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

AVAILABLE WITH LINKS HERE:

http://philosophy302.blogspot.com

Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 48605 - HPHI 302G - 01

Associated Term: Summer 2012 3.000 Credits View Catalog Entry  Scheduled Meeting Times 12:00 pm - 1:20 pm MTWRF Sale Hall 110 Jun 05, 2012 - Jul 13, 2012 Instructor: Nathan Nobis, Ph.D., www.NathanNobis.com Preferred Email: Nathan.nobis@gmail.com   (preferred email); nnobis@morehouse.edu   Please send work to this email and/or turn in in class in hardcopy: nobishomework@gmail.com Telephone: 404-215-2607 Office: Sale Hall 113, Philosophy & Religion Department

Department of Philosophy and Religion: Mission and Objectives:

The two-fold objective of this Department is to prepare students for graduate or professional study in the fields of philosophy and religious studies and to enable them to satisfy the College requirements in the general education program. The courses in philosophy and religion seek to provide the student not only with a firm base in these two academic disciplines, but also with a means for self-examination and self-orientation. The work in philosophy aims to develop a critical and analytical approach to all the major areas of human inquiry. The work in religion aims to describe, analyze and evaluate the role of religion in the life of humans since earliest times and how the religious quest continues as a variegated and often tortuous climb toward human growth and fulfillment.

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 makeswrong 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 ofargument 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 orunsound (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.

Monday	Tuesday 1.       June 5 OVERVIEW OF COURSE; INTRODUCTIONS; INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC	Wednesday 2.       June 6 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC CONTINUED READ:    “Some Basic Points about Arguments," James Rachels (from The Right Thing to Do) ONLINE LINK BELOW	Thursday 3.       June 7 INTRODUCTION TO MORAL THEORIES READ: James Rachels, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy" (from The Right Thing to Do): (focus on the 2nd half: utilitarianism, Kantianism and social contract theory).   ONLINE LINK BELOW	Friday 4.       June 8 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH 1: Available here if you don’t have the book yet (but it is on reserve in the library: http://goo.gl/XwjJq ) Main topics: moral thinking; disabled newborns and children. End of drop/add period
5.       June 11 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  1 Main topics: moral thinking; disabled newborns and children. Withdrawal period begins	6.       June 12 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  2 Main topics: cultural relativism; female genital mutilation; polyamory.	7.       June 13 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  2 Main topics: cultural relativism; female genital mutilation; polyamory.	8.       June 14 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  3 Topics: homosexuality Additional writing: Arguments lists: state at least 10 reasons people sometimes give to think that homosexuality is wrong.	9.       June 15 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  3 Topics: homosexuality
10.    June 18 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  4 Topics: morality and religion; abortion Additional writing: Arguments lists: state at least 10 reasons people sometimes give to think that abortion is wrong and at least 5 reasons to think it is morally permissible.	11.    June 19 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  4 Topics: morality and religion; abortion	12.    June 20 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  5 Topics: ethical egoism; poverty Midterm week Arguments lists: state at least 5 reasons people give to think that we are obligated to help absolutely poor people and at least 5 reasons to think it is morally permissible to not help absolutely poor people .	13.    June 21 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  5 Topics: ethical egoism; poverty Midterm week	14.    June 22 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  6 Topic: social contract theory; civil disobedience. Midterm week

READINGS:

15.    June 25 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  7 & 8 Topics: utilitarianism; euthanasia, drug use, treatment of animals Additional writing: Arguments lists: state at least 10 reasons people sometimes give to think that eating meat is morally permissible, i.e., not wrong and at least 5 reasons to think that it is morally permissible.	16.    June 26 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  7 & 8 Topics: utilitarianism; euthanasia, drug use, treatment of animals “Reasonable Humans and Animals,” John Simmons: LINK BELOW	17.    June 27 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  7 & 8 Topics: utilitarianism; euthanasia, drug use, treatment of animals	18.    June 28 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  9 & 10 Topic s: Kant’s ethics; war, capital punishment Additional writing: Arguments lists: state at least 5 reasons people sometimes give to think that capital punishment is wrong and at least 5 reasons to think that it is or can be morally permissible.	19.    June 29 Read: RACHELS, ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY CH  9 & 10 Topic s: Kant’s ethics; war, capital punishment Last day to withdraw
20.    July 2 OPEN	21.    July 3 OPEN	July 4 – no class	Reading day 1 – no class	Reading day 2 – no class
July 9 – Final Exam week Final exam day and time TBA	July 10 - Final Exam week Final exam day and time TBA	July 11 – final exam week Final exam day and time TBA	July 12 – final exam week Final exam day and time TBA	July 13 – final exam week Final exam day and time TBA; semester ends
	July 17: grades due by noon

