Day 1, Day 3 activities

Our discussion of the three little sample arguments from day 1 is found in this paper:
"Rational Engagement, Emotional Response and the Prospects for Progress in Animal Use 'Debates'" (in WORD) for Jeremy Garrett, ed., Animal Research in Theory and Practice (MIT Basic Bioethics Series. 2009). [Final version , shortened a bit]. Here's a draft of an APPENDIX that addresses more arguments. 

The moral theory building exercise is discussed here, as are other intro to ethics matters:
http://ethicsandanimals.googlepages.com/lectures.htm#_Lecture_1:_Introduction 

Philosophical Ethics, Summer 2009

Philosophical Ethics, Summer 2009

http://philosophy302.blogspot.com

Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 48201 - HPHI 302G - 01

Class 10:30 am - 11:50 am MTWRF Sale Hall 110 Jun 02, 2009 - Jul 15, 2009

Instructor: Dr. Nathan Nobis (nathan.nobis@gmail.com)

Office: Philosophy & Religion Department, Sale Hall 113

Office Hours: before and after class and by appointment

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

Syllabus: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/302summer2009.pdf

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

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.

Required course materials:

James and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 5^th Ed. [EMP]

James and Stuart Rachels, eds. The Right Thing to Do, 4^th Ed. [RTD]

ANY EDITION OF THESE BOOKS WILL DO: SEE AMAZON.COM OR ABEBOOKS.COM FOR USED COPIES

Lewis Vaughn, Writing Philosophy: A Students Guide to Writing Philosophy Essays [WP].

Written Requirements / Assignments:

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

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

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

4. Two Exams, Midterm and Final:

• All of lecture, discussion and reading content is fair game. Study guides will be available online with possible questions for each exam to help focus your studying. Exams will mostly be short answer and short essay questions. (25 points each; 50 points total).

Rules:

Nearly always come to class. Be on time. Do the reading, carefully. Be prepared. Take the time to do a very good job on everything we do. Bring your materials, always. Contribute to class discussion. Ask questions. Do not plagiarize or cheat in any way: if you do, you will fail the course immediately. Have fun, learn a lot, and grow to become a more ethically engaged person!

First assignments:

Readings should be done in advance for the day assigned. Exact readings and assignments will be announced in class and posted on the course blog/webpage at http://philosophy302.blogspot.com. If you come to class, you should know exactly what the current assignments are. Once enrollment settles, I will provide a calendar of assignments as well.

• Get the books and needed materials.
• Sign up for the email announcement group here: http://groups.google.com/group/philosophy302/

First reading assignments; dates TBA:

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

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

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

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

o Rachels, RTD: Ch.1 “A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf Writing assignment: which theory or theories are best and why? 2 pages

o Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (EMP) OPS Writing Assignment on the arguments in favor of killing Teresa, separating the twins and killing Tracey (!!)

