Remaining Schedule

Below is a schedule of remaining events;
Also, how about we extend the due date for today's paper? If you would like, you can take more time with that. I hope that will lead to a better paper. Feel free to send me drafts!

Optional review session this Friday at 10 AM. 

Graduating seniors:
You can take your final exam EITHER at a regular exam time (see below) OR at Friday at noon, in the classroom at Sale Hall OR at either of these times:

Monday, May 6th, 8:00 AM - 10:00 AM

Wednesday, May 8th, 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM

Senior grades are due by Thursday May 9 at noon. Therefore, Dr. Nobis must receive any and all remaining assignments from you by Wednesday, May 8 at 5 PM IN HARDCOPY AND BY TURNITIN. NO EXCEPTIONS.

If you are a graduating senior, please clearly mark that on all remaining work and your final exam/quiz.

See blog for remaining assignments, in case you have missed those.


Students who are not Graduating seniors:
You can take the final exam at EITHER of these times:

For the 1:00 PM class:
Monday, May 6th
8:00 AM - 10:00 AM

For the 12:00 PM class:
Wednesday, May 8th
1:00 PM - 3:00 PM

Dr. Nobis must receive any and all remaining assignments from NON-GRADUATING SENIORS [non-graduating seniors = everyone who is not a graduating senior] by THURSDAY MAY 9 at 5 PM IN HARDCOPY AND BY TURNITIN. NO EXCEPTIONS.

See blog for remaining assignments, in case you have missed those.

EXTRA CREDIT ASSIGNMENT: TOP TEN LIST: due at due date above.


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

Some videos and organizations:

The great debate!
 

Another good overview video:

Some organizations:
Farm Sanctuary: http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory-farming/
Mercy for Animals: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/ 

The Animal Agriculture Alliance: http://www.animalagalliance.org/current/index.cfm

Kant reading and writing assignment: you can turn that in Monday, if you'd like. See below.

Remaining assignments:

Recall that you have already been asked to read the following (see below):
- Singer, "Animal Liberation" (in RTD and online)
- Norcross, "Torturing Puppies and Eating Meat: It's all in good taste" (in RTD and online)
- John Simmons, "Reasonable Humans and Animals" (online ) http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/veg.pdf

Michael Huemer, "American's Unjust Drug War" (in RTD and online). See also Michelle Alexander, "The New Jim Crow"

James Rachels, article on euthanasia in RTD and the better article "Active and Passive Euthanasia" (online)

MONDAY:

Monday, we will talk about drugs (and justice). Please re-read Rachels, Huemer's essay and videos of Michelle Alexander discuss her book "The New Jim Crow ."

WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY WE WILL DISCUSS THE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS. 
Please first read Simmons and then the other readings.

1. Remaining reading:

Due next Friday, April 26, in class and via Turnitin. Read and write detailed summaries of the two chapters on Kant's ethics. These chapters are entitled "Are there absolute moral rules?" and "Kant and Respect for Persons."

2. Paper due final day of class:
Due final day of class: I would like you to revisit the topic of your very first paper. In your paper on homosexuality, I asked you to write a "methods section" that would explain how to find and evaluate moral arguments. (Some people did not do this and their paper's grade suffered because of that). I would like you to return to your first topic to apply those argument analysis skills to that topic. I would like you to address at least five arguments about that topic, all in logically valid form, and explain whether they are sound or not. Some (at least two) of these arguments must come from Rachels' The Elements of Moral Philosophy and you must cite that book in a scholarly appropriate way.

Your paper should be well organized, grammatical, with an introduction and a thesis (e.g., "I will argue that doing X is morally permissible," or "I will argue that doing Y is wrong."). It should be something that a smart person not familiar with your topic could read, understand and learn from.

If your first paper was on the topic of homosexuality *or* eating meat, please see Dr. Nobis to devise an alternative assignment, since we don't want a student doing two papers at the end of the semester on the same topic.

Length: likely 3-5 pages.

