Syllabus

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience,

but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
- Martin Luther King Jr. ,‘48

PHI 302: Introduction to Philosophical Ethics, Fall 2009

Students are responsible for understanding all the information and policies presented in this syllabus here and online. Students will be referred to these documents when their questions are answered on them.

TO DO: Purchase books (bookstore or online) and Turnitin PIN code (at bookstore) Set up Turnitin account at http://turnitin.thomson.com/ The course code is 2815288 and the password is ethics . All written work must be submitted through this system, which confirms its originality. Sign up for email list at Google groups through the blog: http://groups.google.com/group/philosophy302/ Link available through the course blog: http://philosophy302.blogspot.com. The syllabus is also available at http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/302Fall2009.pdf Begin reading and writing assignments at the end of the back page on this short syllabus (over).

11-11:50, MWF, Sale Hall, Room ____, Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 42736 - HPHI 302G - 06

12 - 12:50, MWF, Sale Hall, Room ____: Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 42731 - HPHI 302G - 01

1 - 1:50, MWF, Sale Hall, Room ____; Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 42732 - HPHI 302G - 02

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

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

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

Extended Description: This course provides students with the opportunity to improve their skills at reasoning critically about moral issues. Students will learn some basic logic and critical thinking skills and apply them to theoretical and practical questions about morality. We will practice identifying precise and unambiguous moral conclusions (i.e., exact perspectives taken on moral issues) and the reasons given for and against these conclusions. We will then practice evaluating these reasons to see if they provide rational support for these conclusions or not. We will think about what helps people think more carefully and critically about moral issues and what factors and influences discourage this. We will discuss influential ethical theories and moral principles – answers to the questions ‘What’s the basic difference between a right and wrong action?’ and ‘What makes right actions right and wrong actions wrong?’ – and apply our critical thinking skills to moral issues such as female genital mutilation, homosexuality, abortion, famine and absolute poverty, racism, sexism, and speciesism, vegetarianism and the treatment of animals, euthanasia and assisted suicide, capital punishment, affirmative action, civil disobedience, and environmentalism, among others.

Course materials:

1. Plagiarism has been a problem in this course. To ensure original work, you must therefore purchase a pass-code for the Thompson Turnitin web-based anti-plagiarism system at the bookstore and all written work must be submitted through this system: http://turnitin.thomson.com/ The course code is 2815288 and the password is ethics, which you will need to register your account. If the bookstore runs out of these you need to ask them to order more.

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

2. James and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 6^th Ed. [Elements] Previous editions (available used online) will do but you are responsible for the content found in the current edition.
3. James and Stuart Rachels, eds. The Right Thing to Do, 5^th Ed. [RTD] Previous editions (available used online) will do but you are responsible for the content found in the current edition.
4. Lewis Vaughn, Writing Philosophy: A Students Guide to Writing Philosophy Essays [WP].

Written Requirements / Assignments:

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

1. “OPS” (Outline, Paraphrase, &/or Summarize) writing assignments:

· The absolute most important thing you can do to succeed in this class is to do the reading and do the reading well. To encourage you do to do, you will be required to write 3 page outlines, paraphrases &/or summaries of many of the readings or selections of them. Vaughn’s Writing Philosophy, Ch. 1 provides instruction on how to do this. What most important for these assignments is that you (a) identify the author’s main conclusions, and (b) explain the reasons he or she gives in favor of these conclusions and (c) explain whether these reasons are a valid and sound argument for that conclusion or not. Copying the writing’s Introduction by Rachels will result in a zero for the assignment. (3 points each; 12 assignments; 36 points total)

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

4. Two Exams, Midterm and Final:

• All of lecture, discussion and reading content is fair game. Study guides will be available online with possible questions for each exam to help focus your studying. Exams will mostly be short answer and short essay questions. (40 points each; 80 points total).

