Philosophy 145, sections 01 and 02

Philosophy of Love and Sex

 

Alexander R. Pruss

E-mail: ap85@georgetown.edu

Office telephone: 202-687-4148

Office hours: Tuesday and Thursday, 1:00-2:25 in

Course webpage: http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/145/spring07

Class times: Section 01: Monday and Wednesday, 1:15-2:30

Section 02: Tuesday and Thursday, 2:40-3:55

 

Abstract:

           Loving and being loved are essential to a flourishing human life.  Love comes in many varieties—parental love, filial devotion, fraternal attachment, friendship, eros, charity, etc.—but we say that all of these are forms of “love”.  What is this thing, love, which they all have in common?  What general properties does it have?  Is there a duty to love every human being? 

           We will look in some detail at two forms of love, friendship and erotic love, while keeping an eye on the general question of what love is.  What is friendship?  Are there qualities that our friends have, such as virtue, intelligence or usefulness to us, which are the reason for their being our friends?  Is there a difference between reasons for entering into a friendship and reasons for continuing in a friendship once entered into?  Should we, or could we, be friends with every human being?  Is friendship an expression of need or weakness, or is it something divine?

           After the first part of the course on love and friendship in general, the second will be on sexual or erotic love.  This, all agree, is tied in some way to sex.  What is sex?  Is sex a good thing?  What makes something be a sexual act?  What connection is there between sex and love?  Between sex and commitment?  What is marriage and what is it for?  Is there such a thing as perversion and if so, what is it?  Are there some consensual sexual acts that are always wrong?  More concretely: What is the morality of homosexual acts, contraception, masturbation, bestiality, pornography or standard heterosexual intercourse?

           Hopefully, we will see that specific questions about sexual morality are closely connected with the general issues about the nature of love.  We will look at a number of different accounts of issues in sexual morality, ranging from the thought of the radical feminist theorists Andrea Dworkin to Pope John Paul II, and including in between classic texts of St. Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant.

           Much human reflection on sexuality is specifically religious, and to neglect this reflection would shortchange our knowledge of sexuality.  Thus special attention will be paid to Catholic accounts, in part because Catholic thinkers have offered what may be the most thoroughly worked out account of the nature of love and specifically sexual love.  We may meet with questions like: Does St. Augustine’s account of the Trinity have anything to do with the nature of love?  Is there any commonality between the concerns of radical feminist sex-theorists and the Church’s teaching on the wrongfulness of direct contraception?

           In this course we will talk about issues that many of us feel very strongly about.  In any philosophy class we are apt to meet with texts that criticize some aspect of our thinking, forcing us to rethink issues.  In an ethics class, some of the texts may well criticize not just some aspect of our thinking, but some aspect of our past, present or planned activity.  We need to be very civil here, and remember some basic things:

·        To criticize an argument for p is not the same as to argue against p.  If you criticize an argument against bestiality, that does not mean that you approve of bestiality, much less practice it—it just means that you think this argument deserves criticism.  Intellectual honesty requires that we be willing to criticize bad arguments for positions that we agree with.

·        To claim that something someone is doing is wrong is not the same as to claim that the person is a bad person.  For instance, I happen believe it is wrong to charge excessively high interest rates to poor people.  This does not mean that I believe that credit card executives who charge exorbitant interest rates are bad people.  They may or may not be bad people.  For all I know, they may simply honestly not be in a position to know that it is immoral to charge excessively high interest rates.

·        This is why personal invective is inappropriate in a philosophy class.

·        It is quite possible for a person to defend an argument for a position she does not hold, as a devil’s advocate.

·        In doing philosophy, we proceed by reasoned argumentation.  This does not mean that appeals to authority or emotions is always wrong: all it means is that when one is proceeding by unexamined appeals to these things one just isn’t doing philosophy.  At the same time, the philosopher can look at views that come from, say, a religious authority or the culture we find ourselves in and ask whether these views are such as would bring light to a philosophical issue if they were true, or whether they would fit well with philosophical conclusions.  We will in fact end up doing a little bit of theology and a little bit of sociology.

·        We should limit sentences that start with “I feel that…” since that does not leave much room for discussion (“I feel ice cream is tasty” — “I feel ice cream is nasty”: where do you go from there?)  Instead say, “I think that…” or even better “I think that … because ….”  Of course since we are doing the philosophy of sex and love, analyzing our feelings philosophically may be quite appropriate.

·        Please do criticize arguments that I offer, whether in class discussion or in your papers.  You will not get a higher grade on a paper for agreeing with me without a good argument and you will not get a lower grade on a paper for disagreeing with me with a good argument.  In practice, I think it is easier for students to write papers that disagree with an author or instructor.

