Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Dr. Franklin on our issues..

http://www.morehouse.edu/about/franklinspeeches/facingtherisingsun.html

Facing the Rising Sun: A New Day Begun

Opening Convocation - September 20, 2007


NOTE: Download times may vary according to your connection speed. This QuickTime movie is 59 megabytes.


Download the Audio and Video Podcasts
Watch Watch (m4v; 111 MB)
ListenListen (mp3; 34 MB)
*Please right-click (control-click on a Macintosh) the link to display your browser's "save as" options.



Board chairman, Attorney Willie “Flash” Davis, trustees, faculty, staff, alumni, friends and our most cherished resource, the students of Morehouse College. I would like to welcome all of you to this grand convocation of the academic year of 2007-08. I begin also by paying abiding tribute to President Emeritus Walter E. Massey and First Lady Shirley Massey. Their legacy of service, leadership and love for Morehouse is everywhere evident and our great college is so much stronger today.

Many new faculty members joined Morehouse this year; I’d like them to stand and be recognized. We celebrate new faculty and staff especially for the new energy and creativity that they bring. But, we acknowledge and affirm with great appreciation those faculty and staff who have invested many years in the Morehouse mission. Will all our faculty and staff please stand.

Among my fondest memories, indeed, the best memories of any alumnus, are the teachers who made Morehouse special. Indeed, I feel their presence here and now: Brisbane, Watson, Jones, Grant, E.B. Williams, McBay, Mapp, Kelsey, Barbour, Hume, Gloster, Nix, Brazeal, Haynes, E.A. Jones, Whalum, Sam Williams, and so many others. And, I would add, the staff who spent long years serving this College, Agnes Watson, Pop Warner, Hugh Gloster, Leroy Keith and Wiley Purdue.

Most of the teachers and staff were brilliant, some a bit colorful and quirky, but all of them loved Morehouse and they seemed to understand precisely why excellence at Morehouse was so important. They understood that by educating one young man well, they were making a long-term investment in the future of our families, the well being of our village, the vitality of our sanctuaries, the wealth of nations, and the betterment of humanity. Today, on behalf of the great faculty and staff of yesterday and of those who gather today, I ask and expect all employees to rededicate themselves to the core mission of Morehouse: the education of tomorrow’s leaders.

This is Convocation. At the root of the verb ‘convoke’ in Latin is the word ‘vocare,’ which means ‘to call’ as in vocation or calling. Note the related terms, ‘invoke’ or ‘invocation’ means to “call in” as with a prayer. “Evoke” means to “call out”. And, “revoke” means to “call back,” (something we never want to have to do with your degree). Today, we convoke, “call together.”

And what is the purpose of calling together at this time? At the beginning of an academic year, it is our good habit to re-affirm our institutional mission of liberal arts education, and, this year, to engage the vision of a new president.

But, before sharing vision language, I dare not go any further without a special word of appreciation for you, the men of Morehouse. I’d like the men of the senior class to stand and be acknowledged as the next wave of Morehouse Men. In eight or ten short months, these men will go forth to lead, study and serve.

To the entire student body, let me say that you do not know how much I admire you. And, indeed, how much all of us appreciate your presence. As I travel about, I brag about you. And, when things are not right on this campus, my equilibrium is disturbed and my impatience grows over every missed opportunity to achieve excellence. You, my brothers, are what Morehouse is all about. Many of you have come here against great odds, resisting every sort of obstacle and discouragement. You have defied the negative stereotypes and ignored all the odds. Now, we are privileged and obligated to provide a first-class education!

My vision for Morehouse builds upon that of my distinguished predecessor. Indeed, President Massey called us to the sort of excellence that would place us among the finest liberal arts colleges in the nation. Judging from most indicators, we have made significant progress toward that goal. Like every human institution, we have improvements that can be made and we will pull together to accomplish that! Only those who are looking far and looking forward will be in a position to seize tomorrow’s opportunities. So, let us imagine in order that we may plan and execute more than excellence – indeed, realize our greatest “in posse” - our greatest possibilities.

Our historical mission has been to provide an excellent liberal arts education primarily to African American men. I like to talk about this as the Morehouse mission of performing miracles with young men—of achieving Ivy League results with HBCU resources. We do this through four key practices:

  • projecting high expectations
  • supporting those expectations through group mentoring that includes faculty, staff, alums, chaplains and community leaders
  • focusing on the comprehensive development of the student, cognitive, character and physical development, and,
  • exposing our students to inspiring role models, most of them our alumni.

