Final

As was stated in class, the final topics are those address in the EMP chapters on egoism and utilitarianism. These include these moral theories,
global/absolute poverty (and the Powerpoint discussed in class and worksheet handed out),
euthanasia,
and animals, including the Simmons article.

Hi,
For Monday, please read the EMP chapter on Utilitarianism -- the first chapter on utilitarianism, NOT the second one and write a detailed summary of it.

Also, please read and write a detailed summary of this very short online article:
"Reasonable Humans and Animals," by John Simmons:
http://sites.google.com/site/aphilosopher/veg.pdf

Also here is an organization I have mentioned recently:
http://thetendollarclub.org/

Please be to class on time today and bring both your books.
In addition to EMP Ch. 5, we might look at the RTD article by Peter Singer, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty."

We will work through this PowerPoint: http://sites.google.com/site/aphilosopher/famine.ppt?attredirects=0

And argument worksheet:
http://philosophy302.blogspot.com/2007/04/worksheet-on-objections-to-singer.html

Hi,
A reminder: the quiz was moved to tomorrow, Wednesday. A study guide is on the blog!

I am slowly returning all your papers. Here are some quick comments about all of the papers:

Papers tended to go well when 

- they fit the assignment (and the requirements of philosophy papers generally) in that 

- they presented arguments in logically valid form, 

- discussed whether arguments were sound or not, 

- explained why or why not various premises are true or not (often using the concept of a counter example) and 

- raised and responded to objections. 

And, of course, they had an introduction, a thesis, were well-organized, were grammatical and spelling-error- free and had a conclusion.

Papers tended to be poor when they did less of this. So, people lost points when they:

- did not present arguments in logically valid form;

- when they did not do this, they really could not discuss whether they were sound or not;

- when they did this, they tended to not consider objections to the arguments or respond to them;

- they ignored discussion from the books and class; thus, they avoided objections we discussed: since the point of philosophy papers is to engage objections to your views, that is contrary to the point of philosophy papers. 

Thanks,

For Friday, please re-read Thompson on abortion
and
Nobis, Nathan and Jarr-Koroma, Abubakarr Sidique (2010) "Abortion and Moral Arguments From Analogy," The American Journal of Bioethics, 10: 12, 59 — 61, First published on: 14 December 2010
http://goo.gl/njzX0

The quiz has been moved to Wednesday, not Monday.
Thanks, NN

Hi,
As mentioned in class yesterday, please read and bring to class the article by Judith Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion" for discussion Wednesday.
Thanks,
NN

Hi All,
Quiz 2 will be Monday April 11. It will cover the topics of homosexuality and abortion, and cover all assigned readings, the handouts (i.e., argument worksheets) and class discussion. An emphasis will be on the skills of stating arguments in logically valid form (and adding unstated premises to do that) and assessing them for soundness (often using counterexamples). Here are some additional questions that you should be able to answer:

EMP, Ch. 4 Does Morality Depend on Religion? (see also RTD, “Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy”)

1. What is the Divine Command Theory of ethics (see both RTD and EMP)? Is an against it, i.e., arguments to think it is false? Are these objections strong objections to it, i.e., give reason to think it’s false, or not? Explain.

2. Socrates asked, "[A] Does God command doing certain actions because they are right actions, or [B] are actions right because God commands them?" Explain this question, responses [A] and [B] and what’s entailed by them, and which response is a better response and why.

3. Can a theist reject the Divine Command Theory of ethics? If so, how? Why might a theist do this?

4. Rachels discusses a number of challenges in appealing to religious texts, authorities and traditions for understanding and resolving moral issues. What are these challenges? (62-67; also, 50-51). Is Rachels right in thinking that these are challenges, or not? Defend your view on whether appealing to Bible and religious traditions alone are adequate to answer moral questions.

ABORTION

Be able to present all the arguments about abortion that we discussed in class in logically valid premise-conclusion form, explain them and evaluate them as sound or unsound, with reasons. A full handout, with all the premises stated, is here:http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/abortion-worksheet.pdf

Be able to know which arguments are Marquis’s, which are Warren’s and which are Thompson's. Here are some details that you’ll know if you are familiar with all the discussed arguments;

1. Some people think about “abortions” in general. Explain why we thought it’s better, when one develops a moral view about abortion, to make it clear whether one’s view pertains to all abortions or only some of them, and if just some of them, that one explains which abortions one is arguing to be right or wrong. The Feldman handout gave some insight into this:http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/fred_feldman_on_abortion.pdf

2. Some people disagree about whether fetuses are “human” or “human beings”. To help resolve this dispute, be able to explain how the word “human” (as in the claim ‘Fetuses are human’) is ambiguous; be able to explain two distinct meanings, with examples. Although we discussed this in class, Warren also provided this explanation in this extra credit reading: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/warren-on-abortion.pdf

3. Be able to explain one method of reasoning to try to figure out the meaning of the word “person” or what the concept of “person” or “being a person” is. This method is generally useful for trying to figure out the meanings of words or concepts when their meanings are not clear.

4. Be able to explain what it is to be a person, on the theory developed in class, and the view that was developed in class. Explain why, on thistheory, if God exists, God is a person. Explain why, on this theory, if “ET” existed, ET, Worf, Jabba The Hut and other fictional persons would exist as persons.

5. Since you should be able to explain all the arguments, be able to give a logically valid argument against abortion from fetuses’ potential to be persons. Be able to explain whether any premises in that argument are false. In particular, you need to explain whether , in general, potentialthings of a kind have all the characteristics (esp rights) of actual things of that kind.

6. According to scientists and physicians, approximately when do human fetuses develop some kind of consciousness and ability to feel pain? (Present the range of scientific estimates). Do most actual abortions occur before or after this time period?

7. Explain why a bumper that said “Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t have an abortion?” doesn’t appear to suggest a sound argument againstabortion because it suggests an analogous argument against birth control.

8. Some arguments against abortion suggest that birth control and even abstinence are wrong also. (However, since most people don’t believethat birth control and abstinence are wrong, they take this false implication to reveal a fault with the argument.) Explain how this is so and which exact premises have that implication.

9. Some people get upset when it is said, and even argued (i.e., reasons are given), that (early) fetuses are not “persons” and not conscious, feeling beings. Explain to them why they should not get upset, since these facts do not entail that abortions are right. Explain why that is so, i.e., why this argument is invalid:

a. If fetuses were persons, then killing them would be wrong.

b. But fetuses are not persons.

c. Therefore, killing them is not wrong.

10. What’s Don Marquis’s argument for the immorality of abortion? What’s his overall strategy? Present an objection to each premise of the argument that is not the "objection" that not everyone has a valuable future.

11. What’s Judith Thompson's argument for the moral permissibility of abortion? What’s her overall strategy? What important points does she contribute to the discussion of the ethics of abortion?

Here’s a PowerPoint on abortion that you might find interesting: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/abortion-talk.ppt

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.