·        I am always open for one-on-one discussion in my office hours if you are interested in further questioning an argument of mine, sharing a concern, or talking about any other philosophical issues—or anything else of importance to you, including personal issues.

·        We will be talking in this class about issues which we many people find rather embarrassing to talk about.  I think this embarrassment is itself a philosophically interesting and healthy phenomenon.  I am not asking you to rid yourself of embarrassment.

 

Texts:

·        Plato, The Symposium.

·        C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves.

·        Course packet on sexual ethics.

·        Various texts on Internet or handed out.

·        Two films: Decalogue II and The Ice Storm

 

Grading:

• There will be three papers assigned, each about four double-spaced pages long.  Specific paper topics will be given.  Paper grades start at a B- for a paper that does nothing but correctly explain what authors we have read or what class discussion said.  Papers that fail to do this correctly or do this with insufficient clarity or organization will have a lower grade.  For a higher grade, either deeper insight into the text is needed or original argumentation or, ideally, both.  Generally, B+ or higher level papers will include some original argument of yours that has not come up in class or in the reading.

Occasionally, with instructor’s specific approval, you will have an option for writing a paper that does not specifically deal with texts we have read.  Please feel very free to talk about the ideas for your papers with me or the TA in office hours.

• All papers are to be submitted online at http://www.turnitin.com .  The class password is "amor".  The class ID for Section 01 is 1780305.  The class ID for Section 02 is 1780308.  Make sure your assignments are submitted to the right class!
• You will have a chance to rewrite your first paper if your grade is less than an A-.  If you opt for this, then the grade of your first version will be averaged with the grade of your rewrite.
• Unexcused late papers will be penalized.
• There will be an online discussion forum.  You are required to make a minimum of four philosophical postings there during the course of the semester.  Moreover, you must make at least one posting by February 1.  A philosophical posting will typically be at least a paragraph long, and may contain a criticism of something said in class, an interesting philosophical question, an interpretation of an author we have read, a discussion of the relationship of what has been discussed in class to something in the news, a comment on a previous posting (I particularly encourage comments on the online presentations) etc.  I will announce the URL once the forum is set up.
• There will be a group presentation assignment.  Topics will be announced later.

• Starting with the second class until the end of term, during each class there is a one in three chance of a very short quiz.  The quiz is solely on the reading assigned for this class, and may include multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank, and typically will have two to four questions.  It will be designed so that if you have done the reading and have a basic understanding of it, you should do well.  Moreover, your quiz score starts at 60% if you just put your name down—this is the reward for attendance.  If there is no reading assigned for a class, there will be no quiz that class for sure.  

A sample quiz question is:

In Aristophanes’ myth, heterosexual human beings are:

(a) Bears that have been cut down to size.

(b) Frogs that have been made to grow larger and transformed into human beings.

(c) Halves of hermaphrodites.

(d) Homosexuals who have been repressed by their parents.

(e) Human beings who made many sacrifices to gods / goddesses of the opposite sex.

(f) Mustangs that have been transformed into human beings.

(g) Reincarnated goats.

(Observe that I always sort the possible answers alphabetically on a multiple choice question.) 

If you come after the quiz is over, you will be allowed to write down your name on a quiz, but not to answer any questions, and hence you will get 60%.

 

Academic integrity policy:

           All credible suspicions of lack of academic integrity will be reported to the University for further investigation and will result in no grade being assigned in the course until the issue is resolved.  In case of a guilty finding by the Honor Council, a failing grade in the course will be routinely assigned.  A failure of academic integrity is a breach of ethics, and this is an ethics course.  The purpose of an ethics course is not just to give us knowledge but to make us better persons.

           Plagiarism is one of the most serious of the violations of academic integrity and consists in presenting the work or thought of another as one’s own.  If you are using someone else’s literal words, even if only a short phrase of two or three words, you need to put them in quotation marks (or in the case of a longer quote, in block-quote format which is single-spaced and with every line indented on the left as in the sample quiz question above) and give the source.  If you are paraphrasing or merely using someone else’s ideas, you still need to give the source explicitly.  The only exception to the last rule is that you do not need to specifically give the source for ideas that you got in my lecture when writing papers for this course.

           Plagiarism is not only immoral but foolish.  If you get caught, likely you will fail the course.  Further, the Honor Council may add well penalties such as notes in your impermanent or permanent record, suspension and/or expulsion from the University.  If you just hand in a mediocre but honest paper you will likely (though I do not make guarantees) get at least a D on the paper, and anyway there are three other papers in the course to pull up your average.