That has been “the Morehouse way” and that will certainly remain our core mission and strategy as we continue to build strength in that zone. Morehouse has become a national convener of individuals and institutions concerned with the plight and prospects of black men.

We have an opportunity to become the nation’s leading clearinghouse on research and leadership development aimed at fostering positive outcomes for black boys and men. This opportunity will require careful planning and investment of resources to ensure that we complement rather than compete with our core identity as a liberal arts college.

Our mission is profoundly rooted in our heritage, and my vision builds on that firm foundation to seize new possibilities on a golden horizon.

Consider the context for this vision. A few years ago, there was an Internet thought-exercise titled, “Something to think about.” It asked the reader to shrink the earth’s entire population to 100 people, with all the existing human demographic ratios remaining the same. This is not what we might look like or could look like, but what there actually would be – given the test population size. (Although it is several years old now, and some ratios may have changed, still it makes the point effectively.) The test indicates our breakdown would consist of:

57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 from North and South America
and 8 Africans.
52 would be female
48 would be male
70 would be darker skinned people, 30 white people
70 would be from a religious tradition other than Christianity
30 would be Christian
89 would be heterosexual
11 would be homosexual
59% of the entire world's wealth would belong to only 6 people and all 6 would be citizens of the United States,
80 would live in substandard housing
70 would be unable to read
50 would suffer from malnutrition
1 would be near death
1 would be near birth
Only 1 would have a college education,
99 of them would not see this message, because only 1 would have a computer. Then, it concludes:
“When one considers our world from such a compressed perspective, the need for both acceptance and understanding becomes glaringly apparent.”

My vision is that Morehouse will become a global resource for educated and ethical leaders.

In our post 9/11 state of affairs, engaging the world with intelligence and integrity is the ultimate ethical challenge and opportunity. Working to create a just America is important, but it will be for naught if the rest of the world regards us with contempt because we failed to share our material and intellectual prosperity. In short, this nation and Western civilization need ambassadors who possess and promote enlightenment, integrity and peace predicated upon justice.

These are the very things our greatest and most generous alumnus did as he offered his life in service to others. I am convinced that we can and should pursue this course because it is in our institutional DNA. Morehouse leaders have always been far-sighted and focused on the global arena. From the era of President John Hope’s tours abroad to monitor black soldiers in Europe, to Benjamin Mays’s service at the World Council of Churches, to Walter Massey’s advocacy for peaceful applications of science to global problems, Morehouse has been and should be a force for good both here in “zip code 30314” and on the far side of the earth.

Although the field of institutions engaged in Internationalization is crowded, this faculty has begun to catalogue and clarify the Morehouse advantage here. I have learned much from them in reading and listening to discussions about our Quality Enhancement Project for our reaffirmation of accreditation in which the topic of ‘Internationalization’ has emerged as a priority. Moreover, the Morehouse faculty and student body are wonderfully diverse and will continue to include more international voices and perspectives. I celebrate the many students from Asia, Africa, South America, the Caribbean, and Europe who have chosen Morehouse as a college home.

Every college or university has its own unique ecology in which liberal arts education occurs. For Morehouse, we have a solid liberal arts curriculum organized into three divisions, guided by capable and committed teachers, researchers, scholars and public intellectuals. Our solid liberal arts core is complemented and buttressed by a variety of exciting and innovative centers, institutes and programs. I want all of these moving parts to work together like the high performance engine of a Porsche 911 (the finest sports car ever made). Working together requires that we communicate effectively across institutional boundaries. We cannot seize the future working in separate silos with little curiosity or openness to learning from our colleagues or to sharing ideas and information with them.

What is unique about Morehouse in the arena of educating thinkers and leaders for the global reality?

In addition to our institutional DNA, consider the message of our landscape. The Morehouse campus is situated within certain sacred landmarks that define our legacy and our destiny. Everything we do on this campus happens between the pointing finger of Martin Luther King Jr. at one end of campus and the far-looking gaze of Mays at the other end of campus.

