PHI 302: Introduction to Philosophical Ethics

2012-01-31T05:56:00.001-08:00

Hi,
Reminder: please reread EMP CH 1 for Wed & Friday of this week.

New assignment: detailed summary of EMP Ch 2 for next Monday.

Thanks!
NN

2012-01-29T07:09:00.000-08:00

2012-01-29T05:49:00.001-08:00

Hi all,
Friday we developed some lists of morally wrong and MP/MO/otherwise good actions. We will use these lists as "data" and ask what it is about these, say, wrong actions that *makes* them wrong, and what it is about the non-wrong actions that *makes* them not wrong. We will develop some explanations or hypotheses (some moral theories). We will them compare our theories to some of the most historically influential theories found in the "Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy" article.

The reading and writing assignments for Monday are found on the blog.

Here are those lists/charts:

Actions that you think almost everybody would think areobviously wrong. VIVID, Extreme and gruesome!

Actions that you think almost everybody would think is MP, MOor GOOD – not wrong!

Actions that you think almost everybody would think are obviously wrong - Specific examples	?	Actions that you think almost everybody would think is MP, MO or GOOD – not wrong
- Embezzlement - Torturing people for fun - Needless cannibalism ? - Rape - Body dismemberment - Not cleaning up after dog - Massacring THIS CLASS - Incest? = abusive relationships - Pedophilia - Kidnapping - Punting “little people” who don’t want it - Wealthy person stealing from a church or charity - Killing people for for status.. for their shoes.. - Chattel Slavery - Preventing women from voting - Holocaust - Genocide … - Apartheid - Arson - Cheating on spouse who expects to not be cheated on - Nuclear attack	- Needless cannibalism ? -	Going to church Donating organs Saving someone’s life.. Giving blood. Education Going to class Community service.. helping others Giving to charity. Protecting pregnant women. Being responsible for your own children. Being clean.

Actions (or character traits) that you think almost everybody would think are obviously wrong

- Vivid, extreme, gruesome examples. Specific examples

- Chopping off limbs for a hobby

- Child abuse .. beating your child

- Child molestation..

- Littering

- Stealing organs

- Rape ..

- Not saving someone’s life if you could easily do so.

- Drunk driving..

- Identify theft

- Killing someone for a dirty look .. or stepping on shoes.. or for shoes.

- Making 5 year olds smoke cigarettes

- Racism

- Slavery

- Hitler

- Holocaust

- Genocide – massacring people for no good reason

- Drag racing?

- Beating up people and bullying people just because weaker..

Actions (or character traits) that you think almost everybody would think is MP, MO or GOOD – not wrong

-Donating to charity

Organ donor

-Saving a drowning person in a pool

-NOT cheating on your spouse who reasonably expects to not be cheated on…

- being healthy

- helping others..

- helping lost child find their parents at Wal Mart

- preventing a kidnapping.

Being truthful

Due Monday; EMP Ch 1 next week

2012-01-25T10:01:00.000-08:00

Due to the late adds, there are some extensions in due dates on the two first writing assignments, both of which are now due Monday (but they can be turned in early, of course!).

Always put your class time and email on your papers/written work.
Always staple them.

1. Although you must read the entire chapter, in this writing assignment please summarize and explain the moral theories discusses in the second half of the article, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy," beginning on page 5 with The Social Contract. Explain which theory or theories you think are best and why. At least 2-3 pages.
2. Please write an extremely detailed summary of the all the sections of The Elements of Moral Philosophy chapter 1. At the end write down any questions you have about anything in the chapter. Likely 3-5 pages.
Links for these chapters are available below on the blog and on the syllabus.

For Friday, please make two lists, as long as you can make them:

Actionsthat you think most people would think are obviously wrong.
Actionsthat you think most people would think are obviously morally permissible /obligatory / or otherwise good.

Here are links for the readings thusfar: I repost them to delete the previous posts:

SomeBasic Points about Arguments,"James Rachels (from The Right Thing to Do): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf
James Rachels, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy" (from The Right Thing to Do): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf (focus on the 2nd half: utilitarianism, Kantianism and social contract theory).
Read: Rachels, Elements of Moral Philosophy Chapter 1, "What is Morality?" (available here if you don't yet have the book, but this is the last chapter I can make online).

Day 1

2012-01-13T08:39:00.000-08:00

If you missed day 1, please read the "Methods" section of this article, pages 2-3 of the document
and pages 6-9 of this document.

Spring 2012 Syllabus

2012-01-11T03:25:00.001-08:00

“The ultimatemeasure of a man is not where he stands in momentsof comfort and convenience,

but wherehe stands attimes of challenge and controversy.”
- Martin LutherKing Jr.,‘48

*****

Syllabus

Introductionto Philosophical Ethics, PHI 302

Spring 2012

AVAILABLE INPDF here: http://goo.gl/AbVOr

Note:Studentsare responsible for understandingall the information and policies presentedin this syllabus. Studentswill be referred to it if theyhave questions that areanswered here. A syllabus is not acontractand can be revised, if needed, topromote learning and other educationalgoals.

12-12:50 PM course, Sale Hall 105:47655- HPHI 302G - 01: www.Turnitin.comclass ID= 4715264

1-1:50PM course, Sale Hall 105:47656- HPHI 302G - 02 : www.Turnitin.comclasss ID= 4715266

Course blog: http://philosophy302.blogspot.com

Instructor: NathanNobis, Ph.D., www.NathanNobis.com

Preferred Email: nathan.nobis@gmail.com(preferred email); nnobis@morehouse.edu

Telephone: 404-215-2607

Office: Sale Hall 113, Philosophy & Religion Department

Office Hours: 11-12 MWF and 2-4 M, occasionally 2-4 W and F and byappointment: please email!

Department of Philosophy andReligion: Missionand Objectives:

The two-fold objective of this Department is toprepare students for graduate or professional study in the fields of philosophyand religious studies and to enable them to satisfy the College requirements inthe general education program. The courses in philosophy and religion seek to provide the student notonly with a firm base in these two academic disciplines, but also with a meansfor self-examination and self-orientation. The work in philosophy aims todevelop a critical and analytical approach to all the major areas of humaninquiry. The work in religion aims to describe, analyze and evaluate therole of religion in the life of humans since earliest times and how thereligious quest continues as a variegated and often tortuous climb toward humangrowth and fulfillment.

1. CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTION: Provides an introduction tophilosophical reflection about the nature and functionof morality. Readings will include both historicaland contemporary materials.