5. Extra Credit Opportunities:
• There will likely be events addressing ethical and/or philosophical issues that I’ll encourage you to attend and write up a 3 page detailed summary and reaction to for variable bonus points. These are due, in class, within one week of the event. These events will only be announced by the email group.
• An extra credit book report assignment is here: http://philosophy302.blogspot.com/2007/03/extra-credit-book-report-option.html

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

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

First reading assignments; dates TBA:

o Vaughn, Ch.1, “How To Read Philosophy”

o Vaughn, Ch.2, “How To Read An Argument”

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

o Vaughn, Ch. 5, “Avoiding Fallacious Reasoning”

o Rachels, RTD: Ch.1 “A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf Writing assignment: which of the three final ethical theories – social contract theory, utilitarianism and/or Kantianism – are best and why? (Maybe they are all best in combination somehow?) You must describe and explain the theories. Submitted online.

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

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

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

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

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

Outline of a Syllabus / Order of Readings (Vaughn assignments omitted here)

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

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

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

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

3. Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (Elements)
4. "The New Eugenics," Matt Ridley (RTD, #36) [This goes with the bioethics theme of ch. 1.]

5. Ch. 2, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" (Elements)
6. “What’s Culture Got to Do with it? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision,” Harvard Law Review, http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/female_circumcision.pdf

7. "Monogamy: A Critique," John McMurtry (RTD, #28) [This goes with the brief discussion of polyamory on pp. 29-30 of Elements; the readings below also concern sexual ethics.]
8. "Our Sexual Ethics," Bertrand Russell (RTD, #29)
9. "Alcohol and Rape," Nicholas Dixon (RTD, #30)

10. Ch. 3, "Subjectivism in Ethics" (Elements)
11. "The Subjectivity of Values," J. L. Mackie (RTD, #6) [This defends a version of Ethical Subjectivism.]
12. Richard Feldman on “Simple Moral Arguments”: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/feldman-simple-moral-arguments.pdf
13. "Is Homosexuality Unnatural?" Burton M. Leiser (RTD, #27) [This is an expanded version of the argument given on pp. 44-45 of Elements.]

Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/homosexuality-arguments.pdf

14. Ch. 4, "Does Morality Depend on Religion?" (Elements)
15. Fred Feldman on abortion: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/fred_feldman_on_abortion.pdf
16. "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion / Postscript on Infanticide," Mary Anne Warren (RTD, #13)
17. "Why Abortion Is Immoral," Don Marquis (RTD, #11) [One aspect of the abortion debate is discussed on pp. 57-61 of Elements.]
18. "A Defense of Abortion," Judith Jarvis Thomson (RTD, #12)

Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/abortion-worksheet.pdf

19. Ch. 5, "Ethical Egoism" (Elements)
20. "9/11 and Starvation," Mylan Engel, Jr. (RTD, #17) [Poverty is discussed on pp. 62-63 of Elements.]
21. "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," Peter Singer (RTD, #18)

Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/poverty-arguments.pdf

22. "Is Racial Discrimination Arbitrary?" Peter Singer (RTD, #32) [This essay asks whether "The Principle of Equal Treatment" (as we call it on p. 77 of Elements) applies to three difficult test cases.]

23. Ch. 6, "The Idea of a Social Contract" (Elements)
24. "Letter from the Birmingham City Jail," Martin Luther King, Jr. (RTD, #31) [King's letter is quoted on pp. 90-91 of Elements.]
25. "In Defense of Quotas," James Rachels (RTD, #33) [This reading goes with King's "Letter from the Birmingham City Jail." In King's day, America was so racist that preferential quotas were justified. Are they justified today?]

26. Ch. 7, "The Utilitarian Approach" (Elements)
27. "Utilitarianism," John Stuart Mill (RTD, #3)
28. “One Nurse’s Story,” http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/one_nurses_story.pdf
29. "The Morality of Euthanasia," James Rachels (RTD, #34) [Euthanasia is discussed on pp. 98-101 of Elements.]
30. "Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life?" Richard Doerflinger (RTD, #35) [Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, but the topics are similar.]

31. "America's Unjust Drug War," Michael Huemer (RTD, #26) [Marijuana is discussed on pp. 101-104 of Elements.]