Mays’s gaze seems to invite us to focus on the purpose and destiny of Morehouse men. King’s pointing finger seems to direct us toward the front lines of the social crisis where we are most needed. But, look again, Mays appears to be peering out at President John Hope, who stands watch over the old front gate, warning all who enter here to abandon their egos. King stands tall, but he is flanked on one side by theologian and alumnus Howard Thurman who was Dr. King’s chaplain at Boston University, and on the other side by Hugh Gloster, the architect of the modern Morehouse.

A mere walk through the campus is an encounter with greatness. You cannot walk to your classroom or the cafeteria without bumping into a Morehouse monument that evokes your possibility and invokes your responsibility. No other campus in America has these campus monitors and monuments calling us beyond ourselves.

In advancing our historical commitment to embracing a global mandate, there are three readings from the Morehouse College King Papers Collection that I would like every student, faculty member, staff person and trustee to read. First, King’s early sermon, “Three Dimensions of a Complete Life.” I believe this was a foundational message for him and many sermons emanated from it, including his Nobel Peace lecture.

Second, the justly famous, “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” It illustrates what a Morehouse Man can produce when he is suddenly, rudely locked away from the world without books, and must draw from his own inner resources. What could you produce if you were incarcerated unjustly for a week or two? King’s letter is an extraordinary moral treatise and response to racism and ignorance and would inspire the students who protest today in Jena, La. We pay tribute to them.

And third, the last chapter of his final book titled, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? That short chapter is titled, “The World House.”

That one is my focus here. In it, alumnus King opens with the story of how a novelist died and among his papers were suggestions for future stories. One of the most prominently highlighted suggestions was the following: ‘A widely separated family inherits a house in which they have to live together…,’ King says.

This is the great new problem of humankind. We have inherited a large house, a great world house in which we have to live together__black and white, Easterner and Westerner, Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Hindu__a family unduly separated in ideas, culture and interest, who, because we can never again live apart, must learn somehow to live with each other in peace. (195)

Then, in my favorite quote, he says:

All people are interdependent…(W)hether we realize it or not, each of us lives eternally “in the red.” We are everlasting debtors to known and unknown men and women. When we arise in the morning, we go into the bathroom where we reach for a sponge which is provided for us by a Pacific Islander. We reach for soap that is created for us by a European. Then at the table we drink coffee which is provided for us by a South American, or tea by a Chinese or cocoa by a West African. Before we leave for our jobs we are already beholden to more than half of the world… All life is interrelated. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. (211)

This is how Alumnus Dr. King focused on our inescapable global responsibility.

I will forever be grateful to Morehouse for providing me the opportunity in 1973 to spend my junior year at the University of Durham in England. Another classmate, Dr. Asa G. Yancey Jr., received the same English Speaking Union Luard Scholarship for study in Edinburgh, Scotland. That year became the foundation for part of my life’s calling of trying to situate the African American experience and the American story within a larger global narrative. The best of the Morehouse tradition urges all of us to de-parochialize our stories and to interpret our lives within this global frame of interdependence.

If this vision of internationalizing Morehouse works, people will soon say of Morehouse men, that they refuse to limit themselves to domestic concerns, but that they are informed and concerned about global politics, world markets, scientific and technological advancements, cultural trends and ecological issues. I want people to say, ‘You can tell a Morehouse Man, because his bags are packed and he’s headed out to offer hope and intelligent response where despair reigns.’ We will go forth not simply as tourists, students, or employees—but also as ambassadors.

Indeed, I would like to suggest that we need each of you to be post-911 global citizens and ambassadors for civility and social justice.

In order to fulfill this vision, I am calling for the renaissance of Morehouse College. This takes us back to our core mission. As I’ve said before, “Renaissance” means “rebirth.” This is another way of framing a call to excellence and greatness. Renaissance and renewal must occur across the board in order for us to achieve our ultimate mission of having a real impact, through education and service, on the multi-dimensional quality of life issues on the planet.

This is a call (vocare) to renaissance for our board of trustees, a dedicated group of stakeholders whom we will need to re-double their good efforts and to provide ever greater resources and guidance for this audacious journey.

We call for the renaissance of Morehouse alumni. That proud family must now become an even more generous family. Alumni must stretch and give beyond the reachable goals they imagined before.

