Wednesday, April 16, 2008

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, dying from malaria, 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 common 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: “Each of us only has to do what’s fair. 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: “We can’t do anything to help anyone. Therefore we are not obligated to donate.”

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Objection 13: “Ethical egoism is true. Therefore we are not obligated to donate.”

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Objection 14: “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:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Extra Credit opportunity

The Atlanta University Center Public Health Association

AND

The Morehouse College Health Careers & Pre-Dental Societies

Present

A Special Screening & Panel Discussion of the Documentary

“The AIDS Chronicles: Here to Represent”

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m.

Morehouse College

Executive Conference Center Auditorium

Documentary Screening 6:00 p.m. -7:30 p.m.

Panel Discussion (featuring participants from the documentary) 7:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m.

The new feature-length documentary focuses on the social and cultural impact of HIV/AIDS on the African-American community of Atlanta. These stories, produced from material gathered over the last four years, give insight into the reasons why HIV/AIDS is still a major threat to the black population of urban centers nationwide.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Extra Credit

Extra Credit Lecture
Next Monday
Double extra credit (if not more?!)
It's a talk and booksigning for Gene Baur's book Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds about Animals and Food: http://www.genebaur.com/

April 21.......................Book Signing ~ Borders.............................................FLIER
Atlanta, GA...............7:30PM - 9:30PM
.......................................3637 Peachtree Road NE, Suite C, Atlanta, GA 30319

Gene Baur is founder of Farm Sanctuary http://farmsanctuary.org

For Wed., re-read the Singer Solution to World Poverty. If you missed the video clip, it's here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-429820406356478614&q=peter+singer

Here are some objections we'll think about:
http://philosophy302.blogspot.com/2007/04/worksheet-on-objections-to-singer.html

And here's a powerpoint you might find interesting:
http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/famine.ppt

Here are a few relevant clips from "Idol Gives Back"

Idol gives back 08 - Forest Whitaker & wife Keisha (too bad the audio isn't better on this one)

Bono:

Bono, introduces a segment with Annie Lenox:

Music; Annie Lenox:

Saturday, April 12, 2008

The Philosophy Major Gains Popularity

Reposted from the APA webpage: A recent article in the New York Times (April 6, 2008) highlights the increasing number of undergraduate philosophy majors nationwide. Another article, from The Guardian (Nov. 20, 2007), shows evidence that philosophy degrees are in growing demand from employers.

Here they are, in case they become inaccessible at the original pages:

In a New Generation of College Students, Many Opt for the Life Examined

Sylwia Kapuscinski for The New York Times

Zachary Perry, a junior at Rutgers University, reasons out a position at a meeting of the university’s philosophy club.

By WINNIE HU

Published: April 6, 2008, NY Times

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — When a fellow student at Rutgers University urged Didi Onejeme to try Philosophy 101 two years ago, Ms. Onejeme, who was a pre-med sophomore, dismissed it as “frou-frou.”

Enlarge This Image

Sylwia Kapuscinski for The New York Times

Rebecca Clipper, a senior in a philosophy class at Rutgers, which has 100 philosophy majors graduating this year.

“People sitting under trees and talking about stupid stuff — I mean, who cares?” Ms. Onejeme recalled thinking at the time.

But Ms. Onejeme, now a senior applying to law school, ended up changing her major to philosophy, which she thinks has armed her with the skills to be successful. “My mother was like, what are you going to do with that?” said Ms. Onejeme, 22. “She wanted me to be a pharmacy major, but I persuaded her with my argumentative skills.”

Once scoffed at as a luxury major, philosophy is being embraced at Rutgers and other universities by a new generation of college students who are drawing modern-day lessons from the age-old discipline as they try to make sense of their world, from the morality of the war in Iraq to the latest political scandal. The economic downturn has done little, if anything, to dampen this enthusiasm among students, who say that what they learn in class can translate into practical skills and careers. On many campuses, debate over modern issues like war and technology is emphasized over the study of classic ancient texts.

Rutgers, which has long had a top-ranked philosophy department, is one of a number of universities where the number of undergraduate philosophy majors is ballooning; there are 100 in this year’s graduating class, up from 50 in 2002, even as overall enrollment on the main campus has declined by 4 percent.

