By Wednesday, please read and write a detailed response to this short article:

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


Also, re-read Singer's "All Animals Are Equal."

Please also read, in EMP, section 7.4 in the chapter on Utilitarianism entitled "Third Example: Nonhuman animals." This section might have a different number and pages in your version of the book: what's important is that you find the section on animals and read it carefully. 

We will watch these two short videos over the next few class periods.

"Their future is in your hands," 
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL7EAxHgO4A
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85tUAsVFyVQ&feature=relmfu
Also available here: http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/f/CAMPAIGNS/blog//4//?be_id=6


"My friends at the farm":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo2-4RnTk8k

For Monday, please read and write a detailed summary and reaction to the three following writings:

- Nathan Nobis, encyclopedia article on Peter Singer for an Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/singer-encyclopedia.pdf
- Peter Singer, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" in RTD and http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/19990905mag-poverty-singer.html These issues are discussed more in his book The Life You Can Save:  http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com
- Peter Singer, "All Animals Are Equal" in RTD and http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm   this  is from his famous book Animal Liberation

Please check out this organization: http://thetendollarclub.org

If these links don't work, please Google the title and you can find another link. 

There are lots of videos on and about Peter Singer on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=peter+singer&oq=peter+singer&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=youtube-psuggest.3...0.0.0.3184511.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.

In class, we also read Mylan Engel's "911 and Starvation" (in RTD and online) as well as the first section of EMP Ch. 5, the chapter on "Ethical Egoism."

Hi,

We will have a quiz this Wednesday (4/18) covering all material since the last quiz. This should be of value:
ABORTION: Abortion argument worksheet.See also my Powerpoint on abortion. 

The test will cover the EMP chapter on morality and religion (e.g., the divine command theory of ethics) and everything we have discussed on the topic of abortion, including the articles by Warren, Marquis and Thompson and  Nobis, Nathan and Jarr-Koroma, Abubakarr Sidique (2010) "Abortion and Moral Arguments From Analogy," [LINK] The American Journal of Bioethics, 10: 12, 59 — 61, First published on: 14 December 2010

 The initial Feldman page is here: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/fred_feldman_on_abortion.pdf

Here are some additional prompts:

EMP, Ch. 4 Does Morality Depend on Religion?
• What is the Divine Command Theory of ethics? What are three arguments 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.
• Can a theist reject the Divine Command Theory of ethics? If so, how? Why might a theist do this?
• Rachels discusses a number of challenges in appealing to religious texts, authorities and traditions for understanding and resolving moral issues. What are these challenges? (62-67; also, 50-51). Is Rachels right in thinking that these are challenges, or not? Defend your view on whether appealing to Bible and religious traditions alone are adequate to answer moral questions.

ABORTION
Be able to present all the arguments about abortion that we discussed in class in logically valid premise-conclusion form, explain them and evaluate them as sound or unsound, with reasons. A full handout, with all the premises stated, is here: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/abortion-worksheet.pdf
Be able to know which arguments are Marquis’s and which are Warren’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.
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 Warren’s view, and the view that was developed in class. Explain why, on this theory, if God exists, God is a person. Explain why, on this theory, if “ET” existed, ET, Worf, Jabba The Hut and other fictional persons would exist as persons.
5. 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?
6. Explain why a bumper that said “Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t have an abortion?” doesn’t appear to suggest a sound argument against abortion because it suggests an analogous argument against birth control.
7. Some arguments against abortion suggest that birth control and even abstinence are wrong also. (However, since most people don’t believe that birth control and abstinence are wrong, they take this false implication to reveal a fault with the argument.) Explain how this is so and which exact premises have that implication.
8. 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.
9. What’s Marquis’s argument for the immorality of abortion? Present an objection to each premise of the argument.
10. What is Warren’s argument for the moral permissibility of abortion?
11. Bonus: what are Judith Thompson’s arguments on abortion? What are her conclusions and what are her premises? How does she argued that abortion is typically morally permissible?

