Paper 2:

Are you morally obligated to donate 25 cents a day to help people living in absolute poverty?

Due Tuesday immediately after July 4 holiday

First, examine the webpages of these organizations:

· The $10 Club (www.TheTenDollarClub.org).

· AfricaCare: http://www.africare.org/

· The Children’s Defense Fund: http://www.childrensdefense.org

In this paper, you should present and critically discuss Peter Singer’s arguments regarding world poverty (Mylan Engel and James Rachels prove some useful information and arguments also). You should make the discussion personal – i.e., think about what you personally should do. Start small and consider whether Peter Singer gives a sound argument for the conclusion that you (perhaps with some of your friends or family) are morally obligated donate a quarter a day (= $10 a month) to help people living in absolute poverty. So your thesis should either be this:

• “I will argue that I am morally obligated to donate $.25 a day to help the world’s poor,” or
• “I will argue that I am not morally obligated to donate $.25 to help the world’s poor.”

Your thesis must be carefully and rigorously defended.

4-5 pages, typed, double spaced, 12 pt. font, Name, email, class time

Your papers should have these sections:

Title: ________.

1. Introduction
An introduction, culminating in a thesis, e.g., “I will argue that ______.” Your introduction should introduce the issue or topic to the reader. Assume your reader does not know anything about the topic or the article. You need to explain things so they will understand: see things from their point of view and write accordingly!

2. Singer’s Argument
A section where you carefully and fully explain Singer’s argument, i.e., his conclusion [what exactly is his conclusion? What conclusion have we been considering, for purposes of discussion?] and the reasoning he gives for his conclusion. Singer uses the examples ofthe Pond, Dora and Bob Explain what role these kinds of examples play in his argument.

3. Objections
Carefully explain at least three of what you think are the best objections to Singer’s argument. Present these objections as valid arguments.

4. Evaluation of these objections and Singer’s argument
Explain whether any of the objections are sound arguments against his argument. Explain whether Singer’s argument is sound, and why, and whether it is not sound. That is, is Singer right, or are the objectors? Should you do something (if yes, what?) to help people living in absolute poverty? Why or why not?

DEFEND YOUR VIEW WITH REASONS. Defend your view from objections: e.g., does your response imply that it would not be wrong for you to let a child drown in a pond, even if you could easily save the child?!

5. Conclusion
Explain things in your own words: do not take exact words from the book or any handouts. NO PLAGIARISM. Think for yourself!

If start supporting some worthy cause (e.g., the $10 Club), then not only will you have helped better the lives of people living in absolute poverty, you will get a free poster that says, “I took Philosophical Ethics and all I did was save a child’s life!”

I know of no better place to start – in terms of efficiently making a direct, concrete difference in people’s lives – than The $10 Club (www.TheTenDollarClub.org).

Other excellent suggestions for organizations that you could support are found in this book at:http://ourdaytoendpoverty.com/websites.html

Also, see http://www.thehungersite.com Might you be morally obligated to visit each day to click so that more food is purchased to feed people in absolute poverty?

Dr. Franklin’s Convocation speech also has some relevant discussion of these issues, “Facing the Rising Sun: A New Day Begun”http://www.morehouse.edu/about/franklinspeeches/facingtherisingsun.html

Here were some of the notes and worksheets we used:

http://philosophy302.blogspot.com/2007/04/worksheet-on-objections-to-singer.html

A powerpoint : http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/famine.ppt

Video clip: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-429820406356478614&q=peter+singer

How many people in the world live in extreme poverty? According to NetAid, over a billion people, or roughly one in six, live in extreme poverty. Extreme poverty is defined as living on less than US$1 a day. The World Bank goes on to define moderate poverty as basic subsistence living, on $1 to $2 a day. All told, nearly half the world's population lives in poverty -- that's 2.8 billion people living on less than two dollars a day. Some other facts to keep in mind: • Each year over 8 million people die because they are simply too poor to stay alive. • More than 800 million people go hungry every day. • The gross domestic product of the poorest 48 nations is less than the wealth of the world's three richestpeople. • Thirty-thousand children die every day due to hunger and treatable illnesses. • 6 million children die every year before their fifth birthday, as a result of malnutrition.

For Monday, read "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" in RTD. OPS due.

Lewis's Car?

