Summer 2017 - PHIL 823 G100

Selected Topics Meta-Ethics (5)

Mathematics of Morality

Class Number: 5728

Delivery Method: In Person

Overview

  • Course Times + Location:

    May 8 – Aug 4, 2017: Mon, Wed, 2:30–4:20 p.m.
    Burnaby

Description

COURSE DETAILS:


Selected Topics: Mathematics of Morality

[Note: this course is to be taught concurrently with PHIL 467W. The course is co-taught by Dr. Tiffany and Dr. Fillion.]

Important note regarding enrollment: instructor consent is required for all students apart from Philosophy graduate students.

The choice involved in an action is typically subject to a variety of norms that are more or less loosely structured as a system. The structuring of norms is effected by a collection of normative concepts such as obligation, permissibility, prohibition, and moral indifference, as well as by concepts related to the application of norms such as duty, right, power, immunity, etc. For instance, when a logician and an ethicist walk into a bar, the choice-situation of paramount importance involves the following question: what drink should they order? A first system of positive normativity determined by social conventions in academia forbids them from ordering a mass-produced American beer. The positive normativity derivative of the duo's camaraderie would seem to clearly oblige them to order a west coast IPA, and yet this normative claim seems to be less stringent as it may be defeated by a factual consideration, perhaps a timely desire granting a ceteris paribus permission to order a Belgian ale, Bavarian lager, or Irish stout. In addition, other systems of norms could further impact the situation; for instance, an interesting case involving alethic and deontic modes might be that a necessity to drive soon might commit one to order nothing on the factual condition that two beers were had already. Such theoretically complex situations are often reconstructed in terms of maximizing or satisficing a utility function over subjective preferences. But a collective action such as ordering a jug for the table would require an account of pooled preferences that would involve the concepts of game and social choice. Many of those fundamental concepts of ethical theory have over the half century be studied mathematically by disciplines such as deontic logic and rational choice theory, including the subdisciplines of decision theory, game theory, and social choice theory.

While it may be debatable whether all philosophy is better when done with mathematical symbols, formalization at least allows one to precisely systemize our various beliefs and to uncover hidden paradoxes and inconsistencies among those beliefs. Now suppose that we can successfully formalize a set of intuitively plausible principles regarding a set of deontic concepts and in so doing uncover an inconsistency. Deciding how best to resolve the paradox requires going beyond the formal properties of the concepts in question and inquiring into the content of those concepts. That is, we need to engage in some first-order normative theorizing. Likewise, any attempt at formalizing utility functions, or principles of rational choice, will necessarily require making a number of assumptions, and the value of the function will depend on the plausibility of those assumptions. For example, a utility function assumes that the various “inputs” are commensurable or comparable, but what if that assumption turns out to be false; what if there are different sources of value that are fundamentally incommensurable with each other?

Over the same period, metaethics has also borrowed heavily from logic, philosophy of language, and rational choice theory to clarify its fundamental concepts and methods. Examples of such development include questions about the nature of normative entailment, about criteria for the coherence of system of norms, and about idealization involved in the treatment of preferences and utility. The introduction of such concepts and methods into ethics and metaethics is a stimulating turn of events that presents new challenges and opportunities. Among other things, this development requires that ethicists now be familiar with a number of formal methods more customarily encountered in more mathematized areas of philosophy. Since philosophers working in more formal areas have manifested an interest in applying their methods in ethics while occasionally displaying a great deal of naiveté resulting from an insufficient knowledge of ethics, it appears that there is a need to improve collaboration to insure that putative applications of formal methods to ethics are meaningful and relevant. The two instructors will in this respect each bring a bit more than half the required skill set necessary for a fruitful collaboration on this topic.

Grading

  • Participation (attendance and positive engagement) 5%
  • Leading class discussion 5%
  • Logic assignments (best 4 of 5) 20%
  • Research project: presentation 5%, peer review 5%, final draft 60% 70%

NOTES:

This course is a seminar, not a lecture-based course. The governing pedagogical principle of such a seminar is that it is driven primarily by engaged, open, and informed discussion of the covered topics by students. Student participation is thus of paramount importance. Designated students will take turns leading the discussions, and attendance is mandatory.

Excellent performance on each of the five logic assignments may qualify graduate students for satisfaction of the graduate logic requirement.

Materials

REQUIRED READING:

All readings will be made available online.

Graduate Studies Notes:

Important dates and deadlines for graduate students are found here: http://www.sfu.ca/dean-gradstudies/current/important_dates/guidelines.html. The deadline to drop a course with a 100% refund is the end of week 2. The deadline to drop with no notation on your transcript is the end of week 3.

Registrar Notes:

SFU’s Academic Integrity web site http://students.sfu.ca/academicintegrity.html is filled with information on what is meant by academic dishonesty, where you can find resources to help with your studies and the consequences of cheating.  Check out the site for more information and videos that help explain the issues in plain English.

Each student is responsible for his or her conduct as it affects the University community.  Academic dishonesty, in whatever form, is ultimately destructive of the values of the University. Furthermore, it is unfair and discouraging to the majority of students who pursue their studies honestly. Scholarly integrity is required of all members of the University. http://www.sfu.ca/policies/gazette/student/s10-01.html

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: YOUR WORK, YOUR SUCCESS