It's So Hard to Say Goodbye to Yesterday

Your grades are now posted. Harpy Nu Year!

Final Exam

Just a reminder: the final exam is Monday, December 19th, in our normal classroom at noon. You'll have 50 minutes to take it.

System Justification Theory

NYU psychologist John Jost does a lot of work on something he calls system justification theory. This is our tendency to unconsciously rationalize the status quo, especially unjust social institutions. Scarily, his research suggests that those of us oppressed by such institutions have a stronger tendency to justify their existence.

Jost has a new book on this stuff. Here's a video dialogue about his research:

Your Inner Bigot

There's an insightful article called "Finding Your Inner Bigot" that relates to our discussion in class this week on racism and sexism: does prejudice have to be conscious, or can we unintentionally do something sexist or racist?

Psychological evidence suggests that unconscious prejudice is real, and often a bigger problem today than intentionally discriminatory behavior. As the article puts it,

"If you ask physicians whether all patients should be treated equally regardless of race, everyone says yes. But if you ask doctors how they will treat patients with chest pains who are named Michael Smith and Tyrone Smith, the doctors tend to be less aggressive in treating the patient with the black-sounding name. Such disparities in treatment are not predicted by the conscious attitudes that doctors profess, but by their unconscious attitudes—their hidden brains."

Counteracting these unintentional, hidden prejudices is pretty tough. They require a long-term approach of the kind discussed in Aristotle's virtue ethics: noticing your bad habits, then consciously trying to break them and replace them with better habits. The hardest part about unconscious biases, though, is how difficult they are to notice in the first place.

Term Paper Guideline

Due Date: The beginning of class on Friday, December 16th, 2011

Worth: 15% of your final grade

Assignment: Write an argumentative essay on the topic below. Papers must be typed,
and must be between 600-1200 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word have automatic word counts.)

Topic: Explain and defend your definition of person as it relates to morality, and
specifically to the ethics of abortion, stem-cell research, impaired infants, and animal research.

(1) First, briefly explain and critically evaluate the different definitions of “person” that we have discussed in class. Be sure to consider each definition offered by Mary Anne Warren, Insoo Hyun, Gerard Magill and William Neaves, Tristram Engelhardt, John Robertson, and Carl Cohen.

(2) Second, explain how each of the following authors uses the concept of “person” to attempt to settle the particular ethical debate she or he wrote about (Warren and Don Marquis on abortion; Hyun and Magill & Neaves on stem-cell research; Engelhardt and Robertson on impaired infants; and Peter Singer and Cohen on animal research).
[NOTE: Some of these authors think personhood is irrelevant to their issue.]

(3) Third, explain and defend your own definition of “person”: do you agree with one of these authors’ definitions, or do you have one of your own?

(4) Fourth, explain the solution your definition of “person” gives to the ethics of abortion, stem-cell research, impaired infants, and animal research.

When considering your definition of person, be sure to consider and answer the following questions: Which living entities are persons, and which living entities are not persons? Do you believe one needs to be a person in the moral sense in order to be worthy of moral consideration (for instance, do some non-persons have a right to not be killed and a right to not suffer unnecessarily)? Do persons have special moral significance? Can someone have moral rights before they have moral duties? Be sure to fully explain and philosophically defend each of your answers.

Does Death Harm Animals?

Here is a short post with some thoughtful analysis regarding the topic of our term paper on the moral status of animals (specifically, on non-persons and killing animals):

• Can Death Harm Non-Persons?

I recommend reading it to help you start developing your own arguments on these issues for your paper.

-via FailBlog

Moopheus

A related issue to the ethics of animal research is the ethics of eating animals. Here are some links on that:

• Vegetarians Still Love the Smell of Bacon
• David Foster Wallace: Consider the Lobster
• How to Cut Back on Meat Slowly
• What Is The Meatrix? (see video below)
  
• What If We Could Make Pain-Free Animals?
  
• Audio Interview: Jeff McMahan on Vegetarianism
  
• Huge List of Resources on the Moral Status of Animals

New Jersey's Own

We're reading an article by well-known philosopher, utilitarian, vegetarian, and New Jersey resident Peter Singer on animal ethics for class. Here's some interviews with him:

• Peter Singer on Michael Vick & Dog Fighting
  
• Audio Interview with Peter Singer
  
• Animal Research (Peter Singer's Sometimes OK with It!)