EXTENDEDCOURSE DESCRIPTION: This course provides students with the opportunity toimprove their skills at reasoning criticallyabout moral issues. Studentswill learn some basic logical conceptsand argumentanalysis skills and apply them to theoretical and practicalquestions aboutmorality. We will practice identifyingclear (i.e., unambiguous) and precise moral conclusions (i.e., exact perspectivestaken on moral issues) and the premises, or reasons, given for and against theseconclusions. We will then practice evaluatingthese reasons tosee if they provide rational supportfor these conclusions or not.

We will think aboutwhat helps people think more carefully and criticallyabout moral issues and what factorsand influences discourage this.

We will discuss influential ethicaltheories and moral principles –answers to thequestions ‘What’sthe basic difference between a morally permissible and a morallyimpermissible (or wrong) action?’and ‘What makes wrong actions wrong and whatmakes permissible actions permissible?’– and apply our argument analysisskills to moral issues such as the treatment ofdisabled newborns, female genital mutilation,homosexuality, abortion, absolutepoverty, racism, sexism, and speciesism, vegetarianism and thetreatment of animals, euthanasiaand assisted suicide, drug use, andcapital punishment, among others.

2. COURSEPREREQUISITES: There are no formalprerequisites for this course. However, students will benefitmost from thecourse when they enter it with theabilities to:

a. read criticallyand identify thestructureand components of an argumentativeessay or passage, i.e., theconclusion(s), the premises(s) orsupporting elements, and so forth;

b. write clear, concise and simple grammatical, spelling-error-free sentencesand well-organized expository andargumentativeessays, as taught in Introductory English courses;

c. speak clearly, concisely, and grammatically.

· Basic mathematicaland scientific literacy is desirable.

· Familiaritywith moral issues, common positions takenon them and reasons given in favorof these positionsis desirable, since we will build on any previous understanding.

· Intellectualand moral virtues, such as curiosity, patience,and openness to the possibilityof error and the need for change,are desirable as well.

3. COURSEOBJECTIVES: Upon successfully completingthis course, studentswill be able to use the setof argument analysis skills below toidentify and evaluate moral arguments:

a. identifywhether any presentation (“text”) is“morally argumentative” or not,i.e., whether it presentsan argument for a moral conclusionon a moral issue or not;

b. identifyconclusions of morally argumentative presentations, evaluatethese conclusions for clarity and precision, and (if needed) reconstruct /restatethe conclusion in clear and precise terms;

c. identifystatedpremises or reasons in morally argumentative presentations, evaluatethese conclusions for clarity and precision, and (if needed) reconstruct /restatethese premises in clear and precise terms;

d. identify(if needed) unstated premises in argumentative presentations that are logically essentialto thestructureof an argument and state them as partof the argumentin clear and precise terms;

e. identifyand distinguish factual/empirical/scientificand moral/philosophical premises in moral arguments;

f. evaluatemoral arguments as (1) logicallyvalid or invalid (orotherwise logically cogent) and (2) sound or unsound (or otherwisestrong);

g. identifyand explain reasons given to think an argumentis sound, reasons to think itis unsound (often using counterexamplesto general moral premises), andresponses to thesereasons.

Students will be able toaccurately explain historically influentialmoral theories and common arguments againstthem, in lightof their implications, explanatorypower and theoretical virtuesand vices.

Students will be able toaccurately explain (in essays andoral presentations)the mostcommon arguments given on a numberof controversial moral issues, froma variety of perspectives, and criticismsof these arguments.

A GREEN SYLLABUS: This course contains content that allows it to contribute toMorehouse’s Institute for Sustainable Energy program, its planned academicMinor in Energy and the Morehouse-WideInitiative for Sustainable Energy (M-WISE) program: http://www.morehouse.edu/news/InsideMorehouse_w/dec10jan11/hbcu-energy.html

This content is indicated in green below.

4. REQUIREDMATERIALS, which must always be broughtto class: studentswithout 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) (Any edition).
James and Stuart Rachels, eds. The Right Thing to Do, (McGraw Hill Publishing) 4^t^h Ed. (Any edition will do, but students are responsible for getting copies of any readings in the current edition not found in prior editions).
Additional materials will be posted online and/or handed out in class.

5. ASSIGNMENTS &GRADING:

12 weekly short writing assignments, often on the readings, usually due Monday at the time of class in hardcopy – no work will be accepted late -- and submitted to the Turnitin.com system, with a print out of your submission receipt attached the assignment (see above for the Course ID: 5 points each, 60 points total.
3 Quizzes: In class. 20 points each, 60 points total.
3 Argumentative essays (approx 5 pages): 20 points each, 60 points total.
Attendance and participation is required. Each unexcused absence after 4 will result in a 2 point reduction from students overall grade. Unexcused tardiness will result in 1 point reduction.

No work will be accepted late except with a written,college-approved excuse.

Final grades will be determined by the quantity andquality of work done only: students who need a certain grade should work toensure that they earn that grade.

Plagiarism and cheating is not allowed and will be severely penalized by either azero on an assignment (and no chance for making up that assignment) or failingthe course. Do not consult any outside sources for any assignments or examinethe work of any other students – current or past students – unless directed todo so by the instructor.

6. ATTENDANCE REGULATIONSAND CLASS POLICIES.

Classattendance is required for all Morehouse College courses. Eachstudent is allowed four absences in this course. In addition, twolate-arrivals will count as one absence. Students who are late are responsible for informing the instructor at theend of the class period that they are present, otherwise they may be recordedas absent. Excuses for absencesshould be submitted no later than two weeks from occurrence.

Students who accumulate more than four officially unexcused absences may havetheir course grade lowered by two points for each absence. Daily attendance will be recorded. Each student should keep a record of his orher absences. Students who miss exams or quizzes due to unexcused absences will not be allowed to make themup. Students who fail to submit theessays on the due date, without official excuse, may be penalized. Students who take a trip that is officiallysponsored (and therefore excused) by the College must inform the instructorprior to the trip to discuss how their class work can be made up. Studentsshould make a point of informing the instructor of any required specialaccommodation.

First assignments:

For next Wednesday (1/18), after MLK day:

o Rachels, The RightThing to Do (RTD: Ch. 2,“Some Basic Points About Arguments,”available here for students who don’t yethave the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

Handoutson Overview of Logic & Arguments

http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/arguments.pdf

http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/validargumentforms.pdf

·Overview of Basic Moral Evaluations:Morally Permissible, Obligatory,Impermissible/Wrong

o See pp. 3, 5-8; also discusses logic and moral theories:https://sites.google.com/site/ethicsandanimals/EthicsandAnimalsLecturesDiscussionQuestionsAssigments.pdf

For the next Monday (1/23):

o Rachels, The RightThing to Do: Ch.1 “A Short Introduction toMoral Philosophy,” available here for students don’t yethave the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf

For Wednesday (1/25) Ch. 1, "What isMorality?" (Elements of Moral Philosophy, EMP):

Writingassignment 1: very detailed summary of this chapter, covering every section.Due 1/25.