At the City University of New York, where enrollment is up 18 percent over the past six years, there are 322 philosophy majors, a 51 percent increase since 2002.

“If I were to start again as an undergraduate, I would major in philosophy,” said Matthew Goldstein, the CUNY chancellor, who majored in mathematics and statistics. “I think that subject is really at the core of just about everything we do. If you study humanities or political systems or sciences in general, philosophy is really the mother ship from which all of these disciplines grow.”

Nationwide, there are more colleges offering undergraduate philosophy programs today than a decade ago (817, up from 765), according to the College Board. Some schools with established programs like Texas A&M, Notre Dame, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, now have twice as many philosophy majors as they did in the 1990s.

David E. Schrader, executive director of the American Philosophical Association, a professional organization with 11,000 members, said that in an era in which people change careers frequently, philosophy makes sense. “It’s a major that helps them become quick learners and gives them strong skills in writing, analysis and critical thinking,” he said.

Mr. Schrader, an adjunct professor at the University of Delaware, said that the demand for philosophy courses had outpaced the resources at some colleges, where students are often turned away. Some are enrolling in online courses instead, he said, describing it as “really very strange.”

“The discipline as we see it from the time of Socrates starts with people face to face, putting their positions on the table,” he said.

The Rutgers philosophy department is relatively large, with 27 professors, 60 graduate students, and more than 30 undergraduate offerings each semester. For those who cannot get enough of their Descartes in class, there is the Wednesday night philosophy club, where, last week, 11 students debated the metaphysics behind the movie “The Matrix” for more than an hour.

An undergraduate philosophy journal started this semester has drawn 36 submissions — about half from Rutgers students — on musings like “Is the extinction of a species always a bad thing?”

Barry Loewer, the department chairman, said that Rutgers started building its philosophy program in the late 1980s, when the field was branching into new research areas like cognitive science and becoming more interdisciplinary. He said that many students have double-majored in philosophy and, say, psychology or economics, in recent years, and go on to become doctors, lawyers, writers, investment bankers and even commodities traders.

As the approach has changed, philosophy has attracted students with little interest in contemplating the classical texts, or what is known as armchair philosophy. Some, like Ms. Onejeme, the pre-med-student-turned-philosopher, who is double majoring in political science, see it as a pre-law track because it emphasizes the verbal and logic skills prized by law schools — something the Rutgers department encourages by pointing out that their majors score high on the LSAT.

Other students said that studying philosophy, with its emphasis on the big questions and alternative points of view, provided good training for looking at larger societal questions, like globalization and technology.

“All of these things make the world a smaller place and force us to look beyond the bubble we grow up in,” said Christine Bullman, 20, a junior, who said art majors and others routinely took philosophy classes. “I think philosophy is a good base to look at a lot of issues.”

Frances Egan, a Rutgers philosophy professor who advises undergraduates, said that as it has become harder for students to predict what specialties might be in demand in an uncertain economy, some may be more apt to choose their major based simply on what they find interesting. “Philosophy is a lot of fun,” said Professor Egan, who graduated with a philosophy degree in the tough economic times of the 1970s. “A lot of students are in it because they find it intellectually rewarding.”

Max Bialek, 22, was majoring in math until his senior year, when he discovered philosophy. He decided to stay an extra year to complete the major (his parents needed reassurance, he said, but were supportive).

“I thought: Why weren’t all my other classes like that one?” he said, explaining that philosophy had taught him a way of studying that could be applied to any subject and enriched his life in unexpected ways. “You can talk about almost anything as long as you do it well.”

Jenna Schaal-O’Connor, a 20-year-old sophomore who is majoring in cognitive science and linguistics, said philosophy had other perks. She said she found many male philosophy majors interesting and sensitive.

“That whole deep existential torment,” she said. “It’s good for getting girlfriends.”

I think, therefore I earn

Philosophy graduates are suddenly all the rage with employers. What can they possibly have to offer?

Jessica Shepherd
Tuesday November 20, 2007
The Guardian

Philosophy student Joe Cunningham: considering a future in medical ethics. Photograph: Graham Turner

"A degree in philosophy? What are you going to do with that then?"

Philosophy students will tell you they've been asked this question more times than they care to remember.