READINGS

10 CHAPTERS OF JAMES AND STUART RACHELS’ THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY

·         APPROX 14 PAGES PER CHAPTER; EASY AND INTERESTING READING! LOTS OF INTERESTING EXAMPLES!

·         Read them before class, so have them read for the day on the schedule above; bring the book and reading(s) to class.

·         A copy of the book is available on reserve in the library: photocopy chapters if you need to.  

A few online readings:

·         Day 2: “Some Basic Points about Arguments," James Rachels (from The Right Thing to Do): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

·         Day 3: "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy" James Rachels (from The Right Thing to Do): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf (focus on the 2nd half: utilitarianism, Kantianism and social contract theory).  

·         John Simmons, “Reasonable Humans and Animals,” http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/veg.pdf

·         Other items handed out in class: keep them with you and bring to class.

ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING:

·         DETAILED WRITTEN SUMMARIES OF EACH CHAPTER(S); DUE BEFORE CLASS, TO ENSURE YOU HAVE DONE THE READINGS. 5 points per chapter (50 points total); Please send work to this email and/or turn in in class in hardcopy: nobishomework@gmail.com

·         5 additional list-building assignments where students make lists of reasons given for and against various moral conclusions: these lists can be developed from your own observations and reflections, discussions with other people and/or internet searching; students will also be asked to formulate these arguments as logically valid arguments (explanation forthcoming!). 5 points per list (25 points total). These are due on the day they are noted on the calendar. Please send work to this email and/or turn in in class in hardcopy: nobishomework@gmail.com

·         Two quizzes, midterm and final, in class: 25 points each, (50 points total). Study guides, practice quizes and study sessions will be provided.

·         There may be some extra credit assignments.

·         Attendance will be taken; unexcused absences and tardies beyond 3 will result in 2 points off the final grade. 

·         Any late work will be penalized.

·         Any plagiarized work will be given a zero grade and no chance for makeup or plagiarism will result in failing the course and a report to the dean. Do not use anyone else’s work in this course and do not try to find anything from the internet to submit as an assignment: do your own work without any input from outside sources (except when you are asked to do so).

·         Please do not text or use computers in class for non-class purposes; please put away phones and turn off your internet connection, unless asked to use the internet.

Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 48605 - HPHI 302G - 01
Associated Term: Summer 2012 Registration Dates: Apr 09, 2012 to Jun 08, 2012 Levels: Undergraduate 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 12:00 pm - 1:20 pm MTWRF Sale Hall 110 Jun 05, 2012 - Jul 13, 2012 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)

Extra credit paper assignment

Extra credit final paper assignment:

1. Carefully read and study "The Myth of Sustainable Meat" By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS, from the April 12, 2012 NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/the-myth-of-sustainable-meat.html 
2. Carefully read and study the Letters in response to McWilliams' piece:
www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/opinion/should-we-eat-less-meat-none-at-all.html  

Write a philosophical essay where you
(a) summarize McWilliams' arguments,
(b) explain what Singer or Simmons might add to his arguments (since they would support his arguments), in light of what we have read by them,
(c) summarize any objections found in the Letters,
(d) explain any other objections to McWilliams that you are important;
(d) explain whether any of these objections would amount to sound arguments against McWilliams' arguments (especially if they were enhanced with some ideas from Singer and/or Simmons).

Your essay should have an introduction, a conclusion and be well-organized, and clearly written with few (if any) grammatical and spelling errors.