         There is, however, an exception to my routine F policy for cheaters who confess before having been caught.  Thus, if you cheat and your conscience (or fear) pricks you, email me an apology as soon as possible.  If your apology arrives before I have given you any signs of suspicion (e.g., before I email you asking for your sources), I will usually waive the routine F and will let you rewrite your paper.  By University rules, I will still have to pass on your case to the Honor Council, but I would very likely do so with a strong recommendation of clemency.

 

Copyright issues:

           There will be one feature film screening (probably Ice Storm) during the course, and shorter items will be shown during various classes.  This material is copyrighted, and is shown, I believe, within fair use and/or non-profit instructional use rules.  You should not assume that similar excerpting of films would be acceptable outside of an instructional context: the laws treat entertainment (whether private or public, for profit or not) differently from research/teaching.

 

Tentative schedule

Note: Underlined readings are on the web.  Go to http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/spring07 and select this syllabus to read them.  The syllabus will be updated throughout the semester and additional readings may be added.  You are responsible for attending class with your own section.  Unexcused absence for a quiz will be penalized even if you come to the other section’s meeting.  However, if for no fault of your own you do have to miss a class and want to get the lecture material, you are welcome to come to the other lecture’s section, as long as you don’t do this more than two or three times in the semester.

 

Section 01 Date	Section 02 Date	Assignment
Wed Jan 10	Thu Jan 11	(none)
Wed Jan 17	Tue Jan 16	Plato, Symposium
Mon Jan 22	Thu Jan 18	·   Plato, Lysis ·   Nozick, “The Experience Machine”
Date and time to be announced	Tue Jan 23	Film: Decalogue II.  If you can’t make it at that time, please watch it at the library and email me a one paragraph reflection on what this has to do with The Experience Machine.
Wed Jan 24	Thu Jan 25	Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII
Mon Jan 29	Tue Jan 30	·   Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book IX ·   Cooper (first part is optional)
Wed Jan 31	Thu Feb  1	Whiting One online posting needs to have been made by now.
Mon Feb  5	Tue Feb  6	Kierkegaard, excerpts
Wed Feb  7	Thu Feb  8	C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves, up to page 90 (through “Friendship”)
Mon Feb 12	Tue Feb 13	rest of The Four Loves Paper #1 due
Wed Feb 14	Thu Feb 15	Nozick, “Love’s Bond”
Wed Feb 21	Tue Feb 20	·        St. Thomas Aquinas, excerpts on love ·        New Testament excerpts
Mon Feb 26	Thu Feb 22	Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence and Morality”
Wed Feb 28	Tue Feb 27	·        Tucker on monogamy ·        Thomas Aquinas on marriage ·        Muir, Annunciation ·        Borowitz ·        McGowan
Mon Mar 12	Thu Mar  1	·        John Paul II, my "note on translation" and Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 ·        Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2 ·        Booth and Johnson, 1988 ·        Cohan and Kleinbaum ·        Teachman
Wed Mar 14	Tue Mar 13	·        Martin ·        Wasserstrom
Mon Mar 19	Thu Mar 15	Watch Ice Storm by this date ·        May
Wed Mar 21	Tue Mar 20	Presentations I
Mon Mar 26	Thu Mar 22	Presentations II ·        Punzo
Wed Mar 28	Tue Mar 27	·        Elliston (reserve) ·        Dworkin (from Pornography) ·        Dworkin, "Pornography happens to women" ·        Wolfe, “The Porn Myth”
Mon Apr  2	Thu Mar 29	Paper #2 due ·        Vadas, “A First Look…” ·        Parent, “A Second Look…”
Wed Apr  4	Tue Apr  3	·        Optional: Kant ·        Andrea Dworkin, "Occupation/Collaboration"
Wed Apr 11	Tue Apr 10	·        Alan Goldman, “Plain Sex” ·        John Paul II on lust (text 1, text 2)
Mon Apr 16	Thu Apr 12	·        Elliott, “A New Way to Be Mad” ·        Singer, “Heavy Petting”
Wed Apr 18	Tue Apr 17	·        Nagel, “Sexual Perversion”
Mon Apr 23	Thu Apr 19	·        Scruton, book on reserve, pages 74-93 as well as all of chapter 10 ·        Pruss, “Not Out of Lust…”
Wed Apr 25	Tue Apr 24	·        George and Bradley ·        Levin (packet); Corvino #1 (online) ·        Corvino #2, online ·        Corvino, (packet, optional) ·        Mohr
Mon Apr 30	Thu Apr 26	·        no reading assignment
Mon Apr 30	Mon Apr 30	·        Paper 3 due