Order of Readings(however, we will not discuss allthese readings below); exact dates and assignments will be announced in classand online:

1. "SomeBasic Points about Arguments,"James Rachels (RTD, #2). Availablehere if you don’t yet have thebooks: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

Logic Handout 1: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/arguments.pdf

Logic Handout 2: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/validargumentforms.pdf

2. James Rachels,"A Short Introductionto Moral Philosophy" (RTD, #1).Available here if you don’t yethave the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf

3. Ch. 1,"What is Morality?" (Elements)

4. "The NewEugenics," Matt Ridley (RTD, #36) [This goes with thebioethics themeof ch. 1.]

5. Ch. 2, "The Challenge of CulturalRelativism" (Elements)

6. “What’s CultureGot toDo with it?Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision,” Harvard Law Review, http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/female_circumcision.pdf

7. "Monogamy: ACritique," John McMurtry (RTD, #28) [This goes withthe brief discussion of polyamory onpp. 29-30 of Elements; the readings below also concern sexual ethics.]

8. "Our SexualEthics," Bertrand Russell (RTD, #29)

9. "Alcohol andRape," Nicholas Dixon (RTD, #30)

10. Ch. 3, "Subjectivismin Ethics" (Elements)

11. "The Subjectivity ofValues," J. L. Mackie (RTD, #6) [This defends a version of Ethical Subjectivism.]

12. Richard Feldmanon “Simple Moral Arguments”: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/feldman-simple-moral-arguments.pdf

13. "IsHomosexuality Unnatural?" BurtonM. Leiser (RTD, #27) [This is an expanded version of theargument given on pp. 44-45 ofElements.]

Video: John Corvino: “What’sMorally Wrong with Homosexuality?” http://johncorvino.com/wp/photos/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SutThIFi24w

Argumentworksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/homosexuality-arguments.pdf

14. Ch. 4, "Does MoralityDepend on Religion?" (Elements)

15. Fred Feldman onabortion: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/fred_feldman_on_abortion.pdf

16. "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion/ Postscripton Infanticide," Mary AnneWarren (RTD, #13)

17. "Why Abortion Is Immoral," Don Marquis (RTD, #11) [Oneaspect of theabortion debateis discussed on pp. 57-61 of Elements.]

18. "A Defenseof Abortion," Judith Jarvis Thomson (RTD, #12)

Argumentworksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/abortion-worksheet.pdf

19. Ch. 5, "EthicalEgoism" (Elements)

20. "9/11 and Starvation,"Mylan Engel, Jr. (RTD, #17) [Povertyis discussed on pp. 62-63 of Elements.]

21. "The SingerSolution toWorld Poverty," Peter Singer (RTD, #18)

Argumentworksheet: 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.

22. "Is RacialDiscrimination Arbitrary?" PeterSinger (RTD, #32) [This essay asks whether"The Principle of Equal Treatment" (as we call iton p. 77 of Elements) applies to threedifficult test cases.]

23. Ch. 6, "The Idea of a Social Contract"(Elements)

24. "Letter fromthe Birmingham City Jail," MartinLuther King, Jr. (RTD, #31) [King'sletteris quoted on pp. 90-91 of Elements.]

25. "In Defenseof Quotas," James Rachels (RTD,#33) [This reading goes with King's"Letterfrom the Birmingham City Jail." In King's day, America was soracist that preferentialquotas were justified. Are theyjustified today?]

26. Ch. 7, "The Utilitarian Approach" (Elements)

27. "Utilitarianism,"John StuartMill (RTD, #3)

28. “One Nurse’s Story,” http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/one_nurses_story.pdf

29. "The Morality of Euthanasia,"James Rachels (RTD, #34) [Euthanasiais discussed on pp. 98-101 of Elements.]

30. "Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life?"Richard Doerflinger (RTD, #35) [Assistedsuicide is different from euthanasia, butthe topicsare similar.]

31. "America's Unjust Drug War," Michael Huemer (RTD, #26)[Marijuana is discussed on pp. 101-104 of Elements.]

32. "All AnimalsAre Equal," Peter Singer (RTD,#14) [The treatment of animals is discussed on pp. 104-108 of Elements.]

33. "Torturing Puppies and EatingMeat: It'sAll in Good Taste," Alastair Norcross (RTD, #15)

34. "Do AnimalsHave Rights?" Tibor R. Machan(RTD, #16)

35. “ReasonableHumans and Animals,” John Simmons: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/veg.pdf

Argumentworksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/veg-responses.pdf

Environmental consequences of factory farming / intensive animal agriculture, some of which are summarized and linked to at: http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html and
http://www.veganoutreach.org/globalwarming.html including

“Livestock a Major Threat to the Environment,” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
“Study: vegan diets healthier for planet, people than meat diets”: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060413.diet.shtml

Eshel, Gidon, Pamela A. Martin, 2006: Diet, Energy, and Global Warming. Earth Interact., 10, 1–17. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1
http://inside.bard.edu/~geshel

“Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the Environment,” David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel, Am J Clin Nutr 2003;78(suppl):660S–3S. http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdf
Food, Inc.: the film: http://www.foodincmovie.com/about-the-issues.php

There are many more resources on animal agriculture and sustainability, energy consumption, global warming, pollution and related topics.

36. Ch. 8, "The Debateover Utilitarianism"(Elements)

37. "Utilitarianismand Integrity,"Bernard Williams (RTD, #4) [This selectionpresents Williams' most famous objectionto Utilitarianism.]

38. "TheExperience Machine," RobertNozick (RTD, #5) [This selectionpresents Nozick's most famous objectionto HedonistUtilitarianism.]

39. Ch. 9, "Are There AbsoluteMoral Rules?" (Elements)

40. "The Categorical Imperative,"Immanuel Kant (RTD, #7) [The Categorical Imperativeis discussed on pp. 127-129 of Elements.]

41. "The Ethics of War and Peace," Douglas P. Lackey(RTD, #19) [The Allies' conduct of the Second World War is discussed on pp. 124-126 ofElements.]

42. "Fifty Years afterHiroshima," John Rawls (RTD, #20) [Thebombing of Hiroshimais discussed on pp. 124-126 of Elements.]

43. "What Is Wrong withTerrorism?" Thomas Nagel (RTD, #21) [The readings on war and terrorism go together. Also, Nagel implies that theprohibition on aiming at the death of a harmless person is an absolute moral rule.]