Due in hardcopy for graduating seniors by Thursday, May 10 at 9 AM.
Due in hardcopy for everyone else by Monday, May 14 at 9 AM.

The final exam schedule is here:
http://tigernet.morehouse.edu/TigerPages/Spring2012FinalExamSchedule.pdf

By Wednesday, please read and write a detailed response to this short article:

“Reasonable Humans and Animals,” John Simmons:
http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/veg.pdf


Also, re-read Singer's "All Animals Are Equal."

Please also read, in EMP, section 7.4 in the chapter on Utilitarianism entitled "Third Example: Nonhuman animals." This section might have a different number and pages in your version of the book: what's important is that you find the section on animals and read it carefully. 

We will watch these two short videos over the next few class periods.

"Their future is in your hands," 
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL7EAxHgO4A
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85tUAsVFyVQ&feature=relmfu
Also available here: http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/f/CAMPAIGNS/blog//4//?be_id=6


"My friends at the farm":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo2-4RnTk8k

For Monday, please read and write a detailed summary and reaction to the three following writings:

- Nathan Nobis, encyclopedia article on Peter Singer for an Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/singer-encyclopedia.pdf
- Peter Singer, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" in RTD and http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/19990905mag-poverty-singer.html These issues are discussed more in his book The Life You Can Save:  http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com
- Peter Singer, "All Animals Are Equal" in RTD and http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm   this  is from his famous book Animal Liberation

Please check out this organization: http://thetendollarclub.org

If these links don't work, please Google the title and you can find another link. 

There are lots of videos on and about Peter Singer on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=peter+singer&oq=peter+singer&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=youtube-psuggest.3...0.0.0.3184511.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.

In class, we also read Mylan Engel's "911 and Starvation" (in RTD and online) as well as the first section of EMP Ch. 5, the chapter on "Ethical Egoism."

Hi,

We will have a quiz this Wednesday (4/18) covering all material since the last quiz. This should be of value:
ABORTION: Abortion argument worksheet.See also my Powerpoint on abortion. 

The test will cover the EMP chapter on morality and religion (e.g., the divine command theory of ethics) and everything we have discussed on the topic of abortion, including the articles by Warren, Marquis and Thompson and  Nobis, Nathan and Jarr-Koroma, Abubakarr Sidique (2010) "Abortion and Moral Arguments From Analogy," [LINK] The American Journal of Bioethics, 10: 12, 59 — 61, First published on: 14 December 2010

 The initial Feldman page is here: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/fred_feldman_on_abortion.pdf

Here are some additional prompts:

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

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

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

Hi all,
As mentioned in class yesterday, there is no class with professor Nobis this Friday. So, reading and writing assignments are on the course blogs:
 
He will be at some events at the Emory Ethics Center and the Law School. FYI, the program for the Ethics Center is below and the law school event info is here:
http://www.law.emory.edu/academics/academic-programs/feminism-legal-theory/upcoming-events-workshops.html


ANIMAL STUDIES WORKSHOP

Center for Ethics
1531 Dickey Drive
Emory University
Friday, March 30, 2012

9:00 – 10:00
Killing Animals
“Animal vs. Human Euthanasia.” Paul Root Wolpe. Center for Ethics, Emory University.

Forging Animal Rights

“Communicating Concepts: How do we articulate animal rights concepts to
the public?” Lori Marino. Center for Ethics and Institute for Liberal Arts,
Emory University.

“Diversity and Nonhuman Rights.” Carrie Packwood Freeman.
Communication. Georgia State University.

Lunch

Thinking Animals I

“The Ethics and Poetics of Becoming Animal in Metamorphosis Literature.”
Naama Harel. Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies, Emory University.

Thinking Animals II

“The Philosophical Animal.” Sean Meighoo. Institute of Liberal Arts, Emory
University.

Sponsored by
Center for Ethics, Emory University
Center for Faculty Development and Excellence, Emory University

Paper 2 assignment

REVISED ASSIGNMENT:
THE "METHODS" SECTION WILL BE DUE MONDAY, APRIL 2 IN CLASS; 
THE ENTIRE PAPER WILL BE DUE MONDAY APRIL 9.


