Paper 4

Two options:

Options 1:

Should you donate 25 cents a day to help people living in absolute poverty?

Paper 4:

A Second Option (for the first option, see the previous assignment handout &/or the blog!)

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

Due: Friday April 27, 2006: in class and through the Turnitin system.

In this paper, you should present and critically discuss Singer’s arguments regarding world poverty (Engel and Rachels prove some useful information and arguments also). You should make the discussion personal – i.e., think about what you personally should do – but start small and consider whether you should donate a quarter a day to help people living in absolute poverty. 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). In this paper, you should discuss whether you should join (perhaps with others?) The $10 Club. If you join (or start supporting some other worthy cause) and prove it, then not only will you have helped better the lives of people living in absolute poverty, you will get a free poster from Professor Nobis! J

Please meet to discuss this assignment with your peers. Follow all good directions on how to write papers.

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. He gives the examples of Dora and Bob: explain what role these examples play in his argument.
3. Objections
Carefully explain at least three of what you think are the best objections to Singer’s argument.
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! What you think and what you do reflect who you are: be excellent!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Yahoo!: 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 richest people.
• 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.

Option 2:

Can You Morally Justify Your Choice of Career and Lifestyle?

Paper 4: Philosophy 302: 3-5 pages; due __________________

Important philosophy isn’t just abstract theorizing: it relates to the concrete realities of everyday life. The most important philosophical thinking asks personally challenging questions about our own lives and what we ourselves do: it asks us to justify our own beliefs, feelings, attitudes, goals and actions.

For this paper, I want you to start thinking more about your “personal” and “professional” life from a moral or ethical standpoint.[1] I want you to give reasons and arguments about yourself.

I want you to think about your career plans and discuss whether what you hope and plan on doing career-wise is morally justified. That is, can you give reasons to think that what you hope to do in your career is morally permissible? Can you defend your plans from possible arguments that, morally, you should be doing something else?

To develop arguments that might challenge your career plans, I want you to develop Peter Singer’s or Rachels’ arguments about poverty assistance. Singer’s and Rachels’ main theme is that we all should be doing far more to help people who are far less fortunate than ourselves: indeed, we are morally obligated to do this. They gives reasons for why should do this: they give reasons why ethical egoism should be rejected and why we should even go beyond “common sense” morality [EMP p. 69] to improve the world.

These arguments about famine aid can be transformed into arguments for the view that we are morally obligated to bring about the most good – or at least, more good – that we can in and through our lives. It’s this standard (which you need to develop and explain in greater detail – and there are various subtleties that you don’t want to ignore) that I want you to compare your career plans to, to see if they meet this moral standard. If they don’t, then you might want to argue that your plans are morally impermissible. You might then want to think about other career options that would, in your view, yield more goods. On the other hand, you might want to argue that Singer’s and Rachels’ views about how much good we are morally obligated to produce is mistaken and so, perhaps, almost all career choices are morally permissible.

So your paper will need all this.

• Your career plans.
• Discussion of what kinds of goods will come from your career plans (some questions that might be worth addressing: will these be goods just for you, or just your family? Is your career more reflective of ethical egoism? Or will your career produce goods for others? If so, who? You might wish to discuss what “common sense” morality [EMP p. 69] or even utilitarianism or Kantianism might imply about your plans).
• A discussion of other career plans you could have and whether these alternative careers would yield greater goods or not.
• An argument that if there are other career plans you could follow that would yield greater goods, then you should pursue those plans.
• A response to this argument.

Your paper should have an introduction and a thesis statement. You should follow all the guidance given about writing: re-read all those articles!

You are encouraging to meet in small groups to discuss the assignment, develop organizational outlines, develop the arguments that you’ll need to respond to, etc. You need to write your own paper though, of course!

www.TheTenDollarClub.org might give you some ideas for how to augment your career and lifestyle choices.

---

[1] Your next, and near final, paper will be even more personal. It will be about the moral choices involved in what you eat!

