paper 1 on how to write a philosophy paper

Intro to Ethics PAPER 1:

How do you write a philosophy paper?

DUE MONDAY FEB 15, by your class time

4-5 pages, typed (i.e., word-processed), double spaced, 12 pt font Times New Roman, 1” margins.

Due MONDAY FEB 15 submitted via the Turnitin system: http://insite.turnitin.com If you have not done so already, you need to BUY a card with account from the bookstore: this will give you your PIN to make an account. The class ID # is on your syllabus and the password is ethics. If you have trouble registering your account, please see the syllabus for guidance.

No late papers will be accepted since have had 4+ weeks to get the Turnitin account; you need to get the PIN card and do the paper before the due date. No excuses. If the bookstore doesn’t have the cards, you need to get them to order one for you.

There are two main writings on how to write a philosophy paper that you need to carefully read and study:

1. The chapters from A Rulebook for Arguments on writing.

2. An online article by Jim Pryor called "Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper": http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

The assignment is this:

A friend knows that you are in a philosophy course. This friend asks you to come to her group to give a little presentation on what philosophy essays are like and how to effectively write them. Your job is to carefully read the readings below on how to write philosophy and then effectively summarize them for this person. Write up the text that you could read -- or pass out -- to this audience so that they can learn from you. Write so you teach them how to write a philosophical essay: pass on what you learn from Weston and Pryor! This assignment requires you to summarize advice from a number of different sources and explain this advice to other people in your own words.

Papers must by typed and carefully written: put your name, email, the date, course # and time at the top of the first page; DO NOT USE A COVER PAGE. And give your paper a title.

Grading:

9-10= excellent

8 = good

7 = fair

6 = poor

5 or below = very poor

They will be graded on clarity, organization, thoroughness, grammar and spelling, and, most generally, whether your reader would get a good sense for what philosophical / argumentative essays are like and how to write them.

Although citations -- i.e., direct quotations -- are not necessarily needed for this paper, if you use them you should use an official citation method that you learned in introductory English. These are presented in Vaughn as well.

EMP CH. 2

Please read EMP CH 2 for Monday and next week. CPR writing assignment due Wednesday online. See syl for details on that. 3 pages or so.

Notes on EMP CH 1

EMP Ch. 1 Notes

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.

EMP Ch. 1

FOR WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY:

o Elements, Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" CPR Writing Assignment: state, explain and evaluate the arguments (as sound or unsound) in favor of killing Teresa, separating the twins and killing Tracey. Submitted online, due Wednesday, before class.

Moral Theories: A Very Short Introduction

Today's discussion:

Moral Principles as Premises: Introduction to Ethics

Moral arguments often have a moral principle as a premise. We will attempt to figure out if these premises are true. Moral principles often assert that an action having some feature(s) is a sufficient condition(s) for that action being morally wrong, permissible, or whatever. E.g., here are two possible moral principles:

(A) If an action causes pain, then that action is morally wrong.

(B) If an action benefits someone and harms nobody, then that action is morally permissible.

(Can principle A can be refuted, i.e., shown false, by counterexamples? Is principle B true? How would we try to figure that out?). Moral principles might also claim that an action having some feature(s) is a necessary condition for that action being morally wrong, permissible, or whatever, e.g.:

(C) A being has a “right to not suffer needlessly” only if that being is capable of reasoning morally.

(Can principle C be refuted, i.e., shown false, by counterexamples?). Moral principles are often justified by appeal to moral or ethical theories. A moral theory attempts to answer these kinds of questions:

· What makes morally right actions right and wrong actions wrong? (Or, what makes permissible acts permissible, obligatory actions obligatory, etc?)? What is it about actions that gives them the moral status (permissible, obligatory, etc.) that they have?

· What’s the basic, fundamental, essential difference(s) between permissible and impermissible actions? What features of actions mark that divide?

· What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an action being permissible, obligatory, etc.?

Before looking at influential theories developed and refined by philosophers, it is useful to start by developing your own moral theory (or theories). Here is one method to do that:

Make a chart with three columns. In the left column, make a long list of actions (and we can use character traits too, if you’d like) that you think most people would think are obviously wrong or bad. In the right column, make a long list of actions or character traits that you think most people would think are obviously morally permissible, obligatory or otherwise good. In the middle, list any actions that come to mind but don’t fall into either category. Share your list with others to compare, change, revise, etc.[6]

Now ask, what is it about the wrong actions on your list that makes them wrong? Why are they on the “wrong” list? What is it about the right/good actions that makes them right or good? Why do they belong on that list? What moral hypotheses best explains this? Your answers here could result in your revising your initial judgments, if you see that some emerging moral principles are inconsistent with any initial judgment.