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

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

EMP Table of Contents Preface ix About the Sixth Edition xi 1. WHAT IS MORALITY? 1.1. The Problem of Definition 1 1.2. First Example: Baby Theresa 1 1.3. Second Example: Jodie and Mary 5 1.4. Third Example: Tracy Latimer 7 1.5. Reason and Impartiality 10 1.6. The Minimum Conception of Morality 13 2. THE CHALLENGE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM 2.1. Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes 14 2.2. Cultural Relativism 16 2.3. The Cultural Differences Argument 17 2.4. What Follows from Cultural Relativism Seriously 19 2.5. Why There Is Less Disagreement Than It Seems 21 2.6. Some Values Are Shared by All Cultures 23 2.7. Judging a Cultural Practice to Be Undesirable 24 2.8. Back to the Five Claims 27 2.9. What We Can Learn from Cultural Relativism 29 3. SUBJECTIVISM IN ETHICS 3.1. The Basic Idea of Ethical Subjectivism 32 3.2. The Evolution of the Theory 33 3.3. The First Stage: Simple Subjectivism 34 3.4. The Second Stage: Emotivism 36 3.5. The Role of Reason in Ethics 39 3.6. Are There Proofs in Ethics? 41 3.7. The Question of Homosexuality 44 4. DOES MORALITY DEPEND ON RELIGION? 4.1. The Presumed Connection Between Morality and Religion 48 4.2. The Divine Command Theory 50 4.3. The Theory of Natural Law 53 4.4. Religion and Particular Moral Issues 57 5. ETHICAL EGOISM 5.1. Is There a Duty to Help Starving People? 62 5.2. Psychological Egoism 63 5.3. Three Arguments for Ethical Egoism 69 5.4. Three Arguments against Ethical Egoism 74 6. THE IDEA OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT 6.1. Hobbes's Argument 80 6.2. The Prisoner's Dilemma 83 6.3. Some Advantages of the Social Contract Theory 87 6.4. The Problem of Civil Disobedience 90 6.5. Difficulties for the Theory 93 7. THE UTILITARIAN APPROACH 7.1. The Revolution in Ethics 97 7.2. First Example: Euthanasia 98 7.3. Second Example: Marijuana 101 7.4. Third Example: Nonhuman Animals 104 8. THE DEBATE OVER UTILITARIANISM 8.1. The Classical Version of the Theory 109 8.2. Is Pleasure the Only Thing That Matters? 109 8.3. Are Consequences All That Matter? 111 8.4. Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone? 115 8.5. The Defense of Utilitarianism 116 8.6. Concluding Thoughts 122 9. ARE THERE ABSOLUTE MORAL RULES? 9.1. Harry Truman and Elizabeth Anscombe 124 9.2. The Categorical Imperative 127 9.3. Kant's Arguments on Lying 129 9.4. Conflicts between Rules 132 9.5. Kant's Insight 133 10. KANT AND RESPECT FOR PERSONS 10.1. Kant's Core Ideas 136 10.2. Retribution and Utility in the Theory of Punishment 139 10.3. Kant's Retributivism 141 11. FEMINISM AND THE ETHICS OF CARE 11.1. Do Women and Men Think Differently about Ethics? 146 11.2. Implications for Moral Judgment 152 11.3. Implications for Ethical Theory 156 12. THE ETHICS OF VIRTUE 12.1. The Ethics of Virtue and the Ethics of Right Action 158 12.2. The Virtues 160 12.3. Two Advantages of Virtue Theory 168 12.4. Virtue and Conduct 169 12.5. The Problem of Incompleteness 186 12.6. Conclusion 172 13. WHAT WOULD A SATISFACTORY MORAL THEORY BE LIKE? 13.1. Morality without Hubris 173 13.2. Treating People as They Deserve 175 13.3. A Variety of Motives 176 13.4. Multiple-Strategies Utilitarianism 177 13.5. The Moral Community 180 13.6. Justice and Fairness 181 13.7. Conclusion 183

RTD Table of Contents Preface v INTRODUCTION 1. A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy James Rachels 1 2. Some Basic Points About Arguments James Rachels 20 UTILITARIANISM 3. Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill 29 4. Utilitarianism and Integrity Bernard Williams 40 5. The Experience Machine Robert Nozick 46 OTHER THEORETICAL ESSAYS 6. The Subjectivity of Values J. L. Mackie 49 7. The Categorical Imperative Immanuel Kant 61 8. The Virtues Aristotle 67 9. Master Morality and Slave Morality Friedrich Nietzsche 74 10. Caring Relations and Principles of Justice Virginia Held 78 ABORTION 11. Why Abortion is Immoral Don Marquis 85 12. A Defense of Abortion Judith Jarvis Thomson 92 13. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion and Postscript on Infanticide Mary Anne Warren 109 ANIMALS 14. All Animals Are Equal Peter Singer 120 15. Torturing Puppies and Eating Meat: It's All in Good Taste Alastair Norcross 130 16. Do Animals Have Rights? Tibor R. Machan 138 STARVATION 17. 9/11 and Starvation Mylan Engel, Jr. 151 18. The Singer Solution to World Poverty Peter Singer 154 WAR, TERRORISM, AND TORTURE 19. The Ethics of War and Peace Douglas P. Lackey 161 20. Fifty Years after Hiroshima John Rawls 170 21. What Is Wrong with Terrorism? Thomas Nagel 178 22. The War on Terrorism and the End of Human Rights David Luban 181 23. Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Time Bomb David Luban 189 THE DEATH PENALTY 24. A Defense of the Death Penalty Louis P. Pojman 203 25. Why the United States Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment Stephen B. Bright 211 SEX AND DRUGS 26. America's Unjust Drug War Michael Huemer 223 27. Is Homosexuality Unnatural? Burton M. Leiser 237 28. Monogamy: A Critique John McMurtry 246 29. Our Sexual Ethics Bertrand Russell 253 30. Alcohol and Rape Nicholas Dixon 260 RACE 31. Letter from the Birmingham City Jail Martin Luther King, Jr. 271 32. Is Racial Discrimination Arbitrary? Peter Singer 279 33. In Defense of Quotas James Rachels 291 BIOETHICS 34. The Morality of Euthanasia James Rachels 306 35. Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life? Richard Doerflinger 311 36. The New Eugenics Matt Ridley 321