Another Extra Credit Opp.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at Agnes Scott
Rabbi Hillel Norry and Mark Douglas
"Is Nature Ours? A Jewish-Christian Dialogue"
7:30 p.m.
Evans Hall, terrace level, rooms ABC

Hillel Norry is Rabbi at Congregation Shearith Israel, a Conservative, egalitarian congregation in Atlanta. Mark Douglas is Associate Professor of Christian Ethics at Columbia Theological Seminary. Rabbi Norry and Professor Douglas will discuss what they see their religions as suggesting about the proper relationship between human beings and the rest of creation. What, for example, do the Hebrew and Christian Bibles tell us about our relationship to other species, or our responsibilities to future generations?

For Monday: re-read chapters on utilitarianism in EMP.
Read EMP pages on euthanasia and the 2 essays in RTD on that.

Some Notes on Utilitarianism

How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.

-- Anne Frank

Utilitarianism:

1. What is it?

2. Why would anyone think it’s true?

3. What are the arguments against it?

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that provides answers to certain questions, such as:

• What makes right actions right (or what makes morally permissible actions morally permissible?) and what makes wrong actions wrong? What are the right and wrong-making features or characteristics of actions that make them right or wrong?

• What is the fundamental difference between a morally permissible action and a morally impermissible action?

• What rule(s) must our actions conform to if they are to be morally permissible?

Utilitarianism is designed to give a fully general answer to these questions: the answer is supposed to apply for all actions.

One possible way to reason towards utilitarianism (or any moral theory):

Think about what seem to be clear cases of right and wrong actions, develop a hypothesis about what makes them right and work with that to develop it into a more precise theory.

E.g. Our vivid examples from the beginning of class:

One the basis of these examples, come to think this:

a. pleasure / pain = bad , happiness / unhappiness = good

b. less pain is better than more, more pleasure is better than less, the most pleasure/happiness and least pain/unhappiness is best; consequences where pleasure is produced and pain lessened are better than others;

c. you should bring about the best consequences you can, i.e., produce the most pleasure / happiness and minimize pains / unhappiness that you can.

Rachels:

[Utilitarianism is the view that] we should always do whatever will produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness for everyone who will be affected by our action. (RTD 11)

Another statement of the theory:

Utilitarianism is the view that an action “A” is morally permissible for a person if, and only if, of all the alternative actions available to the person at the time, action “A” produces the greatest overall net happiness; if it does not produce the greatest overall net happiness then it is wrong.

“net” happiness = total “amount” of happiness – total “amount” of unhappiness caused by the action

The theory is about improving the world: very concrete.

Not just following “the rules,” whatever their consequences.

If following some rule has good consequence, follow it. If there’s a time it doesn’t, break it!

So, no “absolute” moral rules, except for the rule “Do what will produce the most happiness!”

Lying, stealing, killing, breaking promises …. Only “rules of thumb.”

A rather “progressive” theory: it’s been appealed to in condemning:

• “Old style” Prisons and punishment (where there was no concern with rehabilitation), child labor, the oppression of women (On the Subjugation of Women), racism
• Why is this? Because everyone’s pleasures, if similar pleasures, are equally good, and everyone’s comparable pains are equally bad. Pleasure is good for men, women, blacks, whites, etc. and plain is bad for everyone also, regardless of sex, race, class, etc.
• This is true of species also: Bentham: “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

Utilitarians oppose anything that causes pain and suffering for little or no comparable happiness or pleasures (next issues: euthanasia). It requires that we do what produces the greatest overall happiness.

Some objections to utilitarianism:

1. Pleasure and pain, narrowly and simply construed, are not the only things that are bad and ; happiness and pleasure, narrowly and simply construed, are not the only things that are good.

Rachels’ examples. The cheered up pianist; your are happy yet your “friends” are not really your friends!

Utilitarians have generally responded by broadening their view about what’s good and bad.

New view: you should produce the greatest net good you can.

2. Objections that utilitarianism either permits or requires injustice:

The organ transplant case.

The case of “Racially motivated injustice”: EMP p. 103

1. If utilitarianism is true, then the sheriff should do the action that produces the best consequences, i.e., produces the greatest net happiness. (True)

2. If the sheriff should do the action that produces the best consequences, i.e., produces the greatest net happiness, then the sheriff should lynch the innocent man. (True? Or False?))

3. But the sheriff should not lynch the man. (True? Or False?)

4. So, it’s not true that the sheriff should do the action that produces the best consequences, i.e., produces the greatest net happiness.