Quiz #2

We're having another quiz! Quiz #2 is worth 10% of your overall grade, and will be held at the beginning of class on Monday, November 28th. You'll have about 25 minutes to complete it. It will consist of about 6 short answer questions, and will be on everything we've covered since the test:

• abortion (Warren and Marquis articles)
• stem cells (Hyun and Magill & Neaves articles)
• prenatal screening (McMahan and Davis articles)
• cloning (Kass and Strong articles)
• homosexual parenting (Hanscombe article)
• impaired infants (Engelhardt and Robertson articles)
• euthanasia (Callahan, Rachels, and Nesbitt articles)

Assisted Dying

Here are a few links on euthanasia:

• Some related ethical issues--like suicide and advanced directives--get their own entries in my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia.
• The active/passive distinction highlights broader ethical worries: the difference between doing and allowing harms, and the doctrine of double effect.
• Tons of articles, videos, and other resources on euthanasia are available here.
• Last year, a moral philosopher was diagnosed with a brain tumor and wrote an article titled "It is monstrously wrong that patients cannot ask for euthanasia."
• In 1997, some well-known philosophers filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing in favor of euthanasia. The court didn't listen: in two separate cases later that year, it decided in favor of upholding bans on euthanasia.

Youth in Asia

Ali G's Take on Euthanasia
[More on euthanasia]

The Ethics of Killing

I don't often recommend an entire book to students, but if you're interested in some thoughtful analysis of abortion, euthanasia, animals, killing, and personhood, among other things, you should check out Jeff McMahan's The Ethics of Killing. Here's a short description of the book:

"This magisterial work is the first comprehensive study of the ethics of killing, where the moral status of the individual killed is uncertain. Drawing on philosophical notions of personal identity and the immorality of killing, McMahan looks carefully at a host of practical issues, including abortion, infanticide, the killing of animals, assisted suicide, and euthanasia."

McMahan teaches philosophy at Rutgers. (We read his article on prenatal screening.)  He also just wrote a follow-up book called Killing in War (here's an audio interview with him on that book). This is exactly the kind of careful, thought-out approach that I think complicated, serious issues deserve.

Infants

Here are some links related to our class section on the ethics of treating infants with severe impairments:

• Disability rights attorney Harriet McBryde Johnson, who was born with a congenital muscular disease, wrote a fascinating account of meeting philosopher Peter Singer, who has argued that it is sometimes morally acceptable to withhold treatment from impaired infants.
• Singer's book on this topic (and others) is called Practical Ethics.
• McBryde Johnson's memoir is titled Too Late to Die Young.
• McBryde Johnson also argued to keep Terri Schiavo alive before the courts decided in favor of euthanasia. 
• Here's a lengthy TV interview with McBryde Johnson by a philosopher.

Lesbian Parenting

Since donor insemination first became popular in the U.S. in the 1980's, there was a bit of a baby boom among lesbian parents at that time. As a result, there are some long-term studies that have been wrapping up lately on the effects of being raised by parents who are lesbians. For instance, it seems that child abuse is much less likely to occur in a lesbian household. Other studies can be found here and here.

Also, one of my favorite movies of last year, The Kids Are All Right, is a comedy about a lesbian couple with two children who seek out their sperm-donating biological father. Here's the trailer:

The Wisdom of Kass

The Leon Kass reading on cloning that we studied in class was part of a longer article that is available in its entirety here.

Many critics take issue with Kass's claim that there is a wisdom to repugnance.  Here is a typical objection to Kass's view:

"Anyone who as ever taken an introductory anthropology course, or read Herodotus -- or gone to a different part of town -- will have learned that different groups feel disgust at different things. The affect seems to be hard-wired into us, but the occasions provoking it are varied.
...
"In short, disgust is not quite so unambiguous and inarguable an expression of timeless values as [Kass] has advertised. Given a choice between 'deep wisdom' and 'reason’s power fully to articulate,' we might do best to leave the ineffable to Oprah."

Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that one big difference between politically conservative and liberal people is the willingness to consider disgust as a morally relevant factor.  Here's his TED talk on this:

What do you think?  Feel free to let us know in the comments of this post.

Clone Wars

Here are some links on cloning:

• The Ethics of Cloning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• Overview of Cloning Debate
• Science of Cloning (Human Genome Project)
• Email Debate on Cloning (Slate)
• Human Clones: Why Not? (Slate)
• UN Urges Ban on Cloning (Weekly Review)
• Confusion over Cloning (New York Review of Books)

The Hard Sell, The Stem Cell

Here are some links on the ethics of stem-cell research:

• Ethics of Stem-Cell Research (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• A Moral Defense of Stem-Cell Research (Boston Review)
• New Extraction Technique that Doesn't Destroy Embryos? (New York Times)
  [Clarification (New York Times); Quelling the Hype (National Review)]
• Even Newer Technique That We're Studying (New York Times)
• Will Stem-Cell Research Help? (National Review)
• Selling Alternatives Short (National Review)
• What About Adult Stem Cells? (Weekly Standard)
• What Pro-Lifers are Missing in the Stem-Cell Debate (Slate)
• Embryo Ethics (Boston Globe)

10/26 Class Canceled

I'm sick, so Wednesday's class is canceled. This confuses a few things logistically, so here are the changes:

• Group #1 should be prepared to present their consensus session on Friday, October 28th.
• Group #2 should be prepared to present their consensus session on Monday, October 31st. 
• Other groups should be prepared to present on their originally scheduled dates.