32. "All Animals Are Equal," Peter Singer (RTD, #14) [The treatment of animals is discussed on pp. 104-108 of Elements.]
33. "Torturing Puppies and Eating Meat: It's All in Good Taste," Alastair Norcross (RTD, #15)
34. "Do Animals Have Rights?" Tibor R. Machan (RTD, #16)
35. “Reasonable Humans and Animals,” John Simmons: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/veg.pdf

Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/veg-responses.pdf

36. Ch. 8, "The Debate over Utilitarianism" (Elements)
37. "Utilitarianism and Integrity," Bernard Williams (RTD, #4) [This selection presents Williams' most famous objection to Utilitarianism.]
38. "The Experience Machine," Robert Nozick (RTD, #5) [This selection presents Nozick's most famous objection to Hedonist Utilitarianism.]

39. Ch. 9, "Are There Absolute Moral Rules?" (Elements)
40. "The Categorical Imperative," Immanuel Kant (RTD, #7) [The Categorical Imperative is discussed on pp. 127-129 of Elements.]
41. "The Ethics of War and Peace," Douglas P. Lackey (RTD, #19) [The Allies' conduct of the Second World War is discussed on pp. 124-126 of Elements.]
42. "Fifty Years after Hiroshima," John Rawls (RTD, #20) [The bombing of Hiroshima is discussed on pp. 124-126 of Elements.]
43. "What Is Wrong with Terrorism?" Thomas Nagel (RTD, #21) [The readings on war and terrorism go together. Also, Nagel implies that the prohibition on aiming at the death of a harmless person is an absolute moral rule.]
44. "The War on Terrorism and the End of Human Rights," David Luban (RTD, #22) [This continues the themes of war and terrorism.]
45. "Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb," David Luban (RTD, #23) [One may ask: is the prohibition on torture an absolute moral rule?]

46. Ch. 10, "Kant and Respect for Persons" (Elements)
47. "A Defense of the Death Penalty," Louis P. Pojman (RTD, #24) [Punishment is discussed on pp. 139-145 of Elements. We discuss the death penalty specifically on p. 143.]
48. "Why the United States Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment," Stephen B. Bright (RTD, #25)

49. Ch. 11, "Feminism and the Ethics of Care" (Elements)
50. "Caring Relations and Principles of Justice," Virginia Held (RTD, #10) [See pp. 152-157 of Elements.]

51. Ch. 12, "The Ethics of Virtue" (Elements)
52. "The Virtues," Aristotle (RTD, #8)
53. "Master Morality and Slave Morality," Friedrich Nietzsche (RTD, #9) [Nietzsche glorifies the virtues of "master morality" and ridicules the vices of "slave morality."]

54. Ch. 13, "What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?" (Elements)

Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 42731 - HPHI 302G - 01
Associated Term: Fall 2009 Registration Dates: Apr 13, 2009 to Sep 04, 2009 Levels: Undergraduate Instructors: Nathan M. Nobis (P) Morehouse College Campus Lecture Schedule Type 3.000 Credits Syllabus Available View Catalog Entry Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 12:00 pm - 12:50 pm MWF Sale Hall 107 Aug 26, 2009 - Dec 12, 2009 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)
Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 42732 - HPHI 302G - 02
Associated Term: Fall 2009 Registration Dates: Apr 13, 2009 to Sep 04, 2009 Levels: Undergraduate Instructors: Nathan M. Nobis (P) Morehouse College Campus Lecture Schedule Type 3.000 Credits Syllabus Available View Catalog Entry Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 1:00 pm - 1:50 pm MWF Sale Hall 107 Aug 26, 2009 - Dec 12, 2009 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)
Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 42736 - HPHI 302G - 06
Associated Term: Fall 2009 Registration Dates: Apr 13, 2009 to Sep 04, 2009 Levels: Undergraduate Instructors: Nathan M. Nobis (P) Morehouse College Campus Lecture Schedule Type 3.000 Credits View Catalog Entry Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 11:00 am - 11:50 am MWF Sale Hall 105 Aug 26, 2009 - Dec 12, 2009 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)

Everything for hoping to graduate seniors is due Monday at 11:00. NOTHING LATE.

