For Friday, there's no classes w/ Dr. Nobis.
Please instead go to the AUC Graduate School Fair at CAU in the Student Center at the corner of James P. Brawley and Fair Street from 11am-3pm.

Ms. Eccles (below) will be there: sign in with her for role!

Kellye Blackburn Eccles
Career Planning and Placement
Non Business Majors
Morehouse College

Thanks,

Here is a change.
The Warren OPS on abortion was due Wed., tomorrow; the Marquis OPS on abortion is due Monday, if you'd like.

Paper 2 is due next Wednesday.
Thanks
NN

For those of you who were in class Friday, first, thanks for a great class. Second, you already know this announcement below:

For Wed, there are OPS's due of Mary Anne Warren on abortion and Don Marquis on abortion, both in RTD. Due in class and via Turnitin.

Thanks!

Paper 2

Philosophy 302: Argumentative Paper 2 – Homosexuality

Due Wednesday, November 3, (two weeks from today!) in class and through the turnitin system. NO LATE PAPERS.
4-5 pages, double-spaced, typed, 12 pt. font, stapled, with your name, email, class time. No cover pages.

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. The peer review of your paper should be stapled to your paper. 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. Re-read your paper on how to write a philosophy paper.

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.

For Wed. please read EMP Ch. 4

Paper assignment on its way!

Study Guide for Fall, 2010 Midterm exam

MIDTERM QUIZ / TEST / EXAM.
Next Friday.

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, 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.

2. 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?

3. 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"?

5. 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?

5. “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?

7. "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.]
8. "Our Sexual Ethics," Bertrand Russell (RTD, #29)
9. "Alcohol and Rape," Nicholas Dixon (RTD, #30)

WHAT ARE THE MAIN ARGUMENTS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLES?

10. Ch. 3, "Subjectivism in Ethics" (Elements)

WHAT ARE SIMPLE SUBJECTIVISM AND EMOTIVISM? WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEM? ARE THESE ARGUMENTS SOUND?

10. Richard Feldman on “Simple Moral Arguments”: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/feldman-simple-moral-arguments.pdf
11. "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 claimsreally 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 tothink 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 showthat 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?

For Wed., we will start EMP Ch. 3.

Friday, and part of Monday, we will watch this video "What's Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?" for which there is an online preview:

http://gaymoralist.com/


Soon I will give a new OPS assignment and your first philosophical essay assignment.

I hope you don't mind, but I was thinking that the ops on the article on FGM / FC for Friday should be be EXTRA CREDIT; the 3 articles OPS due Monday are not extra credit, however.

More details on this later!

Details on these assignments (re. the 3 essays) are a below. Link to the "What's Culture Got to Do with it?" article is below too.

Monday, Essay 1 is due in class, in harcopy with the Turnitin receipt AND submitted via Turnitin online.

Readings for this week:

MONDAY: We will discuss the theoretical aspect of this chapter, i.e., the moral theory known as "cultural relativism":
5. Ch. 2, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" (Elements)


Wednesday we will discuss Female Genital Mutilation; in addition to EMP, please read this article online:

6. “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

Friday, OPS due of these readings from RTD; please identify the main issues from each article, and submit 1 OPS containing all three articles:

7. "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.]

8. "Our Sexual Ethics," Bertrand Russell (RTD, #29)

9. "Alcohol and Rape," Nicholas Dixon (RTD, #30)

Friday & next week

Friday we will finish EMP Ch. 1

Monday we will move onto EMP CH. 2.

Monday Essay 1 is due, in hardcopy in class and submitted via Turnitin. The assignment is below.

Monday and Wednesday.

Monday and Wednesday we will discuss EMP Ch. 1. Your OPS writing assignment, although due today - Friday - can also be turned in Monday, in hardcopy and via Turnitin.

Friday we will move on to EMP Ch. 2.

Essay #1, assignment previously posted, below, is due Monday, Sept. 20.

Please always put your class time on all assignments.

Error in 1 PM Turnitin Code

If (and only if) you are in the 1 PM ethics course and have not signed up for Turnitin, please use this as the course code:

3418266

IF YOU HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT A CODE AND HAVE REGISTERED, PLEASE DO NOT BUY ANOTHER ONE: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE YET TO REGISTER FOR THE TURNITIN THING.