Abortion

Here are some links related to our class discussions on the ethics of abortion:

• Recent scientific research suggests that the earliest fetuses can feel pain is about 24 weeks into a pregnancy.  
• One philosopher argues that even if you think abortion is morally acceptable, it's controversial and morally risky enough for you to lower your confidence in your own moral judgment.  
• Here are two articles debunking the myth of the Mozart Effect that we discussed in one of our classes. 

Consensus Email Tips

I'd like to clarify something. In the email your group sends me a week before your consensus session presentation, I only want two things:

1. A formal premise/conclusion version of the main argument in your article.
2. Your group's systematic evaluation of this argument (check each premise and the argument's structure).

That's it! Furthermore, this is basically what I expect you to do in your group presentation: present and explain the main argument in the article, and lead a class-wide evaluation of this article using the thumbs-up/thumbs-down voting system.

In other words, I don't expect your group to give a general presentation on your topic. There's no need to go into a detailed explanation of the topic, or explain the science behind your issue, or whatever. Nor do I want you to make up your own argument for what you believe on the issue.

I just want you to present the author's argument as you understand it. I don't care whether you like or dislike this argument; your job is to (fairly) explain it to the rest of the class. If you dislike the arg, you can mention reasons why when you lead the class-wide evaluation of it.

So here's an example of the type of email I expect:

To: slandis@camdencc.edu, other members of your group
Sent: at least 1 week before our presentation
Subject: Ethics Group #1's Argument

Our Version of Mary Anne Warren's Argument
P1) A fetus is at best a potential person.
P2) A full-fledged person’s rights always outweigh a potential person’s rights.
P3) A pregnant woman’s right to have an abortion outweighs a fetus’s right to life.
C) Abortion is morally acceptable.

Our Evaluation of Her Argument
P1: we buy her definition of 'person,' but others might not...
P2: questionable! While persons' rights IN GENERAL might be more important than non-persons' rights, it's not clear this is ALWAYS true.
P3: this is supported by P2. We actually buy this, but not for the reason that Warren does. Her arg for this isn't the best.
Structure: good!

That's it! It doesn't have to be a long email. Just give me the argument and your evaluation of it.

Consensus Session Guidelines

During the 2nd half of the semester we’ll be holding group presentations on specific issues we’ll be discussing in class. Your group’s assignment is to figure out the main argument from a specific article, then present that argument to your classmates in class and lead a discussion about whether the argument is good or bad. More specific directions are below:

Preparing for the Consensus Session
First, your group’s job is to understand and evaluate the argument contained in the readings for your issue.

Understand
1. Figure out the argument in your assigned article, and summarize it in a clear premise/conclusion format.
NOTE: Try to keep the argument concise and easy to understand.

Evaluate
2. Evaluate the argument as a group. Check each premise, and check the argument’s support.
3. When evaluating, play the back & forth game. That is, consider as many responses to the argument and your criticisms of it as you can think of. Is the argument misguided? Mistaken? Can you revise the argument to overcome the criticisms you come up with?
4. Try to reach a group-wide consensus on your evaluation of the argument.
NOTE: It doesn’t matter which side you end up on! The goal isn’t to show there’s something wrong about the argument. Nor do I want you to defend the argument no matter what. The goal is to figure out whether it’s good or bad.

Your group must email me (1) your version of the argument and (2) your group's evaluation of it one week before you’re scheduled to lead a session. I will provide helpful feedback, and make sure you’re on the right track.

Running the Consensus Session
During your consensus session, your group’s job is to present your article’s argument to the rest of the class, and lead a class-wide consensus session on each argument. Each group member should present about the same amount.

Presenting the Argument
1. Explain the main point of the reading.
2. Explain the author’s argument in support of this main point. (Explain it slowly and clearly, like you’re teaching it to the class. Explain what each premise means in easy-to-understand language. Point out exactly where each premise came from in the reading. Explain why the author believes each premise is true.)
3. Hold a small question and answer round with the class to explain and clarify the argument before evaluating it.

Consensus Voting
4. Run a consensus session (a thumbs up/thumbs down vote) with the rest of class where you evaluate the first premise of the argument.
5. Call on students to explain their evaluation (especially those who voted thumbs down or in the middle).
6. Go back & forth with every dissenter with the goal of trying to reach a consensus (complete agreement for the whole class). At this point, you can briefly explain your group’s evaluation of the premise, along with why your group evaluated it the way you did.
7. Based on the class-wide discussion, revise, defend, or clarify the argument as needed. Revote on any revisions.
8. Repeat steps 4 through 7 to evaluate each remaining premise and the argument’s support.

Delusions of Gender

Psychologist Cordelia Fine has a great new book out called Delusions of Gender. In it, she debunks a lot of the myths about so-called 'hard-wired' gender differences between boys and girls. Our brains are much more malleable than these myths suggest, and such perceived gender differences are likely either non-existent or the result of social pressures.

