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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.