Wed. & Friday

Wed. we will finish EMP 1.

We will move on to Ch. 2 and discuss the moral theory Cultural Relativism.

Friday, we will discuss Female Circumcision / Female Genital Mutilation. This is discussed in EMP and this article:
"What's Culture Got to Do with it? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision"
http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/female_circumcision.pdf

Monday we will have a quiz. Study guide posted soon.

Today and Friday we will discuss EMP Ch. 1. A detailed summary of the chapter is due this Monday, in class.

Schedule change: Monday we will discuss "The New Eugenics" by Matt Ridley, found in EMP and here:
www.haffeys.net/phi112-reading/The%20New%20Eugenics.pdf

The rest of the week will discuss EMP Ch. 2.

Friday we will discuss "What's culture got to do with it? Excising the harmful tradition of female circumcision". The link for this is on this blog, to the left, down the page some.

next Monday and Wednesday

For Monday and Wednesday, we will discuss the Elements of Moral Philosophy, Ch. 1.
This discussion will not work if you have not read and HAVE the chapter on hand: you need to have a copy of the chapter with you: memory is inadequate.

Please see the email group for more guidance.

Wednesday

For Wednesday, we will move to RTD Ch. 1. This is available online. The link is on the syl., which is pasted below.

The writing assignment for Monday is this: from this second half of this chapter, which are the best moral theories and why? To do this, you must explain the theories and explain why you think one (or some) are more likely to be true that the others. This will likely take about 2 pages. Remember, these writing assignments are for your benefit, to show that you are acquainted with the material, so being skimpy on them will only shortchange yourself (and hurt your grade).

Please make sure you get both the books as soon as possible. Students' not having EMP will result in difficulties.

For Friday, the reading assignment is EMP Ch. 1.

Assignments for Monday

For Monday, read The Right Thing to Do, Ch. 2, "Some Basic Points About Arguments" and write a detailed summary of it. There is a link below on the syl. for this reading, if you don't have the book.

Please get on the email list too.

For Wed., read The Right Thing to Do, Ch. 1, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy." Writing assignment forthcoming.

Introduction to Philosophical Ethics, PHI 302, Spring 2011

“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

Syllabus


Introduction to Philosophical Ethics, PHI 302



Note: Students are responsible for understanding all the information and policies presented in this syllabus. Students will be referred to it if they have questions that are answered here. A syllabus is not a contract and can be revised, if needed, to promote learning and other educational goals.



11- 11:50 AM course, Sale Hall 105: Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 42703 - HPHI 302G - 03

12- 12:50 PM course, Sale Hall 105: Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 41166 - HPHI 302G - 01

1-1:50 PM course, Sale Hall 105: Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 41167 - HPHI 302G - 02



Course webpage: http://philosophy302.blogspot.com

Email announcement group: http://groups.google.com/group/philosophy302/



Instructor: Nathan Nobis, Ph.D.,

Email & Webpage: nathan.nobis@gmail.com ; www.NathanNobis.com

Telephone: 404-215-2607

Office: Sale Hall 113, Philosophy & Religion Department

Office Hours: 2:00-3 PM MW and by appointment.



1. CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTION: Provides an introduction to philosophical reflection about the nature and function of morality. Readings will include both historical and contemporary materials.



EXTENDED COURSE DESCRIPTION: This course provides students with the opportunity to improve their skills at reasoning critically about moral issues. Students will learn some basic logical concepts and argument analysis skills and apply them to theoretical and practical questions about morality. We will practice identifying clear (i.e., unambiguous) and precise moral conclusions (i.e., exact perspectives taken on moral issues) and the premises, or 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 morally permissible and a morally impermissible (or wrong) action?’ and ‘What makes wrong actions wrong and what makes permissible actions permissible?’ – and apply our argument analysis skills to moral issues such as the treatment of disabled newborns, female genital mutilation, homosexuality, abortion, absolute poverty, racism, sexism, and speciesism, vegetarianism and the treatment of animals, euthanasia and assisted suicide, drug use, and capital punishment, among others.