5. So utilitarianism is not true.

[These objections take the same logical form as the others:

If utilitarianism is true, then X is morally right, but X is not morally right, so util is not true.]

• An objection that utilitarianism either permits or requires rights violations: (EMP p. 104)
• An objection that utilitarianism is “too demanding”
• An objection that utilitarianism requires us to not give preference to friends and family.

Other cases: Williams “integrity” objections; Nozick’s “experience machine”. Both from RTD.

How utilitarians generally respond:

• deny that these would be indeed be best consequences,
• “bite the bullet” and argue that “common sense is wrong.

“Racism and Anti-Semitism:

What They Are and

What They Aren't”

Racism and anti-Semitism are among the great evils of human history. But what are they, and what makes them morally wrong? This talk examines those questions by focusing on whether the intent to cause harm is an essential part of racism and anti-Semitism.

Dr. Andrew Altman

Professor of philosophy, Georgia State University

He holds his Ph.D. in Philosophy from Columbia University (1977) and received a Liberal Arts Fellowship in Law and Philosophy from Harvard Law School (1984-5). Professor Altman is the author of Critical Legal Studies: A Liberal Critique (Princeton 1990) and Arguing About Law: An Introduction to Legal Philosophy (2nd ed. 2001). He has published more than two dozen articles on topics in legal and political philosophy, including freedom of speech, democratic legitimacy, and voting rights. His articles have appeared in prominent scholarly journals in the areas of political, legal and ethical philosophy, including Ethics and Philosophy and Public Affairs, and several of his pieces have been widely reprinted in anthologies in legal philosophy and contemporary social issues.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2007 4:00 p.m.

KILGORE SEMINAR ROOM, MOREHOUSE COLLEGE

A flyer is here:
http://www.morehouse.edu/facstaff/nnobis/courses/altman-flyer.pdf

Friday Reading

Utilitarianism, the ethical theory:
EMP Ch. 6, pp. 89-91 & Ch. 7, 100-108 (and see responses to these objections at 109-116).

We'll have a guest Friday so please be on time and prepared!

Thursday Extra Credit

Understanding Moral Disagreement
Thursday April 12
4:00pm
Reception Hall, Michael C. Carlos Museum
[ At the moment I don't know where this is; you need to figure it out!]

Lecture by K. Anthony Appiah, Laurance S. Rockefeller Univeristy Professor of Philosophy and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton.

This event is presented as part of the Envisioning and Creating Just Societies: Perspectives from the Public Humanities Distinguished Speaker Series organized by the Center for the Study of Public Scholarship (CSPS) and the Center for Humanistic Inquiry (CHI).
Cosponsors include the Office of International Affairs, Hightower Fund, The Playwriting Center of Theater Emory, Feminism and Legal Theory Project, Graduate Institute of Liberal Arts, Institute of African Studies, Emory Law School, American Studies, and the Departments of Art History, Comparative Literature, Creative Writing, English, Philosophy, Religion, Sociology, Political Science and Women’s Studies.
To print the entire series (PDF), click here.
For additional information on this event, please contact Aline Rafi in the CSPS at 404-727-7602.

At Conservative Black Colleges, Gays Struggle To Find Their Voice

"At Conservative Black Colleges, Gays Struggle To Find Their Voice"
By Associated Press
Apr 6, 2007, 05:09

HAMPTON, Va.

So lured was April Maxwell by the promise of the Black college experience, with its distinct traditions and tight-knit campus life, that she enrolled at Hampton University in 2001 without even visiting the waterfront campus.

A lesbian who is open about her sexual orientation, she arrived eager to join the extended Hampton family.

Instead, “I felt like I was the only gay person on campus — it seemed like nobody was really out,” says the now 24-year-old Maxwell.

She channeled her isolation into organizing a gay support group, but a panel of students and faculty denied it a charter. The panel recently denied a second attempt at chartering Students Promoting Equal Action and Knowledge, headed by underclassmen after Maxwell graduated.

It’s a tug-of-war that’s emerging at other Black schools, where students say outdated rules and homophobia block them from forming the gay campus voice common at majority White institutions.

At Hampton, where rules govern everything from overnight guests to student dress, officials insist they don’t discriminate against gays. They say they’re simply enforcing the regulations on student groups, and there just isn’t space for another one.

