Summer 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

INTRO TO ETHICS, SUMMER 2011, SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS in PDF, which retains the formatting CORRECTED

AVAILABLE WITH LINKS HERE:

http://philosophy302.blogspot.com

Course announcements will be posted at that page as well.

Summer 2011: Intro to Philosophical Ethics  (HPHI-302G-01 - 40118)

Instructor: Nathan M. Nobis, Ph.D., nathan.nobis@gmail.com, www.NathanNobis.com Term: Summer 2011 Office: Philosophy & Religion Department, Sale Hall 113 Office Hours: before and after class and by appointment.   Morehouse College Campus; Lecture Schedule Type; 3.000 Credits;   Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 10:30 am - 11:50 am MTWRF Sale Hall 110 Jun 07, 2010 – Jul 6, 2010 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)

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.

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:

1. 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;
2. write clear, concise and simple grammatical, spelling-error-free sentences and well-organized expository and argumentative essays, as taught in Introductory English courses;
3. 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.

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:

1. 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;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. 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;
5. identify and distinguish factual/empirical/scientific and moral/philosophical premises in moral arguments;
6. evaluate moral arguments as (1) logically valid or invalid (or otherwise logically cogent) and (2) sound or unsound (or otherwise strong);
7. 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.

Required textbook: James and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 6^th Ed. [Elements]. Any edition will do. http://www.jamesrachels.org/EMP.htm

Requirements and grading:

• Come to class and be on time. Attendance will be taken. You are allowed one unexcused absence. Any further unexcused absences will reduce your final grade by 2 points from your overall grade per absence. Tardiness will result in a final grade reduction as well.
• Do the reading and writing assignments on time, according to the schedule below, which is subject to change, if necessary to achieve educational goals and objectives. Late assignments will lose one point per day late, starting from after the beginning of class. (That is, since writings are due at the beginning of class, if you turn it in in the afternoon, it will be counted late.)

8 writing assignments, 5 points each                  = 40 points total                        Students with perfect attendance will have 5 points added to their overall grade.        

2 exams / quizzes, 20 points each                      = 40 points                   Students with unexcused absences will lose points on their overall grade. 

TOTAL POINTS                                     = 80 points                   There may be some extra credit opportunities; they will be announced later.

Calendar:

Monday	April 12-16, 2010	Web Registration Begins/Ends
Monday	6-Jun-11	Official Registration
Tuesday	7-Jun-11	First Day of Class
Friday	10-Jun-11	End Drop/Add
Saturday	11-Jun-11	Withdrawal Period Begins
Saturday	22-Jan-11	Withdrawal Period Begins
Wednesday-Friday	June 22-24, 2011	Mid-term Week
Monday	4-Jul-11	Independence Day Holiday
Thursday-Friday	July 7-8, 2011	Reading Period
Thursday-Friday	July 7-8, 2011	Senior Final Exams
Monday-Wednesday	July 11-13, 2011	Final Exams
Monday	13-Jul-11	Senior Grades due by Noon
Monday-Friday	July 11-15, 2011	Senior Week
Friday	15-Jul-11	Semester Ends
Tuesday	19-Jul-11	All Final Grades due by Noon

Course schedule:

Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday
	JUNE 7 - Classes start	JUNE 8	JUNE 9	JUNE 10 –
	Day 1 ·         Introductions ·         Overview of Course ·         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 ·         Overview of Moral Theories, i.e., Hypotheses for what makes actions permissible, obligatory or wrong. o        See above.	Day 2 Review and practice concepts from day 1. For Thursday, read Elements Ch. 1. “What is Morality?” (available online if you don’t yet have the book: http://goo.gl/TZoEG Writing assignment 1, due Thursday, beginning of class (2 pages): (1) Identify the possible conclusions regarding what should or should not be done regarding the various cases and the reasons given for and against these conclusions. (2) Summarize how Rachels thinks you should try to think about moral issues, what methods you should use.	Day 3 Wednesday’s Writing Assignment due Discuss Elements Ch. 1. and all assignment materials from day 1 For Friday, read: Elements, Ch. 2. “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” Writing assignment 2, due Friday: what is “female circumcision” / “female genital mutilation”? What are some arguments that it is wrong? What are arguments that it is permissible? (2 pages) Note: research on Youtube and using Google is encouraged for this topic.	Day 4 End Drop/Add period Discuss Elements, Ch. 2. Topics: cultural relativism; female genital mutilation; “polyamory” (Google that term) Reading for Tuesday: Elements, Ch. 3. “Subjectivism in Ethics” Writing assignment 3, due Thursday, June 17 (3-4 pages): What are all the most common reasons to think homosexuality is wrong? What is an argument that homosexuality is morally permissible? Are any of these reasons part of sound arguments that homosexuality is wrong?

