ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY should have a designated leader, and an organizer (the latter being charged with

LOYOLA SCHOOLS convening the group using video technology, or chat, or in whatever way you deem
best for the purpose of communication and collaboration.)
A. COURSE INFORMATION • You will find mostly supplementary material on Canvas; some of it will be mandatory
reading. Links to Perusall texts will given there for you to conveniently and easily
COURSE NUMBER Philo 13 NO. OF UNITS 3 access original and secondary texts.

COURSE TITLE Ethics: Introduction to Moral Philosophy

WHERE IS THE COURSE SITUATED
PREREQUISITE/S None WITHIN THE FORMATION STAGES
IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LOYOLA SCHOOLS CURRICULA

DEPARTMENT/ Philosophy SCHOOL SOH FOUNDATIONS: Exploring and Equipping the Self
x
PROGRAM
ROOTEDNESS: Investigating and Knowing the World
SCHOOL YEAR 2023/2024 SEMESTER 2
DEEPENING: Defining the Self in the World
X
INSTRUCTOR/S Dr. Mark Raftery-Skehan
LEADERSHIP: Engaging and Transforming the World
X
VENUE Bel SECTION M1 SCHEDULE T-F 12-30-14.00
205/Canvas/Zoom

C. PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES

B. COURSE DESCRIPTION
Alignment of Program to the Core Curriculum Learning Outcomes
This course enquires into the perennial problematics of moral philosophy by
comparing and contrasting three great moral philosophies, as manifest in three
classical texts: Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics (in his Nicomachean Ethics), Kant’s The Ideal Ateneo Graduate: A Person of
Deontological ethics of the moral law (in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Conscience Competence Compassion Commitment
Morals), and Utilitarianism as formulated in John Stuart Mill’s principle of the
greatest happiness of the greatest number (in his Utilitarianism). Acts exhibiting
virtues (Aristotle), dutiful, principled, universalizable acts (Kant), and the CCLO 1 CCLO 2 CCLO 3 CCLO 4 CCLO 5 CCLO 6 CCLO 7 CCLO 8
consequences of one’s actions for oneself and others (Mill), are each considered
as ultimate foundations of moral value. Critique of the relative merits of the three
approaches is undertaken, alongside attempts to ground the competing ethical X X X X X
philosophies in concrete dilemmas, such as they can be found to face characters
in fictional narratives.
Alignment of the Course to the Program Learning Outcomes
Kindly note the following:
• Please read this syllabus in its entirety; it has been written to orient you for the whole
PLO1 PLO2 PLO3 PLO4 PLO5 PLO6
semester. It is not the most stimulating reading, but careful study of it will afford you
much smoother passage through the course.
• Synchronous Zoom sessions will be recorded and made available. Please note that
Zoom sometimes takes some time to make the recording available to me, so there
may be a delay.
• All official class announcements will be made on Canvas or your obf; it is your
responsibility to check for announcements regularly on Canvas and in your obf email.
The beadle may wish to set up a FB group, in addition to these channels, but these
remain the official channels of communication and announcement.
• You will be working in a group for your Group project. A commitment to your group
will be essential to you deriving as much as possible from the course. Each group
 D. COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES
Module II: Kant. Weeks 5-10 CLO 1, 2, 3 24

By the end of the Course, students should be able to: • Kant’s idea of Critique and Practical Reason
• The Moral Law, Good Will.
• 1st Formulation of the Categorical Imperative
COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES • 2nd Formulation of the Categorical Imperative
• Criticisms of Kant
CLO1: Grasp the fundamental concepts and theories of the three moral philosophies • Quiz on Kant Mar 22nd
studied such that they can clearly communicate them.
Module III: Mill and Utilitarianism & Group Project CLO 1, 2, 3 24
CLO2: Contrast each major moral philosophy studied relative to the others. Consultations (incl. initial Presentation).
CLO3: Distinguish and argue for the relative merits of the philosophies, while • Utility: Political Perspective on Ethics
demonstrating awareness of the major shortfalls or objections leveled at each ethical • The Greatest Happiness Principle
theory.
• Act and Rule Utilitarianism, and Criticisms of
CLO4: Articulate how the principles underlying each of the moral philosophies studied can Utilitarianism
be applied to (personal, social, political) issues, and as they are often inherent to the plots • Quiz on Mill and Utilitarianism Apr 16th
of dramatic narrative.
Group Project (to which particular focus is brought within the CLO 4, 5 22
CLO 5: Articulate cogent responses to cases in which the principles of the philosophies can Mill module). It includes: Consultations and Initial
presentation, and a Final consultations (Weeks 12-18).
be seen to come into conflict, and in which each moral philosophy can suggest opposed
courses of action in response to ethical situations or dilemmas.
• Analysis of ethical dilemmas in narratives
• Drafting the points of contradiction in arguments
for/against certain courses of action in dilemmas
• Awareness of decisions showing favor to one or other
E. COURSE OUTLINE AND LEARNING HOURS side in representation of the dilemma

See Course Outline in conjunction with semestrial calendar below.

