person s level of pleasure is significantly higher than their level of pain. You don t have to cite an actual character (fictional or otherwise), you can make up your own characters and describe their lives. You may use examples mentioned in class, but will get extra credit if you come up with your own. A plausible counterexample to the ALL claim is A plausible counterexample to the ONLY claim is According to Mammonism, what makes someone s life good for that person is money- - - the more money you have, the better off you are. This view entails that: ALL rich people have a good life. ONLY rich people have a good life. A plausible counterexample to the ALL claim is Ebenezer Scrooge (before his redemption). He is rich, but his life is not going well for him because he has spent his whole life hoarding his wealth and is now all alone and miserable. Thus, not ALL rich people have a good life, so this is a counterexample to the ALL claim. A plausible counterexample to the ONLY claim is Aladdin (before he finds the 18

genie). As depicted, he has a good life because he has a lot of fun with his pet monkey Abu, and his place has a great view. However, he is clearly not rich. Therefore, not ONLY rich people have a good life. 19

Sample Exams Logic Final Exam Name: INSTRUCTIONS: In order to obtain max score, you must solve at least 22 problems correctly. Since there is a total of 24 problems (excluding bonus problems), you may leave 2 problems unsolved, provided that the two problems do not appear in the same section. In other words, you must solve at least 7 problems in every section. (For instance, you may solve 7 problems from I, 7 problems from II, and 8 problems from III, but you may not solve 8 problems from I, 8 problems from II, and 6 problems from III). I. Monadic predicate logic (1) 1. ( x)(ax Bx) 2. ( x)(bx Cx) ( x)[ax (Bx Cx)] (2) 1. ( x)bx ( x)ax 2. BnvAn/ An (3) 1. ( x)(ax Cx) 2. ( x)cx ( x)bx ( x)ax ( x)bx (4) 1. ( x)bx ~( x)ax 2. ( x)(ax Bx) ( x)~ax II. Relational predicate logic (9) 1. ( x)(dx Bdx) 2. Dc/ ( x)bxc (10) 1. ( x)[( y)byx Fx] 2. Gd ( y)byd 3. ~Fd/ ( x)(gx ~Fx) (11) 1. ( x)[( y)fxy ( z)(fxzvpz)] 2. ~Pb/ Fdc ( x)fdx (12) 1. ~( x)fx 2. ( x)( y)(fxvdxy)/ ( x)dxx (5) 1. ( x)ax ( x)(bx ~Cx) 2. ( x)bx ( x)(cxvdx) (x)(ax Dx) (6) 3. ( x)(ax Cx] 4. ( x)(~axvdx) ( x)ex ~( x)cx ( x)(ex ~Cx) (7) 5. ( x)cx [( x)(bx Cx) ( x)dx] 6. ( x)(cx Bx) ( x)cx ( x)(bx Dx) (8) 1. ( x)(axvbx) 2. ( x)ax ( x)(cx Bx) 3. Cd/ ( x)bx (13) 1. ( x)[( y)(fx Lxy)] 2. ~Ldc/ ( x)(~lxc ~Fx) (14) 1. ( x)( y)( z)[(fx Gy) ~Gz] 2. ( x)fx/ ( x)~gx (15) 1. ( x)(fax Gxb) 2. ( x)gxb Gbc ( x)fax ( y)gby (16) 1. ( x)( y)[( z)ayz Ayx] 2. ( y)( z)ayz/ ( x)( y)ayx 20

III. Relational predicate logic with identity (17) 1. ( x)(x=r) 2. Fr Gn/ Fn Gr (18) 1. ( x)(ba a x) 2. Bc/ a c (19) 1. ( x)(lx x=e) 2. ( x)(sx x=i) 3. ( x)(lx Sx)/ e=i (20) 1. ( x)( y)(fxy x=e) 2. ( x)( y)(fxy y=g) Fdi Feg (21) 1. ( x)[rx (Hx x=m)] Rc Hm (22) 1. ( x)fx ( x)kx 2. ( x)(kx x=i)/ Fn Ki (23) 1. ( x)(dax ~Dxc) ( x)dxx c a (24) 1. ( x)(fx Gx) 2. ( x)(gx Hx) 3. Fa ~Hb/ a b IV. Modal logic (bonus). You do not need to solve these problems to get max score, but will receive extra credit if you answer them correctly. (25) 1. (P S) 2. (Q R)/ (PvQ) (SvR) (26) 1. [P (QvR)] 2. ~Q/ P R 21