I made a mistake and gave the 1PM course the 11 PM's code.
Thank you,
NN

Paper 1

Intro to Ethics PAPER 1: How do you write a philosophy paper?

DUE MONDAY, SEPT 20, by your class time, handed in in class and posted on the Turnitin site.

4-5 pages, typed (i.e., word-processed), double spaced, 12 pt font Times New Roman, 1” margins.

No late papers will be accepted. Students have had many weeks to get the Turnitin account; you need to get the PIN card and do the paper before the due date. No excuses. If the bookstore doesn’t have the cards, you need to get them to order one for you.

First, there are two writings online on how to write a philosophy paper that you need to carefully read and study:

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

2. "Writing A Philosophy Paper," by Peter Horban: http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/writing.htm

The assignment is this:

A friend knows that you are in a philosophy course. This friend asks you to come to her group to give a presentation on what philosophy essays are like and how to effectively write them. Your job is to carefully read the readings above on how to write philosophy and then effectively summarize them for this person. Write up the text that you could read -- or pass out -- to this audience so that they can learn from you. Write so you teach them how to write a philosophical essay: pass on what you learn from Pryor and Horban! This assignment requires you to summarize advice from a number of different sources and explain this advice to other people in your own words.

Papers must by typed and carefully written: put your name, email, the date, course # and time at the top of the first page; DO NOT USE A COVER PAGE. And give your paper a title.

Grading:

9-10= excellent

8 = good

7 = fair

6 = poor

5 or below = very poor

They will be graded on clarity, organization, thoroughness, grammar and spelling, and, most generally, whether your reader would get a good sense for what philosophical / argumentative essays are like and how to write them.

Although citations -- i.e., direct quotations -- are not necessarily needed for this paper, if you use them you should use an official citation method that you learned in introductory English.

For Wed and Friday, next week.

A change in plans:

Monday, of course, we have off.

I was thinking that Wednesday we should really discuss the Rachels SHORT INTRODUCTION TO MORAL PHILOSOPHY, RTD, Ch. 2. Please have read that, focusing on the 2nd half dealing with "impartial" ethical theories such as utilitarianism and Kantianism.

Thus, for Friday (not Wednesday as previously announced), EMP Ch. 1 needs to be read and a detailed OPS written and turned in online and in hardcopy in class.

For Wednesday, OPS of EMP Ch. 1 due. See the syl. for explanation of the assignment. This is due in class and posted via the Turnitin site, which you need to have an account for.

For Wednesday, please also complete this assignment: make a list of actions that you think most people would think are obviously wrong and/or bad; a list of actions you think most people would think are obviously MP, MO or otherwise good. If you think of any actions that don't fall into that category, put them on another list.

READINGS THUSFAR

Assignments thusfar:

o Rachels, The Right Thing to Do (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

Handouts on Overview of Logic & Arguments

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

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

· Overview of Basic Moral Evaluations: Permissible, Obligatory, Impermissible/Wrong

o See pp. 3, 5-8; also discusses logic and moral theories:

https://sites.google.com/site/ethicsandanimals/EthicsandAnimalsLecturesDiscussionQuestionsAssigments.pdf

FOR FRIDAY: Rachels, The Right Thing to Do: 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

FOR NEXT WEDNESDAY: WRITING ASSIGNMENT DUE WEDNESDAY, IN HARDCOPY AND VIA TURNITIN:

o Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (Elements of Moral Philosophy, EMP) OPS Writing Assignment on Chapter 1, the whole chapter.

READING FOR FRIDAY:

o "The New Eugenics," Matt Ridley (RTD, #36) [This goes with the bioethics theme of ch. 1.]

Here is an extra credit event you could attend and write up a detailed summary and response to. The event, however, is unfortunately not free.
If you go, you must be on time.

http://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/Page.asp?id=97&eventid=242

Atlanta History Center: Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals Presented by Literary Center at Margaret Mitchell House

Wednesday, September 01, 2010 7:00 PM

Eating Animals is a carefully researched, artfully told, funny, and personal exploration of what we eat and why, how what we eat affects our lives and the environment, and how every individual can make seemingly small choices that will enact big change. Jonathan Safran Foer, author of the acclaimed novel Everything Is Illuminated, delves into the environmental and social effects of factory farming and relates personal stories that influenced his decision to become a vegetarian. Eating Animals will move readers — and eaters — of every persuasion to participate in the ongoing conversation about what we eat and challenge them to take a naked look at what is too often conveniently brushed aside.