For Friday, EMP Ch. 5 on ETHICAL EGOISM (make sure the topic is this!). OPS on the whole chapter.

For Monday, the Singer Solution to World Poverty from RTD. OPS due.

For Wed., EMP pp. 57 -61 -- the sections in the chapter 4 on abortion -- and the articles on abortion by Warren, Marquis and Thompson. They were due today but I'll accept them Wed., but no later.

FYI, we have been working through this:
ABORTION: Abortion argument worksheet.See also my Powerpoint on abortion.

Two readings; the first isn't in your book, the 2nd might not be in your edition of RTD

• Feldman, "Abortion"
• Warren, "On the Moral & Legal Status of Abortion"

There's a big reading and OPS assignment for Tuesday:
EMP pp. 57 -61 on abortion and the articles on abortion by Warren, Marquis and Thompson.

For Wed. we'll move on the the next chapter in EMP.

Friday is "paper day": work on your papers, due Monday. Send me a draft via email if you'd like comments. I'll need it in time to get comment back to you though, so earlier is better.

This was due today, reading and writing a summary of these readings on the Divine Command Theory of Ethics:

RTD pp. 3-4
EMP pp. 48-57

Philosophy 302: Argumentative Paper 1 – Homosexuality

Due Monday, June 22 at the beginning of class
4-5 pages, double-spaced, typed, 12 pt. font, stapled, with your name, email, class time. No cover pages.

First, read the sections on how to write a philosophy paper in the Vaughn book and/or read Jim Pryor's "Guidelines on writing a philosophy paper": http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

In this paper I want you to consider the issue of homosexuality and argue for one of these conclusions: homosexuality is wrong (i.e., impermissible), or homosexuality is not wrong (i.e., morally permissible). Do not consider the question of whether homosexuality is “right,” because that sounds like you are asking if homosexuality is morally obligatory. And do not discuss homosexual marriage because that too is not the issue.

You should explain what you mean when you morally evaluate homosexuality: are you speaking of actions, or feelings, lifestyles, relationships, or all (or some of the above)? This needs to be carefully explained so we understand the arguments’ conclusions.

Your paper should have a short introductory paragraph, culminating in a thesis which should either be this (or something close to it):
"I will argue that homosexuality is wrong, i.e., morally impermissible."
or
"I will argue that homosexuality is not wrong, i.e., morally permissible."

You need to give reasons in favor of your conclusion, consider objections to your reasons and respond to these objections.

You might then structure your paper in either of these ways:
1. You could present at least five of what you think are of the most important or strongest arguments from the books to think that homosexuality is wrong, and then critique these arguments, i.e., argue that some or all of them are not sound because they have some premises that you will argue are false. (You will also need to present an argument[s] for the view that homosexuality is morally permissible). These arguments should be explained and evaluate in prose, but they should also be presented in valid premise-conclusion format.
2. You could present at least five of what you think are the most important or common or influential arguments from the books to think that homosexuality is not wrong, and then critique these arguments, i.e., argue that some or all of them are not sound because they have some premises that you will argue are false. (You will also need to present an argument[s] for the view that homosexuality is not morally permissible). These arguments should be explained and evaluate in prose, but they should also be presented in valid premise-conclusion format.

At least one of the arguments you discuss must be arguments from the Bible and/or God’s commands (see EMP Ch. 4 on the divine command theory).

If you’d like, you can do some independent research to find additional arguments for the wrongness of homosexuality beyond the 40+ from the handout. But, you must apply the logical skills we have developed to these arguments. And you must defend your view from the best objection(s) you can think of. To do this, you must think of the objections and respond to its. DO NOT IGNORE DISCUSSION FROM THE BOOK; IF THE BOOK DISCUSSES AN OBJECTION OR RESPONSE AND YOU IGNORE THIS, THEN THAT’S A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ENGAGING THE CRITICAL DISCUSSION: YOU ARE IGNORING IT.

Your paper must have a short concluding paragraph also.

Your intended audience has not read the readings or discussed these issues so you must explain things so that they understand. Put yourself in their shoes and make everything clear and well-organized for them.

Common Arguments on Homosexuality “Mad Libs” Worksheet, available here:

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/homosexuality-arguments.doc


http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/homosexuality-arguments.pdf

Notes on “Simple Subjectivism”

Common, but what are the arguments against it?