But some students at the HBCU see more than a conservative approach to the regulations. They, and many others at the nation’s more than 100 HBCUs, say that a broader suspicion of homosexuality keeps gays in the shadows at these tradition-heavy schools.

“You’ve got to recognize the history of HBCUs,” says Larry Curtis, vice president for student affairs at Norfolk State University, where students recently formed a gay-straight alliance. “Most of them were founded by religious organizations.”

Church leaders are often cited as setting the tone regarding homosexuality across the Black community.

Nationwide, Black pastors have opposed gay marriage and shot down comparisons between the struggles for civil rights and gay rights. Others have attacked “down low” bisexual men for contributing to the rising AIDS rates among Black women, though the topic is a matter of debate in the public health community.

On historically Black campuses, those tensions make life uncomfortable for gay students.

“It’s kind of hard to be out on campus and still be successful,” says Vincent Allen Jr., head of Safe Space at Atlanta’s Morehouse College. “As an out gay man, if I wanted to pledge, that door is pretty much shut to me. That’s just the way it is.”

But just as gay students can rightfully request campus inclusion, so too can Black college administrators deny it, argues the Rev. William Owens, an HBCU graduate and head of the Coalition of African-American Pastors in Memphis, Tenn.

Those administrators may cite the Bible, or simply personal beliefs — and they don’t have to be politically correct, he says.

“They can say ‘no’ and I don’t think they have to give a lot of reasons,” says Owens, who joined other Black pastors worried that, along with dismal marriage rates, socially accepted homosexuality “is a threat to the Black family.”

In 2002, the issue of gays on Black campuses grabbed the attention of the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group that organizes annual “coming out” days.

“We would send out information to all the colleges and universities about getting national coming out packets, and for some reason the only institutions we were not hearing back from at all were the historically Black colleges,” says HRC diversity manager Brandon Braud. He says he eventually began calling campuses.

He learned of gay groups at two historically Black schools: Howard University, in Washington, D.C., and Spelman College, in Atlanta.

Administrators elsewhere denied having gay students, or said that while gays attended, “they’re very underground,” Braud said.

He later spoke to students who alleged outright hostility. Some were required to find an adviser to form gay groups — unrealistic on many small campuses, says Nashville AIDS educator Dwayne Jenkins.

Through his Brothers United Network, Jenkins mentored upstart groups at Tennessee State and Fisk universities.

“Finding an adviser was always hard because nobody wanted to be associated with the gay-straight alliance — it was the thinking that ‘Oh my god, are they going to think I’m gay?’” he says.

Formed mostly across the segregation-era South, historically Black colleges emerged as academic training grounds and finishing schools for Blacks entering White society.

The most esteemed schools earned a reputation for students with impeccable manners and clean-cut behavior.

“So much of our campus is focused on this ideal of ‘the Hampton man’ and ‘the Hampton woman,’” says Michael, a transfer student and SPEAK member who, like the group’s president, is closeted and refused to let his last name be printed. “Men walk women home — traditional Southern values.”

But students are changing.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network counts more than 3,000 gay-straight alliances at American high schools. Those youth will apply to colleges that can ensure their safety and will provide support, says Kevin Rome, vice president for student services at Morehouse, where a student was beaten in 2002 for an alleged same-sex pass.

“Society is changing,” Rome says. “Students aren’t coming here experimenting with their sexuality, they’re coming here knowing. Our schools have to accommodate. It’s inevitable.”

Gay students have enjoyed far greater visibility at Virginia’s large, majority White institutions.
Virginia Tech’s gay alliance group hosts support meetings and social outings. The University of Virginia recently hired a coordinator for its gay resource center, a hub for 2,000 gay students at the Charlottesville campus.

At HBCUs though, change is gradual. Braud has nudged along groups at 20 schools through a special Black college-aimed HRC program.

At state-supported institutions such as Norfolk State, Curtis says it’s easier to prompt change because other state universities in Virginia already have gay support groups.

At private Hampton, Maxwell says she knew lots of gays and found support among pockets of students, regardless of sexuality.

“The people who are in charge, I really don’t think they’re for it,” she says.

But school officials say competition is stiff on the campus, where a moratorium has limited the number of student groups to 90 — and unchartered groups can’t meet. New groups are chartered when other groups become inactive.