44. "The War onTerrorism and the End of Human Rights," David Luban (RTD, #22) [This continues thethemes of war and terrorism.]

45. "Liberalism,Torture, and theTicking Bomb," David Luban (RTD, #23) [One may ask: is the prohibitionon torturean absolute moral rule?]

46. Ch. 10, "Kantand Respect for Persons"(Elements)

47. "A Defenseof the DeathPenalty," Louis P. Pojman (RTD,#24) [Punishment is discussed on pp.139-145 of Elements. We discuss the deathpenalty specifically on p. 143.]

48. "Why the United States Will Join the Restof the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment,"Stephen B. Bright (RTD, #25)

49. Ch. 11, "Feminism and theEthics of Care" (Elements)

50. "Caring Relations and Principles of Justice,"Virginia Held (RTD, #10) [See pp. 152-157 of Elements.]

51. Ch. 12, "The Ethicsof Virtue" (Elements)

52. "The Virtues," Aristotle (RTD, #8)

53. "Master Moralityand Slave Morality," FriedrichNietzsche (RTD, #9) [Nietzsche glorifies thevirtues of "master morality"and ridicules the vices of"slave morality."]

54. Ch. 13,"What Would a SatisfactoryMoral Theory Be Like?" (Elements)

2012-01-11T02:34:00.000-08:00

SPRING 2012

wk

	Monday-Tuesday	January 9-10, 2012	Official Registration

1	Wednesday	January 11, 2012	First Day of Class

	Monday	January 16, 2012	MLK Holiday

2	Friday	January 20, 2012	End Drop/Add

	Saturday	January 21, 2012	Withdrawal Period Begins

8	Monday-Friday	February 27 - March 2, 2012	Mid-term Week

	Monday-Friday	March 5 - 9, 2012	Spring Break

	Monday	March 12, 2012	Classes resume at 8:am

	Friday	April 6, 2012	Good Friday

	Monday-Friday	April 2-6, 2012	Academic Advising Week

	Monday	April 9, 2012	Web Registration Begins for 201209

	Friday	April 20, 2012	Last Day to Withdraw

	Wednesday	May 2, 2012	Last Day of Classes

16	Thursday-Friday	May 3 - 4, 2012	Reading Period

	Thursday-Friday	May 3 - 4, 2012	Senior Final Exams

17	Monday-Friday	May 7 - 11, 2012	Final Exams

	Thursday	May 11, 2012	Senior Grades due by Noon

	Friday	May 14 - 18, 2012	Semester Ends

	Monday-Friday	May 17 - 18, 2012	Senior Week

	Saturday	May 19, 2012	Baccalaureate Service

	Sunday	May 20, 2012	Commencement Weekend

	Tuesday	May 22, 2012	All Final Grades due by Noon

2011-12-02T05:57:00.001-08:00

Hi all,
Here's from the other day:

Final assignments:

1. Study guide for last quiz: due at time of final

http://tigernet.morehouse.edu/TigerPages/Fall2011FinalExamSchedule.pdf

1 PM class’s final officialtime is Monday, Dec. 5, from 8-10 AM. BUT Professor Nobis can’t get here until 8:30 AM.

2. Paper:

First, read this“Guidelines on writing a philosophy paper”:

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

Then write a paper!Due at time of final (or possibly later.. let me see)

Topic:homosexuality, abortion, world poverty or eating animals/vegetarianism (pick oneand only one!)

Your paper must havean introduction, a thesis and be well organized and argued. You must raise andrespond to objections. You should present at least 5 arguments in logicallyvalid form on the topic and explain whether they are sound or not.

DUE BY FRIDAY December 9 AT NOON VIA EMAIL – NOBISHOMEWORK@GMAIL.COM and IN HARDCOPY

UNLESS YOU ARE AGRADUATING-THIS-SEMESTER SENIOR: THEN IT IS DUE THURSDAY December 8 BY NOON

3. Extra credit paper:

top 10 list forhelpful do's and/or don't's for thinking critically about moral issues. Due attime of final (or possibly later.. let me see)

Give the do or don'tand a paragraph to explain it, using examples.

DUE BY FRIDAY December 9 AT NOON VIA EMAIL – NOBISHOMEWORK@GMAIL.COM and INHARDCOPY

UNLESS YOU ARE AGRADUATING-THIS-SEMESTER SENIOR: THEN IT IS DUE THURSDAY December 8 BY NOON

2011-11-29T04:03:00.001-08:00

Final assignments:

1. Study guide for last quiz: due at time of final

http://tigernet.morehouse.edu/TigerPages/Fall2011FinalExamSchedule.pdf

2. Paper:

First, read this “Guidelines on writing a philosophy paper”:

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

Then write a paper! Due at time of final (or possiblylater.. let me see)

Topic: homosexuality, abortion, world poverty or eating animals/vegetarianism (pickone and only one!)

Your paper must have an introduction, a thesis and be wellorganized and argued. You must raise and respond to objections. You should presentat least 5 arguments in logically valid form on the topic and explain whetherthey are sound or not.

3. Extra credit paper:

top 10 list for helpful do's and/ordon't's for thinking critically about moral issues. Due at time of final (orpossibly later.. let me see)

Give the do or don't and a paragraph to explain it, usingexamples.

2011-11-14T11:31:00.001-08:00

Some people have an erroneous copy of the article for Wednesday because it has two page 3's. Here is the correct version:
"Reasonable Humans and Animals," John Simmons:
http://sites.google.com/site/aphilosopher/veg.pdf

Again, a detailed summary of the arguments and objections should be sent to the homework email address, available on the blog.
Thanks!

2011-11-04T09:58:00.000-07:00

For Monday, please formulate these objections in the form of logically valid arguments; submit to nobishomework@gmail.com following the directions from below.

Worksheet on Objections to the Singer Solution to World Poverty

The argument:
1. If there are (a) very bad things happening, (b) there is something that we can do that will prevent some of these bad things from happening and (c) we can do these things without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, then we are morally obligated to do so.
2. (a) There are very bad things happening (e.g., children starving, etc.)
3. (b) We can do something to prevent some of these bad things from happening (e.g., by donating).
4. (c) In doing this, we wouldn’t sacrifice something of comparable moral significance.
5. Therefore, we are morally obligated to donate (and it’s wrong not to).

Some objections to work through:
Directions: State these objections as valid arguments. Add the missing premise(s) needed to make them valid. Explain whether the arguments are sound (i.e., valid with true premises) or not and so whether these objections show that Singer’s argument is not sound.

If an argument below is sound, then that implies that a premise in Singer’s argument above is false. If any argument below is sound, which premise above is false? Explain.