We call for the renaissance of the Morehouse faculty—smart and devoted teachers. We are strong and we must grow stronger. Allow me to be specific. There are two initiatives that I have begun to negotiate and that are in their early stages. One partnership is with the historic Chautuaqua Institution in western New York. The Institution hosts a nine-week summer program organized around expert lectures on topics of global concern. It also includes an impressive set of programs on interfaith dialogue and recreation. The Chautauqua Institution would like to explore having Morehouse faculty as resources, while offering an opportunity to write and renew.

The other is an initiative with Emory University emanating from its strategic initiative on race and difference with which I was affiliated in my last assignment. Emory’s provost and I would like to bring students and faculty from Morehouse, Spelman and Emory initially to engage two important texts, W.E. B. Du Bois’s The Souls of Black Folk and William Julius Wilson’s The Declining Significance of Race. We envision those dialogues leading to other forms of mutually beneficial and substantial partnership.

Beyond these, I want to see renewed emphasis on first-rate writing skills reinforced throughout the curriculum every year of a student’s development. I want to see all Morehouse men exposed to the art of debate, disciplined argument, rhetoric, so that every Morehouse man becomes a confident public speaker. I celebrate and encourage more faculty to invite students into your own research projects so that they gain experience in exploring the frontiers of intellectual discovery and producing new knowledge. I am especially aware of our need to accelerate development in the Humanities Division. With the vigorous leadership of Dean Terry Mills, we are executing existing plans and will develop new ones.

I am aware of some of our basic infrastructure and aesthetic challenges that simply require the investment of more resources. I will ask the alumni, the board and our external stakeholders around the globe to stand and deliver as we resource the Renaissance.

We call for the renaissance of Morehouse staff, most of whom already labor long and hard to serve our publics. We must support their continued professional development so that each year we can see and measure improvement in student and customer service. Now, I am asking you to give more of your best support and service to our faculty, students, alumni and the public.

I cannot call for a renaissance of Morehouse students without beginning with the administration, faculty and staff. Let this Convocation be a time for all of us to rededicate ourselves to the Renaissance, a new level of excellence and ethics.

And, finally, we call for the renaissance of the men of Morehouse.

Men of Morehouse, you are the reason that we are here. Blood has been shed to bring you to this Convocation. Escaped slaves were tortured in pursuit of the literacy that we take for granted. In our darkest hour, the Negro Baptists of Georgia gave more than we will ever know to keep dear old Morehouse alive. Before the corporations and foundations of the land discovered us, our grandmothers and grandfathers put their dollars and prayers together to build this place. Even now, many of your families are sacrificing for you to be here.

That is why I am energized to call for a renaissance of dignity and decorum on this campus. So many -- have given so much -- for you few -- to learn and to give back in service to a global village in crisis.

Brothers, we must show young boys and men in this community and beyond that we can resolve conflict without resorting to violence. We call for the renaissance of ethics and character, saying ‘yes’ to personal class and community service. And, saying ‘no’ to plagiarism, ‘no’ to petty theft, ‘no’ to profanity in public spaces, ‘no’ to disrespecting and abusing women, and ‘no’ to the kind of personal dress that is inappropriate for an adult learning community.

Yes, this Renaissance will involve some sacrifice. But, it will be a shared sacrifice.

DuBois offers this word on the subject of sacrifice. Addressing the 1939 Howard University commencement, he declared:

To increase abiding satisfaction for the mass of our people and for all people, someone must sacrifice something of his own happiness. This is a duty only to those who recognize it as a duty. It is silly to tell intelligent human beings: Be good and you will be happy. The truth is today, be good, be decent, be honorable and self-sacrificing, and you will not always be happy. You will often be desperately unhappy. You may even be crucified, dead, and buried. And the third day you will be just as dead as the first. But, with the death of your happiness may easily come increased happiness and satisfaction and fulfillment for other people—strangers, unborn babes, uncreated worlds. If this is not sufficient incentive, never try it—remain hogs.

And, so as we gather under this Convocation mandate, let us be inspired by the words of our own College motto, “Et Facta Est Lux,” and then, there was light.

In the book of Genesis, we confront a strange portrait of primordial chaos and darkness. The writers seem to imagine that whatever might have preceded the creation, it was formless and void. The Creator is surrounded by a mess, but sees possibility in the mess. The Creator is not discouraged, hopeless or powerless. The Creator begins to work, to make things happen. And, it begins with powerful speech. “Let there be light.”

Et Facta Est Lux…and light was made!”