3. Final paper, due at the time of the final exam:
Topic: Eating Meat.
Question: Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Present the argument(s) - in logically valid form - from John Simmons, Alastair Norcross and/or Peter Singer for the conclusion that eating meat is morally wrong (or, the conclusion that that it's wrong to raise, kill and eat chickens, pigs and cows for food). Raise and respond to at least five objections to that argument, all stated in logically valid form; explain whether the objections are sound arguments or not either for the view that eating meat is not wrong and/or that Simmons', Norcross and/or Singer's arguments are unsound.

This must be submitted via Turnitin and in class, in hardcopy, as always.

Your essay must conform to the guidance on writing philosophy given by Vaughn and Pryor. Your paper should be well organized, grammatical, with an introduction and a thesis (e.g., "I will argue that doing X is morally permissible," or "I will argue that doing Y is wrong."). It should be something that a smart person not familiar with your topic could read, understand and learn from.

Length: likely 4-6 pages. 

4. Final quiz:
A final quiz, on the last section of readings and discussions, at the time of the final exam.


5. EXTRA CREDIT ASSIGNMENT: TOP TEN LIST: due at due date above. 


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

Some videos about global poverty

http://youtu.be/onsIdBanynY A question: should you be more concerned about poverty in the US or global poverty? Singer's response:

Readings and writing assignments for Wednesday:

Reading and writings (i.e., detailed summaries OR DETAILED OUTLINES, AND OUTLINES ARE LIKELY BETTER! :) ) for Wednesday:

EMP chapter on Ethical Egoism

EMP FIRST chapter on Utilitarianism

Extra credit: SECOND chapter on Utilitarianism

Make sure you also read "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," in RTD and widely reprinted online.
Please look carefully at these pages:
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com 
On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheLifeYouCanSave
http://thetendollarclub.org/ 
On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-10-Club/149233399675

Here is the argument worksheet on some poverty-related arguments:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B97NLmtzSgh_VHdOT1VnX19NOVk/edit?usp=sharing 
A powerpoint: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B97NLmtzSgh_MzBrcEU3emtKelE/edit?usp=sharing

Flyer: "I took Intro to Ethics and all I did was save a child's life!" https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B97NLmtzSgh_QzNXS1c1S3NRY2M/edit?usp=sharing

New Readings and topics

Here are the readings and topics we will be working through for a few weeks:

EMP chapter on Ethical Egoism and Poverty
- Related reading, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," in RTD and widely reprinted online

EMP chapter on Utilitarianism and drugs, euthanasia (mercy killing) and the treatment of animals
- Related readings, in RTD and widely reposted online:
- Singer, "Animal Liberation" (in RTD and online)
- Norcross, "Torturing Puppies and Eating Meat: It's all in good taste" (in RTD and online)
- John Simmons, "Reasonable Humans and Animals" (online: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/veg.pdf 

Michael Huemer, "American's Unjust Drug War" (in RTD and online). See also Michael Alexander, "The New Jim Crow"

James Rachels, article on euthanasia in RTD and the better article "Active and Passive Euthanasia" (online)

Announcements

1. Quiz 2 Monday. Study guide due for quiz 2 Monday too, due in class and via Turnitin. You are encouraged to Please see below.
2. No class Friday: please work on your study guide, study for the quiz, etc.
 3. Today, this powerpoint: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B97NLmtzSgh_R2tpdXd4Zkh3OEU/edit?usp=sharing
4. Read "The Famous Violinist" example from Judith Thompson's famous article "A Defense of Abortion," widely available online. 
5. For Monday, read this short article by MOREHOUSE MAN Abubakarr Sidique Jarr-Koroma and Nathan Nobis (2010) "Abortion and Moral Arguments From Analogy," The American Journal of Bioethics, 10: 12, 59 — 61. Here he develops his famous "Lottery and Party for the Violinist" example.

Some philosophical events this Friday and weekend

Friday there is a conference on animals and ethics at Emory:

http://ethics.emory.edu/pillars/health_sciences/Animal_Conference.html 

There is a student philosophy conference at GSU Saturday. The program is here and below:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/11iYW1OAE8fuxGVFkwfQ_yBdTCMSjiZ2LiT3RRPnQ3ZBU0trf4GcHkq_6g8e7/edit?usp=sharing

There is also an event Friday night featuring the well known and highly entertaining philosopher Alastair Norcross. Info here and below:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1swAFFqT85kaO0gRsDxeU6cgLzNyrEL3_bVHqTcurvvRx79QuVD83YM9jL1Si/edit?usp=sharing

Pre-Quiz

A pre-quiz:

Suppose someone said, "Abortion is wrong because fetuses are alive," or "Abortion is wrong because fetuses are human beings."