2. COURSE PREREQUISITES: There are no formal prerequisites for this course. However, students will benefit most from the course when they enter it with the abilities to:

a. read critically and identify the structure and components of an argumentative essay or passage, i.e., the conclusion(s), the premises(s) or supporting elements, and so forth;

b. write clear, concise and simple grammatical, spelling-error-free sentences and well-organized expository and argumentative essays, as taught in Introductory English courses;

c. speak clearly, concisely, and grammatically.

• Basic mathematical and scientific literacy is desirable.

• Familiarity with moral issues, common positions taken on them and reasons given in favor of these positions is desirable, since we will build on any previous understanding.

• Intellectual and moral virtues, such as curiosity, patience, and openness to the possibility of error and the need for change, are desirable as well.



3. COURSE OBJECTIVES: Upon successfully completing this course, students will be able to use the set of argument analysis skills below to identify and evaluate moral arguments:

a. identify whether any presentation (“text”) is “morally argumentative” or not, i.e., whether it presents an argument for a moral conclusion on a moral issue or not;

b. identify conclusions of morally argumentative presentations, evaluate these conclusions for clarity and precision, and (if needed) reconstruct / restate the conclusion in clear and precise terms;

c. identify stated premises or reasons in morally argumentative presentations, evaluate these conclusions for clarity and precision, and (if needed) reconstruct / restate these premises in clear and precise terms;

d. identify (if needed) unstated premises in argumentative presentations that are logically essential to the structure of an argument and state them as part of the argument in clear and precise terms;

e. identify and distinguish factual/empirical/scientific and moral/philosophical premises in moral arguments;

f. evaluate moral arguments as (1) logically valid or invalid (or otherwise logically cogent) and (2) sound or unsound (or otherwise strong);

g. identify and explain reasons given to think an argument is sound, reasons to think it is unsound (often using counterexamples to general moral premises), and responses to these reasons.

Students will be able to accurately explain historically influential moral theories and common arguments against them, in light of their implications, explanatory power and theoretical virtues and vices.

Students will be able to accurately explain (in essays and oral presentations) the most common arguments given on a number of controversial moral issues, from a variety of perspectives, and criticisms of these arguments.



4. REQUIRED MATERIALS, which should always be brought to class.

1. James and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (McGraw Hill Publishing) (Any edition).

2. James and Stuart Rachels, eds. The Right Thing to Do, (McGraw Hill Publishing) 4th Ed. (Any edition will do, but students are responsible for getting copies of any readings in the current edition not found in prior editions).

3. Additional materials will be posted online and/or handed out in class.



5. ASSIGNMENTS & GRADING: Details on these assignments will be provided soon.

• Weekly writing assignments on the readings, always due Monday. (30% of total grade)

• 5 Quizzes. Instead of having a traditional midterm and final exam, we will have some shorter quizzes that cover less material and provide more immediate feedback on your progress. (40% of total grade)

• 5 Argumentative Essays / “Philosophical Lab Reports” / Longer writing assignments (approx 5 pages) (30% of total grade)



Plagiarism is not allowed and will be severely penalized.



First reading assignments; dates TBA:

o Rachels, The Right Thing to Do (RTD: Ch. 2, “Some Basic Points About Arguments,” available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

Handouts on Overview of Logic & Arguments

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

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

• Overview of Basic Moral Evaluations: Permissible, Obligatory, Impermissible/Wrong

o See pp. 3, 5-8; also discusses logic and moral theories:

https://sites.google.com/site/ethicsandanimals/EthicsandAnimalsLecturesDiscussionQuestionsAssigments.pdf

o Rachels, The Right Thing to Do: 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

o Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (Elements of Moral Philosophy, EMP) OPS Writing Assignment on Chapter 1, the whole chapter.

