"Reasonable Humans and Animals: An Argument for Vegetarianism," by John Simmons
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
This course is now in Blackboard. The syllabus is here also though:
Group project: an online
educational tool: a webpage or blog, made in groups of 3 or 4 (and
no more), that introduces a
moral issue, explains how to
identify and evaluate moral argument, presents and critically
evaluates at least 5 arguments concerning that issue and thus teachers the reader or viewer how to think about that moral
issue. 20 points.
Argumentative paper (approximately
5 pages) or lecture or speech (around 15 minutes) done on webcam (or
an alternative) and posted online (privately or publicly). 20 points. Including rough drafts,
peer and instructor review and revisions. See: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/
One “service project,” that will
involve engaging some aspect of the community (such as other AUC students)
regarding some moral issue. There will be a variety of options here
including volunteering (at some organization that addresses a moral
issue), interview projects, hosting a forum, showing a film and holding a
discussion, and more. 20 points.
A “comparative ethics” project:
find, on your own, a writing that presents a non-United States (or
non-north-American) and non-European perspective on a contemporary moral
issue that we discuss: so, e.g., an African or Asian or South American or
other perspective on a moral issue. Write up a report on the arguments
presented and evaluate the arguments. Details forthcoming. 10 points.
3 Tests: In class. 20 points each, 60 points total.
Introduction to Philosophical Ethics, PHI 302
Note: Students are responsible for understanding all the information and policies presented in this syllabus. Students will be referred to it if they have questions that are answered here. A syllabus is not a contract and can be revised, if needed, to promote learning and other educational goals.
1-1:50 class: Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 41619 - HPHI 302G - 02
Instructor: Nathan Nobis, Ph.D., www.NathanNobis.com
[Note: For security reasons, Dr. Nobis will only respond to emails concerning grades and confidential matters that are sent from an official Morehouse.edu email address].
Telephone: 404-215-2607 office; 404-825-1740 cell
Office: Sale Hall 113, Philosophy & Religion Department
Office Hours: MWF 11-12; M 2-3; and by appointment: please email!
CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTION: Provides an introduction to philosophical reflection about the nature and function of morality. Readings will include both historical and contemporary materials.
EXTENDED COURSE DESCRIPTION: This course provides students with the opportunity to improve their skills at reasoning critically about moral issues. Students will learn some basic logical concepts and argument analysis skills and apply them to theoretical and practical questions about morality. We will practice identifying clear and precise moral conclusions and the premises, or reasons, given for and against these conclusions. We will then practice evaluating these reasons to see if they provide rational support for these conclusions or not.
We will think about what helps people think more carefully and critically about moral issues and what factors and influences discourage this.
We will discuss influential ethical theories and moral principles – answers to the questions ‘What’s the basic difference between a morally permissible and a morally impermissible (or wrong) action?’ and ‘What makes wrong actions wrong and what makes permissible actions permissible?’ – and apply our argument analysis skills to moral issues such as the treatment of disabled newborns, female genital mutilation, homosexuality, abortion, absolute poverty, racism, sexism, and speciesism, drug use and the criminalization of drug use, vegetarianism and the treatment of animals, euthanasia and assisted suicide, and capital punishment, among others.
COURSE PREREQUISITES: There are no formal prerequisites for this course. However, students will benefit most from the course when they enter it with the abilities to:
· read critically and identify the structure and components of an argumentative essay or passage, i.e., the conclusion(s), the premises(s) or supporting elements, and so forth;
· write clear, concise and simple grammatical, spelling-error-free sentences and well-organized expository and argumentative essays, as taught in Introductory English courses;
· speak clearly, concisely, and grammatically.
Basic mathematical and scientific literacy is desirable.
Familiarity with moral issues, common positions taken on them and reasons given in favor of these positions is desirable, since we will build on any previous understanding.
Intellectual and moral virtues, such as curiosity, patience, and openness to the possibility of error and the need for change, are desirable as well.
A general goal is to improve students’ abilities to communicate about controversial issues: accurately state views and arguments, responsibly raise and respond to questions and criticisms, and communicate in clear, well-organized and effective ways.
COURSE OBJECTIVES: Upon successfully completing this course, students will be able to use the set of argument analysis skills below to identify and evaluate moral arguments:
a. identify whether any presentation is “morally argumentative” or not, i.e., whether it presents an argument for a moral conclusion on a moral issue or not;
b. identify conclusions of morally argumentative presentations, evaluate these conclusions for clarity and precision, and (if needed) reconstruct / restate the conclusion in clear and precise terms;
c. identify stated premises or reasons in morally argumentative presentations, evaluate these conclusions for clarity and precision, and (if needed) reconstruct / restate these premises in clear and precise terms;
d. identify (if needed) unstated premises in argumentative presentations that are logically essential to the structure of an argument and state them as part of the argument in clear and precise terms;
e. identify and distinguish factual/empirical/scientific and moral/philosophical premises in moral arguments;
f. evaluate moral arguments as (1) logically valid or logically invalid and (2) sound or unsound (i.e., logically valid with true premises, or not).
g. identify and explain reasons given to think an argument is sound, reasons to think it is unsound (often using counterexamples to general moral premises), and responses to these reasons.