Fine wrote a nice summary of her book here, and there are two good reviews of her book here and here.  Below is an excerpt from a talk Fine recently gave.



Cordelia Fine: Discovering Sexism in Neuroscience

Learning Your Gender

Here's a comparison of the different words used in ads for boys’ toys and ads for girls’ toys.

(hat tip: Feminist Philosophers blog)

Moral Psych Out

Here are some links loosely related to moral psychology:

• Here's a decent explanation of Lawrence Kohlberg's psychological theory of moral development that we mentioned in class.
  
• Psychological research on our moral judgments is a lot wackier today. For instance, clean smells make us behave better, while smelling farts makes us judge more harshly.
  
• There's some great new research on moral development in children, too. Here's Rebecca Saxe's TED Talk:
  
  
• One large strand of psychological research is on the impact of emotions on our moral reasoning. Here's Jonathan Haidt's TED Talk on the emotional difference between conservatives and liberals:
  

Test You Once, Shame on Me

Just a reminder: Test #1 is Friday, October 14th. It's worth 15% of your overall grade, and will cover everything we've done in class so far:

• Doing Philosophy
• Understanding and Evaluating Arguments
• Utilitarianism
• Kant's Ethics
• W.D. Ross's Ethics
• Natural Law Theory
• Virtue Ethics
• Ethics of Care

You should be capable of briefly explaining each theory in your own words and briefly explaining one or two criticisms of each theory that we discussed in class.  You also should be able to explain how to use each theory in ethical decision making--that is, explain what each theory would say we should do in some specific ethical dilemma outlined on the test.

The test is a mix of short-answer questions, argument evaluations, and essays. You'll have all 50 minutes of class to take it. We'll be reviewing for it in class on Wednesday.

Ethics of Care

Here's some stuff related to the ethics of care:

• Here's an excerpt from a video of Carol Gilligan explaining her work (the entire video is available here):
  
  
• For stuff on feminism in general, I highly recommend one of my favorite blogs: Feminist Philosophers.
• There's also a great new blog called What Is It Like to Be a Woman in Philosophy? It's devoted to short accounts from women of their experiences while pursuing a career in philosophy.
  
• The cartoon Rose Is Rose offers a funny-ish critique of reason-centered approaches to ethics:

Just Right

Here is a trio of short audio interviews with philosophers talking about Aristotle's virtue ethics. All three interviews come from the "Philosophy Bites" podcast.

• Aristotle's ethics
  
  
• Aristotle on happiness
  
  
• Virtues
  

And here's a great overview on the current science of self-improvement: when trying to change something about yourself, which techniques work and which don't?  

Everybody Thinks They're a Good Person

Here's comedian Kyle Kinane's analysis of his own moral character:

Kyle Kinane - Moral Fiber

His album is available here.

Vaudevillian Dialectic

Kantian Links

Here are some links related to Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics:

• An intermediate overview of Kant's theory of ethics.
• An advanced overview of Kant's ethics.
  
• Kant's theory is deontological (which is a fancy word that basically means morality is about more than just the consequences of an action). Here's an advanced overview of deontological ethics.
• Some harsh criticisms of Kant's ethical judgments. My favorite excerpt: "Kant's philosophical moral reasoning appears mainly to have confirmed his prejudices and the ideas inherited from his culture. Therefore, we should be nervous about expecting more from the philosophical moral reasoning of people less philosophically capable than Kant."
• A 3-minute video on Kant's ethics is below:
  

Group Presentations

Here are the groups for your consensus session presentations, along with the date of each presentation, the due date of your email, and the article your group is assigned to:

Embyronic Stem Cells
-Group 1 on October 26th (email due October 19th): Hyan article – pages 316-319: Christopher, Dana, Kendal, Megan
-Group 2 on October 28th (email due October 21st): Magill & Neaves article – pages 319-323: Brittney, Danny, Gabi, Phi

Genetic Control
-Group 3 on November 2nd (email due October 26th): Davis article – pages 285-294: Lakeisha, Melissa, Sangsu, Shanice

Cloning
-Group 4 on November 4th (email due October 28th): Kass article – pages 401-406: Alyssa, Avery, Eric, Potsy
-Group 5 on November 7th (email due October 31st): Strong article – pages 406-411: no one

Homosexual Parenthood
-Group 6 on November 9th (email due November 2nd): Hanscombe article – pages 406-409: Hannah, Leigh, Rhea, Robyn

Impaired Infants
-Group 7 on November 14th (email due November 7th): Engelhardt article – pages 543-548: no one

Euthanasia
-Group 8 on November 18th (email due November 11th): Callahan article – pages 596-600: Kelly, Marissa, Nick S., Tamara
-Group 9 on November 21st (email due November 14th): Rachels article – pages 585-589: Andrea, Ashley, Kim, Shana

Animal Research
-Group 10 on November 30th (email due November 23rd): Cohen article – pages 203-209: Greg, Joe, Lauren, Nick D., Tiffany

Race and Gender
-Group 11 on December 5th (email due November 28th): Dula article – pages 798-894: no one

The Economics of Health Care
-Group 12 on December 9th (email due December 2nd): Daniels article – pages 713-716: Becky, Lorraine, Mark, Pinky

If your name isn't on this list, please let me know as soon as possible so we can figure out what group you're in.