Objection 1: “Hypocrisy! “Singer doesn’t perfectly practice what he preaches, so we are not morally obligated to donate.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 2: “Others aren’t helping! Very few people give anything, much less a lot, to help starving people. Therefore, I (or we) am not obligated to help.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 3: “Saving people is the job of governments so we are not morally obligated to donate.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 4: “The child is a stranger so we are not morally obligated to donate.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 5: “The child is a far away so we are not morally obligated to donate.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 6: “I/we did not cause their problem so we are not morally obligated to donate.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection (observation?) 7: “People will not accept this argument, i.e., they won’t do what Singer argues they should, so we are not morally obligated to donate.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 8: We can’t help any of these people so we are not morally obligated to donate.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 9: If everyone helped out, I wouldn’t have to give very much, so I don’t have to give very much (certainly much less than Singer says). Although we might be obligated to donate something, we are not morally obligated to donate a lot.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 10: “People have a moral right to spend their money however they’d like so we are not morally obligated to donate.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 11: “Singer is forcing people to help the starving, so we are not morally obligated to donate.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 12: “If we would give to help starving children, we would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance (e.g., ______) so we are not morally obligated to donate.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Other objections:
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Assignments

2011-11-03T06:32:00.001-07:00

In addition to these assignments below, please check out the page for Peter Singer's book THE LIFE YOU COULD SAVE:
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/

Thanks!

1. Sign up for email group @ blog; philosophy302.blogspot.com
2. Set up email forwarding in TigerMail
3. Check out TheTenDollarClub.org

The Life You Can Save . com

4. Read and re-read the Singer Solution to World Poverty
5. Read and re-read EMP Ch. 5
6. Read and re-read Mylan Engel's "9-11 and Starvation"

2011-10-30T15:18:00.001-07:00

nobishomework@gmail.com

Writing assignment for Monday:

Summary of the arguments and objections in Peter Singer's "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." This is not really a summary of the article, but something more reflective where you identify Singer's main conclusion(s) and the premises he gives in its (or their) favor, and state the objections he discusses in valid form.

In submitting work by email, please:
1. Put your name, class time and assignment in the subject line
2. Put your name, class time and assignment in the body of the email as well
3. Paste your assignment into the body of the email
4. Also, attach your assignment as a properly formatted attachment

Send your assignment to: nobishomework@gmail.com

2011-10-10T06:03:00.001-07:00

Friday there is Quiz 2, a midterm quiz covering everything since the last quiz. This will include EMP Chs. 2, 3 and 4 and everything from class. For Monday or Wednesday create a detailed review sheet over this material. Study groups to develop this review sheet are encouraged!

2011-10-01T07:13:00.000-07:00

For Monday (or Wednesday would be fine too):

1. Make a list of at least 10 reasons people give to think that abortion is wrong. These should be in complete sentences.

2. Make a list of at least 5 reasons people give to think that abortion is morally permissible. These should be in complete sentences.

3. Then, formulate all these arguments in logically valid form.

2011-09-29T08:59:00.001-07:00

2011-09-23T12:59:00.001-07:00

For Monday,

1. Make a list of at least 10 reasons given in favor of this conclusion:

Homosexuality is wrong.

Please state these reasons in complete sentences. So, either:
1. Homosexuality is ______.
2. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

Or, "Homosexuality is wrong because ______."

2. Make a list of at least five reasons to think that homosexuality is morally permissible, in complete sentences.

3. Attempt to state these arguments in logically valid form. Hint: the "universal generalization" form is likely very helpful here.

2011-09-20T05:04:00.001-07:00

For Wednesday, please check out videos on Youtube on female genital mutilation or female circumcision. Google those terms, please, and see what you find.

Please also read: "What's Culture Got to Do with it? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision"

2011-09-17T07:53:00.001-07:00

DUE MONDAY FOR CLASS.

In Elements of Moral Philosophy (Ch.2) and The Right Thing to Do (RTD) (Ch. 1) a moral theory called "Moral Relativism" or "Cultural Relativism" is discussed (these two terms refer to the same theory). In RTD Ch. 2, "Moral Skepticism" is discussed.

What are these theories? Explain them.

What are arguments against them, i.e., arguments that they are false? Present these arguments in logically valid form (hint, Modus Tollens is an ideal form: "If this theory were true, then such and such would follow. But such and such is not true, so the theory is not true."

2011-09-08T06:02:00.000-07:00

For Friday and Monday, we will discuss EMP Ch. 1. A detailed summary or outline was due Wednesday.

For this Monday, here is the writing assignment, which is different from what was given in class yesterday; this assignment will be better at this time:

Construct an extremely detailed review sheet that summarizes and thoroughly explains all the concepts, theories and arguments presented in this class thus far: from the readings, handouts, class discussion, lectures, etc.

For Wednesday, please read this, which can likely also be found online via Google:

"The New Eugenics," Matt Ridley (RTD, #36) [This goes with the bioethics theme of ch. 1.]

Friday, Sept 16 is the first quiz, in class.

WEB CT

2011-09-08T05:49:00.001-07:00

If you are having troubles with WebCT (including not being able to login), please contact:

Anne Grey (agrey @ morehouse.edu) , with your

- Name

- email

- crn of the course

- your Tigernet ID (if you have one)

- your school

2011-08-31T17:39:00.000-07:00

A link for an electronic version of EMP Ch 1 has been placed on the calendar in WebCT.

2011-08-30T05:03:00.001-07:00

For this week and next:
1. Monday and Wednesday we will discuss logic and arguments. The main reading is RTD Ch 2. The link is below and on the syllabus.
2. Friday we will discusss RTD Ch 1.
3. Monday is a holiday (Labor Day), so next Wednesday and Friday we will discuss EMP Ch. 1. The writing assignment is a very, very detailed summary of the chapter, due in Web Ct by classtime Wed.

Syllabus, Fall 2011

2011-08-26T14:21:00.000-07:00

Syllabus

Introduction to Philosophical Ethics, PHI 302

Fall 2011

AVAILABLE IN PDF here: http://goo.gl/aB6N1

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.

11- 11:50 AM course, Sale Hall ___: Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 44899 - HPHI 302G - 06

12- 12:50 PM course, Sale Hall ___: Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 44894 - HPHI 302G - 01

1-1:50 PM course, Sale Hall ___: Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 44895 - HPHI 302G - 02

WebCT: https://webct.morehouse.edu/webct/public/home.pl

Course blog (being phased out): http://philosophy302.blogspot.com

Instructor: Nathan Nobis, Ph.D., www.NathanNobis.com

Preferred Email: nathan.nobis@gmail.com; nnobis@morehouse.edu

Telephone: 404-215-2607

Office: Sale Hall 113, Philosophy & Religion Department

Office Hours: 2:00-3 PM MW and by appointment.

