Phil 284A: Philosophy of Law
Course Description
We will examine theories which attempt to provide answers to such questions as: What is a law? What makes a law valid or binding? Does one always have a moral obligation to obey the law? What gives society the right to punish people whose actions are harmful only to the individual, him/herself (paternalism)? Does society have the right to harm those who break the law (criminal punishment)? Should attempted crimes be punished less severely than completed crimes? We will not spend much time discussing specific public policy issues such as: Whether raising the drinking age saves lives, whether smoking marijuana is a victimless crime (whether it harms others), or whether the death penalty is a deterrent. We will not discuss what the law is; instead, we will discuss what the law ought to be.
đź“‘ Course Brief
Focus:
- Developing critical reasoning skills.
- Discovering some of the fundamental philosophical ideas in law.
Text: Feinberg, Joel, and Jules L. Coleman. 2008. Philosophy of Law / [Edited by] Joel Feinberg, Jules Coleman. 8th ed. Thomson/Wadsworth.
🎯 Learning Objectives
- What is a law?
- What makes a law valid or binding?
- Do we have a moral obligation to obey the law?
- What gives society the right to punish people whose actions are harmful only to the individual, him/herself (paternalism)?
- Does society have the right to harm those who break the law (criminal punishment)?
- Should attempted crimes be punished less severely than completed crimes?
What is not covered
Public policy issues such as:
- Whether raising the drinking age saves lives
- Wehther smoking marijuana is a victimless crime (whether it harms others)
- Whether the death penalty is a deterrent.
We do not discuss what the law is; instead, we will discuss what the law ought to be.
The Speluncean Explorers
The Speluncean Explorers
Course Convenor
Reynolds
Dr. Monty Reynolds
Stetson University
📧 mreynolds1@stetson.edu
Course Information
Required Texts:
Course Schedule
Here is the syllabus formatted as a clean Markdown table using only the vertical line | as the separator (with a properly spanned title row):
| Day | Date | Discussion |
|---|---|---|
| Tuesday | January 13 | Introduction to Philosophy of Law and Organization of Class |
| Thursday | January 15 | Fuller, “The Case of the Speluncean Explorers” (Handout - Canvas) |
| Tuesday | January 20 | Kretzmann, “Lex Iniusta Non Est Lex: Laws on Trial” (Handout – Canvas) |
| Thursday | January 22 | Bentham, “The Principles of Morals and Legislation” (Handout, pages 224-248 -D2L) |
| Tuesday | January 27 | Bentham (Continued) |
| Thursday | January 29 | Hart, “Law as the Union of Primary and Secondary Rules” (crc, 53) |
| Tuesday | February 3 | Hart (Continued) |
| Thursday | February 5 | Dworkin, “The Model of Rules” (148) |
| Tuesday | February 10 | Dworkin, “Integrity in Law” (169) |
| Thursday | February 12 | Holmes, “The Path of the Law” (197); Frank, “Legal Realism” (205) |
| Tuesday | February 17 | Critical Legal Studies (Handout – D2L) |
| Thursday | February 19 | Plato, Crito (Handout – D2L) |
| Tuesday | February 24 | Crito (Continued) |
| Thursday | February 26 | Quiz 1 |
| Tuesday | March 3 | Spring Break |
| Thursday | March 5 | Spring Break |
| Tuesday | March 10 | Hart, “Postscript: Responsibility and Retribution” (317) |
| Thursday | March 12 | Duff, “Choice, Character, and Action” (328) |
| Tuesday | March 17 | Parker, “Blame, Punishment and the Role of Result” (Handout – D2L) |
| Thursday | March 19 | Spring Break |
| Tuesday | March 24 | Spring Break |
| Thursday | March 26 | Self Defense (Handout – D2L) |
| Tuesday | March 31 | Self Defense (Continued) |
| Thursday | April 2 | Excuse, Justification, Subjective/Objective Liability (Handout – D2L) |
| Tuesday | April 7 | Mill, “On Liberty” (258) |
| Thursday | April 9 | Dworkin, “Paternalism” (271); Griswold v. Connecticut (summary on www) |
| Tuesday | April 14 | Devlin, “Morals and the Criminal Law” (283) |
| Thursday | April 16 | “The Moral Significance of Terrorism” (Handout – D2L) |
| Tuesday | April 21 | Dershowitz, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist be Tortured” (Paper Due at End of Class) |
| Thursday | April 23 | Bork, “The Original Understanding” (Handout – D2L) |
| Tuesday | April 28 | Bork (Continued), last day of classes |
| Thursday | April 30 | Final exams, final paper due, TBD |
| Tuesday | May 3 | Final exams TBD |
Expectations:
Come prepared to engage with assigned readings in class, referencing specific passages as prompted by the instructor.