"The response people seem to want is a cheery shrug and a jokey 'don't know'," says Joe Cunningham, 20, a final-year philosophy undergraduate at Heythrop College, University of London.

A more accurate comeback, according to the latest statistics, is "just about anything I want".

Figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show philosophy graduates, once derided as unemployable layabouts, are in growing demand from employers. The number of all graduates in full-time and part-time work six months after graduation has risen by 9% between 2002-03 and 2005-06; for philosophy graduates it has gone up by 13%.

It is in the fields of finance, property development, health, social work and the nebulous category of "business" that those versed in Plato and Kant are most sought after. In "business", property development, renting and research, 76% more philosophy graduates were employed in 2005-06 than in 2002-03. In health and social work, 9% more.

The Higher Education Careers Services Unit (Hecsu), which also collates data of this kind, agrees philosophers are finding it easier to secure work. Its figures show that, in 2001, 9.9% of philosophy graduates were unemployed six months after graduation. In 2006, just 6.7% were. On average, 6% of all graduates were unemployed six months after graduation.

In 2001, 9.3% of philosophy graduates were in business and finance roles six months after graduation. In 2006, 12.2% were. In 2001, 5.3% were in marketing and advertising six months after graduation. In 2006, 7.3% were.

It is particularly significant that the percentage finding full-time work six months after graduation has risen, since the number of philosophy graduates has more than doubled between 2001 and 2006. In 2001, UK universities produced 895 graduates with a first degree in the discipline; in 2006, they produced 2,040.

And it is so popular with its graduates that many go on to postgraduate study rather than join the workforce. Charlie Ball, who runs Hecsu's labour market analysis, says: "More philosophy graduates are being produced, and they are much less likely to be unemployed than five years ago."

Philosophers have always come in handy in the workplace with their grounding in analytical thinking. Why, only now, are they so prized by employers?

Open mind

Lucy Adams, human resources director of Serco, a services business and a consultancy firm, says: "Philosophy lies at the heart of our approach to recruiting and developing our leadership, and our leaders. We need people who have the ability to look for different approaches and take an open mind to issues. These skills are promoted by philosophical approaches."

Fiona Czerniawska, director of the Management Consultancies Association's think tank, says: "A philosophy degree has trained the individual's brain and given them the ability to provide management-consulting firms with the sort of skills that they require and clients demand. These skills can include the ability to be very analytical, provide clear and innovative thinking, and question assumptions."

Deborah Bowman, associate dean for widening participation at St George's, University of London, which offers medicine and health sciences courses, says philosophers are increasingly sought after by the NHS: "Graduates of philosophy who come in to graduate-entry medicine, or to nursing courses, are very useful. Growth areas in the NHS include clinical ethicists, who assist doctors and nurses. Medical ethics committees and ethics training courses for staff are also growing. More and more people are needed to comment on moral issues in healthcare, such as abortion."

Being on an ethics committee of the NHS is something Cunningham is looking into. "It would be a direct application of my skills," he says.

The popular philosopher Simon Blackburn, a professor at Cambridge University, sees the improving career prospects of philosophy graduates as part of a wider change of public perception. "I guess the public image of a philosopher has tended to concentrate on an ancient Greek in a toga, or some unwashed hippy lying around not doing very much," he says. "I do detect a change in the way the public sees philosophers. I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of people who come to philosophy events nowadays."

Blackburn can take some credit. The user-friendly books on philosophy that he and other philosophers such as AC Grayling, Stephen Law, Julian Baggini, Nigel Warburton and Alain de Botton write have made their way into the mainstream.

Course design

Those in charge of designing university courses have also become sensitive to claims that their subject has no relevance to the modern day.

Blackburn says: "In the years after the second world war, there was a sort of Wittgensteinian air about philosophy, which meant practitioners were proud of the fact that they appeared slightly esoteric and were not doing anything practical. There was very little political philosophy, and moral philosophy was disengaged from people's actual moral problems, and that did lead to the subject being marginalised. That has changed. Political philosophy is a central part of the Cambridge course."

Jonathan Lowe, professor of philosophy at Durham University, agrees that courses' concern with the real world has accelerated in the past five years.

"It's probably because of the new financial arrangements for students that courses have had to prove they are applicable to real world issues," he says. "And the teaching methods have changed. There are more student-led sessions. Students have to argue on their feet and give presentations. That probably shows at interviews."