Moral Theory First Exam PHI 192 02/02/2017 EXAM 1 Name: PART I: Each of the following multiple- choice questions has only one right answer. Underline it (1 pt. each). Note: just because a question says, a good objection, do not assume there is only one. The right answer may be all of the above. 1. According to the typical pro- life argument, if X is both human and alive, then it is presumptively wrong to kill X. A good objection is that: (a) It is not wrong to kill a human being in self- defense. (b) A human cell culture is both human and alive, but it is not wrong to kill it. (c) It is presumptively wrong to kill a dog, but the dog is not human. (d) All of the above. 2. According to one explanation of the wrongness of killing, killing an adult human being is presumptively wrong because it causes suffering to the victim s friends and family. A good objection is that: (a) Maybe some people don t have friends or family. (b) Maybe some people have a family, but their family does not care if they live or die, so killing them does not cause suffering to their family. (c) Maybe some people have a family, and their family cares about them, but their family will never find out if you kill them. (d) All of the above. 3. J. J. Thomson s Violinist case is intended to show that: (a) The right to life does not always trump the right to one s body. (b) Abortion is only permissible when the mother s life is at stake. (c) Abortion is permissible only when the pregnancy is the result of rape. (d) Abortion is always permissible. 4. According to the partial responsibility argument, since typically the mother is partially responsible for the presence of the fetus in her body, she has typically given the fetus the right to use her body. The rationale for this claim is that: (a) The mother does not typically take any measures to reduce the risk of pregnancy. (b) The mother typically engages in intercourse voluntarily and knowing that there is a risk of pregnancy. (c) The mother has free will, so she s responsible for everything she does. (d) All of the above. 22

5. According to one objection to Norcross s argument, just because you personally abstain from eating meat, it does not meat fewer animals will be slaughtered. His response is that: (a) Abstaining may not make a difference, but it shows others you are a compassionate person. (b) Though you may not be able to make a difference, abstaining sets a good example to your children, who might one day be able to make a difference. (c) Because the meat industry is sensitive to consumer demand, by reducing demand, you reduce the likelihood that further animals will be slaughtered. (d) All of the above. 6. Some people argue that consuming factory- farmed meat is morally permissible because death in the wild is much worse than death in a factory farm. A good objection is that: (a) Death in a factory farm may beat death in the wild, but that does not mean life as whole in a factory farm is preferable to life as whole in the wild. (b) This is irrelevant because nobody demands that farm animals be released into the wild. (c) Both of the above. 7. An action X is supererogatory just in case: (a) It s good to do X, it s wrong not to do X, and it s okay to force people to do X. (b) It s good to do X, it s wrong not to do X, but you cannot force people to do X. (c) It s good to do X, but it s okay not to do X. (d) All of the above. 8. According to Peter Singer, a factor that helps explain why it is wrong to let the child drown in the Drowning child case is that: (a) Adults have a responsibility to care for their neighbors children. (b) It s pretty bad for the child to drown. (c) There are no bystanders in the case in question. (d) All of the above. PART II: Answer the following questions (3 pts. each) 1. Below I suggest an excuse for not donating money in the Oxfam volunteer case. Read the excuse carefully, then (i) describe a version of Drowning child that shows this is not a good excuse, and (ii) explain how the case you describe shows it is not good excuse. 23

