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]

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)

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)