Please formulate either of these arguments in logically valid form and fully explain why they are sound or not. 

Your next quiz is next Monday, April 8. This was announced below.
Your writing assignment, due then, is to construct a detailed study guide covering all the readings, handout and argument discussed since last quiz. Your study guide is due at classtime Monday in hardcopy and via Turnitin.

Extra Credit

An extra credit assignment: Detailed, detailed summary of this entire (long) article:  
Regan, “Patterns of Resistance,” Due by Monday, April 22, in class and via Turnitin:

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

Reminders; change for date of quiz 2!

 Reminders that were posted below below:

 

3. New writing (and some reading) assignment for next Wednesday, March 27: read or re-read EMP Ch 3 and 4 and write detailed summaries of them both. Also, read Mary Anne Warren's "The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion," in RTD and write a detailed summary of that. These should all be submitted to Turnitin and turned in in class. 

4. We will have our second quiz soon. It will be on MONDAY, APRIL 8 - NOTE CHANGE -  and cover everything since the last quiz: mostly EMP 3 & 4, as well as all the related materials. A focus of this will be adding premises to make arguments logically valid and explaining whether arguments are sound or not. 

 

Here is an abortion argument worksheet that we are working through:

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/abortion-worksheet.pdf

Late Homework Option

In the spirit of the season, I decided that I would offer a short period of "homework forgiveness."

Here's how it will work.

Three slots will be opened on Turnitin. In these slots you may submit any 5 point written assignment, thus, anything except for the recent blog/paper on homosexuality - that you might have not completed or you did not do as well on it, grade-wise, as you would like. You must also turn these assignments in, in hardcopy, by Monday, April 1, in class.

No late work will be accepted: absolutely none. And, any work not turned in hardcopy in proper format, with email, class time, and Turnitin receipt will not be considered.

This work will be graded on the basis of quality and quantity, its being complete and detailed, among other considerations.

Insights from the Fred Feldman page abortion:

1.     Precision: - all (actual)? Some? Which? All possible?

2.     Meaning.. what do you mean?

3.     Logically valid arguments

An action is “prima facie” wrong = wrong unless extreme circumstances justify it

      Contrast w/ “absolutely” or “necessarily” wrong..

Suppose someone says that they believe that, “Abortion is prima facie wrong.”
 If you asked them, “Why do you think that?” what reasons would they give?

Updates, new assignments, quiz, etc.

1. Your paper or blog/webpage on arguments about homosexuality is now due next Monday, March 25, instead of this Friday. This was extended on Monday. And, please upload your project to Turnitin: if you do a blog, do your best to cut and paste the relevant sections into a document to upload.

2. Monday we discussed an article on gun control - 

The N.R.A.’s Blockade on Science - 

by philosopher Gary Gutting from the NY Times. We will look at some of the other articles in this series soon, especially 

Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough

By JEFF MCMAHAN

3. New writing (and some reading) assignment for next Wednesday, March 27: read or re-read EMP Ch 3 and 4 and write detailed summaries of them both. Also, read Mary Anne Warren's "The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion," in RTD and write a detailed summary of that. These should all be submitted to Turnitin and turned in in class. 

4. We will have our second quiz soon. It will be on  MONDAY, APRIL 8 - NOTE CHANGE and cover everything since the last quiz: mostly EMP 3 & 4, as well as all the related materials. A focus of this will be adding premises to make arguments logically valid and explaining whether arguments are sound or not. 

5. A handout for today: a page from philosopher Fred Feldman on abortion.

Mid Course Survey!

Survey!

Paper /project assignment 1, with some of options. All due Friday, March 22.

Paper /project assignment 1, with some of options. All due Friday, March 22.