If someone says

“X is morally right”
“X is morally permissible”
“X is good”

then that person has said “I (the speaker) approve of X,” or “I (the speaker) like X.”


If someone says

“X is morally wrong”
“X is morally impermissible”
“X is bad”

then that person has said

“I (the speaker) disapprove of X,” or
“I (the speaker) dislike X.”



Can we ever be in error in our moral views? Can we ever be mistaken, i.e., think something is wrong (or right) when it is not? If SS is true, then we easily cannot.

1. If SS is true, then if we accurately report on what we personally approve of then, necessarily, we tell the truth about what’s morally right or wrong.
2. But it’s not true that if we accurately report on what we personally approve of then, necessarily, we tell the truth about what’s morally right or wrong.
3. So SS is not true.

Do we ever disagree about what’s right and wrong? If SS is true, then often we do not.

Person A says “All abortions are wrong.”
Person B says “All abortions are not wrong.”

It appears they disagree. For any topic, if people disagree, then they both cannot be telling the truth: at least one of them must have a false belief.

1. If SS is true then: if person A accurately reports that she disapproves of all abortions, then she says something that’s true and if person B accurately reports that she approves of all abortions, then she says something that’s true.
2. If A says something that’s true and B says something that’s true, then they do not disagree.
3. So, if SS is true, then person A & B do not disagree. (hypothetical syl.)
4. But they do disagree.
5. So SS if not true. (3, 4, MT)

Emotivism

· To judge that something is right is to express (not state) one’s approval of something.
· To judge that something is wrong is to express (not state) one’s disapproval of that something.

If emotivism is true, then we cannot reason about ethics.
But we can reason about ethics.
Therefore emotivism is false.

EMP Ch. 2 Cultural Relativism:
A “Midas Touch” Morality

We want to:

1. Understand what Cultural Relativism is. If you accept CR, then what exactly do you believe?
2. Identify and evaluate some reasons that people might give in favor of CR: why might they accept CR?
3. Identify and evaluate some arguments against CR.
4. On the basis of 1-3, decide whether there are better reasons to accept CR or reject it.

The take home message:

To respond to a moral issue, “That’s ‘their culture’, so you can’t criticize them!” seems to be based on poor reasoning. So, if anyone says this, we will say, “So what? Yes, that's what their (or our culture) accepts, but they might be mistaken. So what are their moral reasons in favor of this practice? Are these reasons part of sound arguments or not”

1. A general truth: “Believing something don’t make it so!”

In general, there’s a difference between:

· someone’s believing something to be the case, and

· something being the case.

There’s a difference between believing a claim to be true and that claim being true. (Examples?)

Also, there’s a difference between:

· the majority of people in a culture believing something to be the case (or some claim true), and

· that thing being the case (or that claim being true). \

2. Cultural relativists deny this general principle:

They think that a cultural majority’s believing something to be morally permissible [MP] (or impermissible) makes it MP or not MP.

CR’s think this:

An action is morally permissible if, and only if, the majority of a culture approves of that act, i.e., believes it to be morally permissible.

· If the majority of a society approves of an action, then it’s MP (group approval is a sufficient condition for MP).

· An action is MP only if the majority approves of it (group approval is a necessary condition for MP).

This definition of CR clearly implies Rachels’ claims (2), (3), & (4), but the core idea is (2): (3) and (4) are implications or consequences of (2). (EMP, p. 18-19). Whether it supports (5), the claim that we should be tolerant, is something that needs to be discussed. And (1) – since everyone accepts it – is not part of CR. Indeed it seems to be a premise in an argument for CR.

3. In light of the logical implications of CR, why would someone accept CR? What might their argument(s) be?

1. An argument from disagreement

2. An argument from the idea that we should be “tolerant”

3. …. What else?

4. What are some arguments against CR? (see also the discussion in RTD)

The argument from error:

1. If CR is true, then if someone’s moral views are in the majority, then they cannot be mistaken.

2. But someone’s moral views can be mistaken, even if they are in the majority.

3. So CR is false.

The argument from moral progress:

1. If CR is true, then the majority’s moral views must always right (no matter what!).

2. If the majority’s moral views must always right, then “reformers” – who are in the minority – cannot be right.

3. If “reformers” cannot be right, then moral progress – widespread changes for the better, the majority coming to adopt the (formerly) minority view – is impossible.