The Psychology of Happiness

Since utilitarianism focuses so much on happiness, I thought I'd share some links on the cool new psychological research on happiness popping up lately.

• Here's one overview of the psychology of happiness. And here's a second one.
• Recent studies suggest that our baseline level of happiness doesn't change much throughout our life. So, even if we won the lottery, we wouldn't wind up that much happier. This is potentially very depressing news, although some say there's room for some optimism, and others think the research is wrong.
• There's an insightful, accessible book by Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert called Stumbling on Happiness. One of his big points is that we often don't know what makes us happy. Here's Gilbert's appearance on The Colbert Report:
  
• And here's Gilbert giving an awesome TED talk on his research:
  

Utilitarios!

Here are some links on the theory of utilitarianism:

• A neat little biography of know-it-all John Stuart Mill
• An advanced encyclopedia article on utilitarianism and other theories that focus on consequences of an action.
• The trolley problem gets brought up a lot when evaluating utilitarianism. A short video intro on it is below. Also, there's some new research on the psychology of the trolley problem.

Evaluating Arguments

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating arguments that we did as group work in class.

1) All bats are mammals.
All mamammals live on earth.
All bats live on earth.

P1- true
P2- true
support- good
overall- good

2) All email forwards are annoying.
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.

P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)
P2- true
structure- good (the premises establish that some email forwards are both annoying and false; so some annoying things [those forwards] are false)
overall - bad (bad first premise)

3) All males in this class are humans.
All females in this class are humans.
All males in this class are females.

P1- true
P2- true
support- bad (the premises only tell us that males and females both belong to the humans group; we don't know enough about the relationship between males and females from this)
overall- bad (bad support)

4) No humans are amphibians.
All frogs are amphibians.
No frogs are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
structure-  good (the premises say that frogs belong to a group that humans can't belong to, so it follows that no frogs are humans)
overall- good

5) All bats are mammals.
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.

P1- true
P2- true (if interpreted to mean "All bats are the sorts of creatures who have wings.") or false (if interpreted to mean "Each and every living bat has wings," since some bats are born without wings)
support- bad (we don't know anything about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group)
overall- bad (bad support)

6) Some dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
support- good (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean)
overall- bad (bad 2nd premise)

7) Oprah Winfrey is a person.
Some people ate tacos yesterday.
Oprah Winfrey ate tacos yesterday.

P1- true
P2- true (you might not have directly seen anyone eat tacos, but you have a lot of indirect evidence... with all the Taco Bells, Don Pablos, etc., surely lots of people ate tacos yesterday)
support- bad (the 2nd premise only says some ate tacos; Oprah could be one of the  people who didn't)
overall- bad (bad support)

8) All students in here are mammals.
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- bad (the premises only tell us that students and humans both belong to the mammals group; we don't know enough about the relationship between students and humans from this; for instance, what if a dog were a student in our class?)
overall- bad (bad structure)

9) All hornets are wasps.
All wasps are insects.
All insects are scary.
All hornets are scary.

P1- true!
P2- true
P3- questionable ("scary" is subjective)
structure- good (same structure as in argument #1, just with an extra premise)
overall- bad (bad 3rd premise)

10) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.

P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false)
P2- false
structure- good
overall- bad (bad premises)

11) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- bad (from premise 1, we only know what happens when Sean is singing, not when he isn't singing; students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- bad (bad 1st premise and structure)

12) All students in here are humans.
Most humans are shorter than 7 feet tall.
Most students in here are shorter than 7 feet tall. 

P1- true
P2- true!
support- so-so (the premises state a strong statistical generalization over a large population, and the conclusion claims that this generalization holds for a much smaller portion of that population; while it could be true that the humans in here are a statistical anomaly, given the strength of the generalization, it's likely that most students in here are, in fact, shorter than 7 feet tall)
overall- so-so (not perfect, since the support isn't perfect, but pretty good)

13) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush was either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush wasn’t the greatest prez.
Bush was a great prez.

P1- questionable ("great" is subjective)
P2- questionable ("great" is subjective)
support- good (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B)
overall- bad (bad premises)

14) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- false
structure- bad (from premise 1, we only know that Sean singing is one way to guarantee that students cringe; just because they're cringing doesn't mean Sean's the one who caused it; again, students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- bad (bad premises and structure)

15) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now. 

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- good 
overall- bad (bad 1st premise)

16) If there is no God, then life is meaningless.
Life isn't meaningless.
There is a God.