This exercise might result in you developing basic theories that are similar to many influential moral theories that have been developed over the last few centuries, if not longer. Thinking for yourself can lead to many of the same moral insights many of the philosophical “greats” have had.

Rachels and Regan [another reading, not from our course] discuss the (arguably) more plausible moral theories last, after they discuss and sometimes argue against the (arguably) inferior theories. Here are the theories they discuss:

· Relativism & Moral Skepticism (Rachels, “Short Introduction” 2-3; Rachels “Basic Points About Arguments,” 22-27)

o Rachels argues relativism and skepticism are false.

· Divine Command Theory (Rachels “Short Introduction” 3-5)

o Rachels argues the divine command theory is false and even that religious believers should not accept it.

· Virtue Theory (Rachels, “Short Introduction” 5-6); “Cruelty-Kindness” (Regan, 217)

o Regan argues that a kind of virtue theory, which he calls the cruelty-kindness view, is mistaken.

· Natural Law (Rachels, “Short Introduction” 6-8). Not a very popular theory any more outside of some Catholic contexts.

· Contractarianism / the Social Contract (Rachels “Short Introduction” 8-10); Regan (214-216). (Regan also discusses Rawls’ improved version of contractarianism)

o Regan argues that contractarianisms are false.

· Utilitarianism (Rachels “Short Introduction” 11-14; Regan 217-220)

o Regan argues that utilitarianism is false.

· Immanuel Kant’s Ethics (“Short Introduction” 17-19); “The Rights View” (Regan 220-223), which is developed out of a modification of Kant’s 2^nd Categorical Imperative; Regan has a broader view of who should be treated as “ends in themselves.”

· Altruistic Ethical Theories (Rachels “Short Introduction” 10-11): a broad category of ethical theories; they contrast with “egoistic” theories where the only intrinsic moral concern is for yourself and how your actions affect your own interest.

· Ethical Theories that Require Impartiality (Rachels “Short Introduction” 14-16): a broad category of ethical theories; contrasts with “partialist” theories that allow special preference to family and friends.

Next week

FOR MONDAY:

o READ/RE-READ: Rulebook: Preface, Introduction and the chapter on Deductive Arguments (VI in the current edition)

o READ/RE-READ: Rachels, RTD: Ch. 2, “Some Basic Points About Arguments,” available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

o READ/RE-READ: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 of the three final ethical theories – social contract theory, utilitarianism and/or Kantianism – are best and why? (Maybe they are all best in combination somehow?) You must describe and explain the theories. Submitted online.

FOR WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY:

o Elements, Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" CPR Writing Assignment: state, explain and evaluate arguments (as sound or unsound) in favor of killing Teresa, separating the twins and killing Tracey. Submitted online, due Wednesday, before class.

No More Morally "Right"

Today we discussed why we will no longer use the word morally right. Here's why:

What the Question Is Not: Not “Morally Right,” but Morally Permissible and/or Morally Obligatory

One might think that the core questions in ethics are whether various actions are morally right or morally wrong. This is not quite correct. Effective moral reasoning requires the clear and precise uses of words. Thus, when a word is ambiguous (i.e., has more than one meaning), we must identify these meanings and make it clear what meaning we are using. That way everyone knows what exact thought we have in mind when we make claims using that word: we’re on the same page and can communicate effectively. And we can think about whether what we are saying is true or false and supported (or supportable) by reasons and evidence or not.

This applies to the use of the word ‘right,’ as in morally right, because the word is ambiguous. Examples show this. Suppose you saved a drowning baby by pulling her out of bathtub. This was easy for you, not risky, and had you not been there the baby surely would have drown. If someone says, “Your saving that baby was morally right,” this person probably means to say that your saving that baby, in these circumstances, was morally obligatory, morally required, or a moral duty: if you had not saved the baby, you would have done something wrong or morally impermissible.[4]

Consider another example. Although you are a person of average income, you send $1000 a month to famine relief organizations to help starving children. Someone says, “Your making these donations is morally right.” Here this person probably does not mean to say your making these donations are morally obligatory, morally required, or a moral duty. Unlike the bathtub case, the common (but perhaps mistaken[5]) view is that your not donating would not be wrong or morally impermissible. So, this person probably means to by saying, at least, that what you do is morally permissible, i.e., not wrong or not morally impermissible. She might also mean that it is not merely permissible, but more positively good beyond that, but definitely not morally obligatory.

With these distinctions in mind, we can stop using an ambiguous word – “morally right” – and instead use these more precise terms categories for morally evaluating actions:

1. morally permissible: morally OK; not morally wrong; not morally impermissible; “OK to do”;

2. morally obligatory: morally required; a moral duty; impermissible to not do it; wrong to not do it; “gotta do it”;

3. morally impermissible: morally wrong; not permissible; obligatory to not do it; a duty to not do it.