Course Outline CLOs Learning

Class Month Tues Fri Topic
Hours
1 Jan 16 19 Introduction to
Course/ Syllabus
Module 0: Introduction. WEEK 1: Aug 11th CLO 2 5
2 13 16 Aristotle I
• Course introduction and Syllabus 3 30 Aristotle II
• Overview of the contrasts between Aristotelian, Kantian 3 Feb 2 Aristotle III
and Utilitarian Ethics
• What is an ethical dilemma? 4 6 Group Project 9 Aris Quiz Aristotle IV
• Instructions on Group Project (explanation)
5 13 16 Kant I
6 20 23 Kant II:
Module I. Aristotle. Weeks 2-4 CLO 1,2,3 15
7 27 Kant III:
• The ends of human action. 7 Mar 1 Kant IV
• Humans, habits, character
8 5 8 Kant V
• What is virtue?
• Quiz on Introductory Material/Aristotle Feb 9th 9 12 15 Kant VI
10 19 22 Kant Quiz Kant VII
 G. SUGGESTED READINGS
Deigh, J., An Introduction to Ethics (Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy),
11 25 Easter week 29
Cambridge University Press, 2010.
12 Apr 2 Group Project (Initial 5 Mill I
Presentation) McIntyre, A., A Short History of Ethics: Moral Philosophy from the Homeric Age to
13 9 12 Mill II the Twentieth Century, London: Routledge, 1998
14 16 19 Mill III
Sanford, Jonathan J. Before Virtue. Catholic University of America Press, 2015.
15 23 26 Mill IV http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15nmjqp.
16 30 Group Project Mill V
(Consultations) Korsgaard, Christine M. "Aristotle and Kant on the Source of Value." Ethics 96, no.
16 May 3 Mill Quiz 3 (1986): 486-505. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2381067.
17 7 Group Project (Final 10 Study day
Consultation) (non-grad) H. COURSE ASSESSMENTS/REQUIREMENTS
18 Assessment 14 17 Submission of Group
days Project Students will be examined in quizzes on the various philosophical theories; the quizzes
are designed to assess part the degree to which the student has assimilated the
conceptual and theoretical apparatus of each theory, in accordance with the primary
learning objectives above.
F. REQUIRED READINGS
The students’ capacity to ponder the tensions and potential contradictions between the
theories, to apply the theoretical material to actual examples, and to critically discern
the relative merits of the moral philosophies relative to concrete cases of ethically
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics problematic situations, is assessed in the projects and presentations they will undertake
Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, Cambridge, ed. Roger Crisp. Books I-V. and deliver.

Suggested web resource: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/ Assessment Assessment CLOs Date/Deadline

Tasks Weight
Kant and Deontology
Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans Mary Gregor, Cambridge
University Press, 1997 (Selections)
Quiz: Aristotle & Introductory Material 15% CLO 1, 2, 3 Feb 9th
Uleman, Jennifer, An Introduction to Kant’s Moral Philosophy, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2010 (Suggested Secondary Text) Quiz: Kant 20% CLO 1,2,3 Mar 22nd