Fast forward to the nineteenth century, when our ancestors were standing in the ashes of a war, surrounded by a mess. Something in them said, “Let there be light.” And they made light. They didn’t wait for light to appear. They didn’t hope and pray that someone else would deliver the light. They made it! They made Morehouse.

And together, we will remake Morehouse. We will make renewed light – bright light. While facing that rising sun of our new day begun, let us march on ‘til victory is won.


W.E.B. Du Bois, The Seventh Son: The Thought and Writings of W. E. B. Du Bois, ed. Julius Lester (New York: Random House, 1971), 1:575.

© Copyright 2007


Monday, November 09, 2009

For Wed, please take a close look at these pages:

http://thetendollarclub.org/


http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/

http://www.ourdaytoendpoverty.com/

Here are some of the materials from today and a few more:
POVERTY: argument worksheet, a Powerpointand "I took Contemporary Moral Issues and all I did was help save a starving child!" poster (in PDF, in WORD). And a Peter Singer video clip.

Friday, November 06, 2009

For Monday, OPS writing assignment of "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" in RTD, also available online (google the title).
Please focus on figuring out what the argument is: what's the conclusion? what are the premises? how can we make his argument valid? Is it sound?

Monday, November 02, 2009

Paper 3

Paper 3: Abortion

Suppose a woman has gotten pregnant due to voluntary intercourse (i.e., she was not raped). She is early in pregnancy, in the first month. She has no reason to believe that her fetus is unhealthy, or will become unhealthy, or that if she has the baby that he or she will have a troubled life. Would it be morally permissible for her to have an abortion? Present and evaluate at least five arguments on this issues, including at least two out of three arguments presented by Warren, Marquis and/or Thompson. The arguments should be presented and evaluated in valid premise-conclusion format. Like all philosophy papers, you must raise objections to your views and arguments and respond to them.

Your paper should have a short introduction ending in a thesis statement and be well-organized throughout. There should be no grammatical or spelling errors. You need to find at least one peer reviewer and put his or her comments and suggestions at the end of the paper.You must use a proper citation method.

Note: a challenge for this paper is to NOT merely give a list of conditions or situations where you think abortion might be permissible or impermissible, e.g., "Abortion is wrong in these circumstance but not in these," or "Abortion is permissible except in these circumstances." The challenge is to explain why -- with reasons -- your claims about the moral status of abortion are correct or incorrect, and to defend your views from objections. You need to think carefully about what someone who disagreed with you might say, what your critics' strongest objections would be, and respond to those.

4-5 pages.
Due Monday, November 23 through the Turnitin System

Friday, October 30, 2009

Brief Notes on Judith Thompson’s “A Defense of Abortion”

Brief Notes on Judith Thompson’s “A Defense of Abortion”

Introduction

Thinks early fetuses are not persons, but will assume they are for the sake of argument. How does it follow that abortion is (typically) wrong?

Standard “personhood” argument against abortion:

Persons have a right to life. Yes, women have the right to decide what will happen in and to their bodies. But fetuses are persons, and their right to life is stronger than women’s rights to their bodies. So fetuses may not be killed, so abortion is wrong. (p. 98)

Violinist case:

Persons have a right to life. Yes, people have the right to decide what will happen in and to their bodies. But the violinist is a person, and his right to life is stronger than people’s rights to their bodies. So the violinist may not be unplugged and killed. He must stay plugged into you. (p. 98)

Main Argument:

  1. If the standard personhood argument against abortion is sound, then the argument in the violinist case is sound too (and so it would be wrong for you to unplug).
  2. But the argument in the violinist case is not sound (since it would be permissible for you to unplug.
  3. So the standard personhood argument against abortion is not sound also.

Rape? Rape is irrelevant to what rights you have. (99)

Part 1. On the “extreme view” that abortion is impermissible even to save the pregnant woman’s life.

If the both have a right to life, why not flip a coin? Or mother’s right to life + her bodily rights outweigh fetus’s rights?

Theses 1-4 (p. 100), that direct killing is always wrong / murder / a stringent duty, etc.

If 1-4 were true, unplugging from violinist would (always) be wrong. But it’s not, so 1-4 are false.

1-4 are also false because they imply self-defense is wrong. TINY HOUSE CASE (p. 101)

Thus, the extreme view is false.

Part 2.

