One of the cool things you get to do as a professor (DISCLAIMER: outside of the ivory walls of academia, saying “professor” pretty much means, “person who is on the teaching faculty at a University”. Within those walls though, the title is a specific rank that’s part of this whole secret-handshake, feudal-like system where Professors are the Lords and lowly “Instructors” (my actual rank) are the vassals. When I call myself a professor around these parts (my intra-net blog), it’s in the common, vernacular sense of the word. If I were to call myself a professor at the lunch table on campus though, I’m pretty sure veins would start popping out of the necks on those around me as they race to be the first to remind me that I am, in fact, not a Professor, not ever an Associate Professor of Assistant Professor, that I am in fact a lowly Instructor, which is just one step above dried cat vomit on the academic ranking scale. So, we’re cool?) ….
As I was saying, one of the coolest things you get to do as a prof is say, “I think I would like to teach a course about such and such”, and then you write up a course plan, and if it gets approved, and students sign up for it, you get to teach it. I just finished, on Friday, the first stage in designing and submitting a new course called “Music and Ethics”.
So, I thought I would post the lecture outline here, for your perusal. It’s pretty much my dream course – it has little pieces from everything I love reading and thinking about, and all tied together by the common thread of how we should, as people of faith and as musicians, think about making ethical decisions.
Week 1: “The Case for the Ethical Life”
- Plato and the Ring of Gyges
- Reason and Ethics: The possibility of moral expertise (in what I’m sure will be a very controversial move, I’m relying on the writing of Peter Singer, who has written several books that I think brilliant but misguided, and also a few journal articles arguing fantastically well for the idea that there can exist a learned skill of moral expertise. It’s a defense for the idea that not everyone’s opinion carries equal weight in a moral conversation, that there can be those who have special training, and significant thoughtful consideration, that leads to better moral conclusions.)
- Faith, Knowledge, and Virtue: ethics and the Christian life.
Week 2: “Introduction to Ethical Systems of Thought”
- Standards for evaluating ethical systems
- Normative vs. Descriptive Systems
- Reason, Intuition, and Faith: Are ethical systems a necessary component of Christian thought? (Basially, why do we need to study this stuff? Shouldn’t we just pray and read our bible, and the right decision will be revealed to us?)
Week 3: “Ethical Systems, Part 1″
- 3 kinds of moral skepticism: Nihilism, Moral Subjectivism, Moral Relativism
Week 4: “Ethical Systems, Part 2”
- Natural Law Theory
- Divine Command Ethics
- Classic and Contemporary Utilitarianism
Week 5: “Ethical Systems, Part 3”
- Kantian Ethics
- Virtue Ethics
- Moral Pluralism
Week 6: “Instructor Bias Week!”
- The case for Divine Virtue Ethics. So, I’m not one of those profs who thinks that the way to teach philosophy and ethics is to be the totally neutral fount of knowledge, personally removed from the subject matter. I have strong, and considered, views on the right and wrong way to sort through this stuff, and I think it cheats the students for me to stand on the sidelines. So, I’m going to tell them what I think, and make my best case for why I think it.
Week 7: “The Ethics of Participation, Part 1”
- “In the world, not of the world”: a Christian perspective on holiness and participation
- Moral outcomes
- The transitive property of participation
Week 8: “The Ethics of Participation, Part 2”
- Dual Morality, Agency, and Law: three false exits to the question of participation
- The “Nazi Prison Guard” dilemma
Week 9: “Intellectual Property, Part 1”
- A biblical perspective on property
- Property and creativity
- 3 alternatives to a property system: patronage, service model, gift economy
Week 10: “Intellectual Property, Part 2”
- Ethics within a property system
- Law, Justice, and Integrity: systematic vs. personal ethics
Week 11: “Issues in Professionalism”
- Selling the goods: ethics and personal representation in the music industry
- Invested participation: aesthetics, credits, preparation, commitment
Week 12: “Aesthetics and Creativity”
- Imago Dei, and the theology of creativity
- The Dualism of Human Nature: integration and the musical experience
Weeks 13-15, the remainder of the course, are just the students turning in their thesis papers, doing peer review, and doing oral defense.
So, this is pretty much my dream course to teach. And that makes me …
King Nerd, signing out.
harmonicminer 10:22 pm on 24 September 2006 Permalink
Well, I suppose I have to take this class… since I think it’s clear I couldn’t pass the final.
Kantian? Is that something to do with the wave motion of particles in magnetic field? Shouldn’t you save that stuff for music tech?
yeesh
Sharolyn 7:59 am on 25 September 2006 Permalink
Week 8 caught my eye. Explain to us the three false exits and the Nazi Prison Guard dilemma.
june 8:32 am on 25 September 2006 Permalink
Geez Mike. You’re such a slacker. How ’bout engaging the grey matter now and then?!
michael lee 8:48 am on 25 September 2006 Permalink
Sharolyn
Both of those topics are part of the discussion on the ethics of participation – what does it mean to take part in a project with a moral outcome. “Project” in this case refers to any coordinated effort involving multiple people – could be making a record, or building a house.
The three false exits are three excuses commonly used to allow us to escape having to ask the question about participation. They seems like solutions to the problem, but they actually just avoid it.
Dual Morality says that there are two different standards for ethical conduct – one for private live, one for public or corporate life. Although I may be a very honest person in my personal, private life, dual morality says that I don’t have to carry that same value forward into corporate life, and so I can do or say things in my capacity as a realtor, or a salesman, that i would never say or do in my own personal life. There is a work moral code, and a personal moral code, and the two don’t need to be similar.
Agency argues that whenever we’re following someone else’s directions or orders, we leave behind our own moral responsibility, and whatever moral or immoral things we do actually become their responsibility. If I am the employee of an immoral boss, and she asks me to do immoral things, then I’m not actually doing anything immoral, because whatever I do becomes her responsiblity.