First, read the "writing tips" from Dr. Nobis below, and review the guidance from an earlier post.

Second, for next Monday, April 2, write a paper where you state at least 5 arguments for the conclusion that "abortion is prima facie wrong" in logically valid form and explain whether each is sound or unsound and why.


Your paper must have an introductory section where you explain the methods you will use in your task: that is, explain the steps involved in formulating an argument in logically valid form and what questions you must ask in determining whether an argument is sound or not. This section requires that you reflect on the process we have been using in class to state and evaluate arguments.

Your paper should have an introduction and a thesis concerning the arguments you discuss and conform to all the guidance given about writing, including that given by Pryor.

Some tips from me:

• The most common comments I write on papers are these: (1) What do you mean? and (2) Why think that? The first is in response to unclear claims: write clearly. The second is in response to claims that need defense: give reasons.
• Write in short sentences: if any longer sentence can be broken into two or more sentences, do it because it's easier to read then.
• Each paragraph should deal with one, and only one, topic. You should be able to say, "This paragraph is about this: _____."
• Omit all needless words and needless discussion. Your reader's time is valuable so don't waste it.
• Make sure everything is clear. Use simple words: no need for anything nebulous.
• Your papers should have a short introduction, culminating in a thesis, a main point, the point that your paper is supposed to defend. The most direct way of presenting this sort of thesis is this: "I will argue that _(short sentence here: 'all abortions are wrong', 'Dr. Doopy's argument against euthenasia is unsound,' etc.___."
• Your introductory paragraph, or a paragraph immediately after it, should give the reader an overview of what you will be doing in the paper. It should briefly explain the overall structure (e.g., "First I will ___ and then I will ____. Finally I will ______.")
• Omit anything totally obvious and uninformative (e.g., "This issue has been debated for hundreds of years."). Everyone already knows this, so don't waste time telling us what we already know.
• Don't write, "Well, _____." No "well's".
• Don't say, "'Mr. Bubbles feels that this is wrong." Say, he believes, or thinks, or (if he does) argues. His views are probably not his "feelings" or his emotional reactions.
• Also, no ' . . . ' unless you are shortening a quote. No "trailing off" in hopes that the reader will think what you are hoping they will think.
• Don't ask rhetorical questions. Make statements, don't ask questions. Your reader might answer your questions for you in ways you'd like. But if you do ask questions, make sure there is a question mark.
  
• It's OK to use "I". People use "I" to communicate clearly, so use it.
• "Arguments" are not people's conclusions. They are the conclusions and the reasons they give in favor of those conclusions.
• If I ask you to raise objections to a theory, argument, claim, or whatever, it's fine to raise objections that are discussed in our readings. What's not good, however, is to raise an objection that is discussed in the readings but the author responds to the objection and shows that it's not a good objection. If you raise this same objection, but do not discuss the author's response (and respond to that response), this suggests that you didn't do the reading very closely.
• If an author states a conclusion (or a main point) and gives reasons for it, then that author has given an argument. If an author has given an argument, do not say that the author has not given an argument: you might not have found the argument (yet), but the argument is still there! Keep looking!
• Keep focused and don't argue for more than you can give reasons for.
• You have succeeded in writing a paper if you can give that paper to a smart and critical someone who is not familiar with your topic and this person will understand the views and arguments you are discussing, as well as whatever criticisms you raise. You can do an empirical test to determine whether you are writing well, and it's basically just to see if others understand your writing! If not, you need to keep working at it.
• Finally, good writing, like many things, takes a lot of time. If you don't take the time to work at it, you probably won't do very well and you probably won't improve. I recommend writing something about double the length needed and then editing down and re-organizing and re-writing to remove the needless words, irrelevant distractions, and -- most importantly -- improve your statement of whatever argument you are trying to develop.

FYI here is an interesting article on the Bible and homosexuality:
"What does the Bible really say about homosexuality?"

The Washington Post: On Faith
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/12/what_does_the_bible_really_say_ab
out_homosexuality_reading_texts_of_terror.html

• This is available in full form here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1-nNUyaHCpottgznK_Cqp1sY_1lHirC--cn_AR-MPWmI0f8Q6N5MJR7n5nlC8&hl=en_US 

This is the first in a series of articles by The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire and a visiting Senior
Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C.

