Ethics Paper 3
Due by Monday, November 22, in class and via the Turnitin system
In this paper you should state, in logically valid premise-conclusion format, at least five arguments for the conclusion that abortion is wrong (or all or most abortions are wrong, or abortion is prima facie wrong) and then carefully explain, for each of these arguments, whether it is sound or not and why.
These arguments should be arguments that you believe are the most important or common or influential or challenging arguments. All of these arguments should be ones we discussed in class and at least three of them should be ones presented and discussed in our readings (Warren, Marquis, Thompson).
You need not argue for a general thesis about abortion: you only need to argue for a thesis concerning these arguments.
Your paper should be clearly written and well-organized. Please re-read your paper on how to write a philosophy paper. This paper gives you the opportunity to show that you have mastered the methods of moral argument analysis that we have been practicing in this class.
Philosophy 302: Argumentative Paper 2 – Homosexuality
Due Wednesday, November 3, (two weeks from today!) in class and through the turnitin system. NO LATE PAPERS.
4-5 pages, double-spaced, typed, 12 pt. font, stapled, with your name, email, class time. No cover pages.
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 must get a peer review (from a peer in this class) and revise and improve your paper in light of that review. The peer review of your paper should be stapled to your paper. The review sheet is here:
http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/peerreview.rtf
All previous advice on writing and rules on doing your own thinking and writing apply. Re-read your paper on how to write a philosophy paper.
Handout: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/arguments.pdf
http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/validargumentforms.pdf
SAMPLE QUESTIONS: WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT? WHAT IS IT FOR AN ARGUMENT TO BE VALID? WHAT IS IT FOR AN ARGUMENT TO BE SOUND? UNDERSTAND THESE CONCEPTS AND THEIR RELATIONS.
RTD, Ch.2. Logic & Arguments
· What is an argument?
· What is a conclusion?
· What are premises?
· What is a logically valid argument? Define ‘validity’ or ‘a valid argument’.
· Give an example of a valid argument.
· Know what the modus ponens, modus tollens and universal generalization valid argument forms are.
· Why is it important for an argument to be valid?
· Can a valid argument have true premises and a false conclusion?
· What is a sound argument? Define 'a sound argument'.
· Can a sound argument be an invalid argument?
· Can a sound argument have false premises?
· Can a sound argument have a false conclusion?
· How, in general, do you show that a conditional, an if-then statement (‘if p is true, then q is true’) is false?
· Identify and give an example of these logically invalid argument forms:
Affirming the consequent
Denying the antecedent
RTD Ch. 1: A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy
· What is moral relativism? What are the arguments against it?
· Be able to explain the basic ideas of moral theories based in impartiality, utilitarianism, and Kant’s ethics.
Explain how the term ‘morally right’ is ambiguous between "morally permissible" and "morally obligatory." To explain this distinction, give an example of an action that is ‘right’ in one sense of the term, and another action that is ‘right’ in the other sense of the term.
RTD Ch. 2, the short introduction to logic chapter
What is moral skepticism? What are the arguments in favor of it and arguments against it?
EMP Ch. 1:
· Explain, in detail, Rachel’s “minimum conception of morality,” especially his claims that "moral judgments must be backed by good reasons" and "that morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual's interests." (p. 11)
· Explain Rachels’ argument that Baby Theresa cannot be “used as a means.”
· Explain why some people might think that Baby Theresa is already dead. Explain why some people might think that she is not dead yet. (This suggests an ambiguity in ‘being alive’).
· Be familiar with the Jodie and Mary case. What was the hospital’s argument?
· Explain what a “slippery slope” argument or response is; explain how some people gave this response about the case of Tracy Latimer.
EMP Ch. 2: CR & FGM
· State and fully explain the idea of cultural relativism. If someone accepts CR, what theory does she believe? Be able to explain which of the 5 claimsreally is cultural relativism (not all of them are cultural relativism), which are logical consequences of it, and which are premises that might be given in arguments for it.
· State a valid argument for cultural relativism from moral disagreements between cultures (“cultural differences”). (Note: Rachels gives a version of this argument that is not clearly valid because it is missing a premise; we discussed, however, a valid version). State whether you think the argument is sound or not; if you think it is not sound, explain which premise(s) is false. If you think it is sound, explain why all the premises are true.
· Be able to give at least 3 valid arguments against CR; be able to explain each premise – that is, explain why someone might think the premises are true (this will often involve explaining why something is a logical consequence of cultural relativism. Explain whether you think the arguments are sound or not and why.