The Law argument equates legality with morality – if it’s not illegal, then I have no moral obligation either way. If I draw up a contract that is intentionally misleading, but not actually fradulent or illegal, then I have no moral issue.
All three of these arguments try to sidestep the question of participation by either arguing that we don’t have the same obligations once we step into a project (dual morality) or that someone else has the burden of those obligations (agency, law). None of them actually addresses the issue.
Nazi Prison Guard coming up in a little while …
michael lee 9:35 am on 25 September 2006 Permalink
The “Nazi Prison Guard” dillemma is an illustration used to examine the issue of particiaption. You start by giving the simple version of the situation, then you add increasing levels of complexity, extra added material to the story to explore how those new features of the situation change the moral obligation of the prison guard.
At each stage in the development of the problem, you force the student to view it as a “bracktted reality”, meaning you don’t let them introduce anything more into the situation than is given them (i.e. “but what if the prisoner was going to shoot the guard, and it was self defense and … blah blah blah.” not allowed).
There are many ways to build up the problem, but here’s one:
A Nazi prison guard kills an innocent prisoner. Morally right, or morally wrong? (if we get bogged down into moral relativism at this point, I swear I’m going to just put a bullet in my head)
Suppose the guard had been acting on orders from a superior officer. Does it matter that the guard was just following orders?
If the guard refuses to kill the prisoner, he would be replaced by another guard who will kill the prisoner. Does it matter that the guard is replaceable? Does the fact that the killing will be done whether or not he does it affect the moral standing of the first guard?
Suppose that a second guard is standing behind the first guard, and if the first guard refuses to kill the prisoner, the second guard will shoot the first guard, then shoot the prisoner. In this case, does the moral obligation of the first guard change?
Suppose now that the second guard says to the first, “Either you kill this one prisoner, or I will kill 20 other prisoners.” What is the moral obligation of the first guard?
You get the picture. It’s used as a graphic demonstration of how things like replaceability, agency, self-interest, and valuation affect the moral obligation of a person.
The reason why it’s such a great demonstration is because it deals in absolutes – in an ethical illustration, just like in a science experiment, you want to minimize the variables that might influence the results, so that you can test for just the isolated thing you’re examining. In this case, the absolutism of the circumstances removes a lot of the variables, and leaves you with a vivid set of simple principles.
The other thing that’s striking about this example is that, if you go through the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials, you can find examples of former Nazi soldiers using all of these arguments in defense of their actions. It’s a pretty striking thing to take it out of the realm of the hypothetical, and to give students actual text to read. It’s a horrific demonstration of why ethical reasoning matters.
Grammy 9:51 am on 25 September 2006 Permalink
Okay, so now you’ve got me hooked. How about you post detailed class outline/notes each and every class so we can all be your students, prof? And then, how about applying for the senior pastor position at ABF? You are obviously built to teach, my friend.
Grammy 9:56 am on 25 September 2006 Permalink
“A professor is one who can speak on any subject — for precisely fifty minutes.” — Norbert Wiener (1894-1964)
Carrie 10:39 am on 25 September 2006 Permalink
Brain….exploding….why can’t you teach something about horsies? Horsies are pretty.
Carrie 10:48 am on 25 September 2006 Permalink
And, okay, I know THIS posting is about nine months late, but I just witnessed the “Holy Crap, Lions!” video for the first time. I must change myself now, cuuuuuz I think I just wet ‘em.
michael lee 11:28 am on 25 September 2006 Permalink
grammy, that’s pretty much the best quote ever. It’s going on my door. You know. The door to my office. That I have.
Morphea 11:32 am on 25 September 2006 Permalink
That’s not the point, Michael. The POINT is that there’s someone who lived on this planet with the name: Norbert Wiener.
NOR-bert WEE-ner.
Grammy, you makin’ this up?
Cerise
Sharolyn 2:10 pm on 25 September 2006 Permalink
Serous response will come later. For now, I will just tell you that the most inappropriate giggling moment I’ve had while teaching was when a student told me his name was Mark Weiner. I was writing it down when the floodgates of tears opened. Hopefully he believed my coughing fit that covered up laughter. I’m sure the poor kid gets enough grief from students. Just a little more maturity, and I could have been a helpful ADULT in his life. I feel horrible that he caught me having an eight year-old moment.
I will also report that when my two year-old daughter saw me changing the diaper of her little brother, she informed me that he “has a tail in his bottom”.
I suppose we should get back to the Nazis and moral relativism…
More later – someone is crying about something…
Morphea 2:14 pm on 25 September 2006 Permalink
Sharolyn, you just made me laugh inappropriately at work. If I get canned you’re to blame.
Cerise
Sharolyn 3:07 pm on 25 September 2006 Permalink
Thanks, Cerise!
Mike, holy cow, I don’t know the answers to your questions. Can it be a multiple-choice test? :) What would your answers be during “Instructor Bias Week”?
I read on Wednesday an article in the newspaper. Here are the first two paragraphs:
“An elderly San Francisco woman was deported to Germany this month after admitting she was a guard in a Nazi-operated concentration camp in the Third Reich’s waning days, federal officials said Tuesday.
Although Elfriede Lina Rinkel, 84, now admits her terrible past, shocked Berkeley relatives said that she had hid her secret for more than 60 years even from them and apparently from her late husband – A GERMAN JEW WHO HAD FLED THE HOLOCAUST.”
(I added the caps.)
#1 – Do we really need to send back an 84 year-old woman who has been living here for 47 years? I don’t feel my security is threatened by her.
#2 – How in the heck did her husband never find out?? He died in 2004. Elfriede Rinkel’s in-laws are “knocked off their feet”. I’ll bet.