Hi all,
As mentioned in class yesterday, there is no class with professor Nobis this Friday. So, reading and writing assignments are on the course blogs:
 
He will be at some events at the Emory Ethics Center and the Law School. FYI, the program for the Ethics Center is below and the law school event info is here:
http://www.law.emory.edu/academics/academic-programs/feminism-legal-theory/upcoming-events-workshops.html


ANIMAL STUDIES WORKSHOP

Center for Ethics
1531 Dickey Drive
Emory University
Friday, March 30, 2012

9:00 – 10:00
Killing Animals
“Animal vs. Human Euthanasia.” Paul Root Wolpe. Center for Ethics, Emory University.

Forging Animal Rights

“Communicating Concepts: How do we articulate animal rights concepts to
the public?” Lori Marino. Center for Ethics and Institute for Liberal Arts,
Emory University.

“Diversity and Nonhuman Rights.” Carrie Packwood Freeman.
Communication. Georgia State University.

Lunch

Thinking Animals I

“The Ethics and Poetics of Becoming Animal in Metamorphosis Literature.”
Naama Harel. Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies, Emory University.

Thinking Animals II

“The Philosophical Animal.” Sean Meighoo. Institute of Liberal Arts, Emory
University.

Sponsored by
Center for Ethics, Emory University
Center for Faculty Development and Excellence, Emory University

Paper 2 assignment

REVISED ASSIGNMENT:
THE "METHODS" SECTION WILL BE DUE MONDAY, APRIL 2 IN CLASS; 
THE ENTIRE PAPER WILL BE DUE MONDAY APRIL 9.


First, read the "writing tips" from Dr. Nobis below, and review the guidance from an earlier post.

Second, for next Monday, April 2, write a paper where you state at least 5 arguments for the conclusion that "abortion is prima facie wrong" in logically valid form and explain whether each is sound or unsound and why.


Your paper must have an introductory section where you explain the methods you will use in your task: that is, explain the steps involved in formulating an argument in logically valid form and what questions you must ask in determining whether an argument is sound or not. This section requires that you reflect on the process we have been using in class to state and evaluate arguments.

Your paper should have an introduction and a thesis concerning the arguments you discuss and conform to all the guidance given about writing, including that given by Pryor.

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, he believes, 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.

FYI here is an interesting article on the Bible and homosexuality:
"What does the Bible really say about homosexuality?"

The Washington Post: On Faith
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/12/what_does_the_bible_really_say_ab
out_homosexuality_reading_texts_of_terror.html

• This is available in full form here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1-nNUyaHCpottgznK_Cqp1sY_1lHirC--cn_AR-MPWmI0f8Q6N5MJR7n5nlC8&hl=en_US 

This is the first in a series of articles by The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire and a visiting Senior
Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C.

By next Wednesday, March 28, please write detailed summaries of these essays found in RTD and online (if you Google them, you will likely find these essays):

Read Mary Anne Warren, "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion."
Read Don Marquis, "Why Abortion is Immoral,"
Read Judith Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion," (only summarize the first 2 pages)

Here are some sources for suggestions on how to improve your writing; in my experience, one's writing can only be improved with reflective practice: writing, thinking about it and getting feedback from others and revising and re-writing. These sources give tips on how to do that:

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

2. Some chapters on writing from A Rulebook for Arguments;
http://www.amazon.com/A-Rulebook-Arguments-Anthony-Weston/dp/0872209547/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332425273&sr=1-1

VII. Composing an Argumentative Essay
A. Exploring the Issue
VIII. Composing an Argumentative Essay
B. Main Points of the Essay
IX. Composing an Argumentative Essay
C. Writing
&
I. Composing a Short Argument: Some General Rules

3. Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, the section III. ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES 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, he believes, 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.

