Course Syllabus

PHIL 182 Ethical Theory    Spring 2026     

 

Meetings: Monday, Wednesday 1:30-2:45pm, Douglass Hall 110

Instructor: Prof. Kyle Swan

Contact: Canvas message

Office hours: Monday 11-1; Wednesday 12-1:15

Reasonable Accommodation

If your circumstances require accommodation or assistance in meeting the expectations of this course, please let me know as soon as possible. You may need to provide documentation to the University office of SSWD (in accordance with the University policy outlined here: http://www.csus.edu/umanual/acad/UMA00215.htm).

Course Description

From the catalogue: Major topics in ethical theory with attention to their contemporary formulation, including such topics as utilitarianism vs. rights-based theories and the dispute over the objectivity of ethics. 

More!

In Part I of the course, we will focus on the area in ethical theory called meta-ethics. Meta-ethics is a discussion of the nature of ethics. It investigates second-order questions about ethics, rather than first-order questions about whether some action is right or wrong. So we will take up issues like the following:

1. The nature of morality and normative authority: Why should I care about morality (or moral properties, if they exist)? Or, why should I care about moral claims? Do they have motivating force, or any kind of claim on me and what I do? What reason do I have to do moral things?   

2. The metaphysics and epistemology of morality: Do moral judgments have descriptive content? Do moral properties exist? If so, what can we know about these properties? What are they like? Are they reducible to any more basic category of properties? 

In Part II of the course, we will focus on an area of moral philosophy that some call social morality. Social morality is the set of moral rules that structures social interaction. It's the part of morality where one person or group of people address themselves to another, directing them in what they must do or avoid doing. In this way social morality is different from the part of moral philosophy that investigates the Good, or the question of what makes for the ideal form of life. It's one thing to investigate and even to come to a conclusion about this kind of question. But it's another thing to make a demand to another that they must pursue it, or some aspect related to it. 

Objectives and outcomes

By the conclusion of this course, it should be true that students can (1) present and explain the metaphysical, semantic, epistemic, biological and psychological issues that are relevant to moral theorizing; (2) apply them in such a way as to make sense of our moral practices, (3) analyze current problems and controversies and (4) evaluate proposed solutions to them. You will need to give evidence of your ability to understand, apply, analyze and evaluate in your writing and contributions to class discussions. 

Text

All required readings are pieces available as links or .pdf documents in the Modules section. The schedule is below.

Assessment

Please do not cheat. If you do then at a minimum you will be marked with a zero on the assignment. Multiple and/or flagrant violations will lead to me assigning a failing grade for the course and initiating disciplinary action through the Office of Student Affairs. Familiarize yourselves with the University’s Academic Honesty Policies and Procedures document (here: http://www.csus.edu/umanual/student/STU-0100.htm).

AI Policy: I fully expect you to use AI tools throughout this course. I will show you ways you can use these tools to understand complex texts, greatly increase the depth of your understanding of moral and political controversies, and sharpen your ability to both analyze and communicate insight about them. Keep in mind, however, that almost all the assignments and exams will be rocking it old school: you with your thoughts and pen/pencil and paper. In class, I will expect you to be conversant with the readings and concepts, and prove your facility with them through various writing tasks, exercises, thought-questions, etc.

Electronics: I may allow you to use your phone or other device during certain class activities, but I’ll let you know. Otherwise, do not have them out. You should be present during the class mentally as well as physically.

Your final grade is determined by how many total points you earn, with these grade thresholds: 92 points=A, 90 points=A-, 88 points=B+, 82 points=B, 80 points=B-, 78 points=C+, 72 points=C, 70 points=C-, 68 points=D+, 62 points=D, 60 points=D-, and F = all scores less than 60 points.

There are these ways of earning points (see "Assignments" link):

1. Be an active and thoughtful participant in class meetings. (30 possible points)

Someone who earns all these points would:

• Demonstrate familiarity with the readings;
• Offer original and thoughtful ideas and perspectives;
• Connect with ideas from other classes or something in the broader community;
• Share relevant experiences;
• Pose good questions; and
• Take stands and defend them with references to readings and experiences.