By next Wednesday, March 28, please write detailed summaries of these essays found in RTD and online (if you Google them, you will likely find these essays):

Read Mary Anne Warren, "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion."
Read Don Marquis, "Why Abortion is Immoral,"
Read Judith Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion," (only summarize the first 2 pages)

Here are some sources for suggestions on how to improve your writing; in my experience, one's writing can only be improved with reflective practice: writing, thinking about it and getting feedback from others and revising and re-writing. These sources give tips on how to do that:

1. An online article by Jim Pryor called "Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper":
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

2. Some chapters on writing from A Rulebook for Arguments;
http://www.amazon.com/A-Rulebook-Arguments-Anthony-Weston/dp/0872209547/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332425273&sr=1-1

VII. Composing an Argumentative Essay
A. Exploring the Issue
VIII. Composing an Argumentative Essay
B. Main Points of the Essay
IX. Composing an Argumentative Essay
C. Writing
&
I. Composing a Short Argument: Some General Rules

3. Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, the section III. ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF COMPOSITION:
http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk5.html

4. Some tips from me:

• The most common comments I write on papers are these: (1) What do you mean? and (2) Why think that? The first is in response to unclear claims: write clearly. The second is in response to claims that need defense: give reasons.
• Write in short sentences: if any longer sentence can be broken into two or more sentences, do it because it's easier to read then.
• Each paragraph should deal with one, and only one, topic. You should be able to say, "This paragraph is about this: _____."
• Omit all needless words and needless discussion. Your reader's time is valuable so don't waste it.
• Make sure everything is clear. Use simple words: no need for anything nebulous.
• Your papers should have a short introduction, culminating in a thesis, a main point, the point that your paper is supposed to defend. The most direct way of presenting this sort of thesis is this: "I will argue that _(short sentence here: 'all abortions are wrong', 'Dr. Doopy's argument against euthenasia is unsound,' etc.___."
• Your introductory paragraph, or a paragraph immediately after it, should give the reader an overview of what you will be doing in the paper. It should briefly explain the overall structure (e.g., "First I will ___ and then I will ____. Finally I will ______.")
• Omit anything totally obvious and uninformative (e.g., "This issue has been debated for hundreds of years."). Everyone already knows this, so don't waste time telling us what we already know.
• Don't write, "Well, _____." No "well's".
• Don't say, "'Mr. Bubbles feels that this is wrong." Say, he believes, or thinks, or (if he does) argues. His views are probably not his "feelings" or his emotional reactions.
• Also, no ' . . . ' unless you are shortening a quote. No "trailing off" in hopes that the reader will think what you are hoping they will think.
• Don't ask rhetorical questions. Make statements, don't ask questions. Your reader might answer your questions for you in ways you'd like. But if you do ask questions, make sure there is a question mark.
  
• It's OK to use "I". People use "I" to communicate clearly, so use it.
• "Arguments" are not people's conclusions. They are the conclusions and the reasons they give in favor of those conclusions.
• If I ask you to raise objections to a theory, argument, claim, or whatever, it's fine to raise objections that are discussed in our readings. What's not good, however, is to raise an objection that is discussed in the readings but the author responds to the objection and shows that it's not a good objection. If you raise this same objection, but do not discuss the author's response (and respond to that response), this suggests that you didn't do the reading very closely.
• If an author states a conclusion (or a main point) and gives reasons for it, then that author has given an argument. If an author has given an argument, do not say that the author has not given an argument: you might not have found the argument (yet), but the argument is still there! Keep looking!
• Keep focused and don't argue for more than you can give reasons for.
• You have succeeded in writing a paper if you can give that paper to a smart and critical someone who is not familiar with your topic and this person will understand the views and arguments you are discussing, as well as whatever criticisms you raise. You can do an empirical test to determine whether you are writing well, and it's basically just to see if others understand your writing! If not, you need to keep working at it.
• Finally, good writing, like many things, takes a lot of time. If you don't take the time to work at it, you probably won't do very well and you probably won't improve. I recommend writing something about double the length needed and then editing down and re-organizing and re-writing to remove the needless words, irrelevant distractions, and -- most importantly -- improve your statement of whatever argument you are trying to develop.