News that employers and the public hold philosophers in higher regard should presumably be cause for celebration? Not entirely, says Blackburn. "It is also slightly worrying, because people turn to philosophers when they feel less confident and more insecure."

Here are a few relevant clips from "Idol Gives Back"

Idol gives back 08 - Forest Whitaker & wife Keisha (too bad the audio isn't better on this one)

Bono:

Bono, introduces a segment with Annie Lenox:

Music; Annie Lenox:

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

From Oprah

Not only is Salma an award-winning actress, primetime television producer and a new mother, she's also a big giver. She is working to help eradicate tetanus, a disease caused by deadly bacteria that enter the body through open wounds.

In developing countries with unsanitary conditions, tetanus is often transmitted during childbirth and infects both mother and child. The infection rages through the body like a powerful poison, and it leads to a swift, painful death in almost every case. These deaths can be prevented with a vaccine that costs just 5 cents per shot.

Salma is helping Pampers promote their just-launched One Pack = One Vaccine program. Each time someone purchases a pack of specially marked diapers, Pampers will donate one vaccination shot to UNICEF to fight tetanus in 12 countries. "What I love about this program is that it's so simple and everyone can participate," she says. "UNICEF has been working already on this, and they've been very successful with this program. They've eradicated the virus from many different countries, and now they are focusing on practically the last 12."

The One Pack = One Vaccine program is crucial to protecting the lives of thousands. "Every three minutes, a baby dies with horrible pain. During this interview, so many have died and suffered so much from it. And it's preventable," Salma says. "The goal is that there will be zero deaths after this—zero deaths in these 12 African countries."

Pampers is donating 1,000 vaccines for each member of today's Oprah Show audience—300,000 vaccines. And in honor of Oprah, they're donating 1 million vaccines—for a total of 1.3 million vaccines! To make your own contribution, visit pampers.com/unicef.

Monday, April 07, 2008

For Wednesday, EMP Ch. 5 on Ethical Egoism. And OPS is due.

For Friday, The Singer Solution to World Poverty, in RTD.

Following "American Idol," this week and the next will be "'Intro To Ethics' Gives Back":
http://www.americanidol.com/idolgivesback/
Be on the lookout for "I took Contemporary Moral Issues and all I did was help save a starving child!" posters. And see this page: http://thetendollarclub.org/

Brief Notes on Judith Thompson’s “A Defense of Abortion”

Brief Notes on Judith Thompson’s “A Defense of Abortion”

Introduction

Thinks early fetuses are not persons, but will assume they are for the sake of argument. How does it follow that abortion is (typically) wrong?

Standard “personhood” argument against abortion:

Persons have a right to life. Yes, women have the right to decide what will happen in and to their bodies. But fetuses are persons, and their right to life is stronger than women’s rights to their bodies. So fetuses may not be killed, so abortion is wrong. (p. 98)

Violinist case:

Persons have a right to life. Yes, people have the right to decide what will happen in and to their bodies. But the violinist is a person, and his right to life is stronger than people’s rights to their bodies. So the violinist may not be unplugged and killed. He must stay plugged into you. (p. 98)

Main Argument:

If the standard personhood argument against abortion is sound, then the argument in the violinist case is sound too (and so it would be wrong for you to unplug).
But the argument in the violinist case is not sound (since it would be permissible for you to unplug.
So the standard personhood argument against abortion is not sound also.

Rape? Rape is irrelevant to what rights you have. (99)

Part 1. On the “extreme view” that abortion is impermissible even to save the pregnant woman’s life.

If the both have a right to life, why not flip a coin? Or mother’s right to life + her bodily rights outweigh fetus’s rights?

Theses 1-4 (p. 100), that direct killing is always wrong / murder / a stringent duty, etc.

If 1-4 were true, unplugging from violinist would (always) be wrong. But it’s not, so 1-4 are false.

1-4 are also false because they imply self-defense is wrong. TINY HOUSE CASE (p. 101)

Thus, the extreme view is false.

Part 2.

“The mother owns the house”. A third party, not just the mother, can intervene. (This is in response to some claims in part 2 that 3^rd parties couldn’t defend the mother, but the mother surely can defend herself in the TINY HOUSE).