Quiz: Mill/Utilitarianism 20% CLO 1,2,3 May 3rd

Suggested web resource: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
Initial Group Project Presentation 5% CLO 1-5 Apr 2nd
Mill and Utilitarianism
• Mill on Utilitarianism, ed. By Roger Crisp, Routledge, 1997 Group Project: 20% CLO 1-5 Presentation
• On Liberty, Including Mill’s ‘Essay on Bentham’ and selections from the Awarded to Group as a Whole (peer evaluated) Submission
writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, SECOND EDITION, Ed. with Due: TBC
an Introduction Mary Warnock, London: Blackwell, 2003. (Especially:
“Utilitarianism” (p. 185-235) (Selections) Group Project: 20% CLO: 1-5 Presentation:
• Crisp, Roger, Mill on Utilitarianism (Routledge Philosophy Guides), Awarded to Individual Member Due: TBC
London: Routledge, 1997 (Suggested Secondary Text)
Group Project/Presentation: Moral philosophy concentrates on what should or ought to
Suggested Web resource: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/ be the case, rather than what is the case. However, morals and ethics are concretely to
be seen in the social structuring of people’s character, behaviour and actions. The task
will be to discern an ethical problematic or dilemma within an existential situation—
that is, within the real lived experience of (a) particular character(s) in a dramatic
narrative (play, film, etc.). Groups are expected to (i) say how the ethical dilemma is Demonstration of capacity to present a particular part of an 7
constituted (ii) outline the possible choices facing this character, and (iii) to evaluate argument or summary of the argument in total
morally the character’s options by availing of material from the moral philosophies we Capacity to treat of the material critically; originality or analysis 6
have studied. 20

Group Projects can be submitted in any of the following forms: Peer Evaluation
1. Written submission. 4000 word limit for a group of 4. 500 words each for In order to ensure that groups members receive grades in proportion to the effort and
introduction and conclusion (co-authored), with 750 words limit per group the contribution they have made, we are operating a Peer evaluation System, which will
member in a group of 4. If you are a group of 5, your overall limit is 4750. apply to the Group Project score awarded to the group. There is also an individual score
2. Live presentation – 20 minutes maximum for a group of four. 4 minutes each, awarded for the part of the presentation that an individual member delivers.
with 2 minutes for the co-presented introduction and conclusion.
3. Recorded Presentation (with a link to Google drive or Youtube submitted to me Anonymous Peer Assessment Weighting for Group Grade
at mraftery-skehan@ateneo.edu). 20 minutes maximum, 4 minutes each, with 2
minutes for the introduction and conclusion
We will use an anonymous peer Assessment method regarding the Group Grade (20% of
overall score).
Marks will be deducted for exceeding the time or word limit!
Submission of a score for your group members is a prerequisite of receiving a final grade for
the course.
Instructions for Group Project Submissions:
Each group member will grade the 3 other members of their group with regard to their
• The individual member in a recorded video presentation is to be named on
contribution to the project over the course the semester, between .5 and 1.5. 0.5 indicates that
screen while they are speaking., just as in a written submission, the author of the
the person contributed minimally to the project, providing virtually no meaningful
section of text in the text’s body (the text excluding its introduction and
contribution to the group project, 1.5 that they contributed in an extraordinary way at each
conclusion) should be clearly indicated. Failure to do so will result in the
and every stage.
submission being returned for revision.
• Format for video: each presenter is to present (i) separately, and (ii) The average of the three grades that you give must under no circumstances exceed 1.2.
continuously (without interruption or any other member speaking) for the entire
Scores over 1.25 or over, or .75 or under, should be given only with a great deal of
duration of their allotted time, such that the video/text flows in the following forethought.
format: Introduction (half the presenters presenting some element of the
introduction) followed by the body of the text/video presentation (i.e., Presenter
Each member thus receives 3 peer assessment scores. Ex. 0.9, 1.2, 1.2. The average of these
1, Presenter 2, Presenter 3, etc.), each with 4 minutes each or 500 words each;
is calculated: Ex. 3.3/3 = 1.1.
the other “half” of the presenters (who did not present the introduction)
presenting the conclusion. In other words, there is to be no switching back and
So, if the group grade for the project is 15/20, then the group member who receives a peer
forth between presenters.
assessment score of 1.1 will receive a grade of 1.1 x 15 = 16.5. A peer assessment score of
0.75 for a student would result in that student receiving a group grade score of: .75 x 15 =
Rubric for Group Grade Awarded in the Final Presentation
11.25. The difference is obviously massive, and so, failure to contribute, or honest
contribution, to the group project will be reflected in both your group grade score and your
Competence Score/Total personal score.
Aptness of the narrative/character/situation chosen to demonstrate 7
an ethical dilemma showing the tensions between Kantianism and In evaluating your fellow students, your criterion for judging should fundamentally be the
Utilitarianism amount of time/work and effort that the group member did or did not put in and make; the
Demonstration of capacity to relate the ethical theories to the 7 question of the quality of their work is obvious largely for me to adjudicate.
narrative/character/situation
Demonstration of capacity to critique each side of the theory 6 Obviously, this requires honest assessment by students, that sets aside question of
20 personality, of popularity, of liking or disliking someone personally, etc. You should have the
maturity and integrity to give your honest and fair assessment of a person's contribution over
Rubric for Individual Grade for Group Project the course of the semester.