On Writing Well, 30th Anniversary Edition: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction [Paperback]

William Zinsser

http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548

 http://www.amazon.com/How-Write-Reflections-Richard-Rhodes/dp/0688149480/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332200135&sr=1-1


On Writing Well by Zinsser, How to Write by Richard Rhodes, On Writing by Stephen King.
http://www.amazon.com/On-Writing-Anniversary-Edition-Memoir/dp/1439156816/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332200225&sr=1-1

The page by Fred Feldman on abortion that we discussed today is here:
http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/fred_feldman_on_abortion.pdf 

Read: EMP Ch.4, "Does Morality Depend on Religion?"

Read Mary Anne Warren, "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion."
Read Don Marquis, "Why Abortion is Immoral,"
Read Judith Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion,"

Paper Assignment: due Friday, March 23:
First, read this article on how to write a philosophy paper by Jim Pryor: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 
Second, write a philosophy paper that does this:

• is on the the topic of the ethics of homosexuality (but NOT marriage);
• argues for a thesis on whether homosexuality is wrong or morally permissible (NOT whether it is 'right');
• presents at least 5 arguments in logically valid form;
• explains whether these arguments are sound or not and why;
• conforms to all the guidance from Pryor's article on writing philosophy (above);
• has an introductory paragraph, a thesis, and each paragraph or section focuses on one issue at a time;
• is generally well-organized, clear and grammatical.

 Length is probably around 4-5 pages to do an adequate job.

Here is some additional guidance:

• As Pryor makes clear, raising and responding to objections and questions to your position and arguments is essential for a good philosophy paper. So, of course, you must raise and respond to objections to your arguments. You especially do not want to ignore any critical discussion we had in class about some argument: i.e., if you endorse an argument that was discussed in class and - to many people - found to be unsound, you must engage that discussion and explain why that argument is indeed sound, despite the objections raised against it. 
• Here are two guidelines for possible strategies:
• 1. Present an argument (in logically valid form) that homosexuality is morally permissible; discuss objections to that argument, i.e., arguments for the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong, all again in logically valid form. Or,
• 2.  Present an argument (in logically valid form) that homosexuality is morally wrong; discuss objections to that argument, i.e., arguments for the conclusion that homosexuality is actually morally permissible, all again in logically valid form: these arguments might be objections to your argument that homosexuality is wrong.

 

As was agreed upon in class yesterday, the quiz in Intro to Ethics has been postponed until Monday.  

Next assignments

Next Friday, February 24: Quiz 1, covering all material until the quiz.

 

For Friday: make a list of reasons that people give to think that homosexuality is wrong.

               For fun and good practice, formulate these reasons as logically valid arguments:

1. Premise:
2. Premise:
3. Conclusion: Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

For Monday, read EMP Ch 3- Topics: Simple Subjectivism/Emotivism and HOMOSEXUALITY

Due this Monday, February 20: Create a detailed study guide covering all material, readings and concepts thusfar. This is for your benefit, so you want it to be comprehensive and detailed.

                             

 

I want to  make clear that chapter summaries can also be outlines: either would be fine.

Also, many people are not summarizing or outlining the whole chapter and/or providing adequate details about the chapter. Something that could help ensure that you have adequate details is this: suppose there was going to be a test over any aspects of the chapter and you could use your summary/outline for the test. Make your outline/summary as detailed as you'd want it to be to use for this test!

For Monday, re-read EMP Ch 2.


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

Do some YouTube research on "female genital mutilation" and/or "female circumcision."

Read this on how to write a philosophy paper:
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 

Dear Students,

For Monday, please re-read EMP Ch. 1. We will finish discussing those cases and the themes of that chapter Monday.

Let's move the EMP Ch. 2 detailed summary assignment to a Wednesday due date.


Thanks, NN

Hi,
Reminder: please reread EMP CH 1 for Wed & Friday of this week.

New assignment: detailed summary of EMP Ch 2 for next Monday.