4. But moral progress is possible.

5. So “reformers” can be right.

6. So the majority isn’t necessarily right.

7. So CR is false. (multiple modus tollens)

The argument from moral methodology:

1. If CR is true, then the way to find out what’s really MP (not just what people believe to be MP) is to do a survey.

2. But surveys will not reveal what’s really MP (they only show what people believe to be MP).

3. So CR is false. (MT)

The argument from the ability to evaluate cultures:

1. If CR is true, then we can never truthfully say that a majority-approved of practice in another culture is wrong.

2. But we can truthfully say that a practice in another culture is wrong, even if the majority approves of it.

3. Therefore, CR is not true.

Other arguments?

4. So what are the arguments for CR?

1. Cultures disagree on the morality of some actions. (What if the premise said all actions)?

2. Therefore, an action is morally permissible if, and only if, the majority of a culture approves of that act, i.e., believes it to be morally permissible.

3. Therefore, Rachels’ claims (2), (3), & (4) are true (EMP, p. 18-19), including “there is no universal truth in ethics,” i.e., there are no true moral principles that everyone should follow, wherever they are.

Rachels calls this argument unsound (p. 21); we first can be nice and add the missing premise to make it logically valid:

1. Cultures disagree on the morality of some actions. (T? F?)

2. For any topic, if there is disagreement on it, then there are no universal truths about it. (T? F?)

3. Therefore, there are no universal truths in ethics.

Another argument (it needs to be expanded to understand it, but are these expansions sound?):

1. We should be tolerant. (Of what? Everything, all actions? Some actions? Which things?)

2. Therefore, we should accept CR.

Some thoughts about (1): If (1) is true and so we should be tolerant of all actions, then there is a universally true moral principle. But if there is a universally true moral principle, then CR is false!

If CR is true, we should be tolerant of a wide variety of actions (even those that harm others) if and only if the majority of people in our society are tolerant of a wide variety of actions (even those that harm others). But our society is not tolerant in this way, so if CR is true, then we should not be tolerant either. And if there are some things that should not be tolerated in any society, then CR is false.

So what should we “tolerate”? What kind of diversity should we be respectful towards?

Rachels’ proposal for a universal moral principle: Actions that promote the welfare of people affected by it are morally permissible; actions that hinder the welfare of those affected are morally wrong.

Important points that CR can help us see: many! See Rachels’ discussion!

Some cultural differences do not matter morally. Others do matter: we can morally evaluate them.

For Thursday:
EMP Ch. 2 &
"What's Culture Got to Do with it? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision"
Please write detailed summaries on both the readings.

For Friday:
EMP Ch. 3 &
RTD 27. Is Homosexuality Unnatural? Burton M. Leiser 237
Please write detailed summaries on both the readings.

Discussion of Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy Ch. 1

What is it to ‘Think Morally’?

“Morality is …”

Someone is “thinking morally” or engaged in “moral thinking” when:
(1) one is guiding one’s thought by reasons – the best reasons – and
(2) one gives equal weight to each individual who is affected by one’s actions.

Re. (1): reasons include (scientific, empirical) facts and moral principles.

Case 1: Baby Theresa L
· What’s her situation?
· What did her parents want to do? What were their reasons?

The parents' argument:
(3) If we can (a) benefit someone without (b) harming anyone else, it’s right to do so.
(4) By taking Theresa’s organs we can (a) benefit others and (b) not harm anyone else.
(5) So, taking Teresa’s organs is right (i.e., not wrong).

Is this arguments sound or not?

· What did “the critics” say” (p. 2)

(6) “It’s too horrifying to use people as means to other people’s ends.”
(7) “It’s unethical to kill in order to save, unethical to kill person A to save person B.”
(8) “The parents are saying we should kill the baby to use the organs. That’s horrendous!

These remarks are the basis of arguments. Are these arguments sound or not? If any of them are, then argument (3)-(5) is not sound.

Re. Remark (6):
(A) If someone is used as a means to another’s end, then that is wrong.
(B) Taking Teresa’s organs would be to use her as a means.
(C) So, it would be wrong to take her organs.