Part 3.

What is entailed by a “right to life” anyway?

Does a right to life entail everything that’s needed for a life to continue? (103)

HENRY FONDA CASE: If I needed a visit by a famous actor to keep on living, would I have a right to that actor’s visit? Would my friends have a right to kidnap him so he visits? [no]

VIOLINIST CASE: Does he have a right to the use of my kidneys? [no]

Does a right to life entail a right to not be killed by anyone?

Again, VIOLINIST CASE

Thompson: “a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body – even if one needs it for life itself. So the right to life will not serve the opponents of abortion in the very simple and clear way in which they seem to have thought it would.” (p. 104)

Part 4.

BOYS BOTH GIVEN CHOCOLATE CASE: both boys are given chocolates to share. (p. 104). If one brother takes them all, he treats the other unjustly.

Unplugging the violinist would not be unjust, because you did not give him the right to use your kidneys.

A right to life is the right to not be killed unjustly. (p. 104).

(p. 105): raped woman does not give fetus the right to her body for food and shelter.

But she is (partially) responsible: she knew what a possible consequence of sex would be.

BURGLAR BARS example (p. 106)

PEOPLE SEEDS EXAMPLE – No right to the use of your house (even) if you took reasonable steps to keep them out.

There’s still a chance of pregnancy! (Remove risk by getting a hysterectomy or never leaving home w/o an army!)

Part 5. “Ought to do X” does not imply someone has a right to X

CHOCOLATE CASE 2: Only one boy is given the chocolates. He ought to share, but the other boy does not have a right to the chocolate.

Even if something is easy (e.g., saving a life), one does not have a right to that save. (HENRY FONDA CASE) (p. 108)

Part 6. Good Samaritan versus the Minimally Decent Samaritan

No laws compel Good Samaritanism, except in the case of abortion. (p. 110)

Part 7.

Part 8.

Some abortions might be indecent.

The details of the case matter.

Of course, early fetuses aren’t persons anyway!

Friday, April 04, 2008

Today class has been canceled due to the MLK events. We'll discuss Thompson Monday. See you then!

Study Guide for test 2

Test 2 is Monday April 14. It covers everything since the last test: simple subjectivism & emotivism, homosexuality, the divine command theory of ethics, religion, the Bible and ethics and abortion.

A study guide is below, although questions are not limited to these questions:

EMP Ch. 3: Simple Subjectivism & 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? If someone accepts emotivism, 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 a valid argument against emotivism, i.e., for the conclusion that it is false.
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?
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?

EMP, Ch. 4 Does Morality Depend on Religion? (see also RTD, “Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy”)

1. What is the Divine Command Theory of ethics (see both RTD and EMP)? 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.

2. Socrates asked, "[A] Does God command doing certain actions because they are right actions, or [B] are actions right because God commands them?" Explain this question, responses [A] and [B] and what’s entailed by them, and which response is a better response and why.

3. Can a theist reject the Divine Command Theory of ethics? If so, how? Why might a theist do this?

4. 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 Thompson'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. Although we discussed this in class, warren also provided this explanation in this extra credit reading: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/warren-on-abortion.pdf

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 the theory developed in class (which was Warren’s view, and a common view among philosophers), 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. Since you should be able to explain all the arguments, be able to give a logically valid argument against abortion from fetuses’ potential to be persons. Be able to explain whether any premises in that argument are false. In particular, you need to explain whether , in general, potential things of a kind have all the characteristics (esp rights) of actual things of that kind.

6. 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?

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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, i.e., why this argument is invalid:

a. If fetuses were persons, then killing them would be wrong.

b. But fetuses are not persons.

c. Therefore, killing them is not wrong.

10. What’s Don Marquis’s argument for the immorality of abortion? What’s his overall strategy? Present an objection to each premise of the argument that is not the "objection" that not everyone has a valuable future.

11. What’s Judith Thompson's argument for the moral permissibility of abortion? What’s her overall strategy? What important points does she contribute to the discussion of the ethics of abortion?

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

Divine Command Theory of Ethics

Morality & Religion:
What, if any, are the essential connections?