Thanks!
NN

Hi all,
Friday we developed some lists of morally wrong and MP/MO/otherwise good actions. We will use these lists as "data" and ask what it is about these, say, wrong actions that *makes* them wrong, and what it is about the non-wrong actions that *makes* them not wrong. We will develop some explanations or hypotheses (some moral theories). We will them compare our theories to some of the most historically influential theories found in the "Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy" article.

The reading and writing assignments for Monday are found on the blog.

Here are those lists/charts:

Actions that you  think almost everybody would think are obviously wrong. VIVID, Extreme and gruesome!

Actions that you  think almost everybody would think is MP, MO or GOOD – not wrong!

 

Actions that you  think almost everybody would think are obviously wrong -       Specific examples	?	Actions that you  think almost everybody would think is MP, MO or GOOD – not wrong
-       Embezzlement -       Torturing people for fun -       Needless cannibalism ? -       Rape -       Body dismemberment -       Not cleaning up after dog -       Massacring THIS CLASS -       Incest? = abusive relationships -       Pedophilia -       Kidnapping -       Punting “little people” who don’t want it -       Wealthy person stealing from a church or charity -       Killing people for for status.. for their shoes.. -       Chattel Slavery -       Preventing women from voting -       Holocaust -       Genocide … -       Apartheid -       Arson -       Cheating on spouse who expects to not be cheated on -       Nuclear attack	-       Needless cannibalism ? -	Going to church Donating organs Saving someone’s life.. Giving blood. Education Going to class Community service.. helping others Giving to charity. Protecting pregnant women. Being responsible for your own children. Being clean.

  

Actions (or character traits) that you think almost everybody would think are obviously wrong -       Vivid, extreme, gruesome examples. Specific examples -       Chopping off limbs for a hobby -       Child abuse .. beating your child -       Child molestation.. -       Littering -       Stealing organs -       Rape .. -       Not saving someone’s life if you could easily do so. -       Drunk driving.. -       Identify theft -       Killing someone for a dirty look .. or stepping on shoes.. or for shoes. -       Making 5 year olds smoke cigarettes -       Racism -       Slavery -       Hitler -       Holocaust -       Genocide – massacring people for no good reason -       Drag racing? -       Beating up people and bullying people just because weaker.. -

?

Actions (or character traits) that you  think almost everybody would think is MP, MO or GOOD – not wrong J -Donating to charity Organ donor -Saving a drowning person in a pool -NOT cheating on your spouse who reasonably expects to not be cheated on… - being healthy - helping others.. - helping lost child find their parents at Wal Mart - preventing a kidnapping. Being truthful

--

Due Monday; EMP Ch 1 next week

Due to the late adds, there are some extensions in due dates on the two first writing assignments, both of which are now due Monday (but they can be turned in early, of course!).

Always put your class time and email on your papers/written work.
Always staple them.
  
1. Although you must read the entire chapter, in this writing assignment please summarize and explain the moral theories discusses in the second half of the article, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy," beginning on page 5 with The Social Contract. Explain which theory or theories you think are best and why. At least 2-3 pages.  
2. Please write an extremely detailed summary of the all the sections of The Elements of Moral Philosophy chapter 1. At the end write down any questions you have about anything in the chapter. Likely 3-5 pages.   
Links for these chapters are available below on the blog and on the syllabus.

For Friday, please make two lists, as long as you can make them:

• Actions that you think most people would think are obviously wrong.
• Actions that you think most people would think are obviously morally permissible / obligatory / or otherwise good. 

Here are links for the readings thusfar: I repost them to delete the previous posts:

•   Some Basic Points about Arguments," James Rachels (from The Right Thing to Do): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf
• James Rachels, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy" (from The Right Thing to Do):  http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf (focus on the 2nd half: utilitarianism, Kantianism and social contract theory).  
• Read: Rachels, Elements of Moral Philosophy Chapter 1, "What is Morality?" (available here if you don't yet have the book, but this is the last chapter I can make online).

Day 1

If you missed day 1, please read the "Methods" section of this article, pages 2-3 of the document
and pages 6-9 of this document.