Only four spots were available during the 2006-2007 school year. Forty-four organizations have applied for charters over the past two years, and 11 received them.

“No organization is given any type of special treatment,” says assistant vice president for student affairs Barbara Inman. “The university doesn’t have a position on gay and lesbian faculty and staff members.”

— Associated Press

Extra Credit Opportunity

Understanding Moral Disagreement
Thursday April 12
4:00pm
Reception Hall, Michael C. Carlos Museum

Lecture by K. Anthony Appiah, Laurance S. Rockefeller Univeristy Professor of Philosophy and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton.

This event is presented as part of the Envisioning and Creating Just Societies: Perspectives from the Public Humanities Distinguished Speaker Series organized by the Center for the Study of Public Scholarship (CSPS) and the Center for Humanistic Inquiry (CHI).
Cosponsors include the Office of International Affairs, Hightower Fund, The Playwriting Center of Theater Emory, Feminism and Legal Theory Project, Graduate Institute of Liberal Arts, Institute of African Studies, Emory Law School, American Studies, and the Departments of Art History, Comparative Literature, Creative Writing, English, Philosophy, Religion, Sociology, Political Science and Women’s Studies.
To print the entire series (PDF), click here.
For additional information on this event, please contact Aline Rafi in the CSPS at 404-727-7602.

Famine Arguments

Here is an article by Richard Cameron that addresses various objections to famine aid arguments.



Here's a powerpoint on Singer's arguments that you might interesting.

Worksheet on Objections to the Singer Solution to World Poverty

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

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

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

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

Michael Gregor, MD, author of Bird Flu: A Virus of our own Hatching -- http://birdflubook.com/ -- is giving a talk this Tuesday. It will likely be excellent. I encourage anyone and everyone to go. Please pass the word on.

http://birdflubook.com/e.php?id=108


Atlanta, GA
Tuesday, April 3, 12:00pm
Emory University Rollins School of Public Health
Auditorium 1525 Grace Crum Rollins Building
1518 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30322

http://www.google.com/maps?q=1518+Clifton+Rd+NE,+Atlanta,+Georgia+30322,+USA&ie=UTF8&z=16&om=1&iwloc=addr

Surviving the Next Pandemic:
Bird Flu and Other Emerging Infectious Diseases

Leading public health authorities now predict as inevitable a pandemic of influenza, triggered by bird flu and expected to lead to millions of deaths around the globe. The influenza virus has existed for millions of years as an innocuous intestinal virus of wild ducks. What turned a harmless waterborne duck virus into a killer? In an engaging multimedia presentation, Dr. Michael Greger traces the human role in the evolution of this virus. In the face of the coming pandemic, Dr. Greger reveals what we can do to protect our families and what society can do to reduce the likelihood of such potential catastrophes in the future.

Reading for Monday

Here are new readings for Monday:

• In RTD: Peter Singer's NY Times article "The Singer Solution to World Poverty"








• Also, online, Peter Singer's, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1972).
• The Ten Dollar Club (thetendollarclub.org)
  

Test 2 Study Guide

PHL 315 Test 2, Spring 2007:
Wednesday, April 11
Morality & Religion, Abortion, Ethical Egoism, & Famine Aid
philosophy302.blogspot.com

All material since the previous test is testable!
EMP, Ch. 4 Does Morality Depend on Religion?
• What is the Divine Command Theory of ethics? What are three arguments against it, i.e., arguments to think it is false? Are these objections strong objections to it, i.e., give reason to think it’s false, or not? Explain.
• Can a theist reject the Divine Command Theory of ethics? If so, how? Why might a theist do this?
• Rachels discusses a number of challenges in appealing to religious texts, authorities and traditions for understanding and resolving moral issues. What are these challenges? (62-67; also, 50-51). Is Rachels right in thinking that these are challenges, or not? Defend your view on whether appealing to Bible and religious traditions alone are adequate to answer moral questions.