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

Final Exam, Fall 2010

Final exam:

Since the midterm, we have covered these topics:

• the divine command theory of ethics;
• abortion, in great detail;
  
• absolute poverty;
• the treatment of animals.

There have been numerous handouts and some powerpoints and additional handouts have been posted on the blog. These are all found below and on previous pages of the blog.

The final exam will cover this material. There will be questions about what various arguments were, what objections to some arguments were and opportunities to show that you have gained the skills involved in stating arguments in logically valid form and assessing them as sound or not.

FYI the final exam schedule is here:
http://tigernet.morehouse.edu/TigerPages/Fall2010FinalExamSchedule.pdf

lots of stuff: abortion, poverty, animals

First, recall that you have a paper on abortion arguments due next Wed. The assignment is on the blog and was sent out via email. Here is an (old) Powerpoint you might find interesting and relevant to that:

• "Not 'Pro-Choice' and not 'Pro-Life': On the Ethics of Abortion", a Powerpoint presentation.

http://nathannobis.com/papers/abortion-talk.ppt

Second, we too briefly discussed Peter Singer's argument regarding poverty. The Powerpoint on that is here:

• Taking Hunger seriously: Are YOU obligated to help desparately poor children?, a Powerpoint presentation.
  

http://nathannobis.com/papers/famine.ppt

Here is a worksheet with some objections discussed in the Powerpoint:
http://philosophy302.blogspot.com/2007/04/worksheet-on-objections-to-singer.html


Second, Monday an argument for vegetarianism was presented in class. This argument is discussed in this short 3 page article online:

"Reasonable Humans and Animals," John Simmons:
http://sites.google.com/site/aphilosopher/veg.pdf

For Friday, please have read "The Singer Solution to World Poverty."

Hi,
I have three requests:
1) Would anyone mind if the deadline for paper 3 were extended until, say, Wednesday after Thanksgiving? That's the last day of class. Unless anyone objects, I move that the deadline be changed, for a number of reasons.
2) Please be to class ON TIME.
3) If you would, for tomorrow, review the syllabus, I would appreciate that. I would like you to do something of a survey on the syl.: http://philosophy302.blogspot.com/2010/08/fall-2010-syllabus.html
and
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B97NLmtzSgh_NDZjNDEyNTUtNmRhZC00ZDJmLWFiNzMtMWZhY2ZjODYxNjgy&hl
Thanks

As mentioned in class today, there is no class with Dr. Nobis this Friday. See your blogs and email for the assignments you should be working on, and for what we'll do Monday. Thanks.

Paper 3

Ethics Paper 3

Due by Monday, November 22, in class and via the Turnitin system

In this paper you should state, in logically valid premise-conclusion format, at least five arguments for the conclusion that abortion is wrong (or all or most abortions are wrong, or abortion is prima facie wrong) and then carefully explain, for each of these arguments, whether it is sound or not and why.

These arguments should be arguments that you believe are the most important or common or influential or challenging arguments. All of these arguments should be ones we discussed in class and at least three of them should be ones presented and discussed in our readings (Warren, Marquis, Thompson).

You need not argue for a general thesis about abortion: you only need to argue for a thesis concerning these arguments.

Your paper should be clearly written and well-organized. Please re-read your paper on how to write a philosophy paper. This paper gives you the opportunity to show that you have mastered the methods of moral argument analysis that we have been practicing in this class.

As was mentioned in class, the due date on the Thompson OPS was extended to tomorrow, Wed, at class time and not later. We will discuss her article tomorrow, Wed.

For Monday, an for Monday, OPS of Judith Thompson on abortion is due, online and in class.

Warren and Marquis have already been assigned and were already due, of course.

Some people have already done Thompson, even though she was not assigned.

For Friday, there's no classes w/ Dr. Nobis.
Please instead go to the AUC Graduate School Fair at CAU in the Student Center at the corner of James P. Brawley and Fair Street from 11am-3pm.

Ms. Eccles (below) will be there: sign in with her for role!