This lecture is held at Atlanta History Center. Admission is $5 for members and $10 for nonmembers. Reservations are required for all lectures. For more information, visit MargaretMitchellHouse.com. To purchase tickets, please call 404.814.4150.

Fall 2010 Syllabus

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience,

but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
- Martin Luther King Jr.,‘48

*****

Syllabus

Introduction to Philosophical Ethics, PHI 302

** FIRST ASSIGNMENTS ARE ON PAGE 4 **

PDF of Syllabus is here.

Note: Students are responsible for understanding all the information and policies presented in this syllabus. Students will be referred to it if they have questions that are answered here. A syllabus is not a contract and can be revised, if needed, to promote learning and other educational goals.

11- 11:50 AM course: 47947 - HPHI 302G - 06 (Turnitin Course Code 3418227; password is ethics)

12- 12:50 PM course: 47942 - HPHI 302G - 01 (Turnitin Course Code 3418262; password is ethics)

1-1:50 PM course: 47943 - HPHI 302G - 02 (Turnitin Course Code 3418227; password is ethics)

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

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

Insite/Turnitin anti-plagiarism page: http://insite.turnitin.com/

Instructor: Nathan Nobis, Ph.D.,

Email & Webpage: nathan.nobis@gmail.com ; www.NathanNobis.com

Telephone: 404-215-2607

Office: Sale Hall 113, Philosophy & Religion Department

Office Hours: 1:00-2:00 PM MWF and by appointment.

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 makes wrong 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 of argument 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 or unsound (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.

4. REQUIRED MATERIALS:

1. James and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (McGraw Hill Publishing) (Any edition).
2. James and Stuart Rachels, eds. The Right Thing to Do, (McGraw Hill Publishing) 4^th Ed. (Any edition will do, but students are responsible for getting copies of any readings in the current edition not found in prior editions).
3. A Thompson Turnitin PIN code card, providing an account at http://insite.turnitin.com, available for purchase at the bookstore. This webpage identifies plagiarism and is students are required to submit written work through it.

NOTE: There is a problem with some of the PIN cards. Students should change the characters printed as an “S” to a “$” and if they are still having issues they must contact customer service here: http://www.cengage.com/support/ or http://kb.cengage.com/display/InsiteTurnitin/InSite+-+TurnItIn Or 1-800-354-9706 Option 5, then Option 2, Mon-Thur 8:30am to 9:00pm EST, Friday 8:30am to 6:00pm EST

5. ASSIGNMENTS & GRADING:

a. OPS papers: (5 points each; approx. 12 assignments; approx. 60 points total)

The absolute most important thing you can do to succeed in this class is to do the reading, do the reading well and do it on time. You have done the reading well if you are able to accurately explain the overall structure and main arguments of the chapter or essay. To do this well, you need to create write notes on the reading, a detailed Outline, Paraphrase or Summary of the chapter or essay. This must address all the sections of the chapter and explain all the main arguments. In most cases, an adequate job on this assignment will require at least 3-4 pages. These must be turned in via Turnitin and in hardcopy, with a print out of your Turnitin “receipt” attached to the hardcopy.

b. Essays: (10 points each; 6 assignments; 60 points total).

All except the first are argumentative essays, where a moral conclusion is defended with reasons and objections are raise and responded to. These must be turned in via Turnitin and in hardcopy, with a print out of your Turnitin “receipt” attached to the hardcopy of the paper.

c. Midterm and Final Exams: (30 points each; 60 points total)

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.

d. Attendance, punctuality and participation is required.

Attendance will be taken at the beginning of class. Students are allowed three absences for any reason: beyond that, unexcused absences will cost 2% off the final grade. Tardiness will also be penalized.

e. Extra Credit Opportunities:

There will likely be events addressing ethical and/or philosophical issues that I’ll encourage you to attend and write up a 3-4 page detailed summary and reaction to for variable bonus points. These are due, in class, within one week of the event, and won’t be accepted past then. These events will be announced by the email group. These must be turned in via Turnitin and in hardcopy, with a print out of your Turnitin “receipt” attached to the hardcopy of the paper.

