An extra credit assignment: Detailed, detailed summary of this entire (long) article:
Regan, “Patterns of Resistance,” Due by Monday, April 22, in class and via Turnitin:
Monday, March 25, 2013
Reminders; change for date of quiz 2!
Reminders that were posted below below:
3. New writing
(and some reading) assignment for next Wednesday, March 27: read or
re-read EMP Ch 3 and 4 and write detailed summaries of them both. Also,
read Mary Anne Warren's "The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion," in RTD
and write a detailed summary of that. These should all be submitted to
Turnitin and turned in in class.
4. We will have our second quiz soon. It will be on MONDAY, APRIL 8 - NOTE CHANGE - and cover everything since the last quiz: mostly EMP 3 & 4, as well as all the related materials. A focus of this will be adding premises to make arguments logically valid and explaining whether arguments are sound or not. Here is an abortion argument worksheet that we are working through: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/abortion-worksheet.pdf
4. We will have our second quiz soon. It will be on MONDAY, APRIL 8 - NOTE CHANGE - and cover everything since the last quiz: mostly EMP 3 & 4, as well as all the related materials. A focus of this will be adding premises to make arguments logically valid and explaining whether arguments are sound or not. Here is an abortion argument worksheet that we are working through: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/abortion-worksheet.pdf
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Late Homework Option
In the spirit of the season, I decided that I would offer a short period of "homework forgiveness."
Here's how it will work.
Three slots will be opened on Turnitin. In these slots you may submit any 5 point written assignment, thus, anything except for the recent blog/paper on homosexuality - that you might have not completed or you did not do as well on it, grade-wise, as you would like. You must also turn these assignments in, in hardcopy, by Monday, April 1, in class.
No late work will be accepted: absolutely none. And, any work not turned in hardcopy in proper format, with email, class time, and Turnitin receipt will not be considered.
This work will be graded on the basis of quality and quantity, its being complete and detailed, among other considerations.
Here's how it will work.
Three slots will be opened on Turnitin. In these slots you may submit any 5 point written assignment, thus, anything except for the recent blog/paper on homosexuality - that you might have not completed or you did not do as well on it, grade-wise, as you would like. You must also turn these assignments in, in hardcopy, by Monday, April 1, in class.
No late work will be accepted: absolutely none. And, any work not turned in hardcopy in proper format, with email, class time, and Turnitin receipt will not be considered.
This work will be graded on the basis of quality and quantity, its being complete and detailed, among other considerations.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Insights from the Fred Feldman page abortion:
1. Precision: - all (actual)? Some? Which? All possible?
2. Meaning.. what do you mean?
3. Logically valid arguments
An action is “prima facie” wrong = wrong unless extreme circumstances
justify it
Contrast w/ “absolutely” or
“necessarily” wrong..
Suppose someone says that they
believe that, “Abortion is prima facie
wrong.”
If you asked them, “Why do you think that?” what reasons would they give?
If you asked them, “Why do you think that?” what reasons would they give?
Updates, new assignments, quiz, etc.
1. Your paper or blog/webpage on arguments about homosexuality is now due next Monday, March 25, instead of this Friday. This was extended on Monday. And, please upload your project to Turnitin: if you do a blog, do your best to cut and paste the relevant sections into a document to upload.
The N.R.A.’s Blockade on Science -
by philosopher Gary Gutting from the NY Times. We will look at some of the other articles in this series soon, especiallyWhy Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough
By JEFF MCMAHAN3. New writing (and some reading) assignment for next Wednesday, March 27: read or re-read EMP Ch 3 and 4 and write detailed summaries of them both. Also, read Mary Anne Warren's "The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion," in RTD and write a detailed summary of that. These should all be submitted to Turnitin and turned in in class.
4. We will have our second quiz soon. It will be on MONDAY, APRIL 8 - NOTE CHANGE and cover everything since the last quiz: mostly EMP 3 & 4, as well as all the related materials. A focus of this will be adding premises to make arguments logically valid and explaining whether arguments are sound or not.
5. A handout for today: a page from philosopher Fred Feldman on abortion.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Paper /project assignment 1, with some of options. All due Friday, March 22.
Paper /project assignment 1, with some of
options. All due Friday, March 22.
First,
re-read Vaughn on writing philosophy and
this article by James Pryor, "Guidelines on writing a philosophy paper": http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
Option
1: Individual philosophical paper or educational
webpage/blog where you address all the aspects of the assignment below.
Option
2: Group project:
The purpose for this assignment is
for you to construct a public online teaching tool to help people better find
and evaluate moral arguments and then apply this guidance to the issue of
homosexuality. (Your teaching tool can, and probably will, be used with other
issues later in the semester ). Create your own group of 2 or 3 students. Create
a webpage or blog (on Blogger, Wordpress, Google Sites, wherever) where you
present and evaluate at least five arguments for the conclusion that
homosexuality is wrong.
