Assessment
Continous Assessment Activities
Title |
Weighting |
Hours |
ECTS |
Learning Outcomes |
1.Test |
50% final mark |
1.5
|
0.06 |
3, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7
|
2.Debate |
30% final mark |
4
|
0.16 |
2, 3, 8, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10
|
3.Individual essay debate |
20% final mark |
2
|
0.08 |
2, 3, 8, 1, 5, 6, 9, 7
|
Continuous assessment
In order to include the different skills and knowledge that students have acquired throughout the course, as well as their different abilities, three assessment activities will be carried out.
- Exam (50%): the exam will assess the contents of the theoretical and practical classes, as well as the lectures and material discussed in class.
- Debate (30%) - may not be retaken: team participation in a debate on some of the ethical problems addressed in the course. The professor will provide a list of topics to be discussed and groups will be formed during the first weeks of the course. A tutorial will be held beforehand to explain to the professor the approach and defence of the thesis.
- Two-page personal critical reflection on the subject of the debate (20%) - may not be retaken.
The Department of Philosophy agreed that the first-semester students would have two periods dedicated to assessment activities and one week during which students could specifically prepare for the exams, in the format that each instructor will specify at the beginning of the course. The dates for the review week and the assessment periods are:
• October 27 – October 31: review or tutorial week
• November 3 – November 7: assessment week
• January 8, 9, 12, 13, 14: assessment week
The teaching modality used in the week before the exams will take the form of individual and/or group tutorials.
Note: This subject entirely prohibits the use of AI technologies in all of its activities. Any submitted work that contains content generated using AI will be considered academic dishonesty; the corresponding grade will be awarded a zero, without the possibility of reassessment. In cases of greater infringement, more serious action may be taken.
If the activities cannot be taken in person, their format will be adapted (without altering their weighting) to the possibilities offered by the UAB's virtual tools. The lecturer will ensure that students have access to these resources or will offer them alternative resources that are within their reach.
In the event that the student carries out any type of irregularity that may lead to a significant variation in the grade of agiven evaluation act, this will be graded with 0, regardless of the disciplinary process that may result from it. In the event that several irregularities are verified in the assessment acts of the same subject, the final grade for this subject will be 0.
Single assessment (evaluación única):
The single assessment will be a written test consisting of three parts:
(a) Theoretical questions on the first part (40%)
b) Commentary on texts of the second part (40%)
c) Questions on specific readings for the single assessment (20%).
Retaken of the single assessment: the characteristics will be the same as those of the single assessment test.
Bibliography
Bibliography (a more extensive and specific bibliography will be provided for each subject as the course progresses).
Manuals:
Camps, Victoria. (2022). Breve historia de la ética. RBA.
Camps, Victoria. (Ed.). (2008). Historia de la ética (3 vol.). Crítica.
Gómez, Carlos y Muguerza, Javier. (2010). La aventura de la moralidad: paradigmas, fronteras y problemas de la ética. Alianza Editorial.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. (2024). Historia de la ética. Paidós.
Rachels, James. (2013). Introducción a la Filosofía Moral. F.C.E.
Shafer-Landau, Russ. (2012). The fundamentals of ethics. OUP.
Singer, Peter. (2023). Ética práctica. Akal.
Fundamental literature on Ethics:
Aristóteles. Ética a Nicómaco. Gredos (2019).
Kant, Immanuel. (1785). Fundamentación para una metafísica de las costumbres. Alianza Editorial (2002).
Mill, John Stuart. (1861). Utilitarismo. Alianza Editorial (2014).
de Beauvoir, Simone. (1949). El segundo sexo. Cátedra (2021).
Tronto, Joan C., (1952). Caring democracy. [Castellà. Democracia y cuidado: mercados, igualdad y justicia. Català. Democràcia i cura: mercats, igualtat i justícia. Rayo verde, editorial.]
Some literature on Applied Ethics:
Bostrom, Nick y Savulescu, Julian. (2017). Mejoramiento humano. TEELL.
Coeckelbergh, Mark. (2021). Ética de la inteligencia artificial. Cátedra.
Diéguez, Antonio. (2016). Transhumanismo. La búsqueda tecnológica del mejoramiento humano. Herder.
Fundación Grifols i Lucas: https://www.fundaciogrifols.org/es/monographs (cuadernos monográficos sobre temas de bioética como la eutanasia).
Gardiner, Stephen, y Thompson, Allen. (Eds). (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. OUP.
Gómez Franco, Irene. (2020). Deudas pendientes. La justicia entre generaciones. Plaza y Valdés.
Nussbaum, Martha. (2007). Las fronteras de la justicia. Paidós.
Savulescu, Julian (2012). ¿Decisiones peligrosas? Una bioética desafiante. Tecnos.
Singer, Peter. (2018). Liberación animal. Taurus.
Singer, Peter. (2012). Salvar una vida. Cómo terminar con la pobreza. Katz.
Thomas Nagel. (2005). The Problem of Global Justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 33, 113-147.
Links:
Asociación Española de Ética y Filosofía Política: https://aeefp.site123.me/
The International Association of Women Philosophers: http://www.women-philosophy.org/about-us/
European Society for Moral Philosophy: http://www.moralphilosophy.eu/
Red Española de Filosofía: http://redfilosofia.es/
The Equality Trust: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/
Basic Income Earth: http://basicincome.org
Red GENET de Estudios de Género: https://www.redgenet.org/
Dirección de la enciclopedia Stanford: https://plato.stanford.edu/
Pódcast de Peter Singer y Kasia de Lazari Radek: “Lives Well Lived”, Spotify.