Students will be able to accurately explain historically influential moral theories and common arguments against them, in light of their implications, explanatory power and theoretical virtues and vices.
Students will be able to accurately explain (in essays and oral presentations) the most common arguments given on a number of controversial moral issues, from a variety of perspectives, and criticisms of these arguments. Students will be better able to evaluate their own moral views and create their own moral arguments.
A GREEN SYLLABUS: This course contains content that allows it to contribute to Morehouse’s Institute for Sustainable Energy program, its planned academic Minor in Energy and the Morehouse-Wide Initiative for Sustainable Energy (M-WISE) program:
This content is indicated in green below.
REQUIRED MATERIALS, which must always be brought to class: students without course materials may be asked to leave and counted absent for that day.
- James and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (McGraw Hill Publishing, 2012) (ANY EDITION WILL DO: PLEASE FIND ONE CHEAPER ONLINE). http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0078038243/information_center_view0/table_of_contents.html
- James and Stuart Rachels, eds., The Right Thing to Do, 7th Edition (McGraw Hill, 2012). The more recent version the better. http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0078038243/information_center_view0/the_right_thing_to_do.html
- Anthony Weston, A Rulebook for Arguments (Hackett, any edition).
Unless authorized for a specific purpose, there will be no computer or phone use in class, not even for taking notes. This is because scientific research has shown that computer use in class is contrary to legitimate educational goals. There is a lot of research on this:
Thus, any “electronic readings” must be brought in hardcopy also.
All writing is done for an audience: for this class you should always assume that your readers are not familiar with the course material so you must explain everything very clearly for them, so that they understand and learn from you! You must intentionally focus on effective communication of complex ideas and arguments.
ALL WORK MUST HAVE STUDENTS’ NAME, EMAIL ADDRESS, CLASS, CLASS TIME AND A VERY CLEAR INDICATION OF WHAT THE ASSIGNMENT IS; POINTS WILL BE DEDUCTED IF ANY OF THESE ARE MISSING.
Please use this template for your work; download the file and state from there:
Discussing readings and assignments is highly encouraged, but each student must always do his or her own written work, unless specifically told otherwise.
- 15 weekly short writing assignments, often on the readings, usually due Monday at the time of class, submitted through ): 5 points each, 75 points total.
- There will likely be options for many of the writing assignments; generally they are opportunities for the student to explain the issues and arguments and so teach the material to someone else. Two typical options are these:
- A very detailed outlines or summaries of some assigned readings. You will want them to be so detailed that you can use them for a detailed open outline quiz.
- Alternatively, an essay where you explain the main topic of the reading, the main conclusion(s) advanced in the reading, the main reason(s) given in favor of that conclusion; that argument stated in logically valid form and your evaluation of the argument as sound or unsound. This essay should also be so detailed that it could be used for an open-note quiz.
- Attendance and participation, including taking class notes is required. Attendance will be taken at the beginning of class. Each unexcused absence after 4 will result in a 2% reduction from the student’s overall grade. Unexcused tardiness will result in 1% reduction. \
Students are expected to attend each class meeting. Students who meet the threshold of (one) 1 unexcused hour of class time for each credit hour assigned to the course will be referred to the Office of Student Success and may be administratively withdrawn from the course. Therefore, a student with three (3) unexcused hours absent from a 3 credit hour course is in violation of the attendance policy. Failure to meet minimum attendance requirements may result in the loss of the student’s financial aid in accordance with federal financial aid requirements. See below.
- EXTRA CREDIT ASSIGNMENTS. There likely will be many extra credit opportunities, including this assignment related to finding your “calling” through your career(s): http://morehousephilosophyandreligion.blogspot.com/p/career-exploration.html
No work will be accepted late except with a written, college-approved excuse.
Final grades will be determined by the quantity and quality of work done only: students who need a certain grade should work to ensure that they earn that grade.
Students are expected to attend each class meeting. Students with more than 3 unexcused absences will be referred to the Office of Student Success and may be administratively withdrawn from the course. Failure to meet minimum attendance requirements may result in the loss of the student’s financial aid in accordance with federal financial aid requirements.