You must also explain the methods that you will use to evaluate these arguments, in terms of finding conclusions, finding premises, making the arguments valid and identifying whether the arguments are sound or not (including using counterexamples to try to argument that general moral premises are false). That is, you must explain *how* someone would think about moral issues and explain the methods that we’ve used in this class.
You must also explain the methods that you will use to evaluate these arguments, in terms of finding conclusions, finding premises, making the arguments valid and identifying whether the arguments are sound or not (including using counterexamples to try to argument that general moral premises are false). That is, you must explain *how* someone would think about moral issues and explain the methods that we’ve used in this class.
On your page(s), you must:
- Identify what you mean by the claim that 'homosexuality is wrong'; this might be different for different arguments.
- Identify at least five arguments for that conclusion: pick arguments that you think are interesting, common and/or influential.
- State these arguments in logically valid form.
For each argument, explain whether each premise is true or false and so whether the argument is sound or not.
Your webpage/blog should have an introduction and a conclusion and so forth.
The purpose for this assignment, instead of a paper, is for you to construct a public teaching tool to help people better find and evaluate moral arguments and then apply it to the issue of homosexuality. (Your teaching tool can, and probably will, be used with other issues later in the semester!).
- Identify what you mean by the claim that 'homosexuality is wrong'; this might be different for different arguments.
- Identify at least five arguments for that conclusion: pick arguments that you think are interesting, common and/or influential.
- State these arguments in logically valid form.
For each argument, explain whether each premise is true or false and so whether the argument is sound or not.
Your webpage/blog should have an introduction and a conclusion and so forth.
The purpose for this assignment, instead of a paper, is for you to construct a public teaching tool to help people better find and evaluate moral arguments and then apply it to the issue of homosexuality. (Your teaching tool can, and probably will, be used with other issues later in the semester!).
Please email Dr. Nobis the URL, post
a link to your page on the blog (below this post) and bring a printout of the
page to class! Make it very, very clear who is part of your group.
Friday, March 01, 2013
Some notes on syllogisms
Please read this:
Richard Feldman on “Simple Moral Arguments”: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/feldman-simple-moral-arguments.pdf
------------------------------
Richard Feldman on “Simple Moral Arguments”: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/feldman-simple-moral-arguments.pdf
BELOW WE COMPARED MAKING THESE ARGUMENTS LOGICALLY VALID BY WAY OF ADDING A GENERAL PREMISE, TO FORM A SYLLOGISM, VERSUS ADDING A PREMISE TO MAKE A MODUS PONENS ARGUMENT.
Please make these arguments logically
valid:
1. Socrates is a man. If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.
2.
All
men are mortal. = Any man is mortal. = If someone is a man, then that someone
is mortal. = If X is a man, then X is mortal [ALL, ANY , IF-THEN]
3.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
4. Suzy is a Spelman student. If Suzy is Spelman student, then Suzy plays PP.
5.
All Spelmanites play PP. If Suzy goes to Spelman, then she plays PP.
Anyone who is a Sp.. plays PP.
6.
Therefore, Suzy plays ping pong.
7. Running is a sport. IF running is a sport, then running is dangerous.
8.
All
sports are dangerous. Any … If activity X is a sport , then X is dangerous.
9.
Therefore, running is dangerous.
10.
Onions are fruits.All fruits are healthy. Anything
that’s a fruit is healthy. If something is a fruit, then it’s healthy (If a
food is fruit, then it’s healthy)
11.
Therefore, onions are healthy.
------------------------------
1.
Homosexual sex is not reproductive.
2.
All
sex that is not reproductive is wrong. = If a sexual behavior is not
reproductive then it’s wrong. = Any sexual behavior that’s not reproductive is
wrong . F
3.
Therefore, it’s wrong.
Homosexual sex isn’t reproductive. T
All
(any) sexual behavior that is not reproductive is wrong =
If
a sexual act is not reproductive, then it’s wrong. F
Therefore, homosexual sex is wrong.
1.
2.
Socrates is a man. If Socrates is a man, then he’s mortal.
3.
All
men are mortal. =
If
X is a man, then X is mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is
mortal
4. Suzy is a Spelman student. If Suzy is a Spelman student, then she plays PP.
5.
All
Spelman students play ping pong.
Therefore, Suzy plays ping pong.
6. Running is a sport [?]. If X is a sport, then X is
dangerous. F If running
is a sport, then it’s dangerous.
Therefore, running is dangerous.
7.
Onions are fruits (f). All / any / if -> then (all?) (some?) Fruit
is healthy ??
8. If onions are fruits,
then they are healthy to eat.
Therefore, onions are healthy to
eat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)