“The mother owns the house”. A third party, not just the mother, can intervene. (This is in response to some claims in part 2 that 3rd parties couldn’t defend the mother, but the mother surely can defend herself in the TINY HOUSE).

Part 3.

What is entailed by a “right to life” anyway?

Does a right to life entail everything that’s needed for a life to continue? (103)

HENRY FONDA CASE: If I needed a visit by a famous actor to keep on living, would I have a right to that actor’s visit? Would my friends have a right to kidnap him so he visits? [no]

VIOLINIST CASE: Does he have a right to the use of my kidneys? [no]

Does a right to life entail a right to not be killed by anyone?

Again, VIOLINIST CASE

Thompson: “a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body – even if one needs it for life itself. So the right to life will not serve the opponents of abortion in the very simple and clear way in which they seem to have thought it would.” (p. 104)

Part 4.

BOYS BOTH GIVEN CHOCOLATE CASE: both boys are given chocolates to share. (p. 104). If one brother takes them all, he treats the other unjustly.

Unplugging the violinist would not be unjust, because you did not give him the right to use your kidneys.

A right to life is the right to not be killed unjustly. (p. 104).

(p. 105): raped woman does not give fetus the right to her body for food and shelter.

But she is (partially) responsible: she knew what a possible consequence of sex would be.

BURGLAR BARS example (p. 106)

PEOPLE SEEDS EXAMPLE – No right to the use of your house (even) if you took reasonable steps to keepthem out.

There’s still a chance of pregnancy! (Remove risk by getting a hysterectomy or never leaving home w/o an army!)

Part 5. “Ought to do X” does not imply someone has a right to X

CHOCOLATE CASE 2: Only one boy is given the chocolates. He ought to share, but the other boy does not have a right to the chocolate.

Even if something is easy (e.g., saving a life), one does not have a right to that save. (HENRY FONDA CASE) (p. 108)

Part 6. Good Samaritan versus the Minimally Decent Samaritan

No laws compel Good Samaritanism, except in the case of abortion. (p. 110)

Part 7.

Part 8.

Some abortions might be indecent.

The details of the case matter.

Of course, early fetuses aren’t persons anyway!

Some notes on Marquis:

Some notes on Marquis:

He thinks whether abortions are wrong or not does not depend on whether any fetuses are
”persons.”

He thinks to understand whether it’s wrong to kill fetuses, we should think about why it’s wrong to kill us. He thinks the best explanation of why it’s wrong to kill us is this: (a) we have valuable futures and (b) killing us deprives us from experiencing these valuable futures.

If (1) fetuses have valuable futures like our valuable futures, and if (2) it is wrong to deprive something from experiencing its valuable future, then abortion is wrong, he arguments (because abortion prevents something that has a valuable future from experiencing its valuable future).

We can prevent the argument like this:

1. Fetuses have valuable futures like our valuable futures.

2. It’s wrong to prevent something from experiencing its valuable future, or deprave them from that valuable future.

Therefore, C.

Some questions about the premises.

Regarding (1) we should think about what our futures are like and why they are valuable. We should think about how fetuses futures’ are similar and different from our futures.

Although both fetuses and us have futures – in the sense that there is (hopefully) good stuff that we will experience – there is a difference between our futures in that we are currently, consciously aware of our futures and are looking forward to them. We have plans and hopes for the future; fetuses do not. Maybe that makes a difference. Maybe that means that fetuses do not have valuable futures that are quite like our’s, and maybe they are not (so) valuable because of that.

Regarding (2), we might wonder what implications this principle has for contraception and even abstinence. One might reply that birth control and abstinence do not prevent something from experiencing its valuable future, or deprave them from that valuable future, because what birth control does is prevent there from being that something or someone. One might reply that there are things like this: interesting metaphysical “objects” that consist of an-egg-and-the-sperm-that-would-fertilize-it and that these objects have valuable futures which contraception prevents from being experienced. If so, then (2) implies that contraception and abstinence are wrong. You might think this is a false implication of (2) and so the argument is unsound.

Monday, October 26, 2009

For Wed. we will discuss Marquis's "Why Abortion is Immoral". We will then move on to Judith Thompson's "A Defense of Abortion." Both are in RTD and both can be found online as well.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Paper 2

DUE DATE CHANGE!