Department of Philosophy and Religion: Mission and Objectives:

The two-fold objective of this Department is to prepare students for graduate or professional study in the fields of philosophy and religious studies and to enable them to satisfy the College requirements in the general education program. The courses in philosophy and religion seek to provide the student not only with a firm base in these two academic disciplines, but also with a means for self-examination and self-orientation. The work in philosophy aims to develop a critical and analytical approach to all the major areas of human inquiry. The work in religion aims to describe, analyze and evaluate the role of religion in the life of humans since earliest times and how the religious quest continues as a variegated and often tortuous climb toward human growth and fulfillment.

1. 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 (i.e., unambiguous) and precise moral conclusions (i.e., exact perspectives taken on moral issues) 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, vegetarianism and the treatment of animals, euthanasia and assisted suicide, drug use, and capital punishment, among others.

2. 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:

a. 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;

b. write clear, concise and simple grammatical, spelling-error-free sentences and well-organized expository and argumentative essays, as taught in Introductory English courses;

c. 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.

3. 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 (“text”) 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 invalid (or otherwise logically cogent) and (2) sound or unsound (or otherwise strong);

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.

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: http://www.morehouse.edu/news/InsideMorehouse_w/dec10jan11/hbcu-energy.html

This content is indicated in green below.

4. REQUIRED MATERIALS, which must always be brought to class.

James and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (McGraw Hill Publishing) (Any edition).
James and Stuart Rachels, eds. The Right Thing to Do, (McGraw Hill Publishing) 4^t^h Ed. (Any edition will do, but students are responsible for getting copies of any readings in the current edition not found in prior editions).
Additional materials will be posted online and/or handed out in class.

5. ASSIGNMENTS & GRADING:

12 weekly short writing assignments, often on the readings, always due Monday before class through WebCT: 5 points each, 60 points total. ( 33% of total grade)

Writing assignment for this Monday (8/29): what makes a class go best for enabling you to learn the best you can, in terms of the material, structure, organization, classroom atmosphere, instructor’s behavior and attitude, your own behavior and attitude, and so on?

4 Quizzes. Instead of having a traditional midterm and final exam, we will have some shorter quizzes that cover less material and provide more immediate feedback on your progress: 15 points each, 60 points total ( 33 % of total grade, total)
3 Argumentative essays (approx 5 pages): 15 points each, 45 points total (25% of total grade)
Attendance and participation, including a spoken presentation and preparation of the “Minutes” – which is a review of last last’s material and discussion – and volunteering to lead class discussion at least once. 15 points. (8% of total grade)

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.

Plagiarism and cheating is not allowed and will be severely penalized by either a zero on an assignment (and no chance for making up that assignment) or failing the course. Do not consult any outside sources for any assignments or examine the work of any other students – current or past students – unless directed to do so by the instructor.

6. ATTENDANCE REGULATIONS AND CLASS POLICIES.

Class attendance is required for all Morehouse College courses. Each student is allowed four absences in this course. In addition, two late-arrivals will count as one absence. Students who are late are responsible for informing the instructor at the end of the class period that they are present, otherwise they may be recorded as absent. Excuses for absences should be submitted no later than two weeks from occurrence.

Students who accumulate more than four officially unexcused absences may have their course grade lowered. Daily attendance will be recorded. Each student should keep a record of his or her absences. Students who miss exams or quizzes due to unexcused absences will not be allowed to make them up. Students who fail to submit the essays on the due date, without official excuse, may be penalized. Students who take a trip that is officially sponsored (and therefore excused) by the College must inform the instructor prior to the trip to discuss how their class work can be made up. Students should make a point of informing the instructor of any required special accommodation.

Fall 2011 Academic Calendar
1	Wednesday	24-Aug-11	First Day of Class
2	Friday	2-Sep-11	End Drop/Add
	Saturday	4-Sep-10	Withdrawal Period Begins
3	Monday	5-Sep-11	Labor Day
8	Monday-Friday	October 10-14, 2011	Mid-term Week
	Monday-Friday	November 7-11, 2011	Academic Advising Week
	Monday-Friday	14-Nov-11	Web Registration Begins
	Friday	18-Nov-11	Last Day to Withdraw
	Thursday-Friday	November 24-25, 2011	Thanksgiving Day
	Wednesday	30-Nov-11	Last Day of Classes
15	Thursday-Friday	December 1-2, 2011	Reading Period
15	Thursday-Friday	December 1-2, 2011	Senior Final Exams
16	Monday-Friday	December 5-9, 2011	Final Exams
	Thursday	8-Dec-11	Senior Grades due by Noon
	Friday	9-Dec-11	Semester Ends
17	Tuesday	13-Dec-11	All Final Grades due by Noon

First assignments; dates TBA:

Writing assignment for this Monday (8/29): what makes a class go best for enabling you to learn the best you can, in terms of the material, structure, organization, classroom atmosphere, instructor’s behavior and attitude, your own behavior and attitude, and so on?

o Rachels, The Right Thing to Do (RTD: Ch. 2, “Some Basic Points About Arguments,” available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

Handouts on Overview of Logic & Arguments

http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/arguments.pdf

http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/validargumentforms.pdf

· Overview of Basic Moral Evaluations: Morally Permissible, Obligatory, Impermissible/Wrong

o See pp. 3, 5-8; also discusses logic and moral theories:

https://sites.google.com/site/ethicsandanimals/EthicsandAnimalsLecturesDiscussionQuestionsAssigments.pdf

o Rachels, The Right Thing to Do: Ch.1 “A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf

o Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (Elements of Moral Philosophy, EMP)

o "The New Eugenics," Matt Ridley (RTD, #36) [This goes with the bioethics theme of ch. 1.]

Order of Readings (however, 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 (RTD, #2). Available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

Logic Handout 1: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/arguments.pdf

Logic Handout 2: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/validargumentforms.pdf

2. James Rachels, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy" (RTD, #1). Available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf

3. Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (Elements)

4. "The New Eugenics," Matt Ridley (RTD, #36) [This goes with the bioethics theme of ch. 1.]

5. Ch. 2, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" (Elements)

6. “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

7. "Monogamy: A Critique," John McMurtry (RTD, #28) [This goes with the brief discussion of polyamory on pp. 29-30 of Elements; the readings below also concern sexual ethics.]

8. "Our Sexual Ethics," Bertrand Russell (RTD, #29)

9. "Alcohol and Rape," Nicholas Dixon (RTD, #30)

10. Ch. 3, "Subjectivism in Ethics" (Elements)

11. "The Subjectivity of Values," J. L. Mackie (RTD, #6) [This defends a version of Ethical Subjectivism.]