P1- questionable (that's not an obvious claim to prove or disprove)
P2- questionable (again, that's not an obvious claim to prove or disprove)
support- good (the same structure as argument #13)
overall- bad (bad premises)

Quiz #1

Just a reminder that our first quiz will be held at the beginning of class on Wednesday, September 15th. It's worth 50 points (5% of your overall grade), and will be on understanding and evaluating arguments. The quiz will look a lot like the extra credit handout (on understanding arguments) from last week, and the group work handout (on evaluating arguments) from Monday.

An Argument's Support

One of the trickier concepts to understand in this course is the structure (or support) of an argument. This is a more detailed explanation of the term (it's the same as the handout). If you've been struggling to understand this term, the following might help you.

An argument's structure is its underlying logic; the way the premises and conclusion logically relate to one another. The structure of an argument is entirely separate from the actual meaning of the premises. For instance, the following three arguments, even though they're talking about different things, have the exact same structure:

1) All tigers have stripes.
Tony is a tiger.
Tony has stripes.

2) All humans have wings.
Sean is a human.
Sean has wings.

3) All blurgles have glorps.
Xerxon is a blurgle.
Xerxon has glorps.

There are, of course, other, non-structural differences in these three arguments. For instance, the tiger argument is overall good, since it has a good structure AND true premises. The human/wings argument is overall bad, since it has a false premise. And the blurgles argument is just crazy, since it uses made up words. Still, all three arguments have the same underlying structure (a good structure):

All A's have B's.
x is an A.
x has B's.

Evaluating the structure of an argument is tricky. Here's the main idea regarding what counts as a good structure: the premises provide us with enough information for us to figure out the conclusion from them. In other words, the premises, if they were true, would logically show us that the conclusion is true. So, if you believed the premises, they would convince you that the conclusion is worth believing, too.

Note I did NOT say that the premises are actually true in a good-structured argument. Structure is only about truth-preservation, not about whether the premises are actually true or false. What's "truth preservation" mean? Well, truth-preserving arguments are those whose structures are such that if you stick in true premises, you get a true conclusion.

The premises you've actually stuck into this particular structure could be good (true) or bad (false). That's what makes evaluating an arg's structure so weird. To check the structure, you have to ignore what you actually know about the premises being true or false.

Good Structured Arguments
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion will also be true for an argument to have a good structure. Notice we are only assuming truth, not guaranteeing it. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows will be true.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It is snowing right now.
It’s below 32 degrees right now.

3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
All humans have wings.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they still have good structure (their underlying form is good). The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a good structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).

To evaluate the structure, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, are you able to figure out from the premises that the conclusion is also true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument's structure is bad. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths gives you a true output), and thus the structure is good.

Bad Structured Arguments
In an argument with a bad structure, you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – the premises don’t give you enough information. Bad structured arguments do not preserve truth.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.

3) All humans are mammals.
All students in our class are mammals.
All students in our class are humans.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still have a bad structure, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).

Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that our school starts letting dogs take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.

The same goes for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.

That Beyoncé Video WAS Great...

Why doesn't Kanye give a toast to the tools?

Howard Sure Is a Duck

Howard the Duck is my favorite synecdoche for the 80's:

Philosophers In Their Own Words

Photographer Steve Pyke has a cool series of portraits of philosophers. Many of the philosophers also provide a short explanation of their understanding of what it is they do. Here are a few of my favorites:

Delia Graff Fara:

"By doing philosophy we can discover eternal and mind independent truths about the ’real’ nature of the world by investigating our own conceptions of it, and by subjecting our most commonly or firmly held beliefs to what would otherwise be perversely strict scrutiny."

Kit Fine:

"Philosophy is the strangest of subjects: it aims at rigour and yet is unable to establish any results; it attempts to deal with the most profound questions and yet constantly finds itself preoccupied with the trivialities of language; and it claims to be of great relevance to rational enquiry and the conduct of our life and yet is almost completely ignored. But perhaps what is strangest of all is the passion and intensity with which it is pursued by those who have fallen in its grip."

Sally Haslanger (only available in the book):

"Given the amount of suffering and injustice in the world, I flip-flop between thinking that doing philosophy is a complete luxury and that it is an absolute necessity. The idea that it is something in between strikes me as a dodge. So I do it in the hope that it is a contribution, and with the fear that I’m just being self-indulgent. I suppose these are the moral risks life is made of."

Philosophy: The Annoying 3-Year-Old

Here's comedian Louis CK's take on the broad, fundamental questions kids ask.

Louis CK - Why?

Homework #1: Email Subscription

So why does this course have a blog? Well, why is anything anything?

A blog is a website that works like a journal – users write posts that are sorted by date based on when they were written. You can find important course information (like assignments, due dates, reading schedules, etc.) on the blog. I’ll also be updating the blog throughout the semester, posting interesting items related to the stuff we’re currently discussing in class. You don't have to visit the blog if you don't want to. It's just a helpful resource. I've used a blog for this course a lot, and it's seemed helpful. Hopefully it can benefit our course, too.