Competence Score/Total Your total for the 3 individual scores you give cannot be higher than 3.5.
Demonstration of capacity to communicate clearly their ideas 7
(organization and coherence) If there are wild anomalies in terms of a student's assessment (e.g. getting two scores of 1.5
and one score of 0.5), I will obviously investigate the matter further. If a group conspires to
give everyone a high grade I will investigate the matter: if, after all, everyone gets 1.3, you I. GRADING SYSTEM
are effectively telling me that as a group you did more than 100% of the work performed! If
there are obvious attempts to subvert the peer process, I will investigate the matter further. I
reserve the right to abandon this process and simply give everyone the same group grade if I Grade Description
find the process to have been subverted.
A 90-100 Shows evidence of mastery of fundamental concepts and the subject matter
as a whole, attention to details, and critical and original thinking.
On the day of submission/submission of the project, each student must submit to me
by email their scores (mraftery-skehan@ateneo.edu) in the following format (in the B+ 82.5 – Shows evidence of an excellent grasp fundamental concepts and the subject
email – not as an attachment). 89.9 matter as a whole, with signs of critical and original thinking.
B 75-82.4 Shows evidence of a very good grasp of fundamental concepts and the
Student’s Full Name (not Student number Score subject matter as a whole, with some attempt at critical thinking.
nickname!) C+ 70-74.9 Shows evidence of a good grasp of fundamental concepts.
Student’s Full Name (not Student number Score C 65-69.9 Shows evidence of a satisfactory grasp of fundamental concepts.
nickname!) D 55-64.9 Shows evidence of grasping the fundamental concepts, but in a rather crude
Student’s Full Name (not Student number Score
and inaccurate way.
nickname!)
F less than Hardly shows any evidence of serious study of the texts.
G. TEACHING and LEARNING METHODS 55

TEACHING & LEARNING METHODS and ACTIVITIES CLOs H. CLASS POLICIES

Reading of selections from Primary texts CLO 1
• Students may bring questions, concerns to me or to their beadle, who will then raise them
Assimilating theoretical material in Lectures (to enable or follow primary and CLO 1-5 with me.
secondary reading) • I make every effort to proceed “democratically” when issues arise, often taking into
account views expressed by the class as conveyed to the class beadle.
Reading of Secondary Materials CLOs 1, 2,3 • Only water is allowed in class
• Plagiarism – the failure to acknowledge views or material drawn from a source and
Student Groups collaborating with one another CLO 1,2,3
presented as your own – is an egregious violation of academic integrity. Acknowledge
your sources; it is the nature of a scholar to do so.
Students selecting narratives that demonstrate ethical dilemmas and exploring CLO 4
them in terms of the ethical theories assimilated • Kindly note the following links regarding Gender Policy and
• https://www.ateneo.edu/ls/genderpolicy
Students responding to and implementing feedback at stages during the CLO 1-5 • https://www.ateneo.edu/central/policies/code-of-decorum
formation of their project • I will provide a grade or feedback where applicable to submissions normally within 48
hours, exceptionally within a week. If there is a delay, or if you require it urgently, please
Synchronous and Asynchronous, onsite and online modes of delivery are availed CLO 1-5 contact me.
of during the course • On attendance, kindly see:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WAFwelqcXFmwSGKALK6pTlOJM7X9tjCF/view?pli=1
The teaching methods used in this course are classically philosophical in nature,
furnishing students with a conceptual and theoretical apprehension of moral
philosophizing, by analyzing canonical moral philosophers from various historical I. CONSULTATION HOURS
periods. Beyond intellectual penetration of the material, students are assisted in forming
their own reasoned opinions, and in building robust critiques of the theories studied.
NAME OF FACULTY EMAIL DAY/S TIME
Student-centred learning, and learning through teamwork, are evident in the tasks and
activities students will perform in groups. Dr. Mark Raftery-Skehan mraftery-skehan@ateneo.edu T/F 17:00 – 18:30

Questions can be posed through Canvas, or through my email. If, for whatever reason, you
wish to relay your communication through your beadle, that is acceptable.
Consultation (Individual or group) with me via Zoom is possible; kindly contact me to make an
appointment. I strongly advise contacting me before we meet or consult, and giving me an
idea of your concern, question, etc.; this allows me time to prepare and consider my response,
and perhaps give you a more comprehensive response than I might otherwise be able to.
It is mandatory for a video-consultation with a Professor to either be recorded or for a third
person to be present.

Group consultations regarding your Group Project are built into the semester.