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.