Bring physical or digital copies of readings to class for annotation and short reflections.
Submit all assignments via Canvas by the due date.
Active participation and regular attendance are essential for success.
Late Assignment Policy
Penalty: 10% deduction per day late.
Makeup Process: Email the instructor within 48 hours to arrange an extension. No credit if not submitted by agreed date.
Success: Active participation, timely submissions, and attendance are key.
Grading Calculation
Students will be evaluated based on a total of 640 points, with the final grade determined by the percentage of points earned. The components are as follows:
Weeklies
Weekly Reflections: Each reflection is worth a possible total of 8 points. There are 12 possible reflections. I will only grade 8 or your best reflections.
Critical Reflections
Critical Reflection 1 & 2 (160 points): Each reflective analysis is worth a possible total of 20 points per category, times 4 categories equals 80 points times 2 reflection pieces.
You will be required to write one paper, which must be type-written, double-spaced, and six to eight pages in length. This is NOT a research paper. Below are several topics, each student must choose ONE to which s/he will respond. If you wish to write a paper on a topic other than one of those suggested by me contact me after class and we can make an appointment during my office hours to discuss other topics. (I will be more than happy to approve relevant topics.) The papers you write are not opinion papers. It is standard practice among philosophers to view mere opinion to be worth less than the energy used to express it. What is worthwhile is a reasoned defense of one’s opinion. Your paper should be written so as to present rational argument for the position which you hold.
Your paper should consist of two distinct parts. The first part, which should account for approximately half the length of the paper, should be a short explication of the essay you have chosen. This part should contain a statement of the author’s position, a statement of your own position (tell me whether you agree or disagree with the author) and an explanation of the author’s supporting arguments. The second half of the paper should consist of your own evaluation or critique of the essay. In this part of the paper you should tell me WHY you agree or disagree with the author. If you agree with the author you should tell me what argument(s) are convincing. Then tell me what argument(s) might be pro↵ered by one who disagrees with the author and how the author might respond. If you disagree with the author, you should provide criticism of the author’s essay and attempt to explain how the author might respond to the criticism. Hence, whether you agree or disagree with the author, you should provide arguments against the author and responses thereto. Finally, you should explain why you believe your position is the best position. You must NOT use outside sources for this essay. I will provide a more detailed account in class.
D&D Campaigns (96 points total)
Overview & Purpose
Your grade in this area is based on preparation and active participation during D&D-style class meetings. The format uses a simplified, philosophy-focused adaptation of Dungeons & Dragons to encourage students to talk through, debate, and critically engage with the philosophical issues in the assigned readings — not just summarize or repeat them.
The core idea: Turn abstract philosophical texts into immersive, narrative “quests” or “dungeons” where the reading provides the backdrop (e.g., a moral dilemma in a kingdom, a metaphysical riddle from an adversarial entity, or an epistemological challenge). This creates lively discussion, risk, uncertainty, and stakes via dice rolls — mirroring real philosophical debate.
Key Differences from Traditional D&D
This is not full tabletop RPG gameplay (no complex combat, character stats, or long campaigns). It is a structured, turn-based discussion tool designed to make philosophy feel urgent, personal, and collaborative. Overall Assignment Setup