JUNE 13	JUNE 14	JUNE 15	JUNE 16	JUNE 17
Day 5 Withdrawal period begins Video, in class: What’s morally wrong with homosexuality? John Corvino, www.TheGayMoralist.com Watch the main presentation and the “bonus” questions and answers .	Day 6 Discuss Ch. 3 and the arguments regarding homosexuality. Richard Feldman on “Simple Moral Arguments”: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/feldman-simple-moral-arguments.pdf Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/homosexuality-arguments.pdf	Day 7 In class: “logic lab” on homosexuality arguments. Complete the worksheet. Identity all the premises needed to make the arguments valid. Explain whether any of these arguments are sound or not. AND Peer review / discuss your papers – plans for papers – due Thursday. Assignment previously given on Friday.	Day 8 Writing assignment 3 due. Reading assignment: Elements, Ch. 4. “Does Morality Depend on Religion?” Writing assignment 4, due Friday: Summarize the arguments given for and against abortion that Rachels discusses.	Day 9 Writing assignment 4 due. Discuss abortion. Fred Feldman on abortion: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/fred_feldman_on_abortion.pdf Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/abortion-worksheet.pdf
JUNE 20	JUNE 21	JUNE 22 - Midterm Week	JUNE 23 - Midterm Week	JUNE 24 - Midterm Week
Day 10 In class: “logic lab” on abortion arguments. Complete the worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/abortion-worksheet.pdf Identity all the premises needed to make the arguments valid. Explain whether any of these arguments are sound or not.	Day 11 Discuss abortion. Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/abortion-worksheet.pdf A PowerPoint for lecture / discussion: http://sites.google.com/site/aphilosopher/abortion-talk.ppt	Day 12 Video: Peter Singer, “A Dangerous Mind?” Read Elements, Ch. 5, “Ethical Egoism” for Thursday: Writing assignment 5, Due Thursday: Please write a 2-3 page summary of the chapter that would be understood by someone who has not read the book. Poverty Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/poverty-arguments.pdf	Day 13 Writing Assignment 5 due. Video: 60 Minutes on Peter Singer A PowerPoint for lecture / discussion: http://sites.google.com/site/aphilosopher/famine.ppt Poverty Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/poverty-arguments.pdf “The Ten Dollar Club, Saving the World $10 at a Time”: http://www.thetendollarclub.org/	Day 14  Midterm Exam / Quiz A study guide will be provided!
JUNE 27	JUNE 28	JUNE 29	JUNE 30	JULY 1
Day 15 Read: Elements Ch. 6, “The Idea of the Social Contract”  Read out loud and discuss “A Call for Unity” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Call_For_Unity and MLK’s response, "Letter from the Birmingham City Jail," Martin Luther King, Jr.  http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail Writing project 6: In groups of 3 or 4, identify MLK’s arguments: his conclusions and his reasons for them. Are any of his arguments unsound?	Day 16 Turn in writing project 6. Each student turns in his or her own writing. Read: Elements, Ch. 7 & 8, “The Utilitarian Approach” and “The Debate Over Utilitarianism” Writing assignment 7, Due Thursday: Please write a 2-3 page (each) summaries of the chapters that would be understood by someone who has not read the book. Discuss Euthanasia “One Nurse’s Story,” http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/one_nurses_story.pdf	Day 17 Watch film on ethics and animals: Title TBA. Perhaps “The Witness” or “Peaceable Kingdom” available here: http://www.tribeofheart.org/	Day 18 Writing assignment 7, Due Thursday: In class, read: “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	Day 19 Last day to Withdraw Discuss animals issues and arguments

JULY 4	JULY 5	JULY 6	JULY 7 -	JULY 8 -
Day 20 NO CLASS: 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY	Day 21 Read: Elements Ch. 9 & 10, “Are there absolute moral rules?” and “Kant and Respect for Persons” Writing assignment 8, Due Thursday: Please write a 2-3 page (each) summaries of the chapters that would be understood by someone who has not read the book. Discuss issues of these chapters.	Day 22 Discuss issues of these chapters.	READING PERIOD / SENIOR EXAMS	READING PERIOD / SENIOR EXAMS FINAL EXAM – STUDY GUIDE WILL BE PROVIDED Extra credit summary: Elements, Ch. 13, “What would a satisfactory moral theory be like?”
JULY 12 –	JULY 13 –	JULY 14 –
final exams ; Senior grades due by noon	final exams	final exams FINAL EXAM – STUDY GUIDE WILL BE PROVIDED
	Tuesday, July 9, 2010, All Final Grades Due by Noon.

Final

As was stated in class, the final topics are those address in the EMP chapters on egoism and utilitarianism. These include these moral theories,
global/absolute poverty (and the Powerpoint discussed in class and worksheet handed out),
euthanasia,
and animals, including the Simmons article.

Hi,
For Monday, please read the EMP chapter on Utilitarianism -- the first chapter on utilitarianism, NOT the second one and write a detailed summary of it.