Excuse: in Drowning child, the child s parents are not around. In Oxfam volunteer, however, the child victims of famine are there with them. Since it s the parents primary responsibility to provide for their children, you are not obligated to donate. Response: Example: Excuse: in Drowning child, you are the only one who can save the child. In Oxfam volunteer, you are not the only one who can donate money to Oxfam. Response: (i) Imagine a version of Drowning child where there are a bunch of bystanders that could save the child, but nobody does. (ii) In this case, it is still wrong for you to let the child drown. Just because you are not the only one in a position to prevent something bad from happening, therefore, it does not mean it is okay for you to do nothing. 2. Consider the following explanation for why it is wrong to let a child drown: When you live in a community, you have a responsibility to care for the children of other community members, because one day your own children might benefit from their supervision. If you see a child drowning and you don t wade in, you are failing to fulfill this responsibility. Describe one concrete example where this explanation does not work. 3. Consider the following argument. I agree it is inexcusable to disregard the wellbeing of other beings just because they are not the same species as us. That would be speciesist! Any being that can feel pain deserves equal moral consideration. But that does not mean that it is wrong to slaughter farm animals, because we just don t know that they can feel pain. We know other people can feel pain because they can talk. Because animals can t talk, however, who knows if they can feel pain. Give one good objection to this argument. 24

Sample Handouts K&R Handout (04/20/15) I.The Greek gods argument (i) I don t understand how x happens. (ii) Therefore, God must exist in order to cause x. This argument is bad, because from the fact that I personally cannot think of any explanation for how x happens other than God causing x to happen it does not follow that God in fact caused x to happen. II. The teleological argument (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) In general, the more complex and purposive (able to serve a purpose) a thing is, the less likely it came about by chance or by natural forces. Many things in the universe are extremely complex and purposive but not designed by humans. Therefore, it is likely that those things are designed by a non- human. Therefore, God exists. Rationle for 1: this principle is supported by many examples from everyday life: it is unlikely that fifty classic cars will align in a row purely by chance or by natural forces. It is also unlikely that a collection of rocks will come to form a pattern spelling I love you on the beach purely by chance or by natural forces. And the reason why it is unlikely is because, in each case, the pattern is complex, and it is the sort of the thing that serves a purpose. Question 1: think of two other examples from everyday life of a thing that is unlikely to have come about by chance or by natural forces, and discuss whether and how it supports the principle. Rationle for 2: we have many examples of extremely complex and purposive things from biology. II.I Objections Objection 1: Even if the argument shows that there must be a non- human designer, there is no reason to think that this designer has the three omins. Question 2: Assuming that the argument shows that there must be a non- human designer, what can we reasonably infer about this designer on the basis of the natural world? Could a case be made that the designer is good? Objection 3: There are exceptions to the principle stated in premise (1). In some cases, complex thing that serve a purpose can come about purely by a combination of chance and natural forces. The theory of evolution by natural selection tells us how. Roughly, random mutation produces many small variations. Some variations make their bearers more likely to reproduce. As a result, they tend to spread through the population over time. In contrast, some variations make their bearers less likely to reproduce. As a result, they tend to disappear over time. Over time, the variations that stick add up to very complex things, such as the eyeball. 25

Counter objection: The theory of evolution is incomplete. Rejoinder: The theory of evolution gives us a model for how purposive, complex thing can exist without a designer. The details of the story do not matter. III. The ontological argument (i) Assume for the sake of argument that the greatest conceivable being does not exist. (ii) If we can conceive of a being that does not exist, we can conceive of a greater one (namely, one that is just like Him, except He exists, too). (iii) So, given the assumption, the greatest conceivable being is not the greatest conceivable being. (iv) So the assumption must be false. (v) So the greatest conceivable being does not exist. Three important points: (1) If successful, the argument does prove that God exists. Question 3: Why? (2) The argument is entirely a priori. (3) The argument does not apply to just any old thing. Gaunilo s objection: the argument proves too much, as it can be used to prove the existence of any old perfect thing, such as a perfect cake or a perfect island. 26