Morehouse College is an equal opportunity employer and educational institution. Students with disabilities or those who suspect they have a disability must register with the Office of Disability Services (“ODS”) in order to receive accommodations. Students currently registered with the ODS are required to present their Disability Services Accommodation Letter to faculty immediately upon receiving the accommodation. If you have any questions, contact the Office of Disability Services, 100 Sale Hall Annex, Morehouse College, 830 Westview Dr. S.W., Atlanta, GA 30314, (404) 215-2636.
Morehouse College students are expected to conduct themselves with the highest level of ethics and academic honesty at all times and abide by the terms set forth in the Student Handbook and Code of Conduct. Instances of academic dishonesty, including, but not limited to plagiarism and cheating on examinations and assignments, are taken seriously and may result in a failing grade for the assignment or course and may be reported to the Honor and Conduct Review Board for disciplinary action.
A syllabus is not a contract between instructor and student, but rather a guide to course procedures. The instructor reserves the right to amend the syllabus when conflicts, emergencies or circumstances dictate. Students will be duly notified.
In the event of inclement weather, the College will announce any closures via the emergency notification system and/or through local news outlets. Absent an official closure, students are not excused from attending class due to weather and any absences will be considered unexcused.
Assignments will be announced in class, posted in Blackboard, sent out via Blackboard email and on the Blackboard calendar.
All work is submitted through blackboard.
For next Monday and Wednesday (January 25, 27) we will discuss logic:
o Rachels, The Right Thing to Do (RTD: Ch. 2, “Some Basic Points About Arguments,” available here: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf
Almost all the concepts you need to know for this class: http://www.nathannobis.com/2013/11/philosophical-ethics-handout.html
Handouts on Overview of Logic & Arguments
For next Friday (January 29):
o Rachels, The Right Thing to Do: Ch.1 “A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” available here if you don’t yet have the book: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf
DUE Monday (February 1): WITHOUT READING ANYTHING ABOUT THESE TOPICS – E.G., DO NOT SEARCH THE INTERNET – please write a short (2-3 page) essay that addresses one of these questions:
· Is it wrong to use illegal drugs, such as marijuana?
· Suppose a married woman did not any more children but became pregnant. She could raise another child but does not want to. Would it be wrong for her to have an abortion? Assume the father would support her decision, whatever it is.
· Is it wrong to be homosexual?
· Is it wrong to eat meat?
· If a person was very sick and in pain that would not end, would it be wrong for that person to end their life or seek help in doing so?
Please discuss at least three arguments relevant to the issue.
Please write this essay on the basis of what you already know: again, please do not do any research for this paper. This is an assignment to measure where you are at now. If you take it seriously and put in a good effort, your grade will reflect that. J
For Wednesday February 3, Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (Elements of Moral Philosophy, EMP):
Writing assignment 1: very detailed summary OR OUTLINE of this chapter, covering every section. How detailed? Suppose there was going to be a big test on this, and you could use your notes: make them as detailed as you can make them, so you ensure that every case, every argument, every response to the argument is covered. 3-4 pages, likely.
After this, we will briefly review the later chapters on utilitarian and Kantian moral theory in greater detail, discuss John Rawls’s moral theory, an African ethical theory [some writings from http://philpapers.org/s/Thaddeus%20Metz [and then return to earlier chapters of the Elements of Moral Philosophy.
Order of Readings, subject to change with student input. We will not discuss all these readings below. Exact dates and assignments will be announced in class and online:
1. "Some Basic Points about Arguments," James Rachels (Right Thing to Do): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf
2. Nobis: basic concepts handout: http://www.nathannobis.com/2013/11/philosophical-ethics-handout.html
3. Logic Handout 1: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/arguments.pdf
4. Logic Handout 2: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/validargumentforms.pdf
5. James Rachels, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy" (Right Thing to Do). Available here: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf
6. Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (Elements)
7. Ch. 2, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" (Elements)
8. “What’s Culture Got to Do with it? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision,” Harvard Law Review, http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/female_circumcision.pdf
a. Also, male circumcision.
9. Ch. 3, "Subjectivism in Ethics" (Elements)
10. Richard Feldman on “Simple Moral Arguments”: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/feldman-simple-moral-arguments.pdf
11. Video on Simple Moral Arguments: http://www.makingmoralprogress.com/
12. Video: John Corvino: “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” http://johncorvino.com/wp/photos/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SutThIFi24w
13. Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/homosexuality-arguments.pdf
14. Ch. 4, "Does Morality Depend on Religion?" (Elements)
15. Fred Feldman on abortion: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/fred_feldman_on_abortion.pdf
16. "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion / Postscript on Infanticide," Mary Anne Warren
17. "Why Abortion Is Immoral," Don Marquis
18. "A Defense of Abortion," Judith Jarvis Thomson
19. Nobis, Nathan and Jarr-Koroma, Abubakarr Sidique (2010) "Abortion and Moral Arguments From Analogy," The American Journal of Bioethics, 10: 12, 59 — 61
20. Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/abortion-worksheet.pdf
21. Ch. 5, "Ethical Egoism" (Elements)
22. Materials on “Effective Altruism”: http://www.nathannobis.com/2013/11/effective-altruism.html
23. "9/11 and Starvation," Mylan Engel, Jr. (online)
24. "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," Peter Singer
25. Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/poverty-arguments.pdf
Nathan Nobis, entry on “Peter Singer,” in Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, J. Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman, eds., Macmillan Reference, 2008: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/singer-encyclopedia.pdf
Peter Singer, “One Atmosphere,” from his One World: The Ethics of Globalization (Yale University Press, 2002)
Carr, Edward R. “Sustainable Development” For the Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, Vol 2, J. Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman, eds. Macmillan Reference USA: 295-298, 2008. http://goo.gl/IWXE0
There are many more resources on sustainability and sustainable development, justice and energy consumption, justice and pollution and related topics.