ABORTION
Be able to present all the arguments about abortion that we discussed in class in logically valid premise-conclusion form, explain them and evaluate them as sound or unsound, with reasons. A full handout, with all the premises stated, is here: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/abortion-worksheet.pdf
Be able to know which arguments are Marquis’s and which are Warren’s. Here are some details that you’ll know if you are familiar with all the discussed arguments;

1. Some people think about “abortions” in general. Explain why we thought it’s better, when one develops a moral view about abortion, to make it clear whether one’s view pertains to all abortions or only some of them, and if just some of them, that one explains which abortions one is arguing to be right or wrong. The Feldman handout gave some insight into this: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/fred_feldman_on_abortion.pdf
2. Some people disagree about whether fetuses are “human” or “human beings”. To help resolve this dispute, be able to explain how the word “human” (as in the claim ‘Fetuses are human’) is ambiguous; be able to explain two distinct meanings, with examples.
3. Be able to explain one method of reasoning to try to figure out the meaning of the word “person” or what the concept of “person” or “being a person” is. This method is generally useful for trying to figure out the meanings of words or concepts when their meanings are not clear.
4. Be able to explain what it is to be a person, on Warren’s view, and the view that was developed in class. Explain why, on this theory, if God exists, God is a person. Explain why, on this theory, if “ET” existed, ET, Worf, Jabba The Hut and other fictional persons would exist as persons.
5. According to scientists and physicians, approximately when do human fetuses develop some kind of consciousness and ability to feel pain? (Present the range of scientific estimates). Do most actual abortions occur before or after this time period?
6. Explain why a bumper that said “Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t have an abortion?” doesn’t appear to suggest a sound argument against abortion because it suggests an analogous argument against birth control.
7. Some arguments against abortion suggest that birth control and even abstinence are wrong also. (However, since most people don’t believe that birth control and abstinence are wrong, they take this false implication to reveal a fault with the argument.) Explain how this is so and which exact premises have that implication.
8. Some people get upset when it is said, and even argued (i.e., reasons are given), that (early) fetuses are not “persons” and not conscious, feeling beings. Explain to them why they should not get upset, since these facts do not entail that abortions are right. Explain why that is so.
9. What’s Marquis’s argument for the immorality of abortion? Present an objection to each premise of the argument.
10. What is Warren’s argument for the moral permissibility of abortion?
11. Bonus: what are Judith Thompson’s arguments on abortion? What are her conclusions and what are her premises? How does she argued that abortion is typically morally permissible?

Here’s a PowerPoint on abortion that you might find interesting: http://nathannobis.com/papers/abortion-talk.ppt

What is ethical egoism? (If someone is an ethical egoist, what exactly does he or she believe?)
• Present at least two logically valid arguments against ethical egoism, i.e., for the conclusion that ethical egoism is false.
• Are these arguments sound or not? Explain and defend your view.

Famine aid:
• What is Singer’s argument regarding famine aid issues? Be able to present his complete argument in a logically valid form. You will need to know the details.
o What role do the examples of the pond/pool, Dora and Bob play in his argument? (i.e., why does he discuss these examples?)
• Be able to present at least 5 objections to Singer’s argument. Since identifying the unstated assumptions behind these arguments was our focus, these objections should be made as logically valid arguments; you’ll need to explain why these arguments are sound or unsound (i.e., why at least one premise is false) and/or defend their premises. Simply asserting that Singer is wrong, or that we have no such obligations, or other responses – without giving reasons and defending them – will be inadequate.
• Explain our final conclusion, our main objection to Singer’s argument. This was that one would indeed be sacrificing something of genuinely comparable moral worth if one gave to famine aid, so one of Singer’s premises is false, and that’s one good reason why his argument is not sound.

There could be a question or two on the article “Patterns of Resistance” by Tom Regan.

Wed. we will discuss the moral theory called ethical egoism. See Rachels EMP.

We will then turn to moral questions about whether we might be morally obligated to help starving people.

Monday Extra Credit at Agnes Scott

Monday, March 26, 2007
Ronald Bailey
" The Consequences of Misdiagnosing Environmental Problems: Overpopulation, Resource Depletion, Chemical Contamination, Global Warming and Other Environmental Problems "
7:30 p.m.
Evans Hall, terrace level, rooms ABC

Ronald Bailey is an award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine. He is the author of Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution. He is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute.

IF YOU GO, BE ON TIME.

Abortion Readings

Today, Monday; a quiz on Warren.

Wed.: Marquis on abortion from RTD.