Is the argument valid? Are the premises true? (Are they somehow ambiguous or imprecise?)

Re. Remark (7):
(D) If person A is killed to save person B, then that’s wrong.
(E) To kill Teresa would be to kill her to save others.
(F) Therefore, it’s wrong to kill Teresa.

Is the argument valid? Are the premises true? (Are they somehow ambiguous or imprecise?)

Re. Remark (8): ?

Case 2: Jodie and Mary

· What’s their situation? What did her parents want to do? What did the hospital want to do? What were their reasons?

“Whose to decide?!” Asking this kind of question is often a way to avoid thinking about which arguments are best. (Also, it’s often unwise to ask rhetorical questions, since there might be good answer to them).

An argument:
(G) If we have a choice between saving one infant and letting both die, we should save one.
(H) We have such a choice.
(I) So we should save one.

Is the argument valid? Are the premises true?

Some critics say:

(J) If someone is an ‘innocent human life’, then they should never be killed.
(K) Mary is an innocent human life.
(L) Therefore, Mary should not be killed.

Is the argument valid? Are the premises true?

3rd Case: Tracy Latimer
· What’s her situation? (We need to think about the details..)
· What did her parents want to do? What were their reasons?

· What did their critics say?

Take note of:
· Feelings
· Require reasons
· Getting one’s (non-moral) facts straight: checking up on the empirical / scientific evidence
· Impartiality: differences in treatment are justified only by relevant differences in the person/being and in light of general moral principles; otherwise these are unjustified prejudices.

Tomorrow our class with overlap with that public health bioethics class again. For Wednesday though we will pick up with Rachels EMP Ch. 1. Thursday we will do Chapter 2.

Here's what I suggested the Public Health class look at:

Today people seemed to vote that they'd like to discuss abortion/stem cell research/cloning (which can all be related in various ways) and/or euthanasia/physician assisted suicide.

Here is a reading on abortion:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/abortion.htm

James Rachels, "Active and Passive Euthanasia," JAMA
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Rachels_Euthanasia.pdf

Here's what's been assigned for our class so far, from the syl.:

Vaughn, Ch.1, “How To Read Philosophy”

o Vaughn, Ch.2, “How To Read An Argument”

o Rachels, 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

o Vaughn, Ch. 5, “Avoiding Fallacious Reasoning”

o Rachels, RTD: 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 Writing assignment: which theory or theories are best and why? 2 pages

o Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (EMP) OPS Writing Assignment on the arguments in favor of killing Teresa, separating the twins and killing Tracey (!!)

For Monday

Monday and Tuesday we will join my IMHOTEP mini bioethics course.

Monday, June 8, 2009 11:00 a.m.-11:50 a.m. Nabrit-Mapp-McBayLecture Room II

Poverty and Global Public Health: Charity or Justice inResource Allocation?

READINGS: 1. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer, The NY Times.http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm 2. Gregory Pence, Ch. 4. “UTILITARIANS VS. KANTIANS ON STOPPING AIDS,” from The Elements of Bioethics (McGraw Hill, 2006)http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/pence.pdf 3. “Racism and Health Care: A Medical Ethics Issue,” Annette Dula, from A Companion to African-American Philosophy (Blackwell, 2003).http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/dula.pdf 4. Introduction to sections on “Resource Allocation” in Singer and Kuhse(eds.) Bioethics: An Anthology (Blackwell, 2007)http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/resource-intro.pdf WRITING ASSIGNMENT 3 (due at the beginning of class): A number of philosophers, health-care professionals and activists have argued that we are morally obligated to focus greater attention on the needs of people living in poverty and absolute poverty, both domestically and abroad. What are their arguments? What challenges do these positions face? What, if anything, are we obligated to do to address the needs of these differing populations? Why?

For Friday

These have been assigned, focusing on the Rachels writings:

 Vaughn, Ch.1, “How To Read Philosophy”

o Vaughn, Ch.2, “How To Read An Argument”

o Rachels, 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

o Vaughn, Ch. 5, “Avoiding Fallacious Reasoning”

o Rachels, RTD: 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 Writing assignment: which theory or theories are best and why? 2 pages

o Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (EMP) OPS Writing Assignment on the arguments in favor of killing Teresa, separating the twins and killing Tracey (!!)