Everything for everyone else is due Wednesday @ 10:30 when we'll have our final class to talk about the final readings and anything else. Everyone must come to class Wednesday!

Reading for Friday

SEX AND DRUGS, From the Right Thing to Do

26. America's Unjust Drug War Michael Huemer 223

28. Monogamy: A Critique John McMurtry 246
29. Our Sexual Ethics Bertrand Russell 253
30. Alcohol and Rape Nicholas Dixon 260

Final 2 papers due Wed

Paper 3: Topic: Racism, Sexism and Speciesism

Paper 4: Top 10 List for How To Address Moral Issues

“There is perhaps no set of social issues on which otherwise sane people on either side of the question allow themselves to be so overwhelmingly irrational as in matters pertaining to the treatment of animals, and our moral obligations to them.”

– Philosopher Bernard Rollin

PAPER 4: Topics: Racism, Sexism and Speciesism: Is it Permissible to Harm Animals for Pleasure?

4-5 PAGES, DUE AT TIME OF THE FINAL meeting, IN CLASS WEDNESDAY

No late papers and no (late) papers accepted via email unless you have prior approval

Your paper should have a short introduction, a thesis (“I will argue that _____), and be well-organized, clear and readable to someone who is not familiar with these issues. Your paper’s claims should be carefully and thoughtfully defended: objections must be responded to with well-thought out reasons.

This paper focuses on you providing well-thought out, carefully-defended answers to these questions:

• Is the fur industry engaged in morally permissible behavior, or are they doing things that are morally wrong?
• Are the animal agribusiness industries engaged in morally permissible behavior, or are they doing things that are morally wrong?
• What, if any, are there any relations between these two questions? Does your view about the morality of the fur industry have logical implications for your view about the morality of the, e.g., meat industry, and vice versa?
• Should you personally support the fur industry? Should you personally support the meat (and related) industries?

To answer these questions, you must carefully present and explain the arguments by Peter Singer (the fundamental principle of equality, from “All Animals Are Equal,”) and John Simmons (from “Reasonable Humans and Animals” [online; handout]). Explain their arguments for the conclusion that – in our circumstances: i.e., modern America – it is wrong to raise and kill animals to wear them and to eat them. You must explain and defend your view on whether either of their main arguments are sound or not. Since thinking about moral problems involves applying moral principles to factual circumstances, you must briefly give some factual information about these industries and practices.

You must discuss at least five of what you think are the strongest and/or most common objections to arguments like Singer’s & Simmons. (Kant and Machan provide some of these arguments; others are from class and a handout). Fully explain how Singer and/or Simmons would respond to these objections. Explain whether these objections show that their arguments are unsound.

Note: if you discuss anything about nutrition science, you must provide the source of your information (i.e., the study’s citation) from PubMed from the National Library of Medicine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/ or our books. Random, anecdotal reports from various webpages are not a reliable source for scientific information: you need a reputable source

Some industry groups:
-- Fur Commission USA (http://www.furcommission.com/video/index.htm ).
-- National Animal Interest Alliance: http://naiaonline.org
-- Animal Agriculture Alliance: http://animalagalliance.org
Some animal advocacy groups:
-- Compassion Over Killing: http://www.tryveg.com/
-- PETA TV: http://www.petatv.com/
-- Vegan Outreach http://www.veganoutreach.org/
-- www.Blackvegetarians.org

Suggested restaurant field trip, to ask for advice on how to answer these questions:
Soul Veg Restaurant: 879-A Ralph Abernathy Blvd. SW – Atlanta, (404) 752-5194
Soul Veg Restaurant: 652 North Highland - Atlanta, GA 30306 (404) 874-0145

PAPER 4: Top 10 List for How To Address Moral Issues

DUE AT TIME OF THE FINAL meeting, IN CLASS WEDNESDAY

Make a "Top 10 List of helpful things to do and/or not do when thinking about moral issues and addressing moral problems." Explain what people can do to better think about and address moral issues: these might be things to look out for and avoid, as well as positive techniques or attitudes or skills to use. For each of your suggestion of what to do (or not do), illustrate it with an example (or examples): explain why your suggestion is a good one. The goal of this assignment is for you to critically reflect on what we have done and develop a list of helpful ideas that you can use in the future (and help others use) when thinking about moral issues. 3-4 pages.

