BASS Philosophy and Data Analytics / Course details

In the current social, technological and political climate, new ethical dilemmas continue to appear and receive increasing attention from ethicists, policy makers, and the general public. The course will introduce students to the ways in which philosophy engages with contemporary matters of social and political importance, with a particular emphasis on the ways in which traditional philosophical problems arise in our understanding of discrimination and inequality, as well as contemporary issues in medical practices.

A particular aim of the course is to introduce students to areas of applied philosophy that are not restricted simply to applied ethics but bring a wider range of philosophical issues to bear (philosophy of language, social and political philosophy, epistemology, etc).

The course aims to:

• Guide students' development in thinking philosophically about real world problems.
• Familiarise students with some important writings in contemporary applied philosophy.
• Enhance students' ability to present and discuss philosophical issues orally, and their ability to present philosophical ideas and arguments in written work.

Students should be able to:

Weekly lecture and tutorial.

Please note the information in scheduled activity hours are only a guidance and may change.

Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of some core texts and ideas in contemporary applied Philosophy.  

Critically engage with and evaluate key texts and ideas in applied philosophy. 

Present in writing clear, cogent, sustained philosophical arguments, based on relevant background research.   

Interpret and criticise both primary and secondary texts. 

Undertake independent research and apply theoretical knowledge to complex issues. 

2 essays worth 50% each.

The School of Social Sciences (SoSS) is committed to providing timely and appropriate feedback to students on their academic progress and achievement, thereby enabling students to reflect on their progress and plan their academic and skills development effectively. Students are reminded that feedback is necessarily responsive: only when a student has done a certain amount of work and approaches us with it at the appropriate fora is it possible for us to feed back on the student’s work. The main forms of feedback on this course are written feedback responses to assessed essays and exam answers.

We also draw your attention to the variety of generic forms of feedback available to you on this as on all SoSS courses. These include: meeting the lecturer/tutor during their office hours; e-mailing questions to the lecturer/tutor; asking questions from the lecturer (before and after lecture); presenting a question on the discussion board on Blackboard; and obtaining feedback from your peers during tutorials.

• Shiffrin, Seana Valentine (2014) Speech Matters: On Lying, Morality, and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Chapter 3]
• Parekh B (2006) Hate speech: is there a case for banning? Public Policy Research 12, 213–223.
• A.W. Eaton (2007) “A Sensible Antiporn Feminism,” Ethics 117: 674-715.
• Robin West (2016) “Consensual Sexual Dysphoria: A Challenge for Campus Life.” Journal of Legal Education 66: 804-821. [Reprinted in Franklin Miller and Alan Wertheimer (eds.) (2009) The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice, 221-248].
• Debra Satz. (1992). 'Markets in Women's Reproductive Labour'. Philosophy & Public Affairs 21: 107-131.  
• Barnes, E. (2014). Valuing Disability, Causing Disability. Ethics, 125, 88–113.
• Iris Marion Young (2011) “Five Faces of Oppression”, Chapter 2 in Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press: pp. 39-65.
• Thomson, Judith Jarvis (1976) “A Defense of Abortion,” in James M. Humber and Robert F. Almeder (eds.) Biomedical Ethics and the Law, 39-54. Boston, MA: Springer.
• Velleman, J. David (1999) “A Right of Self-Termination?” Ethics 109/3: 606-628.
• Stephen M Gardiner (2011) “Climate Justice,” The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society (Eds) John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, and David Schlosberg. pp. 1-17.