Kellye Blackburn Eccles
Career Planning and Placement
Non Business Majors
Morehouse College

Thanks,

Here is a change.
The Warren OPS on abortion was due Wed., tomorrow; the Marquis OPS on abortion is due Monday, if you'd like.

Paper 2 is due next Wednesday.
Thanks
NN

For those of you who were in class Friday, first, thanks for a great class. Second, you already know this announcement below:

For Wed, there are OPS's due of Mary Anne Warren on abortion and Don Marquis on abortion, both in RTD. Due in class and via Turnitin.

Thanks!

Paper 2

Philosophy 302: Argumentative Paper 2 – Homosexuality

Due Wednesday, November 3, (two weeks from today!) in class and through the turnitin system. NO LATE PAPERS.
4-5 pages, double-spaced, typed, 12 pt. font, stapled, with your name, email, class time. No cover pages.

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 must get a peer review (from a peer in this class) and revise and improve your paper in light of that review. The peer review of your paper should be stapled to your paper. The review sheet is here:

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/peerreview.rtf

All previous advice on writing and rules on doing your own thinking and writing apply. Re-read your paper on how to write a philosophy paper.

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.

For Wed. please read EMP Ch. 4

Paper assignment on its way!

Study Guide for Fall, 2010 Midterm exam

MIDTERM QUIZ / TEST / EXAM.
Next Friday.

You will easily be able to complete this exam "with flying colors" in 50 minutes if you have been keeping up on the reading and study. Format will be multiple choice, true / false and short answer. Study groups are encouraged!

The test can cover any material up to our discussion of homosexuality. Thus, these readings:

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

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

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

SAMPLE QUESTIONS: WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT? WHAT IS IT FOR AN ARGUMENT TO BE VALID? WHAT IS IT FOR AN ARGUMENT TO BE SOUND? UNDERSTAND THESE CONCEPTS AND THEIR RELATIONS.

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

WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM? WHAT ARE KANTIAN ETHICS?

THE WORD 'RIGHT' IS AMBIGUOUS AND SO WE DON'T USE IT. WHAT ARE THE TWO BETTER UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS WE ARE USING?

3. Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (Elements)

BE FAMILIAR WITH THE THREE CASES AND THE ARGUMENTS DISCUSSED ABOUT THEM. WHAT IS RACHEL'S 'MINIMUM CONCEPTION OF MORALITY"?

5. Ch. 2, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" (Elements)

WHAT IS THE MORAL THEORY CULTURAL RELATIVISM? WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT? ARE ANY OF THEM SOUND? WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR IT? ARE ANY OF THEM SOUND? IS CULTURAL RELATIVISM A TRUE MORAL THEORY?

5. “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

WHAT IS FGM / FC? WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR IT? ARE ANY OF THEM SOUND? WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT? ARE ANY OF THEM SOUND? IS FEMALE CIRCUMCISION MORALLY PERMISSIBLE?

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)

WHAT ARE THE MAIN ARGUMENTS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLES?

10. Ch. 3, "Subjectivism in Ethics" (Elements)

WHAT ARE SIMPLE SUBJECTIVISM AND EMOTIVISM? WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEM? ARE THESE ARGUMENTS SOUND?

10. Richard Feldman on “Simple Moral Arguments”: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/feldman-simple-moral-arguments.pdf
11. "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

BE ABLE TO PRESENT AND EVALUATE ANY AND ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE WRONGNESS OF HOMOSEXUALITY, AS WELL AS STATE AN ARGUMENT FOR ITS PERMISSIBILITY. BE SURE TO BE ABLE TO STATE THE ARGUMENTS IN VALID FORM.

WHAT IS IT TO GIVE A COUNTER-EXAMPLE?

HERE IS A MORE DETAILED VERSION OF A STUDY GUIDE, FROM A PREVIOUS SEMESTER:

RTD, Ch.2. Logic & Arguments

· What is an argument?

· What is a conclusion?

· What are premises?

