Philosophy 170 - Problems in Social Thought

Today perhaps more than ever, disagreement is a regular occurrence in our lives. What's particularly concerning is that such disagreement often happens between individuals who are both intelligent and well-informed, and on matters that are of great importance. I believe that eating meat is morally permissible, but a colleague of mine thinks it isn't. When this happens, what should I do? In other words, what's the most rational way to respond to the fact that I disagree with someone is who just as intelligent and as informed as me with respect to the topic at hand - what philosopher's call my epistemic peer. In response to such disagreement, is it most rational to reduce confidence in my belief? Or in such circumstances is it perfectly rational for me to be steadfast and just as confident as I was initially? This is the problem of peer disagreement, and this will be our main focus throughout the course. However, we will start with an introduction to philosophical arguments and then to epistemology - the branch of philosophy devoted to questions about knowledge, rationality, and justification (among related issues). In addition, and later in the semester, we will examine disagreement in a broader context, namely in the wake of societal injustice and the current crisis surrounding COVID-19. This course will include several quizzes, as well as some opportunities to practice and receive feedback on your philosophical writing. (Gen. Ed. SB)