Morality pertains to, at least:
· actions -- people doing what’s morally required,
· beliefs -- people having beliefs about what’s morally required,
people having true, reasonable beliefs
· motivations – people being motivated to do what’s morally required,
people caring about doing the right thing

Religion pertains to, at least, some of the following:
· being part of a church, synagogue, mosque, etc.
· accepting that church’s teachings, tradition, etc.
· believing that, e.g., the God of Christianity, Judaism, etc. exists
o at least, an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being who created the world, etc.
· God, in the sense of, “an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being who created the world” existing in reality
o Not people merely believing that God exists, but that their belief is true since it accurately represents reality.
· having faith in such a being.

So, what are the possible connections between any of these considerations?

Motivational?

“A person would be motivated to what’s right only if that person:

· Is part of a church or accepts some church’s teachings?
· Believes that God exists?
· Has faith in God?
· God exists?

(To put it another way: “No person would be motivated to do what’s right unless that person were part of church, believed in God, &/or God exists, etc.)

“Epistemological” (pertaining to knowledge and reasonable belief):

“A person would be able to know what’s right and wrong, or have reasonable beliefs about what’s right and wrong, only if that person:

· Is part of a church or accepts some church’s teachings?
· Believes that God exists?
· Has faith in God?
· Has good knowledge of the Bible.
· God exists?
(To put it another way: “No person would be ever to know what’s right and wrong, or reasonably believe that something is right or wrong, unless that person were part of church, believed in God, &/or God exists, etc.)

33. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong; religious views say it’s wrong.”34. Anything the Bible says to be wrong is wrong. If the Bible says something is wrong, then it is wrong.35. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

“Ontological” or “Metaphysical” (pertaining to what exists)

“Right and wrong, good and bad exist only if God exists.”

“If there were no God, nothing would be right or wrong.”
Why is this?

“God’s commands make actions right and wrong. If an action is wrong, that’s because God commands that it not be done or disapproves of people doing it. If an action is morally obligatory, God commands that it be done and disapproves of people not doing it.”

A question about this view:

Does (A) God command us to do what’s right because it’s right,
or (B) is what’s right right because God commands it?

Option A: “Infallible Guide Theory”

Option B: “Divine Command Theory”

“Euthyro Problem” – the Bible, or God’s Commands, make something right. To be right is to be commanded by God; to be wrong is for God to command that it not be done.

Suppose this is true: “God’s commands are right” or
“The Bible Commands what’s right”

Question:
(A) “Does God command what’s right because what God commands is right, or,
(B) are God’s commands right because God commands them?”

First option (A):
“infallible guide” theory:
“objective” factors make right actions right; since God knows everything, God sees this (e.g., God sees that certain actions cause more harm than benefit, etc.), and God reports on what is objectively right. These are not right because God says so; they are right because of these objective factors, not God’s saying so.

Second option: “Divine Command Theory” (B):
God’s commands make something right or wrong.
Why is it right? Because, and only because, God says so. Anything God said to be right would be right. If God said that breaking promises is right, or God commanded breaking promises, then that would be right. If God commanded torturing babies for fun, then torturing babies would be right.

A response: “God would not command torturing babies for fun!”
Why not? If the DCT is true and God commands torturing babies, then torturing babies would be right.
“But torturing babies for fun is wrong, so God wouldn’t command it! Indeed, since God is all-good, he couldn’t command torturing babies for fun.”This person rejects the DCT; they think what’s right and wrong is made right and wrong by “objective” factors, not God’s commands. They think “Because I say so!” is not a good answer, even for God!

Notes on “Simple Subjectivism” & Emotivism

Notes on “Simple Subjectivism”

Common, but what are the arguments against it?

If someone says

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

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

If someone says

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

then that person has said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emotivism

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

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

PHI 302: Intro to Philosophical Ethics

Pages

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Extra Credit opportunity

Monday, April 14, 2008

Extra Credit

Saturday, April 12, 2008

The Philosophy Major Gains Popularity

In a New Generation of College Students, Many Opt for the Life Examined

I think, therefore I earn

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

From Oprah

Monday, April 07, 2008

Brief Notes on Judith Thompson’s “A Defense of Abortion”

Friday, April 04, 2008

Study Guide for test 2

Divine Command Theory of Ethics

Notes on “Simple Subjectivism” & Emotivism