12. Richard Feldman on “Simple Moral Arguments”: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/feldman-simple-moral-arguments.pdf

13. "Is Homosexuality Unnatural?" Burton M. Leiser (RTD, #27) [This is an expanded version of the argument given on pp. 44-45 of Elements.]

Video: John Corvino: “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” http://johncorvino.com/wp/photos/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SutThIFi24w

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 (RTD, #13)

17. "Why Abortion Is Immoral," Don Marquis (RTD, #11) [One aspect of the abortion debate is discussed on pp. 57-61 of Elements.]

18. "A Defense of Abortion," Judith Jarvis Thomson (RTD, #12)

Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/abortion-worksheet.pdf

19. Ch. 5, "Ethical Egoism" (Elements)

20. "9/11 and Starvation," Mylan Engel, Jr. (RTD, #17) [Poverty is discussed on pp. 62-63 of Elements.]

21. "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," Peter Singer (RTD, #18)

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.

22. "Is Racial Discrimination Arbitrary?" Peter Singer (RTD, #32) [This essay asks whether "The Principle of Equal Treatment" (as we call it on p. 77 of Elements) applies to three difficult test cases.]

23. Ch. 6, "The Idea of a Social Contract" (Elements)

24. "Letter from the Birmingham City Jail," Martin Luther King, Jr. (RTD, #31) [King's letter is quoted on pp. 90-91 of Elements.]

25. "In Defense of Quotas," James Rachels (RTD, #33) [This reading goes with King's "Letter from the Birmingham City Jail." In King's day, America was so racist that preferential quotas were justified. Are they justified today?]

26. Ch. 7, "The Utilitarian Approach" (Elements)

27. "Utilitarianism," John Stuart Mill (RTD, #3)

28. “One Nurse’s Story,” http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/one_nurses_story.pdf

29. "The Morality of Euthanasia," James Rachels (RTD, #34) [Euthanasia is discussed on pp. 98-101 of Elements.]

30. "Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life?" Richard Doerflinger (RTD, #35) [Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, but the topics are similar.]

31. "America's Unjust Drug War," Michael Huemer (RTD, #26) [Marijuana is discussed on pp. 101-104 of Elements.]

32. "All Animals Are Equal," Peter Singer (RTD, #14) [The treatment of animals is discussed on pp. 104-108 of Elements.]

33. "Torturing Puppies and Eating Meat: It's All in Good Taste," Alastair Norcross (RTD, #15)

34. "Do Animals Have Rights?" Tibor R. Machan (RTD, #16)

35. “Reasonable Humans and Animals,” John Simmons: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/veg.pdf

Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/veg-responses.pdf

Environmental consequences of factory farming / intensive animal agriculture, some of which are summarized and linked to at: http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html and
http://www.veganoutreach.org/globalwarming.html including

“Livestock a Major Threat to the Environment,” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
“Study: vegan diets healthier for planet, people than meat diets”: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060413.diet.shtml

Eshel, Gidon, Pamela A. Martin, 2006: Diet, Energy, and Global Warming. Earth Interact., 10, 1–17. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1
http://inside.bard.edu/~geshel

“Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the Environment,” David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel, Am J Clin Nutr 2003;78(suppl):660S–3S. http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdf
Food, Inc.: the film: http://www.foodincmovie.com/about-the-issues.php

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)

37. "Utilitarianism and Integrity," Bernard Williams (RTD, #4) [This selection presents Williams' most famous objection to Utilitarianism.]

38. "The Experience Machine," Robert Nozick (RTD, #5) [This selection presents Nozick's most famous objection to Hedonist Utilitarianism.]

39. Ch. 9, "Are There Absolute Moral Rules?" (Elements)

40. "The Categorical Imperative," Immanuel Kant (RTD, #7) [The Categorical Imperative is discussed on pp. 127-129 of Elements.]

41. "The Ethics of War and Peace," Douglas P. Lackey (RTD, #19) [The Allies' conduct of the Second World War is discussed on pp. 124-126 of Elements.]

42. "Fifty Years after Hiroshima," John Rawls (RTD, #20) [The bombing of Hiroshima is discussed on pp. 124-126 of Elements.]

43. "What Is Wrong with Terrorism?" Thomas Nagel (RTD, #21) [The readings on war and terrorism go together. Also, Nagel implies that the prohibition on aiming at the death of a harmless person is an absolute moral rule.]

44. "The War on Terrorism and the End of Human Rights," David Luban (RTD, #22) [This continues the themes of war and terrorism.]

45. "Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb," David Luban (RTD, #23) [One may ask: is the prohibition on torture an absolute moral rule?]

46. Ch. 10, "Kant and Respect for Persons" (Elements)

47. "A Defense of the Death Penalty," Louis P. Pojman (RTD, #24) [Punishment is discussed on pp. 139-145 of Elements. We discuss the death penalty specifically on p. 143.]

48. "Why the United States Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment," Stephen B. Bright (RTD, #25)

49. Ch. 11, "Feminism and the Ethics of Care" (Elements)

50. "Caring Relations and Principles of Justice," Virginia Held (RTD, #10) [See pp. 152-157 of Elements.]

51. Ch. 12, "The Ethics of Virtue" (Elements)

52. "The Virtues," Aristotle (RTD, #8)

53. "Master Morality and Slave Morality," Friedrich Nietzsche (RTD, #9) [Nietzsche glorifies the virtues of "master morality" and ridicules the vices of "slave morality."]

54. Ch. 13, "What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?" (Elements)

2011-07-07T08:38:00.000-07:00

The final exam, covering everything from the last test - including the methods we have used throughout the term -- is next Wednesday at 10:30 AM. Study groups are encouraged, as is developing a study guide that addresses all the material since last test: all readings, all worksheets, all handouts, all videos, etc.

EXTRA CREDIT ASSIGNMENT:

First, carefully read and study this article on how to write a philosophy paper: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

Next, from the topics we discussed in class, pick one and write a philosophy paper about it where you state at least five arguments no the topic in logically valid form and assess them as sound or not. Your paper should have an introduction, a thesis statement ("I will argue that _____") and a conclusion. Each paragraph should focus on one, and only one, idea. Your papers should be clearly written, grammatical and with no spelling errors. Your paper must conform to the standards set forth by Pryor.

You may receive up to 10 points extra credit for this assignment: however, these points must be earned by a well-written paper. A poorly written paper will yield no extra points.

2011-07-05T12:14:00.000-07:00

For Tuesday, please re-read John Simmon's "Reasonable Humans and Animals" :
http://sites.google.com/site/aphilosopher/veg.pdf
A detailed summary of this article was due today.