Since I’ll be updating the blog a lot throughout the semester, you should check it frequently. There are, however, some convenient ways to do this without simply going to the blog each day. The best way to do this is by getting an email subscription, so any new blog post I write automatically gets emailed to you. (You can also subscribe to the rss feed, if you know what that means.) To get an email subscription:

1. Go to http://2011cccbioethics.blogspot.com.

2. At the main page, enter your email address at the top of the right column (under “EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION: Enter your Email”) and click the "Subscribe me!" button.

3. This will take you to a new page. Follow the directions under #2, where it says “To help stop spam, please type the text here that you see in the image below. Visually impaired or blind users should contact support by email.” Once you type the text, click the "Subscribe me!" button again.

4. You'll then get an email regarding the blog subscription. (Check your spam folder if you haven’t received an email after a day.) You have to confirm your registration. Do so by clicking on the "Click here to activate your account" link in the email you receive.

5. This will bring you to a page that says "Your subscription is confirmed!" Now you're subscribed.

If you are unsure whether you've subscribed, ask me (609-980-8367; slandis@camdencc.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Course Details

Camden County College, Blackwood Campus
Philosophy 232-03
Fall 2011
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
noon – 12:50 p.m. in Madison Hall, Room 311

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: slandis@camdencc.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://2011cccbioethics.blogspot.com
Office Hourse: by appointment

Required Text
Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medial Ethics, 9th Edition, by Ronald Munson

About the Course
This course is designed to introduce students to philosophical thinking and some specific ethical concerns unique to the medical community. During the course, we will be studying particular moral problems that face people in the biomedical professions. Topics include abortion, stem-cell research, genetic control, euthanasia, our treatment of animals, the economics of health care, race and gender, and truth telling.

We will also be developing various philosophical skills, including:

• Understanding: the ability to identify and explain an author’s main point in your own words, along with the ability to identify and explain an author’s argument in support of this main point.
• Evaluating: the ability to critically and charitably determine whether these arguments provide accurate, logical reasons in support of their main points, along with the ability to engage in critical and charitable dialogue with people who hold different views from your own.
• Defending: the ability to develop your own arguments in support of your opinions on the ethical issues we study, along with the ability to honestly assess your opinions and critically evaluate the quality of your arguments in support of them.

A broader goal of this course is to gain an appreciation for philosophical reflection. Hopefully, we will learn that careful, deliberate examination of the ethical assumptions we often take for granted can improve our own approach to morality, and make us better in our anticipated roles in the medical community.


Grades
900-1000 points = A
800-899 points = B
700-799 points = C
600-699 points = D
below 600 points = F.

Test #1 150 points
Test #2 250 points
Quiz #1 50 points
Quiz #2 100 points
Consensus Session 200 points
Term Paper 150 points
Fun Fridays 50 points total
Attendance/Participation 50 points total

Tests: The first test covers everything we go over during the first month of the course (all the ethical theories we study), and will last the full period (50 minutes) on the scheduled day. The second test is cumulative—that is, it covers everything we study throughout the whole course. The second test will also last 50 minutes, and be held during finals week.

Quizzes: Unlike the exams, quizzes will not be cumulative. Quiz #1 will test you on everything covered during the first 2 weeks of class, and quiz #2 will test you on 4 weeks of material covered after Test #1. Quizzes will last 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of the period on the scheduled day.

Consensus Session: This will be an in-class, group oral presentation. During the second half of the semester, we will be going over specific ethical debates. Each group of 3-6 students will be assigned to research the ethical topic that we’re discussing that week, present a short lesson on it to the rest of class, and run a voting session on the issue being debated.

Paper: This will be an argumentative essay based on some of the applied ethical issues we study in the second half of the semester.

Fun Fridays: There will three in-class graded assignments scheduled on some Fridays during the semester.

Attendance/Participation: Most of this will be based on your attendance. If you’re there every class, you’ll get full credit for the attendance portion of this grade. Also, there will be a lot of informal group work throughout the semester. Group work can impact this grade.

Extra Credit: I like giving extra credit! I’ll be giving some official extra credit assignments throughout the semester. I’ll also be offering some extra credit points more informally during class time. Remind me about this if I slack off on dishing out extra credit points.

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and plagiarism (using someone else’s words or ideas in a paper or assignment without giving credit to the source) will not be tolerated in the class. Students found guilty of either will definitely fail the exam or assignment on which they plagiarize—and possibly the entire class.

Attendance: I take attendance each class. CCC policy prohibits you from completing a course if you have been absent for more than 2 weeks (6 classes)—excused or unexcused.

Excused Absences: Any assignment will only be rescheduled for an excused absence. Excused absences include religious observance, official college business, and illness or injury (with a doctor’s note). An unexcused absence on the day of any assignment or test will result in a zero on that assignment or test. Make-up quizzes and exams will be arranged through the Test Center (2nd floor of the Library).