· If you think we should be “tolerant” of everything, should you think that cultural relativism is true? That is, if cultural relativism is true, is it true that we should be tolerant? (You might want to think about these questions also: should we always be tolerant, of everything? If we should just sometimes be tolerant, when should we be tolerant?)
· Rachels argues that, sometimes, there is less moral disagreement than we might think because some moral disagreements are superficial: we accept the same moral principles, but differ in our beliefs about the facts. Explain this idea with an example.
· Some people say that different cultures “disagree about everything, morally.” Explain Rachels’ argument that this is not true, thatis his reasons tothink that all cultures will share some moral values. What are some of these values that he thinks we all hold in common?
· Female circumcision / female genital mutilation: what do its “advocates” say in favor of the practice, i.e, for why it is not wrong to have it? What do the critics (e.g., the editors at the Harvard Law Review) say against these advocates, and what are their arguments that it’s wrong? Whose arguments are sound, in your view?
· Rachels presents a culture neutral standard of right and wrong. What is it? Explain his idea.
· Even if cultural relativism is false, its advocates might teach us something useful. What are these things, according to Rachels?
EMP Ch. 3: Simple Subjectivism & Emotivism, Homosexuality
· State and fully explain the idea of simple subjectivism. If someone accepts simple subjectivism, how does he or she "translate" moral judgments (i.e., what does someone say when he or she says that something is wrong, or says that something is not wrong?
· Be able to give at least 2 valid arguments against simple subjectivism; be able to explain each premise – that is, explain why someone might think the premises are true (this will often involve explaining why something is a logical consequence of simple subjectivism). Explain whether you think the arguments are sound or not and why.
· What is emotivism? Be able to present an argument against it.
· Explain what Rachels thinks the general nature of “moral truths” or “truths of ethics” are.
· Rachels thinks he can “prove” that some ethical judgments are true. What are the examples of his proofs? (What does he mean by a "proof" anyway?) Is he correct? Why or why not?
· There can be questions on any of the assigned readings and discussions, so you need to be deeply familiar with everything and be able to showthat you understand the material. Check the blog for any handouts you missed.
· Be able to state many common arguments against homosexuality (including those discussed in the articles in the RTD book) in valid form (and so add the premises needed to make the argument valid) and explain whether they are sound or not. Be able to state which, if any, premises are false.
· Rachels and Corvino also give arguments for the conclusion that homosexuality is morally permissible. What were those arguments?
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
Friday, OPS due of these readings from RTD; please identify the main issues from each article, and submit 1 OPS containing all three articles:
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)
DUE MONDAY, SEPT 20, by your class time, handed in in class and posted on the Turnitin site.
4-5 pages,
First, there are
1. "Guidelines on Wri
2. "Writing A Philosophy Paper," by Peter Horban: http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/writing.htm
The assignmen
A friend knows
Papers mus
Grading:
9-10= excellen
8 = good
7 = fair
6 = poor
5 or below = very poor
They will be graded on clari
Al
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: Permissible, Obligatory, Impermissible/Wrong
o See pp. 3, 5-8; also discusses logic and moral theories:
FOR FRIDAY: 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
FOR NEXT WEDNESDAY: WRITING ASSIGNMENT DUE WEDNESDAY, IN HARDCOPY AND VIA TURNITIN:
o Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (Elements of Moral Philosophy, EMP) OPS Writing Assignment on Chapter 1, the whole chapter.
READING FOR FRIDAY:
o "The New Eugenics," Matt Ridley (RTD, #36) [This goes with the bioethics theme of ch. 1.]
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience,
but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
- Martin Luther King Jr.,‘48
*****
Syllabus
Introduction to Philosophical Ethics, PHI 302
** FIRST ASSIGNMENTS ARE ON PAGE 4 **
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: 47947 - HPHI 302G - 06 (Turnitin Course Code 3418227; password is ethics)
12- 12:50 PM course: 47942 - HPHI 302G - 01 (Turnitin Course Code 3418262; password is ethics)
1-1:50 PM course: 47943 - HPHI 302G - 02 (Turnitin Course Code 3418227; password is ethics)
Course webpage: http://philosophy302.blogspot.com
Email announcement group: http://groups.google.com/group/philosophy302/
Insite/Turnitin anti-plagiarism page: http://insite.turnitin.com/
Instructor: Nathan Nobis, Ph.D.,
Email & Webpage: nathan.nobis@gmail.com ; www.NathanNobis.com
Telephone: 404-215-2607
Office: Sale Hall 113, Philosophy & Religion Department
Office Hours: 1:00-2:00 PM MWF and by appointment.
1. CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTION: Provides an introduction to philosophical reflection about the nature and function of morality.
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.