In class today this article was mentioned: Mylan Engel's "The Immorality of Eating Meat"

We watched a video that narrates part of his paper. For a similar video, see http://www.meat.org/ among many others.

2011-06-30T09:22:00.001-07:00

Today we started working through these, among many other activities:

ABORTION: Abortion argument worksheet.See also my Powerpoint on abortion.

For Friday, start formulating the arguments on the sheet as logically valid arguments.

2011-06-30T09:21:00.001-07:00

2011-06-29T14:11:00.001-07:00

CORRECTION, YES, WE WILL HAVE CLASS THURSDAY AND FRIDAY.

In my delirium, I thought today was Thursday (not Wednesday). So we will have class tomorrow and Friday, as usual.

For tomorrow, please read this, as well as review the work that was due today: http://www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/

2011-06-29T06:19:00.001-07:00

Hi all,

Yesterday evening I accidentally dropped a brick on my toe. . .

So I'm going to cancel class for today so I can recuperate easier.

See you Friday. Today's assignment is due tomorrow and I will post a new reading and writing assignment today, asap.

Thanks, NN

2011-06-28T13:43:00.000-07:00

FOR WEDNESDAY THE ASSIGNMENT IS ALL OF BELOW, SINCE WE DID NOT GET TO THIS ON TUESDAY:

For Tuesday, re-read the Feldman pages on simple moral arguments.

Make a list of at least 5 common reasons given to think that abortion is morally permissible, and at least 10 reasons given to think that abortion is wrong.

For Wednesday, read (1) in Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy (DISTRIBUTED BY EMAIL), the chapter on morality and religion (Does Morality Depend on Religion?) and write a detailed summary of the entire chapter. Also, read Mary Anne Warren’s “The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” the link of which is available on the blog: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/warren-on-abortion.pdf

THIS IS ALSO AVAILABLE HERE, IN CASE THE LINK ABOVE DOESN'T WORK:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/warren_article.html

Since Wednesday’s assignment involves more reading and writing, you should start it today.

What we have been doing, in terms of making arguments logically valid and deciding whether they are sound, is structurally analogous to this:

Bob is a student at Morehouse.

All M students are good dancers / If someone is a M student, then he’s a good dancer.

Therefore, he’s a good dancer.

2011-06-27T08:59:00.001-07:00

For Tuesday, re-read the Feldman pages on simple moral arguments.

Make a list of at least 5 common reasons given to think that abortion is morally permissible, and at least 10 reasons given to think that abortion is wrong.

For Wednesday, read (1) in Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy, the chapter on morality and religion (Does Morality Depend on Religion?) and write a detailed summary of the entire chapter. Also, read Mary Anne Warren’s “The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” the link of which is available on the blog: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/warren-on-abortion.pdf

Since Wednesday’s assignment involves more reading and writing, you should start it today.

What we have been doing, in terms of making arguments logically valid and deciding whether they are sound, is structurally analogous to this:

Bob is a student at Morehouse.

All M students are good dancers / If someone is a M student, then he’s a good dancer.

Therefore, he’s a good dancer.

2011-06-24T14:18:00.001-07:00

Today we started discussing the argument from The Singer Solution to World Poverty. The powerpoint we were using is here:

https://sites.google.com/site/aphilosopher/teaching

Your assignment for Monday is this:

1. Make a list of objections.

2. For the list of objections I gave you (a handout available here https://sites.google.com/site/aphilosopher/teaching) formulate them into logically valid arguments.

3. For each argument, explain whether it is sound or not.

1-3 must be turned in Monday.

Also, see this page: http://thetendollarclub.org/

2011-06-24T06:00:00.001-07:00

For Friday, as stated in class, please re-read and ensure that you have completed the assignments below from yesterday.

2011-06-22T08:16:00.001-07:00

For Thursday, please re-read the Singer article on poverty, assigned previously.

Also, read and write detailed summaries of these two short chapters by Rachels; these will need to be a number of pages each to address all the aspects of the readings in adequate detail:

Rachels, The Right Thing to Do (RTD: Ch. 2, “Some Basic Points About Arguments”: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

Rachels, The Right Thing to Do: Ch.1 “A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf

2011-06-20T09:03:00.001-07:00

For Tuesday, please read The Singer Solution to World Poverty, available here:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm

Please write something that answers these questions, to be turned in Tuesday as well.
1. What is Singer's MAIN conclusion?
2. How does he support this conclusion? What are his premises?
3. What objections does he consider and respond to?
4. Are these objections sound arguments?
5. Is his argument sound?

Please do not read anything other than the article.

On Wednesday, we will have a quiz/test covering:
(a) all the concepts presented thus far;
(b) the skill of making arguments logically valid;
(c) the skill of identifying whether arguments are sound or not.

STUDY GROUP(S) ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED!

2011-06-16T10:44:00.001-07:00

Hi ya'll,

Class was cancelled today due to the power being out because of the storm.

For tomorrow, I want you to review ALL the handouts and assigned readings from the class thus. I want you to make a review sheet that lists and explains all the concepts we have covered in the course so far. Bring it to class tomorrow in hardcopy.

See you tomorrow!

2011-06-15T10:03:00.001-07:00

For Wednesday, please complete at least 10 of the arguments from the worksheet given out in class:
http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/homosexuality-arguments.pdf
Add the premise(s) needed to state them as logically valid arguments. Then explain whether they are sound or not, by developing counterexamples as needed.

You should review all assigned readings and class notes to review the relevant concepts.

This, like all other homework, will be turned in and graded.

2011-06-13T12:03:00.001-07:00

Hi,
For Tuesday, please read the attached on "Simple Moral Arguments" which I distributed in class.

Also, please do this:
1. Make a list of at least 10 reasons given to think that homosexuality is wrong.
2. Then formulate that list as logically valid arguments. That is, add the premise(s) needed to state the argument in logically valid form.

See you Tuesday!
NN

Schedule

2011-06-08T09:00:00.000-07:00

There already are some schedule changes. Here is the immediate plan:

1. Thursday: please watch John Corvino's "What Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?" video. A link for the preview is on the syl and/or you can just google him. Watch the main program and then the Q & Q, please.

Detailed notes on this video are due in class Monday.

2. Friday: please start watching Sicko. This relates to important social issues.

Detailed notes on this video are due in class Monday.

3. For Monday, please write a detailed summary of Elements of Moral Philosophy chapter 1. It is available online; link off the syl. Write it so detailed that it could be used as a "cheat sheet" on a test covering that chapter!

Logic and Arguments

2011-06-07T07:05:00.001-07:00

Here is a little logic handout:
http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/arguments.pdf
And some sample arguments:
https://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/sample-arguments.pdf