Disability Accommodations: If you have special requirements let me know as soon as possible so we can make all necessary arrangements.

Course Schedule

*This schedule is tentative and will probably change a lot*

August 31—September 2: Intro to Class / Doing Philosophy
Wednesday: Introduction to Class (no reading)
Friday: Introduction to Doing Philosophy (no reading)

September 5—9: Arguments
Monday: LABOR DAY (no class)
Wednesday: Understanding Arguments (handout)
Friday: Evaluating Arguments (group work) (no reading)

September 12—16: Arguments & Utilitarianism
Monday: Argument wrap-up (no reading)
Wednesday: QUIZ #1; Intro to Ethical Theories (no reading)
Friday: Utilitarianism explained (pgs. 862-870)

September 19—23: Utilitarianism, Kant,& Ross
Monday: Utilitarianism evaluated (pg. 870)
Wednesday: Kantian Ethics (pgs. 870-876)
Friday: Ross’s Seven Duties (pgs. 876-881)

September 26—30: Natural Law Theory & Virtue Ethics
Monday: Natural Law Theory (pgs. 885-891)
Wednesday: Virtue Ethics (pgs. 905-907)
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #1: Self-Improvement (no reading)

October 3—7: Virtue Ethics & Feminist Ethics
Monday: Virtue Ethics (handout)
Wednesday: Ethics of Care / Feminist Ethics (pgs. 907-914)
Friday: Review for Test #1

October 10—14: Test #1 & Abortion
Monday: TEST #1
Wednesday: Abortion | Warren: Human vs. Person (pgs. 482-490)
Friday: Abortion | Warren (continued) (pgs. 454-461)

October 17—21: Abortion
Monday: Abortion | Warren (no new reading) (Sample Consensus Session #1)
Wednesday: Abortion | Marquis (pgs. 461-465) (Sample Consensus Session #2)
Friday: Abortion wrap-up (no new reading)

October 24—28: Embryonic Stem Cells
Monday: Stem Cells intro (pgs. 249-259) & Pontifical Academy (pgs. 324-325)
Wednesday: Stem Cells |Hyun; CONSENSUS SESSION #1 (pgs. 316-319)
Friday: Stem Cells | Magill & Neaves; CONSENSUS SESSION #2 (pgs. 319-323)

October 31—November 4: Genetic Screening & Cloning
Monday: Genetic Screening | McMahan (pgs. 281-284)
Wednesday: Genetic Screening | Davis; CONSENSUS SESSION #3 (pgs. 285-294)
Friday: Cloning | Kass; CONSENSUS SESSION #4 (pgs. 401-406, 341-346)

November 7—11: Cloning & Reproduction
Monday: Cloning | Strong; CONSENSUS SESSION #5 (pgs. 406-411)
Wednesday: Reproduction | Hanscombe; CONSENSUS SESSION #6 (pgs. 406-409, 369-377)
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #2: Heterosexism (pgs. 406-409)

November 14—18: Impaired Infants & Euthanasia
Monday: Impaired Infants | Engelhardt; CONSENSUS SESSION #7 (pgs 543-548)
Wednesday: Impaired Infants | Robertson (pgs. 536-543); group work
Friday: Euthanasia | Callahan CONSENSUS SESSION #8 (pgs. 596-600)

November 21—25: Euthanasia
Monday: Euthanasia | Rachels; CONSENSUS SESSION #9 (pgs. 585-589, 578-585)
Wednesday: Euthanasia| Lee (pgs. 589-593) and Oregon (pgs. 573-578)
Friday: THANKSGIVING BREAK (no class) (woo?)


November 28—December 2: Animal Research & Race and Gender
Monday: QUIZ #2; Animal Research | Singer (pgs. 196-203)
Wednesday: Animal Research | Cohen; CONSENSUS SESSION #10 (pgs. 203-209)
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #3: Sexism & Racism (pgs. 745-750, 788-792)

December 5—9: Race and Gender & Economics of Health Care
Monday: Race and Gender | Dula; CONSENSUS SESSION #11 (pgs. 798-804)
Wednesday: Health Care Economics| Old vs. New (675-684)
Friday: Health Care Economics | Daniels; CONSENSUS SESSION #12 (pgs. 713-716)

December 12—16: The Economics of Health Care
Monday: Health Care Economics | Sreenivassan (pgs. 716-724); group work
Wednesday: Health Care Economics | Wrap-up (pgs. 689-694)
Monday: TERM PAPER DUE; review for Test #2

December 19: Test #2
Monday: TEST #2 (noon-12:50 p.m.)

Important Dates
August 30th: Last day to drop a course & receive a 100% refund.
September 14th: Last day to drop a course & receive a 50% refund.
September 21st: Last day to sign up to audit a course.
December 2nd: Last day to withdraw from Fall classes.