For Thursday, please read and write OPS's on:

1. Simmons, "Reasonable Humans and Animals": http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/veg.pdf

2. Alastair Norcross, "Torturing Puppies and Eating Meat: It's All in Good Taste" in RTD, p. 130; also online here (read first few pages): http://homepage.mac.com/anorcross/papers/Puppies.pdf
Also a video is here: http://ethics.sandiego.edu/video/apa/central/2002/torturingpuppies/index.htm

3. Machan, "Do Animals Have Rights?" in RTD: only need to read pp 138-140.

For Tuesday, read the chapters on utilitarianism and write OPS's on them. So EMP 7 & 8.
Also read Peter Singer, "All Animals Are Equal" in RTD. OPS due too.

Also, please write a reaction to the film today, The Witness. http://www.tribeofheart.org/wit1.htm

here is a list of the assignments thus far:
rtd1
emp 1
emp 2
fgm article
emp 3
leiser
emp4-dct
emp 4 abortion
marquis
thompson
warren
emp5
paper 1
SINGER SOLUTION
emp6

This is from a talk I did last weekend:
http://www.meetup.com/AtlantaScienceTavern/calendar/10330285/

Paper 2:

Are you morally obligated to donate 25 cents a day to help people living in absolute poverty?

Due Tuesday immediately after July 4 holiday

First, examine the webpages of these organizations:

· The $10 Club (www.TheTenDollarClub.org).

· AfricaCare: http://www.africare.org/

· The Children’s Defense Fund: http://www.childrensdefense.org

In this paper, you should present and critically discuss Peter Singer’s arguments regarding world poverty (Mylan Engel and James Rachels prove some useful information and arguments also). You should make the discussion personal – i.e., think about what you personally should do. Start small and consider whether Peter Singer gives a sound argument for the conclusion that you (perhaps with some of your friends or family) are morally obligated donate a quarter a day (= $10 a month) to help people living in absolute poverty. So your thesis should either be this:

• “I will argue that I am morally obligated to donate $.25 a day to help the world’s poor,” or
• “I will argue that I am not morally obligated to donate $.25 to help the world’s poor.”

Your thesis must be carefully and rigorously defended.

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

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. Singer uses the examples ofthe Pond, Dora and Bob Explain what role these kinds of examples play in his argument.

3. Objections
Carefully explain at least three of what you think are the best objections to Singer’s argument. Present these objections as valid arguments.

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!

If start supporting some worthy cause (e.g., the $10 Club), then not only will you have helped better the lives of people living in absolute poverty, you will get a free poster that says, “I took Philosophical Ethics and all I did was save a child’s life!”

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).

Other excellent suggestions for organizations that you could support are found in this book at:http://ourdaytoendpoverty.com/websites.html

Also, see http://www.thehungersite.com Might you be morally obligated to visit each day to click so that more food is purchased to feed people in absolute poverty?

Dr. Franklin’s Convocation speech also has some relevant discussion of these issues, “Facing the Rising Sun: A New Day Begun”http://www.morehouse.edu/about/franklinspeeches/facingtherisingsun.html

Here were some of the notes and worksheets we used:

http://philosophy302.blogspot.com/2007/04/worksheet-on-objections-to-singer.html

A powerpoint : http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/famine.ppt

Video clip: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-429820406356478614&q=peter+singer

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 richestpeople. • 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.

For Monday, read "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" in RTD. OPS due.

Lewis's Car?

For Friday, EMP Ch. 5 on ETHICAL EGOISM (make sure the topic is this!). OPS on the whole chapter.

For Monday, the Singer Solution to World Poverty from RTD. OPS due.