Study Guide for Final Exam : Study Groups Encouraged!!

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 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 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. 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, potential things 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 against abortion 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 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.

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

What is ethical egoism? (If someone is an ethical egoist, what exactly does he or she believe?)
• Present at least two logically valid arguments against ethical egoism, i.e., for the conclusion that ethical egoism is false.
• Are these arguments sound or not? Explain and defend your view.

Famine / poverty aid:
• What is Singer’s argument regarding famine aid issues? Be able to present his complete argument in a logically valid form. You will need to know the details.

What role do the examples of the pond/pool, Dora and Bob play in his argument? (i.e., why does he discuss these examples?)
• Be able to present at least 5 objections to Singer’s argument in logically valid form. Since identifying the unstated assumptions behind these arguments was our focus, these objections should be made as logically valid arguments; you’ll need to explain why these arguments are sound or unsound (i.e., why at least one premise is false) and/or defend their premises. Simply asserting that Singer is wrong, or that we have no such obligations, or other responses – without giving reasons and defending them – will be inadequate.
You might find this Powerpoint interesting: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/famine.ppt
And there’s a video here: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/teaching

Animals
Questions on the arguments from Singer's "All Animals Are Equal" and Simmons' "Reasonable Humans and Animals"

Singer on racism, sexism, "intelligence"-ism and speciesism,

· According to Singer, racists and sexists violate “the fundamental principle of equality.” Explain what this principle is and how they violate this principle. Explain what interests are. Fully explain how Singer argues this principle applies to animals.

· Why, according to Singer, would we not want to tie our opposition to racism and sexism to “factual equality?” This addresses a response to racism and sexism that Singer thinks we wouldn’t want to accept.

· Singer discusses a number of other hypotheses to explain why racism and sexism are wrong. What are these other hypotheses? Why are they not good explanations for why racism is wrong, according to Singer?

· Why, according to Singer’s reasoning, is it wrong that animals are raised and killed to be eaten, worn and experimented on? (His reasoning is not that they have “rights”). Is his reasoning sound? Why or why not?

· What is “speciesism” according to Singer? Why is it wrong, according to Singer? Is he right?

· Singer gives a principle for when an experiment on an animal would be morally acceptable. What is his suggestion? Is he right? Why or why not?

Simmons:

· Be able to present and explain – in valid, premise-conclusion form -- John Simmons’ argument from the article “Reasonable Humans and Animals.” http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/veg.pdf

· Be able to present ten objections to Simmons’ argument in logically valid form, where all the premises are clearly stated, and evaluate these objections with reasons. At least 50 objections are here: http://philosophy302.blogspot.com/2007/04/worksheet-some-responses-to-singers.html

Paper 4: Topic: Racism, Sexism and Speciesism

Paper 5: Extra Credit: Top 10 List for How To Address Moral Issues

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

– Philosopher Bernard Rollin

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

4-5 PAGES, DUE AT TIME OF THE FINAL, IN CLASS AND THROUGH TURNITIN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAPER 5: EXTRA CREDIT: Top 10 List for How To Address Moral Issues

DUE AT TIME OF THE FINAL, IN CLASS AND THROUGH TURNITIN

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