Friday: Thompson on abortion from RTD.

A 'mad libs' abortion argument worksheet. See also my Powerpoint on abortion.

Some notes on Marquis:

He thinks whether abortions are wrong or not does not depend on whether any fetuses are
”persons.”

He thinks to understand whether it’s wrong to kill fetuses, we should think about why it’s wrong to kill us. He thinks the best explanation of why it’s wrong to kill us is this: (a) we have valuable futures and (b) killing us deprives us from experiencing these valuable futures.

If (1) fetuses have valuable futures like our valuable futures, and if (2) it is wrong to deprive something from experiencing its valuable future, then abortion is wrong, he arguments (because abortion prevents something that has a valuable future from experiencing its valuable future).

We can prevent the argument like this:

1. Fetuses have valuable futures like our valuable futures.

2. It’s wrong to prevent something from experiencing its valuable future, or deprave them from that valuable future.

Therefore, C.

Some questions about the premises.

Regarding (1) we should think about what our futures are like and why they are valuable. We should think about how fetuses futures’ are similar and different from our futures.

Although both fetuses and us have futures – in the sense that there is (hopefully) good stuff that we will experience – there is a difference between our futures in that we are currently, consciously aware of our futures and are looking forward to them. We have plans and hopes for the future; fetuses do not. Maybe that makes a difference. Maybe that means that fetuses do not have valuable futures that are quite like our’s, and maybe they are not (so) valuable because of that.

Regarding (2), we might wonder what implications this principle has for contraception and even abstinence. One might reply that birth control and abstinence do not prevent something from experiencing its valuable future, or deprave them from that valuable future, because what birth control does is prevent there from being that something or someone. One might reply that there are things like this: interesting metaphysical “objects” that consist of an-egg-and-the-sperm-that-would-fertilize-it and that these objects have valuable futures which contraception prevents from being experienced. If so, then (2) implies that contraception and abstinence are wrong. You might think this is a false implication of (2) and so the argument is unsound.

Biblical Interpretation and Moral Issues

Recently I said a few things about Biblical interpretation and moral issues. Most of this was from these recent talks by Dr. Matt Halteman , an excellent philosopher from Calvin College, a Christian College in Michigan, that he recently gave at Wheaton College, a Christian College in Illinois.

MP3: " Animal Rights & Christian Responsibility"

MP3: " Living Toward the Peaceable Kingdom"

Notes: " Compassionate Eating as Care of Creation"
Notes: " Animal Rights and Christian Responsibility"

The link is also here: http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/

Warren on Abortion

When we get back we will read and discuss Mary Anne Warren's "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion." This is also available here.

Extra Credit Book Report Option

Students wishing to earn extra credit can write a book report on John Robbins’ The Food Revolution or his Diet for a New America. The book report should provide a purely descriptive content summary of Robbins’ book: your report should be purely descriptive in nature, devoid of any evaluative or editorial remarks. Simply report the content of the assigned book as fairly, precisely, and accurately as possible. Students who elect to do the book report can have up to 18 points (8%) added to their final average for the course. The exact number of points added will depend on the quality and comprehensiveness of the report. To get the maximum number of points, the summary of each chapter will likely have to be at least a few pages, if not more.

There is a section of Food Revolution that you may skip, chapters 16-19. That leaves 16 chapters (including chapter 20, the Conclusion) and the Forward. The book report is due at the time of the final, third exam.

Robbins' Food Revolution is a updated version of his earlier book Diet for a New America. Diet for a New America is older, but you could write a book report on that book instead of Food Revolution if you would prefer. The books are similar in many ways, but the Food Revolution has newer and more current information and examples in it. For Diet for a New America, you should do a report on the entire book: no chapter should be skipped.

Both these books are available in many public libraries, at local bookstores, and are available for sale online, often used and very inexpensive. Here is Amazon's page on The Food Revolution; see the links to find it used and cheapest there:

http://www.amazon.com/Food-Revolution-Your-Diet-World/dp/1573247022

AbeBooks.com also sells used books:

And here is the Amazon page for Diet for a New America, the updated version from 1998:

http://www.amazon.com/Diet-New-America-Choices-Happiness/dp/0915811812/ref=sr_1_4/002-5522498-1191241?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1172863483&sr=1-4