Philosophy 302: Argumentative Paper 2 – Homosexuality

Due FRIDAY, Oct. 23 ,through the turnitin system. NO LATE PAPERS. NO NEED TO SUBMIT PAPERS IN HARDCOPY EITHER, CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS SAID OR SUGGESTED EARLIER.
4-5 pages, typed, 12 pt. font, with your name, email, class time.

First, read your paper on how to write a philosophy paper. Read the paper from a peer too.

In this paper I want you to consider the issue of homosexuality and argue for one of these conclusions: homosexuality is wrong (i.e., impermissible), or homosexuality is not wrong (i.e., morally permissible). Do not consider the question of whether homosexuality is “right,” because that sounds like you are asking if homosexuality is morally obligatory. And do not discuss homosexual marriage because that too is not the issue.

You should explain what you mean when you morally evaluate homosexuality: are you speaking of actions, or feelings, lifestyles, relationships, or all (or some of the above)? This needs to be carefully explained so we understand the arguments’ conclusions.

Your paper should have a short introductory paragraph, culminating in a thesis which should either be this (or something close to it):
"I will argue that homosexuality is wrong, i.e., morally impermissible."
or
"I will argue that homosexuality is not wrong, i.e., morally permissible."

You need to give reasons in favor of your conclusion, consider objections to your reasons and respond to these objections.

You might then structure your paper in either of these ways:
1. You could present at least five of what you think are of the most important or strongest arguments from the books to think that homosexuality is wrong, and then critique these arguments, i.e., argue that some or all of them are not sound because they have some premises that you will argue are false. (You will also need to present an argument[s] for the view that homosexuality is morally permissible). These arguments should be explained and evaluate in prose, but they should also be presented in valid premise-conclusion format.
2. You could present at least five of what you think are the most important or common or influential arguments from the books to think that homosexuality is not wrong, and then critique these arguments, i.e., argue that some or all of them are not sound because they have some premises that you will argue are false. (You will also need to present an argument[s] for the view that homosexuality is not morally permissible). These arguments should be explained and evaluate in prose, but they should also be presented in valid premise-conclusion format.

At least one of the arguments you discuss must be arguments from the Bible and/or God’s commands (see EMP Ch. 4 on the divine command theory).

If you’d like, you can do some independent research to find additional arguments for the wrongness of homosexuality beyond the 40+ from the handout. But, you must apply the logical skills we have developed to these arguments. And you must defend your view from the best objection(s) you can think of. To do this, you must think of the objections and respond to its. DO NOT IGNORE DISCUSSION FROM THE BOOK; IF THE BOOK DISCUSSES AN OBJECTION OR RESPONSE AND YOU IGNORE THIS, THEN THAT’S A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ENGAGING THE CRITICAL DISCUSSION: YOU ARE IGNORING IT.

Your paper must have a short concluding paragraph also.

Your must get a peer review (from a peer in this class) and revise and improve your paper in light of that review. Please write who you got a peer review from at the top of your paper AND SUMMARIZE THEIR SUGGESTIONS AT THE END OF YOUR PAPER, ALL IN ONE FILE. The review sheet is here:

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

All previous advice on writing and rules on doing your own thinking and writing apply. See previous paper assignment on writing.

Your intended audience has not read the readings or discussed these issues so you must explain things so that they understand. Put yourself in their shoes and make everything clear and well-organized for them.

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Grades

I believe I have now recorded grades for all assignments submitted (there have been six assignments).
I have made a slight change in policy, however. I believe I have *repeatedly* requested that students put both their email address and their class time on the work they submit. Many students, however, are still not doing this, which greatly slows down the grading time. I have decided, therefore, that if a student does not put his or her email and class time on his or her submissions, I will not email that student his or her grade for that particular assignment.
Thus, to receive email updates on grades, simply do what you have been asked to do, namely put your name, email address, and class time on your work.
Thank you! :

P.S. If have not received grade updates from me, search your email, esp. your spam folder, for emails from aphilosopher@gmail.com
P.P.S. If you did not receive an email with a grade about the most recent OPS on "Is Homosexuality Unnatural?" that might be because you did not put your email and/or classtime on it. Check to see if you did that.

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

For Friday, please read EMP Chapter 4 "Does Morality Depend on Religion?"

MIDTERM! :)

Friday, October 16:
MIDTERM QUIZ / TEST / EXAM.