· What is a logically valid argument? Define ‘validity’ or ‘a valid argument’.

· Give an example of a valid argument.

· Know what the modus ponens, modus tollens and universal generalization valid argument forms are.

· Why is it important for an argument to be valid?

· Can a valid argument have true premises and a false conclusion?

· What is a sound argument? Define 'a sound argument'.

· Can a sound argument be an invalid argument?

· Can a sound argument have false premises?

· Can a sound argument have a false conclusion?

· How, in general, do you show that a conditional, an if-then statement (‘if p is true, then q is true’) is false?

· Identify and give an example of these logically invalid argument forms:
Affirming the consequent
Denying the antecedent

RTD Ch. 1: A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy

· What is moral relativism? What are the arguments against it?

· Be able to explain the basic ideas of moral theories based in impartiality, utilitarianism, and Kant’s ethics.

Explain how the term ‘morally right’ is ambiguous between "morally permissible" and "morally obligatory." To explain this distinction, give an example of an action that is ‘right’ in one sense of the term, and another action that is ‘right’ in the other sense of the term.

RTD Ch. 2, the short introduction to logic chapter

What is moral skepticism? What are the arguments in favor of it and arguments against it?

EMP Ch. 1:

· Explain, in detail, Rachel’s “minimum conception of morality,” especially his claims that "moral judgments must be backed by good reasons" and "that morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual's interests." (p. 11)

· Explain Rachels’ argument that Baby Theresa cannot be “used as a means.”

· Explain why some people might think that Baby Theresa is already dead. Explain why some people might think that she is not dead yet. (This suggests an ambiguity in ‘being alive’).

· Be familiar with the Jodie and Mary case. What was the hospital’s argument?

· Explain what a “slippery slope” argument or response is; explain how some people gave this response about the case of Tracy Latimer.

EMP Ch. 2: CR & FGM

· State and fully explain the idea of cultural relativism. If someone accepts CR, what theory does she believe? Be able to explain which of the 5 claimsreally is cultural relativism (not all of them are cultural relativism), which are logical consequences of it, and which are premises that might be given in arguments for it.

· State a valid argument for cultural relativism from moral disagreements between cultures (“cultural differences”). (Note: Rachels gives a version of this argument that is not clearly valid because it is missing a premise; we discussed, however, a valid version). State whether you think the argument is sound or not; if you think it is not sound, explain which premise(s) is false. If you think it is sound, explain why all the premises are true.

· Be able to give at least 3 valid arguments against CR; 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 cultural relativism. Explain whether you think the arguments are sound or not and why.

· If you think we should be “tolerant” of everything, should you think that cultural relativism is true? That is, if cultural relativism is true, is it true that we should be tolerant? (You might want to think about these questions also: should we always be tolerant, of everything? If we should just sometimes be tolerant, when should we be tolerant?)

· Rachels argues that, sometimes, there is less moral disagreement than we might think because some moral disagreements are superficial: we accept the same moral principles, but differ in our beliefs about the facts. Explain this idea with an example.

· Some people say that different cultures “disagree about everything, morally.” Explain Rachels’ argument that this is not true, thatis his reasons tothink that all cultures will share some moral values. What are some of these values that he thinks we all hold in common?

· Female circumcision / female genital mutilation: what do its “advocates” say in favor of the practice, i.e, for why it is not wrong to have it? What do the critics (e.g., the editors at the Harvard Law Review) say against these advocates, and what are their arguments that it’s wrong? Whose arguments are sound, in your view?

· Rachels presents a culture neutral standard of right and wrong. What is it? Explain his idea.

· Even if cultural relativism is false, its advocates might teach us something useful. What are these things, according to Rachels?

EMP Ch. 3: Simple Subjectivism & Emotivism, 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? Be able to present an argument against it.

· 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?

· There can be questions on any of the assigned readings and discussions, so you need to be deeply familiar with everything and be able to showthat you understand the material. Check the blog for any handouts you missed.

· 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?