Logic Handout (10/31/16) I. Working by parts (0) All dogs are both playful and friendly unless they are mistreated. It s a good idea to translate the quantifier phrase All dogs before tackling the rest of the statement. You may use the following translation schema: All Fs are. Some Fs are. ( x)[fx ] ( x)[fx ] The result of applying the schema is an incomplete translation: ( x)[dx ] Dx: x is a dog. How do we complete it? Here, it s a good idea to try to say the same thing about a particular object, for instance Fido: Fido is playful and friendly unless Fido is mistreated. Then translate this into predicate logic: (Pf Ff)vMf Then replace Fido s name ( f ) with an x : (Px Fx)vMx f: fido Px: x is playful. Fx: x is friendly. Mx: x is mistreated. Then insert the result into the incomplete translation: ( x)[dx (Px Fx)vMx] II. Complete the following translations: (1) Some buildings are neither safe nor functional. (Ex)[Bx ] (2) All dogs are friendly unless they are mistreated. ( x)[dx ]. (3) A dog doesn t bite unless he is either scared or angry. ( x)[dx ]. (4) Some roads are safe to drive if and only if they are not covered in snow. ( x)[rx ]. (5) Some cats are violent if they are either tired or not well fed. ( x)[cx ] (6) All games are either smart but have terrible graphics, or have great graphics but are dumb. ( x)[gx ]. Bx: x is a building. Sx: x is safe. Fx: x is functional. Dx: x is a dog. Fx: x is friendly. Mx: x is mistreated. Dx: x is a dog. Fx: x is friendly. Sx: x is scared. Ax: x is angry. Rx: x is a road. Sx: x is safe to drive. Cx: x is covered in snow. Cx: x is a cat. Vx: x is violent. Tx: x is tired. Wx: x is well fed. Gx: x is a game. Sx: x is smart. Dx: x is dumb. Tx:x has terrible graphics. (7) Some politicians only work if they Px: x is a politician. 27

are either bribed or threatened. ( x)[px ] (8) All politicians do not work if they are neither bribed nor threatened. ( x)[px ] (9) Lawyers and politicians work if they are threatened but not if they are bribed. ( x)[(lxvpx) ] (10) Some American planes are neither fast nor safe to fly if they are cheap or old. ( x)[(px Ax) ] (11) French and American planes are either fast but old or they not safe to fly. ( x){[px (FxvAx)] } Wx: x works. Bx: x is bribed. Tx: x is threatened. Lx: x is a lawyer. Ax: x is American. Px: x is a plane. Fx: x is fast. Sx: x is safe to fly. Cx: x is cheap. Ox: x is old. Fx: x is French. III. Translating compound statement When you have a compound statement such as: (12) American planes are both cheap and safe to fly unless not all French planes are safe to fly. It s best to break them into their component statements: American planes are both cheap and safe to fly. Not all French planes are safe to fly. Then translate the two components: ( x)[(ax Px) (Cx Sx)] ~( x)[(fx Px) Sx] Then put them back together ( x)[(ax Px) (Cx Sx)]v~( x)[(fx Px) Sx] IV. Translate the following statements: (13) If all Syracuse students are both hardworking and smart, Carlos is smart. (14) Rebecca will not win the student election only if no sophomore votes. (15) If Ron is a politician, then some politicians do not work unless they are threatened. c: Carlos Sx: x is a Syracuse student Hx: x is hardworking. Sx: x is smart. r: Rebecca Wx: x will win the student election. Sx: x is a sophomore. Vx: x will vote. r: Ron Px: x is a politician Wx: x works Tx: x is threatened 28

Moral Theory Handout (02/15/17) Well- being 1. What is the question? What makes someone s life go well for them? There are two ways of understanding this question: (i) (ii) What leads to being well- off (instrumental goods)? What makes you well- off just by being part of your life (intrinsic goods)? Theories of well- being are attempts to answer (ii). 2. Some dummy theories of well- being Mammonism: what makes someone s life go well for them is having money. The more money you have, the better- off you are. How do we figure out whether a theory of well- being is true? A classic method is the counterexample method. What s a counterexample? ONLY Americans are Mormons. An example is Mitt Romney, who is both a Mormon and American. A counterexample is. ALL Mexicans are Catholic. An example is A. Javier s uncle, who is both Mexican and Catholic. A counterexample is. Let s apply this method to Mammonism. This view entails that: ONLY rich people are well- off. A plausible counterexample is. ALL rich people are well- off. A plausible counterexample is. Maybe money is not intrinsically good. Maybe money is only good to the extent that it brings about something else, such as social recognition. Successism: what makes someone s life go well for them is that they are recognizable successful, that is, their society considers them successful. The more successful your society considers you, the better- off you are. This view entails: ONLY recognizably successful people are well- off. A plausible counterexample is. Succesism is too narrow- minded. There are good lives that don t fit its narrow definition of a good life. 29