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

The test can cover any material up to our discussion of homosexuality (thus, it will not cover abortion or the Divine Command Theory of Ethics, our topics for the rest of the week and next week). Thus, these readings:

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

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

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

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


  1. James Rachels, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy" (RTD, #1).
WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM? WHAT ARE KANTIAN ETHICS?

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

  1. Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (Elements)
BE FAMILIAR WITH THE THREE CASES AND THE ARGUMENTS DISCUSSED ABOUT THEM. WHAT IS RACHEL'S 'MINIMUM CONCEPTION OF MORALITY"?

  1. "The New Eugenics," Matt Ridley (RTD, #36) [This goes with the bioethics theme of ch. 1.]
WHAT WAS RIDLEY'S MAIN ARGUMENT?

  1. Ch. 2, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" (Elements)
WHAT IS THE MORAL THEORY CULTURAL RELATIVISM? WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT? ARE ANY OF THEM SOUND? WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR IT? ARE ANY OF THEM SOUND? IS CULTURAL RELATIVISM A TRUE MORAL THEORY?

  1. “What’s Culture Got to Do with it? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision,” Harvard Law Review, http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/female_circumcision.pdf
WHAT IS FGM / FC? WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR IT? ARE ANY OF THEM SOUND? WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT? ARE ANY OF THEM SOUND? IS FEMALE CIRCUMCISION MORALLY PERMISSIBLE?

  1. "Monogamy: A Critique," John McMurtry (RTD, #28) [This goes with the brief discussion of polyamory on pp. 29-30 of Elements; the readings below also concern sexual ethics.]
  2. "Our Sexual Ethics," Bertrand Russell (RTD, #29)
  3. "Alcohol and Rape," Nicholas Dixon (RTD, #30)
WHAT ARE THE MAIN ARGUMENTS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLES?

  1. Ch. 3, "Subjectivism in Ethics" (Elements)
WHAT ARE SIMPLE SUBJECTIVISM AND EMOTIVISM? WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEM? ARE THESE ARGUMENTS SOUND?

  1. Richard Feldman on “Simple Moral Arguments”: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/feldman-simple-moral-arguments.pdf
  2. "Is Homosexuality Unnatural?" Burton M. Leiser (RTD, #27) [This is an expanded version of the argument given on pp. 44-45 of Elements.]
Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/homosexuality-arguments.pdf

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

WHAT IS IT TO GIVE A COUNTER-EXAMPLE?

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

RTD, Ch.2. Logic & Arguments

· What is an argument?

· What is a conclusion?

· What are premises?

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

· Give an example of a valid argument.

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

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

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

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

· Can a sound argument be an invalid argument?

· Can a sound argument have false premises?

· Can a sound argument have a false conclusion?

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

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

RTD Ch. 1: A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy

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

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

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

RTD Ch. 2, the short introduction to logic chapter

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

EMP Ch. 1:

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

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

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

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

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

EMP Ch. 2: CR & FGM

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

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

· Be able to give at least 3 valid arguments against CR; be able to explain each premise – that is, explain why someone might think the premises are true (this will often involve explaining why something is a logical consequence of cultural relativism. Explain whether you think the arguments are sound or not and why.

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMP Ch. 3: Simple Subjectivism & Emotivism, Homosexuality

· State and fully explain the idea of simple subjectivism. If someone accepts simple subjectivism, how does he or she "translate" moral judgments (i.e., what does someone say when he or she says that something is wrong, or says that something is not wrong?

· Be able to give at least 2 valid arguments against simple subjectivism; be able to explain each premise – that is, explain why someone might think the premises are true (this will often involve explaining why something is a logical consequence of simple subjectivism). Explain whether you think the arguments are sound or not and why.

· What is emotivism? Be able to present an argument against it.

· Explain what Rachels thinks the general nature of “moral truths” or “truths of ethics” are.

· Rachels thinks he can “prove” that some ethical judgments are true. What are the examples of his proofs? (What does he mean by a "proof" anyway?) Is he correct? Why or why not?

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

· Be able to state many common arguments against homosexuality (including those discussed in the articles in the RTD book) in valid form (and so add the premises needed to make the argument valid) and explain whether they are sound or not. Be able to state which, if any, premises are false.

· Rachels and Corvino also give arguments for the conclusion that homosexuality is morally permissible. What were those arguments?