Note: Grades in this course are determined solely by the quantity, quality and timeliness of the academic work done: nothing else is relevant. Any student who “needs” a particular grade to keep a scholarship, stay in school, apply for some program or job, etc. is encouraged to earn that grade by doing the work required to earn that grade. No pleading will be considered, no grade changes will be made, and no Incompletes will be given, except for legitimate reasons (e.g., grade miscalculation, official College excuse, etc.).

6. ACADEMIC HONESTY:

“The Division of Humanities & Social Sciences at Morehouse College endorses the highest standards and expectations of academic honesty and integrity. Plagiarism or any other form of academic dishonesty will not be tolerated. Sanctions for violation of these standards include possible suspension or dismissal from the College. It is each student’s responsibility to be familiar with the expected codes of conduct as outlined in the College Catalogue and Student Handbook.”

Cheating and plagiarism are forms of lying (to the instructor, the school, future teachers and employers, and yourself, among others), theft (of other people’s ideas and words), unfairness (to other students who do the work as they should) and are grounds for failing the course. If you submit a plagiarized paper (e.g., a paper you took in whole or in part from the internet or some other illegitimate source, such as a peer who has had this course before), the instructor (with the help of the Turnitin software) will notice this and you will then fail this course immediately. Although we will discuss this, it is your responsibility to know what plagiarism is. Any plagiarism or cheating on any assignment – including any extra credit assignments – will immediately result in failing the course: no exceptions, no excuses.

Here are some suggestions to avoid plagiarism: do not check the internet for anything related to your papers: instead use the texts required for the course and think for yourself; do not take phrases from the texts; put all of your writings in your own words; do not cut and paste anything from the internet into your paper; do not visit Wikipedia, an extremely unreliable source for academic philosophy; do not take articles from online encyclopedias; do not visit online dictionaries; use an acceptable citation method (e.g., MLA, APA, etc.), which you learned to do in Introductory English courses or you will lose points. If you would like additional sources to learn more about a topic, see the instructor.

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.
• With the Turnitin card you purchased at the bookstore, set up your account online. If you do not do this on time, you might get a zero on your first paper.
• Sign up for the email announcement group here: http://groups.google.com/group/philosophy302/
• Start the readings below:

No class Friday, August 27: Instructor out of town at an academic conference.

First reading assignments; dates TBA:

o Rachels, The Right Thing to Do (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

Handouts on Overview of Logic & Arguments

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

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

· Overview of Basic Moral Evaluations: Permissible, Obligatory, Impermissible/Wrong

o See pp. 3, 5-8; also discusses logic and moral theories:

https://sites.google.com/site/ethicsandanimals/EthicsandAnimalsLecturesDiscussionQuestionsAssigments.pdf

o Rachels, The Right Thing to Do: 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

o Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (Elements of Moral Philosophy, EMP) OPS Writing Assignment on Chapter 1, the whole chapter.

o "The New Eugenics," Matt Ridley (RTD, #36) [This goes with the bioethics theme of ch. 1.]

Order of Readings:

1. "Some Basic Points about Arguments," James Rachels (RTD, #2). Available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

Logic Handout 1: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/arguments.pdf

Logic Handout 2: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/validargumentforms.pdf

2. James Rachels, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy" (RTD, #1). Available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf

3. Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (Elements)

4. "The New Eugenics," Matt Ridley (RTD, #36) [This goes with the bioethics theme of ch. 1.]

5. Ch. 2, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" (Elements)

6. “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

7. "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.]

8. "Our Sexual Ethics," Bertrand Russell (RTD, #29)

9. "Alcohol and Rape," Nicholas Dixon (RTD, #30)

10. Ch. 3, "Subjectivism in Ethics" (Elements)

11. "The Subjectivity of Values," J. L. Mackie (RTD, #6) [This defends a version of Ethical Subjectivism.]

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

13. "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

14. Ch. 4, "Does Morality Depend on Religion?" (Elements)

15. Fred Feldman on abortion: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/fred_feldman_on_abortion.pdf

16. "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion / Postscript on Infanticide," Mary Anne Warren (RTD, #13)

17. "Why Abortion Is Immoral," Don Marquis (RTD, #11) [One aspect of the abortion debate is discussed on pp. 57-61 of Elements.]