We might also add a category “between” the permissible and the obligatory for actions that are positively good, virtuous or admirable, and thereby morally permissible, but not obligatory: e.g., some argue that vegetarianism is in that category, and if this is correct then arguments for the conclusion that vegetarianism is morally obligatory are unsound. This category might be described as the “supererogatory,” meaning beyond the call of duty or what’s morally required.

Thus, the core questions in ethics are what moral categories specific actions fall into – morally permissible, morally obligatory, or morally impermissible or wrong – and, most importantly, why. Again, the reasons given for why we should think, e.g., that some use is permissible and another use is wrong, or whatever conclusions anyone advocates, are our main interest.

First Assignments, from Page 2 of the Syl.

First reading and writing assignments:

FOR FRIDAY:

o Rulebook: Preface, Introduction and the chapter on Deductive Arguments (VI in the current edition)

o Rachels, RTD: Ch. 2, “Some Basic Points About Arguments,” available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

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 of the three final ethical theories – social contract theory, utilitarianism and/or Kantianism – are best and why? (Maybe they are all best in combination somehow?) You must describe and explain the theories. Submitted online.

FOR MONDAY:

o Elements, Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" CPR Writing Assignment: state, explain and evaluate arguments (as sound or unsound) in favor of killing Teresa, separating the twins and killing Tracey. Submitted online.

Logic Handout

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

Day 1's Discussion

Day 1's discussion of arguments can be found in Section 4, pages 4-7 of this paper: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/nathan-nobis-animal-experimentation.pdf

For next Wednesday, see the syllabus for the initial reading and writing assignments, as well as the details on getting the books, setting up your account, signing up for the email group, and so on.

Spring 2010 Syllabus

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

PHI 302: Introduction to Philosophical Ethics, Spring 2010

Students are responsible for understanding all the information and policies presented in this syllabus here and online.

Students will be referred to these documents when their questions are answered on them.

TO DO: Purchase books (bookstore or online) and Turnitin PIN code (at bookstore) Purchase a Turnitin PIN code at the bookstore to set up a Turnitin account at http://insite.turnitin.com/ The course code for your particular course is below and the password is ethics. All written work must be submitted through this system, which confirms its originality. Sign up for email list at Google groups through the blog: http://groups.google.com/group/philosophy302/ Link available through the course blog: http://philosophy302.blogspot.com. The syllabus is also available at http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/302Spring2010.pdf Begin the reading and writing assignments at the end of the back page on this short syllabus.

11-11:50, MWF, Sale Hall, Room 105, Intro to Philosophical Ethics 47861 - HPHI 302G - 03 : Turnitin class ID: 3070703

12-12:50, MWF, Sale Hall, Room 105;Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 46178 - HPHI 302G - 01 : Turnitin class ID: 3070697

1-1:50, MWF, Sale Hall, Room 105; Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 46179 - HPHI 302G - 02 : Turnitin class ID: 3070700

Instructor: Dr. Nathan Nobis (nathan.nobis@gmail.com) Office: Philosophy & Religion Department, Sale Hall 113

Office Hours: 2-3 MWF and by appointment (but please let him know if you want to meet)

Catalogue Description: Provides an introduction to philosophical reflection about the nature and function of morality. Readings will include both historical and contemporary materials.

Extended Description: This course provides students with the opportunity to improve their skills at reasoning critically about moral issues. Students will learn some basic logic and critical thinking skills and apply them to theoretical and practical questions about morality. We will practice identifying precise and unambiguous moral conclusions (i.e., exact perspectives taken on moral issues) and the 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 right and wrong action?’ and ‘What makes right actions right and wrong actions wrong?’ – and apply our critical thinking skills to moral issues such as female genital mutilation, homosexuality, abortion, famine and absolute poverty, racism, sexism, and speciesism, vegetarianism and the treatment of animals, euthanasia and assisted suicide, capital punishment, affirmative action, civil disobedience, and environmentalism, among others.

Course materials:

1. Plagiarism has been a problem in this course. To ensure original work, you must therefore purchase a pass-code for the Thompson Turnitin web-based anti-plagiarism system at the bookstore and all written work must be submitted through this system: http://turnitin.thomson.com/ The course code for your course is above and the password is ethics, which you will need to register your account. If the bookstore runs out of these you need to ask them to order more.

