Course Information
Course title
 Scanlon's Contractualism 
Semester
 109-1 
Designated for
 COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS  GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY  
Instructor
 WANG RONG-LIN 
Curriculum Number
 Phl7567 
Curriculum Identity Number
 124 M8060 
Class
  
Credits
 3.0 
Full/Half
Yr.
 Half 
Required/
Elective
 Elective 
Time
 Wednesday 7,8,9(14:20~17:20) 
Remarks
 The upper limit of the number of students: 15. 
Ceiba Web Server
 http://ceiba.ntu.edu.tw/1091Phl7567_Scanlon 
Course introduction video
 
Table of Core Capabilities and Curriculum Planning
 Table of Core Capabilities and Curriculum Planning
Course Syllabus
Please respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not copy any of the course information without permission
Course Description

Over the last twenty years, Scanlon’s contractualism has become an influential position not only within normative ethics but also within meta-ethics. As a philosophical account, Scanlon’s contractualsim deals primarily with three issues:
First, when we claim that a certain act is right or is wrong, what makes such claims true or false?
Second, how do we know whether a claim about right/wrong is true or false? What kind of reasoning do we use to decide?
Third, why is morality important? How to explain why we care about morality?
According to Scanlon’s contractualism, claims about right and wrong are not based on facts about human well-being; rather they are based on principles that it would be reasonable for people to agree to. When an act would be forbidden by principles of conduct that no one could reasonably reject, we know that it is wrong. And the importance of morality is explained by the fact that we aim to find principles that can be cited to justify our actions to each other. 

Course Objective
 The goal of this course is to help students to understand and critically examine Scanlon’s contractualism. 
Course Requirement
 Attendance & participation, in class oral Presentation and a final essay. 
Student Workload (expected study time outside of class per week)
  
Office Hours
 Appointment required. 
Designated reading
 Ashford, E., 2003. “The Demandingness of Scanlon’s Contractualism,” Ethics, 113 (2): 273-302.
Frick, J., 2017. “On the Survival of Humanity,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 47: 344-367.
Kumar, R., 2015. “Contractualism and the Roots of Responsibility,” in R. Clarke, M. McKenna, and A. M. Smith (eds.), The Nature of Moral Responsibility: New Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parfit, P., 2003. “Justifiability to Each Person,” Ratio, 16: 368-390.
Scanlon, T. M., 1998. What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
References
 Brand-Ballard, J., 2004. “Contractualism and Deontic Restrictions,” Ethics, 114: 269-300.
Deigh, J., 2002. “Promises under Fire,” Ethics, 112(3): 483-506.
Dworkin, G., 2002. “Contractualism and the Normativity of Principles,” Ethics, 112(3): 471-482.
Gibb, M., 2016. “Relational Contractualism and Future Persons,” Journal of Moral Philosophy, 13: 135-160.
Gilabert, P., 2007. “Contractualism and Poverty Relief,” Social Theory and Practice, 33(2): 277-310.
Hooker, B., 2003. “Scanlon’s Contractualism, the Spare Wheel Objection, and Aggregation,” in M. Matravers (ed.) Scanlon’s Contractualism: Readings and Responses, Frank cass Publishers.
Kamm, F. M., 2002. “Owing, Justifying, Rejecting: Thomas Scanlon’s What We Owe to Each Other,” Mind, 111: 323-354.
Norcross, A., 2002. “Contractualism and Aggregation,” Social Theory and Practice, 28: 303-314.
Pettit, P., 2006. “Can Contract Theory Ground Morality?” in J. Dreier (ed.) Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 77-96.
Riebetanz, S., 1998. “Contractualism and Aggregation,” Ethics, 108: 296-311.
Shaver, R., 2007. “Contractualism and Restrictions,” Philosophical Studies, 132(2): 293-299.
Southwood, N. 2009. “Moral Contractualism,” Philosophy Compass, 4(6): 926-937.
Voorhoeve, A., 2014. “How Should We Aggregate Comprting Claims?” Ethics, 125: 64-87.
Wallace, J., 2002. “Scanlon’s Contractualism,” Ethics, 112: 429-470. 
Grading
  
No.
Item
%
Explanations for the conditions
1. 
 Attendance & Participation 
40% 
  
2. 
 Oral Presentation  
10% 
  
3. 
 Final essay  
50% 
  
 
Progress
Week
Date
Topic
Week 1
 9/16  Introduction 
Week 2
 9/23  Reasons I (Scanlon [1998]: 17-49.) 
Week 3
 9/30  Reasons II (Scanlon [1998]: 50-77.) 
Week 4
 10/07  Values (Scanlon [1998]: 78-107.) 
Week 5
 10/14  Well-Being (Scanlon [1998]: 108-146.) 
Week 6
 10/21  Wrongness and Reasons I (Scanlon [1998]: 147-168.) 
Week 7
 10/28  Wrongness and Reasons II (Scanlon [1998]: 168-188.) 
Week 8
 11/04  The Structure of Contractualism I (Scanlon [1998]: 189-218.) 
Week 9
 11/11  The Structure of Contractualism II (Scanlon [1998]: 218-247.) 
Week 10
 11/18  Responsibility I (Scanlon [1998]: 248-267.) 
Week 11
 11/25  Responsibility II (Scanlon [1998]: 267-294.) 
Week 12
 12/02  Promises (Scanlon [1998]: 295-327.) 
Week 13
 12/09  Relativism (Scanlon [1998]: 328-361.) 
Week 14
 12/16  The Demandingness of Contractualism (Ashford [2003]) 
Week 15
 12/23  Aggregation Problem (Parfit [2003]) 
Week 16
 12/30  Roots of Responsibility (Kumar [2005]) 
Week 17
 1/06  Future Generation Problem (Frick [2017]) 
Week 18
 1/13  期末報告大綱討論