For Wed., EMP pp. 57 -61 -- the sections in the chapter 4 on abortion -- and the articles on abortion by Warren, Marquis and Thompson. They were due today but I'll accept them Wed., but no later.

FYI, we have been working through this:
ABORTION: Abortion argument worksheet.See also my Powerpoint on abortion.

Two readings; the first isn't in your book, the 2nd might not be in your edition of RTD

• Feldman, "Abortion"
• Warren, "On the Moral & Legal Status of Abortion"

There's a big reading and OPS assignment for Tuesday:
EMP pp. 57 -61 on abortion and the articles on abortion by Warren, Marquis and Thompson.

For Wed. we'll move on the the next chapter in EMP.

Friday is "paper day": work on your papers, due Monday. Send me a draft via email if you'd like comments. I'll need it in time to get comment back to you though, so earlier is better.

This was due today, reading and writing a summary of these readings on the Divine Command Theory of Ethics:

RTD pp. 3-4
EMP pp. 48-57

Philosophy 302: Argumentative Paper 1 – Homosexuality

Due Monday, June 22 at the beginning of class
4-5 pages, double-spaced, typed, 12 pt. font, stapled, with your name, email, class time. No cover pages.

First, read the sections on how to write a philosophy paper in the Vaughn book and/or read Jim Pryor's "Guidelines on writing a philosophy paper": http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

In this paper I want you to consider the issue of homosexuality and argue for one of these conclusions: homosexuality is wrong (i.e., impermissible), or homosexuality is not wrong (i.e., morally permissible). Do not consider the question of whether homosexuality is “right,” because that sounds like you are asking if homosexuality is morally obligatory. And do not discuss homosexual marriage because that too is not the issue.

You should explain what you mean when you morally evaluate homosexuality: are you speaking of actions, or feelings, lifestyles, relationships, or all (or some of the above)? This needs to be carefully explained so we understand the arguments’ conclusions.

Your paper should have a short introductory paragraph, culminating in a thesis which should either be this (or something close to it):
"I will argue that homosexuality is wrong, i.e., morally impermissible."
or
"I will argue that homosexuality is not wrong, i.e., morally permissible."

You need to give reasons in favor of your conclusion, consider objections to your reasons and respond to these objections.

You might then structure your paper in either of these ways:
1. You could present at least five of what you think are of the most important or strongest arguments from the books to think that homosexuality is wrong, and then critique these arguments, i.e., argue that some or all of them are not sound because they have some premises that you will argue are false. (You will also need to present an argument[s] for the view that homosexuality is morally permissible). These arguments should be explained and evaluate in prose, but they should also be presented in valid premise-conclusion format.
2. You could present at least five of what you think are the most important or common or influential arguments from the books to think that homosexuality is not wrong, and then critique these arguments, i.e., argue that some or all of them are not sound because they have some premises that you will argue are false. (You will also need to present an argument[s] for the view that homosexuality is not morally permissible). These arguments should be explained and evaluate in prose, but they should also be presented in valid premise-conclusion format.

At least one of the arguments you discuss must be arguments from the Bible and/or God’s commands (see EMP Ch. 4 on the divine command theory).

If you’d like, you can do some independent research to find additional arguments for the wrongness of homosexuality beyond the 40+ from the handout. But, you must apply the logical skills we have developed to these arguments. And you must defend your view from the best objection(s) you can think of. To do this, you must think of the objections and respond to its. DO NOT IGNORE DISCUSSION FROM THE BOOK; IF THE BOOK DISCUSSES AN OBJECTION OR RESPONSE AND YOU IGNORE THIS, THEN THAT’S A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ENGAGING THE CRITICAL DISCUSSION: YOU ARE IGNORING IT.

Your paper must have a short concluding paragraph also.

Your intended audience has not read the readings or discussed these issues so you must explain things so that they understand. Put yourself in their shoes and make everything clear and well-organized for them.

Common Arguments on Homosexuality “Mad Libs” Worksheet, available here:

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/homosexuality-arguments.doc


http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/homosexuality-arguments.pdf

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.