Technical support: 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 can contact our support team via phone, live chat, or email by using the following information: http://www.cengage.com/support/ Mon-Thur 8:30am to 9:00pm EST, Friday 8:30am to 6:00pm EST, 1-800-354-9706 Option 5, then Option 2. Students can purchase pin codes online, however they will still need to be shipped. They will need to place the order online at www.ichapters.com and allow appropriate shipping time for the pin card to arrive to them via mail. If students want to purchase the pin code online they can go to: http://e-catalog.thomsonlearning.com/150l/ Enter the ISBN: 1-4130-3018-1 in the Search. Turnitin? User Guide 1-Semester Printed Access Card, 1st Edition Wadsworth, NB © 2006 ISBN/ISSN 1-4130-3018-1 ISBN-13 978-1-4130-3018-1 List Price: $12.95, Your Price: $11.66

2. James and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 6^th Ed. [Elements] Previous editions (available used online) will do but you are responsible for the content found in the current edition.
3. James and Stuart Rachels, eds. The Right Thing to Do, 5^th Ed. [RTD] Previous editions (available used online) will do but you are responsible for the content found in the current edition.
4. Anthony Weston, A Rulebook for Arguments, 4^th Ed. Previous editions (available used online) will do but you are responsible for the content found in the current edition. [RULEBOOK].

Written Requirements / Assignments:

All written work must be submitted online through the Turnitin system: this is largely a “paperless” class.

1. “CPR” (Conclusion[s], Premise[s], Response[s]) writing assignments:

· The absolute most important thing you can do to succeed in this class is to do the reading and do the reading well. To encourage you do to do, you will be required to write short. What most important for these assignments is that you (a) identify the author’s main Conclusions, and (b) explain the Premises or reasons he or she gives in favor of these conclusions and (c) Respond by explaining whether these reasons are a valid and sound argument for that conclusion or not and defending your views. Copying the writing’s Introduction by Rachels will result in a zero for the assignment. You must put your name, class time and email address on all written assignments and not in the file’s “header” section: if you don’t, I will not give you comments or your grade on that assignment. (3 points each; 12 assignments; 36 points total)

2. Five 4-6 page Essays (all except the first are argumentative essays, where a moral conclusion is defended, objections are responded to, etc.): (10 points each; 50 points total).

4. Two Exams, Midterm and Final:

• 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. (40 points each; 80 points total).

5. 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 page detailed summary and reaction to for variable bonus points. These are due, in class, within one week of the event. These events will only be announced by the email group.
• An extra credit book report assignment is here: http://philosophy302.blogspot.com/2007/03/extra-credit-book-report-option.html

Rules: Always come to class: after three absences your overall grade will be reduced by 1/3 of a letter grade for each additional not officially excused absence. Students with perfect attendance will have their grade raised by 1/3 of a letter grade. Be on time: if you are late, you might not be admitted to class. Be prepared. Do the reading, carefully: you must read and re-read, take notes, outline, highlight and underline: you should be prepared to answer basic questions about the readings (e.g., what’s the author’s main conclusion(s) and where does he state them in the reading, what are his premises?). Take the time to do a very good job on everything we do. Bring your materials, always: if not, you may be asked to leave. Do not text message, surf the net or abuse technology: if you do, you maybe be asked to leave class. Contribute positively to class discussion. Ask questions. Do not plagiarize or cheat in any way: if you do, you will fail the course immediately: do your own work and do not ever look at any other students’ work “as an example” of what to do. Have fun, learn a lot, and grow to become a more ethically and intellectually engaged person!

Assignments: Readings should be done in advance for the day assigned. Exact readings and assignments will be announced in class, sent through the email group and posted on the course blog at http://philosophy302.blogspot.com. If you come to class, you should know exactly what the current assignments are.

First reading assignments; dates TBA:

o Rulebook: Preface, Introduction and the chapter on Deductive Arguments (VI in the current edition)

o Rachels, RTD: Ch. 2, “Some Basic Points About Arguments,” available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

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 of the three final ethical theories – social contract theory, utilitarianism and/or Kantianism – are best and why? (Maybe they are all best in combination somehow?) You must describe and explain the theories. Submitted online.

o Elements, Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" CPR Writing Assignment: state, explain and evaluate arguments (as sound or unsound) in favor of killing Teresa, separating the twins and killing Tracey. Submitted online.

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

o Paper 1 assignment will soon be posted on the blog!

Further reading and writing assignments will be announced in class, on blog, and email group!

Note: A syllabus is not a contract, but rather a guide to course procedures. The instructor reserves the right to alter the course requirements and/or assignments based on new materials, class discussions, or other legitimate pedagogical objectives.

Outline of a Syllabus / Order of Readings

1. "Some Basic Points about Arguments," James Rachels (RTD, #2)

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

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

2. James Rachels, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy" (RTD, #1).

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.]

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

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

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)