26. Ch. 6, "The Idea of a Social Contract" (Elements)
27. "Letter from the Birmingham City Jail," Martin Luther King, Jr
28. Ch. 7, "The Utilitarian Approach" (Elements)
29. “One Nurse’s Story,” http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/one_nurses_story.pdf
30. "Active and Passive Euthanasia," James Rachels
31. "America's Unjust Drug War," Michael Huemer (RTD, #26)
32. Videos / readings by Michelle Alexander on THE NEW JIM CROW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gln1JwDUI64
33. "All Animals Are Equal," Peter Singer
34. "Torturing Puppies and Eating Meat: It's All in Good Taste," Alastair Norcross (RTD, #15)
35. “Reasonable Humans and Animals,” John Simmons: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/veg.pdf
36. Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/veg-responses.pdf
There are many more resources on animal agriculture and sustainability, energy consumption, global warming, pollution and related topics.
36. Ch. 8, "The Debate over Utilitarianism" (Elements)
39. Ch. 9, "Are There Absolute Moral Rules?" (Elements)
46. Ch. 10, "Kant and Respect for Persons" (Elements)
49. Ch. 11, "Feminism and the Ethics of Care" (Elements)
51. Ch. 12, "The Ethics of Virtue" (Elements)
54. Ch. 13, "What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?" (Elements)
Posted by Nathan Nobis at 6:20 PM
Friday, December 05, 2014
Study guide for final quiz
This study guide presents the various topics and readings for the final quiz. Your job, of course, is to be able to show that you understand the many theories and arguments and responses to these arguments.
Our last quiz covered the divine command theory from the Rachels chapter on morality and religion, so there will be no questions about that. But there was discussion of abortion in that chapter that you should be familiar with.
We introduced the issue with this page:
We reviewed many arguments using this:
Here is a PowerPoint on abortion:
We discussed a view on what persons are, or what personhood is, that is similar to a view presented by Mary Anne Warren in an article (from RTD and widely available online):
“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”;
We discussed Don Marquis’s main argument in his article “Why Abortion is Immoral” (from RTD and widely available online):
- Fetuses are not persons. But killing fetuses is PF wrong nevertheless.
Marquis argues that it is prima facie wrong to kill us because killing us deprives us of our valuable futures.
1. Any action that deprives X of X’s valuable futures is prima facie wrong.
2. Abortion deprives fetuses of their valuable futures.
3. Therefore, abortion is PF wrong.
We also discussed Judith Thompson’s “A Defense of Abortion” article, featuring the Famous Violinist, Henry Fonda, burglars and People Seeds examples (from RTD and widely available online):
Among other issues, the violinist example is designed to show something about the right to life. What was that, and how does that relate to abortion?
Here is a shortened version of that article:
ETHICAL EGOISM AND POVERTY:
The Rachels chapter on Ethical Egoism (and poverty)
Please read "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," from the NY Times, and in The Right Thing to Do, and/or "Famine, Affluence and Morality"
A poverty PowerPoint:
We watched some videos by Peter Singer:
UTILITARIANISM AND ITS APPLICATION TO ANIMALS AND DRUGS
Chapters on Utilitarianism in EMP. The first chapter introduced the theory and applied it to some moral problems (treatment of animals, drug use, euthanasia [however, we didn’t discuss this topic]). The second chapter discussed some theoretical challenges to the theory.
Please read John Simmon's "Reasonable Humans and Animals" (also, here)
Please read Peter Singer's "All Animals Are Equal" (also in RTD)
And Michael Huemer's "Unjust Drug War" (also in RTD)
Please read John Simmon's "Reasonable Humans and Animals" (also, here)
Please read Peter Singer's "All Animals Are Equal" (also in RTD)
And Michael Huemer's "Unjust Drug War" (also in RTD)
Finally, general reflections on the overall methods we’ve used in this class.
Posted by Nathan Nobis at 7:28 AM