In light of yesterday's discussion concerning reading and responsibility, I think it would be wise to have summaries of Warren and Marquis on abortion due Monday. However, if you would like to turn them in Wednesday, that would be fine as well, given the lateness of this written assignment.

Friday, however, we will be discussing Marquis's article. 

 

Readings:

Wed: Warren on abortion, in RTD
Friday: Marquis on abortion, in RTD
Monday: Thompson on abortion, in RTD

Monday your paper is due. No late papers.

Friday, March 25, Morehouse, Sale Hall Rm. 105, 2 PM sharp

Are Online “Friends”Friends?

Can online relationships be “real” friendships? Arguments tied to concepts such as authenticity, activity, and embodiment say “no.” After discussing some of the roles that computer-based technologies play in interpersonal relationships, Professor Vance Ricks explains why he finds those arguments ultimately unpersuasive.

Vance Ricks, Associate Professor of Philosophy,

Guilford College, Greensboro, NC

http://www.guilford.edu/academics/departments/philosophy/ricksvance.html 

Professor Vance attended Stanford University and received his Ph.D. in philosophy, writing his dissertation on the subject of friendship. He has taught at Guilford since autumn 1998.  He teaches courses on a variety of philosophical subjects, consistent with his interests:  ethics; informal logic; philosophical perspectives on sexuality; computer ethics; and philosophical  perspectives on mind and consciousness.  Vance is currently writing a manuscript on the meta-ethical views of one of his favorite philosophers, the 19th-century English author John Stuart Mill.  His next project is an article about online friendships. 

This flyer is also available here: http://goo.gl/1Y36n

Survey

Friday, I asked you to develop lists for ways people would fill in these blanks:

"Abortion is typically wrong because ___________________"

and

"Abortion is typically morally permissible because ___________________"

Please clearly posts your lists below in the comments and read others' lists! Thanks!

Addendum: You should have at least 5 reasons given for each conclusion.

Extra Credit

An extra credit assignment: Detailed, detailed summary of this entire (long) article: Regan, “Patterns of Resistance,” Due by Monday March 28th as well:

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

Writing for Monday

For Monday: detailed summary of EMP Ch. 4, DOES MORALITY DEPEND ON RELIGION? is due. 


Also: This is the page was mentioned last Friday and its contents briefly discussed:

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

I am having printer problems, so I send it to you via email for you to read. 

Paper 1

Paper Assignment 1

Due, in class, March 28th. No late papers will be accepted.
4-5 pages, double-spaced, 12 point font Times New Roman, 1" margins; numbered pages, with your name, class time and email address. 

First, read this article on how to write a philosophy paper:
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

Here is the assignment:

Write an argumentative philosophy paper where you present, explain and evaluate at least five arguments for the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong, i.e., morally impermissible. In this paper you must:

• present these arguments in logically valid, premise-conclusion form; this, of course, sometimes requires adding unstated premises;
• explain why they are logically valid (i.e., what form they are);
• explain, for each of these arguments, whether it is sound or not; this often will require developing counterexamples to general moral principles. Other times it 

The arguments you discussion should be ones that you think are most common, most important and/or ones most philosophically interesting or challenging.

Your paper should have an introduction, culminating in a thesis that states your evaluation of these arguments ("I will argue that ______"), and a conclusion. Each argument should have its own section, i.e., paragraph or paragraphs.

Your papers should be grammatical and spelling-error free.

They are due, in class, March 28th. No late papers will be accepted.

Here are some additional tips on writing:

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

4. Some tips from me:

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

For Wed., we will move onto EMP Ch. 3. For Monday, please write a detailed summary of the chapter.

We will also watch this video, Wed and Friday:

http://www.gaymoralist.com/

http://johncorvino.com/wp/lecture-dvd/

For Monday, please read these from The Right Thing to Do and write a summary totaling 3 pages:

28. Monogamy: A Critique John McMurtry 246
29. Our Sexual Ethics Bertrand Russell 253
30. Alcohol and Rape Nicholas Dixon 260

As mentioned in class, this is what we are doing:

1. EMP Ch. 2 summary due Monday, in class.

2. Monday we will discuss more of EMP 2 and this article: "What's culture got to do with it? Excising the harmful tradition of female circumcision". The link is here:

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

3. Friday there is a quiz/test/exam. Study guide below on blog.

Study guide for Quiz / Test next Friday

Here are two versions of a study guide for the first quiz / test next Friday, February 18:

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?