Also, please read and write a detailed summary of this very short online article:
"Reasonable Humans and Animals," by John Simmons:
http://sites.google.com/site/aphilosopher/veg.pdf

Also here is an organization I have mentioned recently:
http://thetendollarclub.org/

Please be to class on time today and bring both your books.
In addition to EMP Ch. 5, we might look at the RTD article by Peter Singer, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty."

We will work through this PowerPoint: http://sites.google.com/site/aphilosopher/famine.ppt?attredirects=0

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

Hi,
A reminder: the quiz was moved to tomorrow, Wednesday. A study guide is on the blog!

I am slowly returning all your papers. Here are some quick comments about all of the papers:

Papers tended to go well when 

- they fit the assignment (and the requirements of philosophy papers generally) in that 

- they presented arguments in logically valid form, 

- discussed whether arguments were sound or not, 

- explained why or why not various premises are true or not (often using the concept of a counter example) and 

- raised and responded to objections. 

And, of course, they had an introduction, a thesis, were well-organized, were grammatical and spelling-error- free and had a conclusion.

Papers tended to be poor when they did less of this. So, people lost points when they:

- did not present arguments in logically valid form;

- when they did not do this, they really could not discuss whether they were sound or not;

- when they did this, they tended to not consider objections to the arguments or respond to them;

- they ignored discussion from the books and class; thus, they avoided objections we discussed: since the point of philosophy papers is to engage objections to your views, that is contrary to the point of philosophy papers. 

Thanks,

For Friday, please re-read Thompson on abortion
and
Nobis, Nathan and Jarr-Koroma, Abubakarr Sidique (2010) "Abortion and Moral Arguments From Analogy," The American Journal of Bioethics, 10: 12, 59 — 61, First published on: 14 December 2010
http://goo.gl/njzX0

The quiz has been moved to Wednesday, not Monday.
Thanks, NN

Hi,
As mentioned in class yesterday, please read and bring to class the article by Judith Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion" for discussion Wednesday.
Thanks,
NN

Hi All,
Quiz 2 will be Monday April 11. It will cover the topics of homosexuality and abortion, and cover all assigned readings, the handouts (i.e., argument worksheets) and class discussion. An emphasis will be on the skills of stating arguments in logically valid form (and adding unstated premises to do that) and assessing them for soundness (often using counterexamples). Here are some additional questions that you should be able to answer:

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)? Is an 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, which are Warren’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, and the view that was developed in class. Explain why, on thistheory, 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, potentialthings 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 againstabortion 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 believethat 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

In light of yesterday's discussion concerning reading and responsibility, I think it would be wise to have summaries of Warren and Marquis on abortion due Monday. However, if you would like to turn them in Wednesday, that would be fine as well, given the lateness of this written assignment.

Friday, however, we will be discussing Marquis's article. 

 

Readings:

Wed: Warren on abortion, in RTD
Friday: Marquis on abortion, in RTD
Monday: Thompson on abortion, in RTD

Monday your paper is due. No late papers.

Friday, March 25, Morehouse, Sale Hall Rm. 105, 2 PM sharp

Are Online “Friends”Friends?

Can online relationships be “real” friendships? Arguments tied to concepts such as authenticity, activity, and embodiment say “no.” After discussing some of the roles that computer-based technologies play in interpersonal relationships, Professor Vance Ricks explains why he finds those arguments ultimately unpersuasive.

Vance Ricks, Associate Professor of Philosophy,

Guilford College, Greensboro, NC

http://www.guilford.edu/academics/departments/philosophy/ricksvance.html 

Professor Vance attended Stanford University and received his Ph.D. in philosophy, writing his dissertation on the subject of friendship. He has taught at Guilford since autumn 1998.  He teaches courses on a variety of philosophical subjects, consistent with his interests:  ethics; informal logic; philosophical perspectives on sexuality; computer ethics; and philosophical  perspectives on mind and consciousness.  Vance is currently writing a manuscript on the meta-ethical views of one of his favorite philosophers, the 19th-century English author John Stuart Mill.  His next project is an article about online friendships. 

This flyer is also available here: http://goo.gl/1Y36n

Survey

Friday, I asked you to develop lists for ways people would fill in these blanks:

"Abortion is typically wrong because ___________________"

and

"Abortion is typically morally permissible because ___________________"

Please clearly posts your lists below in the comments and read others' lists! Thanks!

Addendum: You should have at least 5 reasons given for each conclusion.

Extra Credit

An extra credit assignment: Detailed, detailed summary of this entire (long) article: Regan, “Patterns of Resistance,” Due by Monday March 28th as well:

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/patterns-of-resistance.pdf

Writing for Monday

For Monday: detailed summary of EMP Ch. 4, DOES MORALITY DEPEND ON RELIGION? is due. 


Also: This is the page was mentioned last Friday and its contents briefly discussed:

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

I am having printer problems, so I send it to you via email for you to read.