18. "A Defense of Abortion," Judith Jarvis Thomson (RTD, #12)

Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/abortion-worksheet.pdf

19. Ch. 5, "Ethical Egoism" (Elements)

20. "9/11 and Starvation," Mylan Engel, Jr. (RTD, #17) [Poverty is discussed on pp. 62-63 of Elements.]

21. "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," Peter Singer (RTD, #18)

Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/poverty-arguments.pdf

22. "Is Racial Discrimination Arbitrary?" Peter Singer (RTD, #32) [This essay asks whether "The Principle of Equal Treatment" (as we call it on p. 77 of Elements) applies to three difficult test cases.]

23. Ch. 6, "The Idea of a Social Contract" (Elements)

24. "Letter from the Birmingham City Jail," Martin Luther King, Jr. (RTD, #31) [King's letter is quoted on pp. 90-91 of Elements.]

25. "In Defense of Quotas," James Rachels (RTD, #33) [This reading goes with King's "Letter from the Birmingham City Jail." In King's day, America was so racist that preferential quotas were justified. Are they justified today?]

26. Ch. 7, "The Utilitarian Approach" (Elements)

27. "Utilitarianism," John Stuart Mill (RTD, #3)

28. “One Nurse’s Story,” http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/one_nurses_story.pdf

29. "The Morality of Euthanasia," James Rachels (RTD, #34) [Euthanasia is discussed on pp. 98-101 of Elements.]

30. "Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life?" Richard Doerflinger (RTD, #35) [Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, but the topics are similar.]

31. "America's Unjust Drug War," Michael Huemer (RTD, #26) [Marijuana is discussed on pp. 101-104 of Elements.]

32. "All Animals Are Equal," Peter Singer (RTD, #14) [The treatment of animals is discussed on pp. 104-108 of Elements.]

33. "Torturing Puppies and Eating Meat: It's All in Good Taste," Alastair Norcross (RTD, #15)

34. "Do Animals Have Rights?" Tibor R. Machan (RTD, #16)

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

Argument worksheet: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/veg-responses.pdf

36. Ch. 8, "The Debate over Utilitarianism" (Elements)

37. "Utilitarianism and Integrity," Bernard Williams (RTD, #4) [This selection presents Williams' most famous objection to Utilitarianism.]

38. "The Experience Machine," Robert Nozick (RTD, #5) [This selection presents Nozick's most famous objection to Hedonist Utilitarianism.]

39. Ch. 9, "Are There Absolute Moral Rules?" (Elements)

40. "The Categorical Imperative," Immanuel Kant (RTD, #7) [The Categorical Imperative is discussed on pp. 127-129 of Elements.]

41. "The Ethics of War and Peace," Douglas P. Lackey (RTD, #19) [The Allies' conduct of the Second World War is discussed on pp. 124-126 of Elements.]

42. "Fifty Years after Hiroshima," John Rawls (RTD, #20) [The bombing of Hiroshima is discussed on pp. 124-126 of Elements.]

43. "What Is Wrong with Terrorism?" Thomas Nagel (RTD, #21) [The readings on war and terrorism go together. Also, Nagel implies that the prohibition on aiming at the death of a harmless person is an absolute moral rule.]

44. "The War on Terrorism and the End of Human Rights," David Luban (RTD, #22) [This continues the themes of war and terrorism.]

45. "Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb," David Luban (RTD, #23) [One may ask: is the prohibition on torture an absolute moral rule?]

46. Ch. 10, "Kant and Respect for Persons" (Elements)

47. "A Defense of the Death Penalty," Louis P. Pojman (RTD, #24) [Punishment is discussed on pp. 139-145 of Elements. We discuss the death penalty specifically on p. 143.]

48. "Why the United States Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment," Stephen B. Bright (RTD, #25)

49. Ch. 11, "Feminism and the Ethics of Care" (Elements)

50. "Caring Relations and Principles of Justice," Virginia Held (RTD, #10) [See pp. 152-157 of Elements.]

51. Ch. 12, "The Ethics of Virtue" (Elements)

52. "The Virtues," Aristotle (RTD, #8)

53. "Master Morality and Slave Morality," Friedrich Nietzsche (RTD, #9) [Nietzsche glorifies the virtues of "master morality" and ridicules the vices of "slave morality."]

54. Ch. 13, "What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?" (Elements)