I will assess this in a variety of ways in class throughout the semester. I may ask for a summary and/or response related to the assigned reading or some other activity or “thought question” that requires you to engage with the course material. These aren’t announced ahead of time. You’re either in class to earn the points, or you aren’t.

2. Write 4 in-class midterm essay exams. (4 x 10 = 40 possible points)

Details will follow, but the structure of your essays should follow that described here: https://www.csus.edu/college/arts-letters/philosophy/_internal/g5-how-to-analyze-a-philosophical-essay.pdfLinks to an external site.

Present and elaborate the argument I ask you to evaluate, explaining how it is supposed to work in the “Summary” section. Evaluate its success, developing an argument that undermines or defends it, in the “Critique” section. Try to think of the summary section as setting out the key argument you are targeting in your thesis. It’s the argument you will analyze or evaluate in the “Critique” section of the essay. The summary should be focused on only that which is relevant to your analysis and evaluation.

You should avoid writing poor, surface-level, generic summaries. The most common way of writing a poor summary is to simply restate a number of things in the assigned reading. But I don’t want a listing of things in the reading; rather, I want you to identify the key idea in it and explain the argument(s) for that idea. Focus. Go for depth of explanation, rather than breadth of coverage. I recommend the method of successive elaboration (described here).

Your essays should be presented legibly and relatively free of spelling and grammatical errors. I will assign marks based on the cogency of your analysis. Spelling and grammatical errors will also affect your grade if they are frequent enough to become distracting. 

3. Answer questions on a scheduled final exam based primarily on readings and classroom lectures/discussions. (30 possible points)

Exam is TBA

Schedule (see the reading list in "Modules" folder):

DATE

TOPIC/ACTIVITY

READING/ASSIGNMENT

 

Jan 26, 28	Course overview and introduction	Syllabus, Questions about moral judgments discussion assignment, Metaethical Maze survey
Feb 2, 4	Is morality authoritative?	Philippa Foot, Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives  David Hume, A treatise on human nature (selections)
9, 11	Where could moral authority come from?	Bernard Williams, Internal and external reasons  Michael Smith, Realism
16	Green exam
18, 23	Expressivism	A.J. Ayer, Critique of ethics and theology  Allan Gibbard, The reasons of a living being
25, Mar 2	Error Theory	John Mackie, Ethics: inventing right and wrong (excerpt)  Richard Joyce, Darwinian ethics and error
4, 9	Evolutionary biology	Thomas Nagel, Ethics without biology Herbert Gintis, et al., Explaining altruistic behavior in humans  Christina Bicchieri, Norms of cooperation
11, 16	Constructivism: relativistic, and Kantian	Gilbert Harman, Moral relativism defended Kyle Swan, How I learned to stop worrying and love moral relativism Christine Korsgaard, The sources of normativity (excerpt)
18	Purple exam A
23, 25	Spring recess
30, Ap 1	Ethical super-naturalism	Stephen Clark, God’s law and morality  Richard Joyce, Theistic ethics and the Euthyphro Dilemma  Kyle Swan, In which I compare myself to God
6, 8	Ethical non-naturalism	G.E. Moore, Principia ethica (excerpt) Terence Cuneo and Russ Shafer-Landau, The moral fixed points: new directions for moral nonnaturalism (excerpt)
13	Ethical naturalism	Janice Dowell, What is ethical naturalism?
15	Purple exam - B
20, 22	What is social morality?	PF Strawson, Social morality and individual ideal Jerry Gaus, Social morality
27, 29	Moralism vs. morality	Julia Driver, Moralism Driver, Hyperactive ethics  George Sher, Too much morality
May 4, 6	Performing morality	Harry Frankfurt, On bullshit Brandon Warmke and Justin Tosi, Moral grandstanding
11	Moral polarization	Hrishikesh Joshi, What are the chances you’re right about everything? An epistemic challenge for modern partisanship
13	Grey exam
TBA	Final exam