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 claimsthat "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, whattheory does she believe? Be able to explain which of the 5 claims really iscultural 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 hethinks we all hold in common?

• 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?

• 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?

Friday we will discuss EMP Ch. 2 on Cultural Relativism.

Monday we will discuss the article / readings on Female Genital Mutilation.

Friday there will be a quiz / test.

Wed. & Friday

Wed. we will finish EMP 1.

We will move on to Ch. 2 and discuss the moral theory Cultural Relativism.

Friday, we will discuss Female Circumcision / Female Genital Mutilation. This is discussed in EMP and this article:
"What's Culture Got to Do with it? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision"
http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/female_circumcision.pdf

Monday we will have a quiz. Study guide posted soon.

Today and Friday we will discuss EMP Ch. 1. A detailed summary of the chapter is due this Monday, in class.

Schedule change: Monday we will discuss "The New Eugenics" by Matt Ridley, found in EMP and here:
www.haffeys.net/phi112-reading/The%20New%20Eugenics.pdf

The rest of the week will discuss EMP Ch. 2.

Friday we will discuss "What's culture got to do with it? Excising the harmful tradition of female circumcision". The link for this is on this blog, to the left, down the page some.

next Monday and Wednesday

For Monday and Wednesday, we will discuss the Elements of Moral Philosophy, Ch. 1.
This discussion will not work if you have not read and HAVE the chapter on hand: you need to have a copy of the chapter with you: memory is inadequate.

Please see the email group for more guidance.

Wednesday

For Wednesday, we will move to RTD Ch. 1. This is available online. The link is on the syl., which is pasted below.

The writing assignment for Monday is this: from this second half of this chapter, which are the best moral theories and why? To do this, you must explain the theories and explain why you think one (or some) are more likely to be true that the others. This will likely take about 2 pages. Remember, these writing assignments are for your benefit, to show that you are acquainted with the material, so being skimpy on them will only shortchange yourself (and hurt your grade).

Please make sure you get both the books as soon as possible. Students' not having EMP will result in difficulties.

For Friday, the reading assignment is EMP Ch. 1.

Assignments for Monday

For Monday, read The Right Thing to Do, Ch. 2, "Some Basic Points About Arguments" and write a detailed summary of it. There is a link below on the syl. for this reading, if you don't have the book.

Please get on the email list too.

For Wed., read The Right Thing to Do, Ch. 1, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy." Writing assignment forthcoming.

Introduction to Philosophical Ethics, PHI 302, Spring 2011

“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



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, Sale Hall 105: Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 42703 - HPHI 302G - 03

12- 12:50 PM course, Sale Hall 105: Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 41166 - HPHI 302G - 01

1-1:50 PM course, Sale Hall 105: Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 41167 - HPHI 302G - 02



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

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



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: 2:00-3 PM MW 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, which should always be brought to class.

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) 4th 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. Additional materials will be posted online and/or handed out in class.



5. ASSIGNMENTS & GRADING: Details on these assignments will be provided soon.

• Weekly writing assignments on the readings, always due Monday. (30% of total grade)

• 5 Quizzes. Instead of having a traditional midterm and final exam, we will have some shorter quizzes that cover less material and provide more immediate feedback on your progress. (40% of total grade)

• 5 Argumentative Essays / “Philosophical Lab Reports” / Longer writing assignments (approx 5 pages) (30% of total grade)



Plagiarism is not allowed and will be severely penalized.



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.]

Final Exam, Fall 2010

Final exam:

Since the midterm, we have covered these topics:

• the divine command theory of ethics;
• abortion, in great detail;
  
• absolute poverty;
• the treatment of animals.

There have been numerous handouts and some powerpoints and additional handouts have been posted on the blog. These are all found below and on previous pages of the blog.

The final exam will cover this material. There will be questions about what various arguments were, what objections to some arguments were and opportunities to show that you have gained the skills involved in stating arguments in logically valid form and assessing them as sound or not.

FYI the final exam schedule is here:
http://tigernet.morehouse.edu/TigerPages/Fall2010FinalExamSchedule.pdf