On Writing Well, 30th Anniversary Edition: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction [Paperback]

William Zinsser

http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548

 http://www.amazon.com/How-Write-Reflections-Richard-Rhodes/dp/0688149480/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332200135&sr=1-1


On Writing Well by Zinsser, How to Write by Richard Rhodes, On Writing by Stephen King.
http://www.amazon.com/On-Writing-Anniversary-Edition-Memoir/dp/1439156816/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332200225&sr=1-1

The page by Fred Feldman on abortion that we discussed today is here:
http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/fred_feldman_on_abortion.pdf 

Read: EMP Ch.4, "Does Morality Depend on Religion?"

Read Mary Anne Warren, "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion."
Read Don Marquis, "Why Abortion is Immoral,"
Read Judith Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion,"

Paper Assignment: due Friday, March 23:
First, read this article on how to write a philosophy paper by Jim Pryor: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 
Second, write a philosophy paper that does this:

• is on the the topic of the ethics of homosexuality (but NOT marriage);
• argues for a thesis on whether homosexuality is wrong or morally permissible (NOT whether it is 'right');
• presents at least 5 arguments in logically valid form;
• explains whether these arguments are sound or not and why;
• conforms to all the guidance from Pryor's article on writing philosophy (above);
• has an introductory paragraph, a thesis, and each paragraph or section focuses on one issue at a time;
• is generally well-organized, clear and grammatical.

 Length is probably around 4-5 pages to do an adequate job.

Here is some additional guidance:

• As Pryor makes clear, raising and responding to objections and questions to your position and arguments is essential for a good philosophy paper. So, of course, you must raise and respond to objections to your arguments. You especially do not want to ignore any critical discussion we had in class about some argument: i.e., if you endorse an argument that was discussed in class and - to many people - found to be unsound, you must engage that discussion and explain why that argument is indeed sound, despite the objections raised against it. 
• Here are two guidelines for possible strategies:
• 1. Present an argument (in logically valid form) that homosexuality is morally permissible; discuss objections to that argument, i.e., arguments for the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong, all again in logically valid form. Or,
• 2.  Present an argument (in logically valid form) that homosexuality is morally wrong; discuss objections to that argument, i.e., arguments for the conclusion that homosexuality is actually morally permissible, all again in logically valid form: these arguments might be objections to your argument that homosexuality is wrong.

 

As was agreed upon in class yesterday, the quiz in Intro to Ethics has been postponed until Monday.  

Next assignments

Next Friday, February 24: Quiz 1, covering all material until the quiz.

 

For Friday: make a list of reasons that people give to think that homosexuality is wrong.

               For fun and good practice, formulate these reasons as logically valid arguments:

1. Premise:
2. Premise:
3. Conclusion: Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

For Monday, read EMP Ch 3- Topics: Simple Subjectivism/Emotivism and HOMOSEXUALITY

Due this Monday, February 20: Create a detailed study guide covering all material, readings and concepts thusfar. This is for your benefit, so you want it to be comprehensive and detailed.

                             

 

I want to  make clear that chapter summaries can also be outlines: either would be fine.

Also, many people are not summarizing or outlining the whole chapter and/or providing adequate details about the chapter. Something that could help ensure that you have adequate details is this: suppose there was going to be a test over any aspects of the chapter and you could use your summary/outline for the test. Make your outline/summary as detailed as you'd want it to be to use for this test!

For Monday, re-read EMP Ch 2.


Read this article: "What's Culture Got to Do with it? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision"  

Do some YouTube research on "female genital mutilation" and/or "female circumcision."

Read this on how to write a philosophy paper:
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 

Dear Students,

For Monday, please re-read EMP Ch. 1. We will finish discussing those cases and the themes of that chapter Monday.

Let's move the EMP Ch. 2 detailed summary assignment to a Wednesday due date.


Thanks, NN