First, re-read Vaughn on writing  philosophy and this article by James Pryor, "Guidelines on writing a philosophy paper": http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 

Option 1: Individual philosophical paper or educational webpage/blog where you address all the aspects of the assignment below.

Option 2: Group project:

The purpose for this assignment is for you to construct a public online teaching tool to help people better find and evaluate moral arguments and then apply this guidance to the issue of homosexuality. (Your teaching tool can, and probably will, be used with other issues later in the semester ). Create your own group of 2 or 3 students. Create a webpage or blog (on Blogger, Wordpress, Google Sites, wherever) where you present and evaluate at least five arguments for the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong.

You must also explain the methods that you will use to evaluate these arguments, in terms of finding conclusions, finding premises, making the arguments valid and identifying whether the arguments are sound or not (including using counterexamples to try to argument that general moral premises are false). That is, you must explain *how* someone would think about moral issues and explain the methods that we’ve used in this class.

On your page(s), you must:

- Identify what you mean by the claim that 'homosexuality is wrong'; this might be different for different arguments.
- Identify at least five arguments for that conclusion: pick arguments that you think are interesting, common and/or influential.
- State these arguments in logically valid form.
For each argument, explain whether each premise is true or false and so whether the argument is sound or not.

Your webpage/blog should have an introduction and a conclusion and so forth.

The purpose for this assignment, instead of a paper, is for you to construct a public teaching tool to help people better find and evaluate moral arguments and then apply it to the issue of homosexuality. (Your teaching tool can, and probably will, be used with other issues later in the semester!).

Please email Dr. Nobis the URL, post a link to your page on the blog (below this post) and bring a printout of the page to class! Make it very, very clear who is part of your group.

Some notes on syllogisms

Please read this:

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

BELOW WE COMPARED MAKING THESE ARGUMENTS LOGICALLY VALID BY WAY OF ADDING A GENERAL PREMISE, TO FORM A SYLLOGISM, VERSUS ADDING A PREMISE TO MAKE A MODUS PONENS ARGUMENT. 

Please make these arguments logically valid:

1.     Socrates is a man. If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

2.     All men are mortal. = Any man is mortal. = If someone is a man, then that someone is mortal. = If X is a man, then X is mortal [ALL, ANY , IF-THEN]

3.     Therefore Socrates is mortal.

4.     Suzy is a Spelman student. If Suzy is Spelman student, then Suzy plays PP.

5.      All Spelmanites play PP. If Suzy goes to Spelman, then she plays PP. Anyone who is a Sp.. plays PP.

6.     Therefore, Suzy plays ping pong.

7.     Running is a sport. IF running is a sport, then running is dangerous.

8.     All sports are dangerous. Any … If activity X is a sport , then X is dangerous.

9.     Therefore, running is dangerous.

10.  Onions are fruits.All fruits are healthy. Anything that’s a fruit is healthy. If something is a fruit, then it’s healthy (If a food is fruit, then it’s healthy)

11.  Therefore, onions are healthy.

------------------------------

1.     Homosexual sex is not reproductive.

2.     All sex that is not reproductive is wrong. = If a sexual behavior is not reproductive then it’s wrong. = Any sexual behavior that’s not reproductive is wrong . F

3.     Therefore, it’s wrong.

Homosexual sex isn’t reproductive. T

All (any) sexual behavior that is not reproductive is wrong =

If a sexual act is not reproductive, then it’s wrong. F

Therefore, homosexual sex is wrong.

1.      

2.     Socrates is a man.      If Socrates is a man, then he’s mortal.

3.     All men are mortal. =

If X is a man, then X  is mortal.

            Therefore, Socrates is mortal

4.     Suzy is a Spelman student. If Suzy is a Spelman student, then she plays PP.

5.     All Spelman students play ping pong.

Therefore, Suzy plays ping pong.

6.     Running is a sport [?]. If X is a sport, then X is dangerous. F If running is a sport, then it’s dangerous.

Therefore, running is dangerous.

7.     Onions are fruits (f). All / any  / if -> then (all?) (some?) Fruit is healthy ??

8.     If onions are fruits, then they are healthy to eat­­.

Therefore, onions are healthy to eat.

A video on syllogisms