4. REQUIRED MATERIALS:
| NOTE: There is a problem with some of the PIN cards. Students should change the characters printed as an “S” to a “$” and if they are still having issues they must contact customer service here: http://www.cengage.com/support/ or http://kb.cengage.com/display/InsiteTurnitin/InSite+-+TurnItIn Or 1-800-354-9706 Option 5, then Option 2, Mon-Thur 8:30am to 9:00pm EST, Friday 8:30am to 6:00pm EST |
5. ASSIGNMENTS & GRADING:
a. OPS papers: (5 points each; approx. 12 assignments; approx. 60 points total)
The absolute most important thing you can do to succeed in this class is to do the reading, do the reading well and do it on time. You have done the reading well if you are able to accurately explain the overall structure and main arguments of the chapter or essay. To do this well, you need to create write notes on the reading, a detailed Outline, Paraphrase or Summary of the chapter or essay. This must address all the sections of the chapter and explain all the main arguments. In most cases, an adequate job on this assignment will require at least 3-4 pages. These must be turned in via Turnitin and in hardcopy, with a print out of your Turnitin “receipt” attached to the hardcopy.
b. Essays: (10 points each; 6 assignments; 60 points total).
All except the first are argumentative essays, where a moral conclusion is defended with reasons and objections are raise and responded to. These must be turned in via Turnitin and in hardcopy, with a print out of your Turnitin “receipt” attached to the hardcopy of the paper.
c. Midterm and Final Exams: (30 points each; 60 points total)
All of lecture, discussion and reading content is fair game. Study guides will be available online with possible questions for each exam to help focus your studying. Exams will mostly be short answer and short essay questions.
d. Attendance, punctuality and participation is required.
Attendance will be taken at the beginning of class. Students are allowed three absences for any reason: beyond that, unexcused absences will cost 2% off the final grade. Tardiness will also be penalized.
e. Extra Credit Opportunities:
There will likely be events addressing ethical and/or philosophical issues that I’ll encourage you to attend and write up a 3-4 page detailed summary and reaction to for variable bonus points. These are due, in class, within one week of the event, and won’t be accepted past then. These events will be announced by the email group. These must be turned in via Turnitin and in hardcopy, with a print out of your Turnitin “receipt” attached to the hardcopy of the paper.
Note: Grades in this course are determined solely by the quantity, quality and timeliness of the academic work done: nothing else is relevant. Any student who “needs” a particular grade to keep a scholarship, stay in school, apply for some program or job, etc. is encouraged to earn that grade by doing the work required to earn that grade. No pleading will be considered, no grade changes will be made, and no Incompletes will be given, except for legitimate reasons (e.g., grade miscalculation, official College excuse, etc.).
6. ACADEMIC HONESTY:
“The Division of Humanities & Social Sciences at
Cheating and plagiarism are forms of lying (to the instructor, the school, future teachers and employers, and yourself, among others), theft (of other people’s ideas and words), unfairness (to other students who do the work as they should) and are grounds for failing the course. If you submit a plagiarized paper (e.g., a paper you took in whole or in part from the internet or some other illegitimate source, such as a peer who has had this course before), the instructor (with the help of the Turnitin software) will notice this and you will then fail this course immediately. Although we will discuss this, it is your responsibility to know what plagiarism is. Any plagiarism or cheating on any assignment – including any extra credit assignments – will immediately result in failing the course: no exceptions, no excuses.
Here are some suggestions to avoid plagiarism: do not check the internet for anything related to your papers: instead use the texts required for the course and think for yourself; do not take phrases from the texts; put all of your writings in your own words; do not cut and paste anything from the internet into your paper; do not visit Wikipedia, an extremely unreliable source for academic philosophy; do not take articles from online encyclopedias; do not visit online dictionaries; use an acceptable citation method (e.g., MLA, APA, etc.), which you learned to do in Introductory English courses or you will lose points. If you would like additional sources to learn more about a topic, see the instructor.
First assignments:
No class Friday, August 27: Instructor out of town at an academic conference.
First reading assignments; dates TBA:
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: Permissible, Obligatory, Impermissible/Wrong
o See pp. 3, 5-8; also discusses logic and moral theories:
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) OPS Writing Assignment on Chapter 1, the whole chapter.
o "The New Eugenics," Matt Ridley (RTD, #36) [This goes with the bioethics theme of ch. 1.]
Order of
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.
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.
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.]
Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/homosexuality-arguments.pdf
14.
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.
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
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.
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,
26.
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. "
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
36.
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.
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
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.
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
49.
50. "Caring Relations and Principles of Justice," Virginia Held (RTD, #10) [See pp. 152-157 of Elements.]
51.
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.